Mod Standards

[Alexander_Q]

I've seen various efforts to reduce incompatibilities between mods, in the form of patches and mod "templates". I'd like to propose the idea that the community arrange a list of requirements for "Nexus Certification" or other award, that draws attention to those mods that meet these requirements.

 

---

 

Some standards that I would like to see met:

 

-Many mods have options that are accessed through various in-game items (this varies between AID, MISC and even APPAREL). I've seen at least one mod that places these options in the ESC menu (DUI Mod), and this is far superior. I'd like to see a generic "mod options" item in the ESC menu, and have all mods that have options appear in a list here. Perhaps a template could be released to show people how to add themselves to this list without interfering with other mods.

 

-A readme standard, for that which appears on the nexus and within the mod archive. This would include the description AT THE TOP. It would also include a list of affected areas to highlight areas of possible incompatibility between mods.

 

-Mods should be directed to only affect specific areas/categories unless they carry the "compilation" tag (like overhaul mods would).

 

-Non quest mods should not add information to the quest log. Only notes should be allowed.

 

---

 

If this or a similar idea has been proposed before, feel free to flame me and direct me to the appropriate threads.

 

What do you all think? Any other standards you'd like to see included?

 

Peace.

[gsmanners]

This all sounds really iffy to me. In particular, I don't know how you would go about judging mods. I think the standards really ought to be a lot more specific than that.

 

Is the ESC menu really that modular? Seems to me like only one mod at a time can truly modify the UI.

 

How much different stuff constitutes a "compilation"?

[BadPenney]

No personal offense intended, but this sounds like a bureaucrat's wet dream and a creative artist's nightmare.

 

By setting standards for the sake of compatibility, aren't you implying that tha best possible work has already been done? If 6 months from now someone produces an interesting and innovative mod would it be dismissed if it does not meet certification standards? Who would have the time and experience to form a certification panel of new mods? Would mods that couldn't meet standards be rejected? Don't we already have a court of public opinion? Hasn't L_Hammonds already created a readme templete that is widely used by modders who upload to Nexus?

 

I have spent years striving to meet ISO in industry. It is a pain in the backside that should only be endured if you are getting paid, IMO.

 

I think that more and better guides and tutorials would create more compatible mods. People that have the knowledge to create them only do it because they are interested in making them, not because they are obligated or compensated. The information available is in wiki form at this point, and that means that much of the information out there is incomplete or apochryphal. Information that I have gotten, and advice that I have given, has sometimes later proven to be ineffective or even completely wrong.

 

FO3 modding is still rather new, as well. Even experienced modders and programmers must learn the idiosyncratic methods needed for it. Setting standards at this point seems like putting the cart before the horse.

[lilgamefreek]

The only standard I wish was kept would be a professional tone when it comes to describing/advertising a mod. I just get really annoyed when people write:

 

uninstall:

Why would you ever want to uninstall this mod? Thiz shiz iz the beez kneez!

 

It just really annoys me. I just feel every mod should

 

1.) describe its features

2.) instruct the user how to install its features

3.) instruct the user how to uninstall its features

 

clearly and in a professional manner. It is up to the user to determine if the mod is right for them and if there will be compatibility issues, but every modder should give the user the information they need to revert their game to a previous state in the case that their mod causes grievous conflicts in their game.

 

Compatibility issues will always exist. It is IMPOSSIBLE to create a system where every mod is compatible with every other mod, and the next best thing is to give users a clear picture of what a mod entails and how to successfully add or remove a mod. This way, a mod can never permanently ruin a game.

 

edit: had to add more "z"s.

[BadPenney]

every modder should give the user the information they need to revert their game to a previous state in the case that their mod causes grievous conflicts in their game.

Fallout Mod Manager is great for that. If you make your mod into a fomod then FOMM can install all the files where they need to go to run the mod, and will remove all of the related files easily when you want to uninstall. It is simple to make a fomod if you are making a mod for upload, but you can also turn other people's non-fomod mods into fomods to make installing and uninstalling their mods easy for you.

 

I agree that no software is so dear that no one will tire of it and want it gone, whether it is a mod or a commercially produced game. It is unkind to make people sift through directories to expunge a mod.

[Raven_T]

No personal offense intended, but this sounds like a bureaucrat's wet dream and a creative artist's nightmare.

 

By setting standards for the sake of compatibility, aren't you implying that tha best possible work has already been done? If 6 months from now someone produces an interesting and innovative mod would it be dismissed if it does not meet certification standards? Who would have the time and experience to form a certification panel of new mods? Would mods that couldn't meet standards be rejected? Don't we already have a court of public opinion? Hasn't L_Hammonds already created a readme templete that is widely used by modders who upload to Nexus?

 

I have spent years striving to meet ISO in industry. It is a pain in the backside that should only be endured if you are getting paid, IMO.

 

I think that more and better guides and tutorials would create more compatible mods. People that have the knowledge to create them only do it because they are interested in making them, not because they are obligated or compensated. The information available is in wiki form at this point, and that means that much of the information out there is incomplete or apochryphal. Information that I have gotten, and advice that I have given, has sometimes later proven to be ineffective or even completely wrong.

 

FO3 modding is still rather new, as well. Even experienced modders and programmers must learn the idiosyncratic methods needed for it. Setting standards at this point seems like putting the cart before the horse.

 

One needn't enforce standards. Modders can choose to either follow standards or they can choose to ignore them.

 

The carrot rather than the stick tactic would be best served here.

 

The benefits to those that take the trouble to follow standards ensure that their mods will not come into conflict with other mods, however this is only on of the possible benefits.

 

Another way to go is to provide resource libraries to which people contribute too, and then draw from, for their own mods. Take for example CALIBR which attempts to standardize ammo so that various weapon mods don't come into conflict or start causing unnecessary confusion in ammo types.

 

Lets take an example:

 

A modder makes a new weapon which involves a particularly esoteric form of ammo, yet which is still used by other weapons or groups. Rather than scripting his own ammo group for his weapon he can consult a pre-existing library and utilize that if available, or if not, go ahead and script his own ammo while informing the Calibr modders to include his ammo in their resources.

 

Either way works, but in the end it means less needless work being done in the long run.

 

If a purely voluntary standards paradigm is implemented and promoted it may have numerous and unforeseen benefits, such as getting modders to further work together as well as reducing the development time of a mod by utilizing pre-existing standardized libraries.

[gsmanners]

Let me see if I can summarize the criteria mentioned:

 

Possible compatibility issues

Clarity of description

Ease of installation/uninstallation

Amount of complexity within the mod

Conformity with other mods

 

These concerns can easily become numerous, so the real question is who will take the time and judge all the mods out there? If the creator of the mod isn't going to take the time to supply this information, then I seriously doubt a group of mostly disinterested bystanders will.

[Alexander_Q]

No personal offense intended, but this sounds like a bureaucrat's wet dream and a creative artist's nightmare.

Ha ha ha. I agree with you on the first part, but not on the second. The certification rewards them if they succeed, but does not punish them if they fail. There is nothing to stop 40 mods being posted per day as usual.

 

The carrot rather than the stick tactic would be best served here.

Absolutely - I envisioned this as an "award" rather than anything that would be enforced. It would simply draw attention to those mods that have taken the time to meet the standards.

 

I think the standards really ought to be a lot more specific than that.

Please add your suggestions when you're ready.

 

Another way to go is to provide resource libraries to which people contribute too, and then draw from, for their own mods. Take for example CALIBR which attempts to standardize ammo so that various weapon mods don't come into conflict or start causing unnecessary confusion in ammo types.

I really dig CALIBR, CRAFT and similar - such projects should definitely find their way into the certification process.

 

Is the ESC menu really that modular? Seems to me like only one mod at a time can truly modify the UI.

I really have no idea, but if it can be done, I think it would be of fantastic benefit to the modding community.

 

How much different stuff constitutes a "compilation"?

More than one stuff.

 

and the next best thing is to give users a clear picture of what a mod entails and how to successfully add or remove a mod

I agree, and much of the certification standard should include doing just this.

 

If you make your mod into a fomod then FOMM can install all the files where they need to go to run the mod, and will remove all of the related files easily when you want to uninstall.

Perhaps uploading as FOMOD would be a good standard.

 

so the real question is who will take the time and judge all the mods out there? If the creator of the mod isn't going to take the time to supply this information...

I will, for starters. Who's with me? How things like this usually work, is as follows: we judge and certify a few popular mods, and then afterwards, people apply to -us- to be certified, we don't have to go looking for them.

 

And also, if the developer fails to provide this information, they fail the standards. "Clarity of description" is one of the standards.

 

Thanks for the feedback guys. It's all welcome.

[BadPenney]

Well I believe that cream rises.

 

Mods that successfully do what you say would be required for your certification are most likely already the ones that stay in the most recommended lists. So you propose that you take some of those "popular mods" and give them your GoodModKeeping Seal of Approval and then people will look to you as an expert judge?

 

The process is already under way as a function provided by the Admin of Nexus, has been underway and has undergone polishing by Admin since Nexus was formed. It is a democratic winnowing process, and mods of different types can gain acceptance within a niche of players who might hate other "certified" mods.

 

I think that if people like a mod they will play it whether you certify it as good or not, and word will get around that such and such uncertified mod is fun. They will also avoid well documented unappealing mods whether you certify them or not. Depending on which way that popularity wind blows your certification might likely be added or rescinded, just as you now propose certifying the current most popular mods.

 

Personally, I preferred the recent posts that tried to bring to light mods that the posters considered undiscovered pearls.

 

See, right now everyone can weigh in on mods and in effect certify them with their recommendations. I question whether a Nexus Certification isn't more or less a way to make the vote of certain individuals have more weight than others. If one person makes a recommendation for a mod and says: "I endorse this mod because I like the attempt to standardize ammo so that various weapon mods don't come into conflict or start causing unnecessary confusion in ammo types." his vote doesn't count more than the guy who says: "I endorse this mod because it makes all the women nekkid with big hooters! OORAH!!! 10 out of 10!!!" Something tells me that wouldn't rate as high for your certification standards, but among the big hooter crowd it is much more important than standardized ammo. And who is to say which is more correct?

 

Here is Sgt. BadPenney on the battlefield looking down on two wounded soldiers. He can only carry one to safety. "How are you doing son?" he asks the corporal. "Good enough, Sergeant. I was just thinking about attempts to standardize ammo so that various weapon mods don't come into conflict or start causing unnecessary confusion in ammo types." Sgt. BadPenney shakes his head and thinks "That poor s.o.b. is too far gone."

 

The wounded private says, "I was just thinking about a girl back home who has the purtiest big hooters you ever saw!" Sgt. BadPenney thinks "Now here is a sane man that's worth saving." and then hefts him onto his shoulders and heads for the Aid Station.