Mod Support for Rome 2

[Augustus Scipius]

sure but they could atleast ignore that, it's a minor detail wich doesn't affect CA or if it does it is on a positive way
it's the attitude too that CA showed...

btw the thread they told that:
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...on-Permissions

Business does not work like that. It is a matter of principle. If a company allowed some "minor details", who is to say where the line goes between that and a full-blown copyright violation? It's everything or nothing, either you give all credit to CA or then you do not use their property. Minor thing or not, it is CA's property, and they can do with it whatever they please.

And frankly, CA is actually a lot more tolerant with modding than certain other companies that have gone as far as to completely forbid modding their games. It's has nothing to do about them not wanting the mod to be published.

[empire tw]

of course the lines need to be drawn somewhere (and i know that legally they have every right to do what they did)
tough i really don't agree it's everything or nothing they could always choose a middle-ground to protect modders work too...
really it's time to think of modders too...

[empire tw]

Ignore it? If they would ignore it and next year the modders from DotS decide to sell the copyright to EA then EA would suddenly have the rights on all the codework in the DotS mod right? If I would run a company I would try to make sure that wouldn't happen too.

obviously in this case they would act, legally they will always have the rights...
my point is that they can protect modders work by simply ignoring that, but acting when needed (like the example you posted)

[Murfmurf]

Hehe, implication however indirect or direct is not the same as explicitly stating a stance. Just because your conclusion is that I believe CA is out to destroy modding does not make it so.

As such, I'm not ignoring your question, as the basis for it is incorrect. Simply put, CA are not out to "destroy" modding, but the games are simply not as moddable as they once were.

And as a modder, I can tell you from first-hand knowledge that if someone wants to get a mod, they can, easily. For M2TW mods, you download into your mods folder of your installation folder, and that's it.

Anyway, we've obviously leagues apart in our opinions, which is fine. But as a final point, take a look at the Shogun hosted section of the TWC. 4 mods. 0 in development. Says a lot.

[Will CA]

Ok, wow. A lot of points here.

I requested that the copyright text be taken down from the DotS post, but nothing against the mod.

I'll be answering that over on the DotS thread rather than here.

[oOIYvYIOo]

Ok, wow. A lot of points here.

I requested that the copyright text be taken down from the DotS post, but nothing against the mod.

I'll be answering that over on the DotS thread rather than here.

Whos DotS or where is that ?

[Big Brown Bear]

Whos DotS or where is that ?

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...on-Permissions

That's the link to the announcement of the discontinuation of the mod.

[oOIYvYIOo]

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...on-Permissions

That's the link to the announcement of the discontinuation of the mod.

Thanks m8 ,rep

[Will CA]

Whos DotS or where is that ?

Its a pretty epic looking Med2 Mod: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/forum...n-of-the-Sword

[empire tw]

Whos DotS or where is that ?

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...missions/page3

[empire tw]

Of course you can.
When someone creates a 3D model for a new unit type (say, the tanks for ETW's Great War), they can claim copyright on it. Otherwise it would be legal for CA to use that model in their next game. Or anyone, for that matter...

so maybe Dots closing was a misunderstoodement (?) maybe they put the game was theirs in some way, but they wanted to say the modifications were theirs (dots team) ?
either way will CA will post something here:
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...missions/page2

[daniu]

Of course you can.
When someone creates a 3D model for a new unit type (say, the tanks for ETW's Great War), they can claim copyright on it. Otherwise it would be legal for CA to use that model in their next game. Or anyone, for that matter...

so maybe Dots closing was a misunderstoodement (?) maybe they put the game was theirs in some way, but they wanted to say the modifications were theirs (dots team) ?
either way will CA will post something here:
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...missions/page2

Well I'm no legal expert, nor fully aware of what exactly DotS consists of, but obviously there's going to be tougher cases than a completely newly modeled unit.
For instance, if the mod contains scripts which were adjusted from original ones, the latter were under CA's copyright to begin with...
But yeah, it's really something that has to be cleared up between CA and the DotS guys.

I find it somewhat weird that this is being discussed in public btw.

[Shigawire]

We can speculate endlessly. I'm sure Will/Craig will be the first to mention it if Rome II will have mod support. I also understand the people who feel they need to "lobby" for this early on. Some people feel that if the wishes for mod tools get taken seriously too late in the development, they feel the mod tools may suffer as a consequence. I'm not claiming knowledge on the subject, but I have noticed a trend in what people fear. That said, we don't necessarily understand one iota of the complex development pipeline CA got going. So it may be an unfounded fear to think that mod tools need to be implemented early on in order to be any good.

I'm just wishing for Radious mod for Rome II *wink wink* If the mod tools are good enough, and if Radious is up for it.
If the same possibilities that were in Shogun 2 exist in Rome 2, then Radious could do something similar to what he did for Shogun 2.
That was a stunning mod.

[wangrin]

I think that "Mod Support" should not only focus about mod tools.

To create mod tools and mod, we "need" :

• documentation from CA (file format, database diagrams, etc.)
• mod tools
• as few as possible "hardcoded" features

Documentation is the most important factor for modding.
It allow to create mod tools (converters, editors) as you know what data you need and how to convert them from a filetype to an other.

Mod tools can be created by some modders if they have enough informations/documents about what to do.
They can be also created by CA, but I think it is important to involve the modding community. Most of modders are "tools users", they are those who have a need and should be able to define it. CA and/or tools creators are those who can (or cannot) create tools to fill those needs.

Both points above can be provided after the game release, but not the game engine "modding ability".
This factor depend of the game engine itself.
I know it's nearly impossible (not a priority at all for something that cost money with maybe no R.o.I) , but it is important that CA create its game engine with "modding" in mind.

I will try to explain this with some examples from ETW/NTW (sorry, but I'm more familiar with those games than others).

Unit evolution :

In ETW, CA add a feature that allow to convert units when government change.
For example, after a successful revolution, monarchy guard units are converted to republican guards.
I strongly believe that the process "simply" rewrite unit name in esf file to replace the old one with the new one.
Doing so, unit keep its experience and all other characteristics.

This feature use :

• db tables to define unit available depending of government type
• db tables to define what units can be converted (or disbanded) and what unit replace the old one
• commands that allow to rewrite in esf file the unit name

Sadly, it is impossible to use such feature to create an "unit evolution system".

• because the command seems to be hardcoded and cannot be use by scripts
• because it is not possible to create new db tables

At least, if the command that allow to rewrite the esf would have been available for scripts, it would have been possible to mod something (not particularly efficient and even less optimized... but something).

Ideally, CA could have had such feature, using nearly the same function but using maybe only one db tables to define :

• unit A (unit before being convert),
• action (convert, disband),
• unit B (unit after being convert, null if disbanded)),
• event trigger (event triggering the conversion),
• technology trigger (technology triggering the conversion),
• government trigger (government triggering the conversion (regime change)),

Regimental flags :

In ETW and NTW we can only use one generic regimental flag for all units of the same faction.
I think it would have been more interesting for modding (and "flag diversity") to link regimental flags to units using db tables and, eventually, a texture atlas (similar to what had been done for "state flags" and "naval_id") to allow a "flag rotation" depending of the number of the unit for example.
The ability to choose flag model (rigid or particle, shape) would be welcome too.
Of course, CA could simply create only one regimental flag per faction, but modders would have had the possibility to create diversity.
I'm also aware that such "diversity mod" would be cpu/ram consuming. But it's modder responsibility to optimize their mods.


Skeletons :

In ETW and NTW, model's skeleton is not embedded in model itself but store apart and are loaded when needed (eg. when model is loaded).
But it is impossible to add new skeletons, they are limited to human, horse, camel and elephant.
Would have it been possible to define skeleton used by model in db tables and to allow modders to add new skeletons ?
For example, would have it been possible to add a column to warscape_animated_lod or warscape_animated tables to define what skeleton use depending of model ?

Of course, I'am also aware that adding a new skeleton means to create animations, but this is possible, even if time consuming.



I understand that a game engine must be efficient and highly optimized, but modders can only modify what is left.
I doubt that CA will accept to dialogue with modders about features they would like, but they could maybe think to "generic" feature that could be use for any future TW game, independently of period or context.
Unit evolution system, flag system and skeleton system would be definitely ones of them.

[Radzeer]

Please note that discussing DotS here is off topic - feel free to continue that part over at their modforum.