I’ll start off with Guest posting. The issue has been discussed numerous times, yet I shall do so again. Allowing Guests to post is totally unnecessary. Not only is the input given by Guests rather low of use, they are hard to track, and many people find themselves forgetting to log in. Supposedly, Guests seem to be able to make valuable comments, but I have yet to see any proof of that.
Registering takes only a minute and it’s not any trouble at all. Yet it seems some people refuse to do so, either because they’re too lazy to do so, or too unwillingly. If you do not want to take that one minute, which is required only once of you, to register, are you of any use to the forums? I doubt it. 95% of the members don’t have valuable posts mostly, and with Guests it is even less so.
One might want to ‘try out’ the forum, it has been said. I personally find that hard to imagine, as I always visit a forum for half a year before I actually join. Yet even if they do, isn’t that one lousy minute worth it to ‘try out’ a forum? What if you don’t like it? You would have lost a full minute of your life. Reading through a boring topic takes at least that same amount of time. Some now respected people seem to have been posting as Guests before they actually joined. But the question I ask is: Would they have stayed away if there were no Guest posting? And I doubt the answer is yes.
So far on Revora, if you are a hostee, you can ask Guest posting to be disabled on your forum, if you have any real problems with that. Just disliking Guests doesn’t count. It would be rather nice if that was told to people, but I find it a bit of a double standard. There is no Guest that contributes, and there are some who abuse the forums. Besides, having Guest posting disabled in one project’s forum and not in another one is confusing. Consistency is a vital part of quality. When one sends out different signals, people get confused, it’s as simple as that.
2 Mods.
a. The mods themselves
Revora’s hosting policy is too soft. A Creative Community they call it. But it seems neither creative nor a community to me. When someone suggests as mod, you must always ask yourself “What does this mod have to would be good to us?”. These good points may include unique gameplay, or compelling storyline and atmosphere. Without any of these, a mod becomes a try-out of units, and once you’ve seen them all, you’re done playing.
In general, you can define four types of factions in an RTS. There are:
The mass-side, those who build loads of cheap stuff.
The technology-side, those who have high offensive capabilities, but low defensive
The elitist-side, those with expensive but strong units
The hit and run-side, those who have fast units that rely on surprises.
Now, in Generals, the mass-side is filled by China, the USA has a combination of technology and elitism and the GLA is the hit and run-side. In Red Alert 2, the Soviets are the mass-side, the technology is filled by Yuri, the hit and run somewhat by the Allies and elitism is spread over the Allies and the Soviets (GI’s being better than Conscripts and Rhinos being better than Grizzlies).
Ergo, it is useless to have more than 4 sides in a TC. Less would probably be even better, to about 2 or 3. As I’ve written above, all sides are filled in RA2 and Gen, and therefore adding a side to one of those games will eventually lead to a copy. One copy is better than another, but in the end, all sides added to these games will feel empty and double, because there’s no tactic left uncovered in the vanilla version.
Then, there’s the unit-addition mod. These mods add units to the existing sides. I wrote something about that over a year ago, using a Chinese MLRS for Generals as an example. Naturally, it can be applied to any unit whatsoever, for both addition mods and TCs, but this is just to show that there are no useful unit additions. At least I’ve never seen any. Here goes:
I judge on:
Function
Uniqueness
Possibility
Power
Coolness
Envorinment
Function: Each unit must have it’s own function. There’s no need to add a unit if another already has the same purpose. For example, some modders give China an MLRS. What’s the use? Inferno and Nuke Cannons are quite up to the task and if not – improve them.
This hangs together with the fact that more is not always better, and mostly even worse. Better 10 good units than a 100 with the same purpose.
Uniqueness: The unit must be one of a kind, the other sides must not have a similar weapon. It’s also important that you create weapons here that have some extra effects. All bullets and grenades will eventually get boring. If we’re using the Chinese MLRS example again: It’s actually quite similar to the Rocket Buggy, Scud Launcher and Tomahawk. Sure, the MLRS fires multiple heavy missiles, but eventually it’s another missile-based artillery weapon.
Possibility: This is of course the possibility in coding. You must be able to code a unit, elseway there’s no way to use it. Duh. Naturally, you can code a MLRS.
Power: Will this unit be overpowered or underpowered? You might say that over- and underpowering doesn’t exist, because you can change the cost, but that’s not true. Far-too-expensive units are always bad and they slow the game, whereas cheap units can also be useless. A Technical costs but $500, but it’s still not very usefull when engaging tank. If you’d lower the cost, it’d be far too cost-effective versus infantry. On the MLRS topic again, it would go through, if coded right. It shouldn’t be too strong, with a cost between $800 and $1400.
Coolness: Is a unit impressive? A sleek design can often make a unit far more loved. Halo’s Warthogs are useless sacks of crap, but they just look cool. As such can be judged on RTS units too. Most people prefer the (TD, RA) Mammoth over the Overlord, even though the Overlord has cool functions and performs the same task. The Mammie just looks better. The weapon’s coolness is also a factor, Laser beams would impress more than grenades. Think of a Prism tank with shells. Eugh! Our MLRS isn’t so cool in my opinion, it’s design and weapon couldn’t match the awesomeness of a Nuke Cannon… Very few units can actually
.Environment: Does the unit fit the game and the side? It’d look weird to see a unit that is totally futuristic in a realistic environment, and vice versa. Not just that, it needs to fit the side. You can’t give a guerilla army a slow supertank, and you can’t give a slow army a cheap dirt tank. When going to the MLRS, it fails again. Sure, it could fit into Generals perfectly, but it doesn’t fit into China. Did you ever notice China avoids missile-based weaponry as often as possible? Bet you didn’t, but it’s an important factor.
Overall, the China MLRS would seem a bad idea. It’s really uncalled for and wouldn’t be better than the already existing units with the same function. Into the thrashcan with that.
That’s for all non-TCs. I firmly believe that you can’t add anything of use to a game that has already hit the shelves. The units become either useless or they don’t fit the side. In the case of a GLA airforce, it’s both.
Now, TCs. As said, you have to ask yourself what the mod would do that hasn’t been done before, and that that could be atmosphere, storyline or gameplay. Ideally, it’s them all. You have to have some contrast with the game your modding. A modern war mod for Generals is rather boring, because Generals is a modern war game (even if severely cartoonified) and a Vietnam-era mod for Red Alert 2 would be useless as well, since RA2 covers that timeframe. When venturing into something new, such as a roman mod for any of the two, you’ll instantly get twice the attention, because it differs much more.
So, you’ll need to differ your mod from the original game. As much as possible is ideal, but that requires a lot of work. But only work can help you make the best out of your mod. You can have a completely new environment, but still have roughly the same units – Infantry of around $200 and tanks of around $800 – and only a great atmosphere can distract a player from that. And not even for a very long time. You’ll have to do something new. Even if it isn’t revolutionary, something refreshing is needed. This being the case only when you have an atmosphere that works, since doubling tank health and cost isn’t enough to save a mod alone. But it can be adequate enough, if gameplay isn’t the strongpoint of the mod.
When considering atmosphere, you’ll have to ask yourself what’s out there and what’s been done before. The best example being a modern war mod, of which there are dozens. You can make a mod about the Franco-Prussian war, but is that environment recognisable enough to get you into it? I doubt it, since most probably haven’t even heard of the conflict. You’ll also have to consider the games that are already out there. Making a fantasy mod isn’t very good, because BfME covers fantasy very well, along with some other games. Likewise, a roman-era mod, though attraction more attention than a mod that has the same basis as the game it’s built, will still not be able to satisfy the player into that environment as much as Rome Total War does. Don’t even consider making WW II or modern mods, since there are a lot of games covering that.
If you do choose a setting from history to be the basis of your mod, you’ll have to ask yourself if the period is right for an RTS. Taking the First World War as an example. You can get a lot of atmosphere and environment into a WW I mod, but eventually, you can’t transfer trench warfare into decent gameplay. You can organise it as any other RTS, but doubtlessly you’ll get people complaining at your door if you have hundreds of tanks in such a mod, and that’s negative publicity. Which should be avoided at any cost.
So, you can come up with your own universe, to have a unique atmosphere. Note the Unique. If you just copy any real-life era and stick your own names to it, it won’t do any good. Nor will it if you stick your names to another idea, for that matter. Having aliens landing on Earth isn’t too good, since that’s a rather cliché story, no matter what the Aliens look like or behave. An evil empire attacking some good guys isn’t too special either. What you could do to make an Alien-invasion mod nice is to make it a parody. Get it as cheesy and cartoony as possible, with a way too obvious plot. This creates a great deal of atmosphere and environment, and if you could combine this with decent to good gameplay, you’ve probably got yourself a winner.
The best idea though, is to be unique. Combine several real life elements. Equipment from different eras mixed together, factions that belong to a totally different time period, that kind of stuff. But not too obvious of course.
In the end, a real life conflict will probably have the most success. But try to make one that hasn’t been done before. Counterstrike was good because it was the first mod with modern weapons. Avoid modern, Vietnam and WW II if you’re going for realistic… And probably Napoleon-era as well, since a lot of games cover that. Especially don’t copy an environment and add stuff. Don’t make a Tiberian Dawn to Generals mod and put weaponry in it that didn’t belong to the original game, and don’t put lasers in a modern mod. It kills the environment, and you’ll probably have nothing left in your mod.
When you finally have your background for a TC, you’ll have to think of the sides. Usually, these are part of the environment already, so you’ll have a rough outline for them. The unit judging method can be applied to sides as well, even if a bit different. Again, there’s:
Function
Uniqueness
Possibility
Power
Coolness
Envorinment
Function: I’ve explained the four types of factions above. They are the high-tech, mass, hit and run and elitist. If you can think of a new one, do use it, but I doubt you can. I can’t think of any RTS to which these four factions don’t apply at the moment.
Uniqueness: Don’t make the factions alike. Dune II was nice when it came out, but you just can’t give every side the same stuff. The idea is to give sides strengths and weaknesses. Fill up their lack of something with a speciality in something else. The example again, the GLA in Generals might lack an airforce, but they make it up with fast ground units, therefore having no need of an airforce.
Possibility: Consider how possible your sides are. You may want a side that possesses the bodies of your enemies, or poison them, but that isn’t possible. Don’t keep a side that doesn’t have any of the unique functions planned for it. If you can’t work out their tactics ingame, it’s better not to have them.
Power: When discussing factions, power is relatively easy. Mass-factions just have weak but cheap units, and elitists are the other way around. It’s more down to the individual units than to the side in this case. Just keep the ways of getting income equally powerful, or you could screw up the balance pretty badly.
Coolness: How cool is this side? Will players have a feeling of “Oh, I always wanted to play with such a side” if they see them? Ukraine isn’t too good a faction, but the ancient Roman army is.
Environment: What are these people fighting for? Conquering land usually isn’t such a good motive. A feeling of superiority, vengeance or religious beliefs are far more interesting. Indeed you don’t have a choice when you’re basing your mod on real life events, but you can show the faction’s ideals in simple things such as a side-/bottombar. And does this side fit the timeperiod? Nazi’s in 2050 don’t fit. Avoid timetravel of a faction at any cost.
When you have considered all of this, you’ll have a good, solid base for your mod. An interesting world, factions that differ in gameplay, and units that fit into both of those. This all is something for both the modders to realise, as well as those who judge about hosting. There are just some kind of mods that people don’t care too much about.
b. The quality of mods accepted into hosting
In the case of Revora, there are many people who haven’t considered the points above. And it shows. Half of the mods are inactive, and many more don’t have the potential. One must ask for both possibility to complete, and creativity. If a mod can never be completed, it doesn’t need hosting. Therefore, the mod leader has to be either head coder, skinner or modeller, and preferably skinner, since not many people can do that. A mod with a leader that just comes up with ideas is usually dead before it even begins. Now replace usually with always.
I think I went deep enough into creativity in the former section. Avoid stuff that has been done before, that is essential. A good concept is the only way to get good staff, and good staff is the only way to finish a mod.
It has been said that people learn if they are hosted. I find that a useless argument. Revora has an art forum, and everyone can show off their models or skins there. An editing forum covers all the coding questions. Mods should give and receive help, but that doesn’t happen this way. They receive help if there are talented people that are interested in helping – after all, one-man mods are near impossible – and you don’t lure them to your site by having a load of mods of which 9/10 shouldn’t have seen the light of day. They can give in a similar manner. People will be interested, they will come and look, and might find other projects that appeal to them, which they eventually may help out. Revora has hosted people asking questions, and only those questions that they asked are answered, which doesn’t help a slow mod progress. This is both because there’s little sense of community, and because of the inadequate quality of the mod leaders in question. And what helps people more? Compliments or criticism? I think the latter is far more useful when making a mod, even though the first is always nice to hear. To stimulate people into criticism, there must be a higher standard. A higher standard is necessary, or people will congratulate modders on low quality work simply because that kind of work is all they see (*insert RenAlert comment*).
A stricter judging of mods would lead to an ever decreasing number of mods, yet with a higher replayability. The smaller number of mods makes a site easier to coordinate, and it allows for easier coordination between mods. They might exchange people, which can’t be done now because not all mods have the same standards. Exchanging people, and ideas, leads to an ever higher quality, and it is an upward spiral, whereas little to no strictness in mod acceptation leads to ever less interest. This could be the site’s reward to those mods that do have a lot of effort, time and quality in them – they get more attention, and more help. As said before, consistency is a vital part of quality. The forum must give to it’s hosted mods and it’s hosted mods must give to the site. A good mod will increase the general opinion about the forums, and a site of which people think good will have more interest for it’s mod. Do not mistake me for saying that Revora does not do much for it’s hostees technically, because it does. It just doesn’t in the way of community.
An argument I’ve heard says that if Revora would be stricter, it would be too much like Derelict Studios and that that creates arrogance. No offense to any Deri people intended.
Arrogancy is a part of one’s character. Elitism will not necessarily turn people arrogant, even if some are more susceptible to it than others. And I’ve spoken to some people who were considered arrogant, but they’re not that outside of the forums.
I think MM’s move of his mod to SSP shows more or less that he agrees; even if he would refuse to admit.
Overall, Revora is neither creative, nor is it a true community. It’s a disorganised bunch of low-quality mods that will eventually lose popularity once the original people are gone. Modding is a right. Hosting is a privilege.
3 Administration
A vital part of a forum is it’s admin, or in this case, admins. On a modding site, this is even more so the case. Admins have an example function. If a dedicated admin would venture into a new game, there’d be interest very soon – if he, however, would stay by old games, little interest in the site will come (*insert random Freedom Studios comment*). At all times, the admin has to show an example. A hero is nice, but a hero that is also leader will immediately give people a feeling of proud- and happiness. That, and it could very well help set up new sections. Taking Hostile as an example once more, he single-handedly set up Revora’s BfME community. Partially before he was admin, but partially after. And he was always a respected member.
Now, Revora is trying to get people to get their HL2 mods hosted on the forums. Which isn’t working, and it’s not because there’s no effort into it, but because there is no example. Ideally, an admin should set up a successful HL2 mod to get the section going. Without a good mod that attracts a good deal of attention, there is no need for a section, nor does it have any use. An admin is a father-person to his members, and he should be the one that does the most. MM doesn’t seem to understand this, as he has a mod, but doesn’t have it at Revora. And, consistency is a vital part of quality.
Another part of an admin’s job is that he mixes in with the people. An admin needs to be leader and hero, for a faceless leader will not attract people. Besides that, it makes for better judging on any decision that is taken for the forum. One cannot express a decent view on something that he does not know. This, of course, relates to mod making. Making a mod is a nice way to mix with the people. And without have the risk of assassination that real life leaders have, an admin can only lose time. But what’s time when talking about the forums?
An admin needs to be calm towards the misbehaving. Preferably, he should let another do the initial warnings. In Revora’s case, this can be another admin. The idea behind this is that when the admin DOES do something, it has far more impact. Taking Cannis as an example, he banned everyone, so nobody is afraid of him anymore. Same thing applies to Aircraftkiller.
As well as threaten, admins should also reward. A compliment from The Fearless Hero Leader can be just as inspiring as compliments from 20 others (200 if they are Guests…). Yet, this should be reserved only for the occasions where the work really is outstanding. If the admin were to say everything is good work, his comments will not be taken seriously anymore, and eventually, he will not be either.
On the decisions for the forum, the admin will need to ask the members their opinions sometimes, just to create a feeling that they are not totally powerless, even if the problem is something awfully small. If there’s a good deal of the people thinking the opposite of what the admin thinks is best, he might still carry out the will of the people, just as a sign of goodwill.
Overall, Revora is like EA. Big, low quality and ever on the move for expansion. Personally, I’d rather have a Valve or Blizzard, but I’m not the boss.
Edited by ComradeJ, 27 August 2005 - 06:07 PM.
