Modding Standards

[bigmek]

HI my english speaking firends.
I came from the german modding community totalwar-zone.de
And my Idee is, creating modding Standards

So here are the standards

#1 a mod only consists of one pack file

exception: the mod is a collection of some small mods then each mod can have their own name

#2 the pack file had to be named like the mod

#3 files insied the packfile must be named like this:
[MODNAME]_[FILENAME]
example unit_stats_land
myMod_unit_stats_land

#4 mod names must be unique, so look for existing mods befor creating new one


//number 5 is just a idea i dont know if is possible
#5 each mod must have a readme.txt included in the pack that mod managers can read and parse out fields like author(s), release version, support site or forum thread, and a short description (Idea by LtChambers)


here is my original post in german
http://www.totalwar-zone.de/forum/th...threadid=13526

maybe somebody can translate this into better english

Sorry for my bad English

best regards Leopold

[MrThib]

Actually your post is clear that way, no need to change it.
And I'm 100% percent ok with you, except peraphs the textures that could be in differents packs so people can use them independantly (unless you really don't want it).

[Skyline Pete]

As I mentioned in a previous thread in one of the modding sections (which there are too many of too by the way, I mean one is in the GD area wtf?) modders need to quickly come to some sort of standardisation for how they're making their threads and collaborating their mods.

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=237704

Warronmars has done an excellent job with his skins thread and once he's finished it he should very much have it moved to the released mods section of the forums.
His thread is
A: Easy to read
B: Shows quite clearly what his mods do
C: Has instructions
D: Updates his FIRST post with the latest information pertaining to his mod, I can't stress how crucial this is as people don't want to have to trawl through pages and pages of forum posts (most of which will consist of "OMG it dosnt wrk on mi puta!") to find the latest version of a mod.

The only thing I could fault his post on is the title, it's not 100% clear on what his mod is about.

I know I sound like an arse coming across this way but it makes it easier for people looking for mods if they can see straight away what your mod is about, and then once you've hooked them into your thread you can them dazzle them with clear instructions and nice before/after pictures of what your modification does.

Keeping it clear gets people to you, and your mod out to the people quicker and easier.

*dons flame suit +5*

[Aldgarkalaughskel]

This is a good initiative, bigmek and cheers to the German TW fans at totalwar-zone.de!

Actually mod compatibility is what matters, and LtChambers made a mod manager that lets you manage different mods, check it out here:
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=240335

[compound]

movies will need to go in a seperate pack as they need to be of type movie pack, but other than that your proposal looks acceptable

[bigmek]

This is a good initiative, bigmek and cheers to the German TW fans at totalwar-zone.de!

Actually mod compatibility is what matters, and LtChambers made a mod manager that lets you manage different mods, check it out here:
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=240335

Thanks for the link.
And thanks allso to Skyline Pete.

My Idee is to make a list of all mods
Sorry i dont know the english word

GERMAN
{
die den standard erfüllen
}

TRANSLATE BY GOOGLE
{
meet the standard
}

so user can see wich mods are easy to install.

[Treehuggerish]

Now I'm not a modder by any means, an avid mod-uder at best I am however used to managing the sort of.. logical side of databases (not the technical side at all mind you) and as the OP suggests... adding a unique identifier, in this case based on the mod name, is definately the safest way of avoiding naming conflicts.

But shouldn't it theoretically be possible to mod the game without actually editing the game files, but instead by making files that add to the game files without bearing the same name (instead of having a mymod_unitsfile.whatever you have a mymod_addtounitsfile.whatever that is much smaller and, has the added bonus of avoiding several mods changing stuff around in the same file?

[bigmek]

Now I'm not a modder by any means, an avid mod-uder at best I am however used to managing the sort of.. logical side of databases (not the technical side at all mind you) and as the OP suggests... adding a unique identifier, in this case based on the mod name, is definately the safest way of avoiding naming conflicts.

my English is nor very good, so i hope i understod what you want to tell
me,

unique identifier ? do you men a number?
the mod name is a unique identifier so we need no additional identifier
in front of each file name we put the mode name
like myMode_xxx

But shouldn't it theoretically be possible to mod the game without actually editing the game files, but instead by making files that add to the game files without bearing the same name (instead of having a mymod_unitsfile.whatever you have a mymod_addtounitsfile.whatever that is much smaller and, has the added bonus of avoiding several mods changing stuff around in the same file?

this is what iam talkin about
example:
myMode_unit_stats_land

[LtChambers]

HI my english speaking firends.
I came from the german modding community totalwar-zone.de
And my Idee is, creating modding Standards

So here are the standards

#1 a mod only consists of one pack file

exception: the mod is a collection of some small mods then each mod can have their own name

#2 the pack file had to be named like the mod

#3 files insied the packfile must be named like this:
[MODNAME]_[FILENAME]
example unit_stats_land
myMod_unit_stats_land

#4 mod names must be unique, so look for existing mods befor creating new one

I'm not sure the name of the db fragments is very important to standardize as long as it's relatively unique and not the same as the vanilla name. I agree about everything else though.

Additionally and possibly more importantly, I would like to see is a standard readme.txt included in the pack file that mod managers can read and parse out fields like author(s), release version, support site or forum thread, and a short description (as well as a large amount of text about what the mod's about of course, but that part needn't be parsable).

[bigmek]

Wow Nice idea.

I think this must be possible,
please ask the guy hows create the pack editor.

i add this to the standards

[l33tl4m3r]

As I quickly rename files before importing them into my new mod to export and edit; I use this naming scheme already.

This is a fantastic idea and great to have written down, I hope to see th rest of the community begin to adopt similar formats!

[MrThib]

You can actually see in the mod manager section people having troubles with the old mods (oldest than 2 days ago ...) that wasn't made this way.

[alpaca]

What about creating a readme xml? A first draft:

<?xml version="1.0"?>
<mod>
	<name>Terra Incognita</name>
	<web/>
	<version>0.1</version>
	<license>Public domain: Modify and redistribute at your leisure</license>
	<packs>
		<pack>
			<name>TerraIncognita.pack</name>
			<type>3</type>
			<description>General mod pack</description>
			<overwrites_files>
				<file>
					<name>campaign_ai_manager_behaviour_junctions</name>
					<path>db/campaign_ai_manager_behaviour_junctions_tables/campaign_ai_manager_behaviour_junctions</path>
					<reason>To make sure the changes work</reason>
				</file>
			</overwrites_files>
		</pack>
		<pack>
			<name>TerraIncognita_en.pack</name>
			<type>3</type>
			<description>Localisation for Terra Incognita</description>
			<overwrites_files>
				<file>
					<name>localisation.loc</name>
					<path>text/localisation.loc</path>
					<reason>Have to replace the whole wretched thing</reason>
				</file>
			</overwrites_files>
		</pack>
	</packs>
	<changelog>
		<entry>
			<version>0.1</version>
			<text>Added campaign AI test</text>
		</entry>
	</changelog>
</mod>

@LtC: Reading and writing xml files in C# seems to be a breeze, I could add that to PFM and MM no problemo

[MrThib]

What about creating a readme xml?

100% agree with this proposal, that would make things a lot more user friendly when installing new mods.
Great idea!

[joedreck]

Standarts are wonderful, but if you want tell the modders how they should call their mods and files, I see many of them don't post something anymore. I name the files as I think I find them and know what they are.

Let them do what they want. Important is to post the mods in not spamed threads, where you find 1 mod between 578 other posts.

[MrThib]

The problem is not how they call them, I'm agree with LTChambers on this, it's just to avoid having two time the same name in differents mods to avoid conflict.
That's why the OP make this proposal first.

[alpaca]

Standarts are wonderful, but if you want tell the modders how they should call their mods and files, I see many of them don't post something anymore. I name the files as I think I find them and know what they are.

Let them do what they want. Important is to post the mods in not spamed threads, where you find 1 mod between 578 other posts.

Nobody's trying to impose anything on anybody. These are guidelines not set-in-stone rules, but complying to them makes your life and that of everyone trying to use the mod easier. It's just like you using bits of paper that have a normed size instead of having to cut them to the right size every time you want to send a letter. You don't have to but it makes things go more smoothly.

[Matte979]

Good ideas.

[bigmek]

LtChambers: can you edit the mod Manager, that he can read readme files inside a packfile?
We must standarize the readme, so the Mod manager can read them.

alpaca: xml is a good idea.
But i think we can forgett the <packs> tag, because the readme should be in the pack file.
So it makes no sense to write the pack

but we can make a <required> tag.
example:

mod A needs mod B to work

readme of mod A

<mod>
  <name>A</name>
  <required>
    <mod name="B" version="0.1" downloadLink=".../V0_1/B.pack"/>
    <game version="1.01">
  </required>
  <...>
  </...>

  ...
</mod>

and wen you activate the mod, the required mods automatic activated to.
or wenn they not found in the game directory, they were downloaded from the given link

is this possible?

[alpaca]

LtChambers: can you edit the mod Manager, that he can read readme files inside a packfile?
We must standarize the readme, so the Mod manager can read them.

alpaca: xml is a good idea.
But i think we can forgett the <packs> tag, because the readme should be in the pack file.
So it makes no sense to write the pack

but we can make a <required> tag.
example:

mod A needs mod B to work

readme of mod A

<mod>
  <name>A</name>
  <required>
    <mod name="B" version="0.1" downloadLink=".../V0_1/B.pack"/>
    <game version="1.01">
  </required>
  <...>
  </...>

  ...
</mod>

and wen you activate the mod, the required mods automatic activated to.
or wenn they not found in the game directory, they were downloaded from the given link

is this possible?

Sounds like a good idea

LtChambers and I also decided that we don't need the overwrites_files part because that should be handled on-the-fly in mod manager

Edit: Got a new draft

<?xml version="1.0"?>
<pack name="TerraIncognita.pack" version="0.1">
	<description>Terra Incognita main pack</description>
	<mod name="TerraIncognita" version="0.1"/>
	<web/>
	<download/>
	<license>Public domain: Modify and redistribute at your leisure</license>
	<dependencies>
		<pack name="TerraIncognita_en.pack" version="0.1">
			<web/>
			<download/>
		</pack>
	</dependencies>
	<changelog>
		<entry>
			<version>0.1</version>
			<text>Added campaign AI test</text>
		</entry>
	</changelog>
</pack>

The mod tag would allow us to group packs together to mods, they'd then have dependencies on each other. We could also add whole mod tags as dependencies. I also like your idea of having the name and version as unique attributes for the tags