264 réponses à ce sujet

[henesua]

**********ANNOUNCEMENT**********

February's Adventure Building Challenge has begun

March's Adventure Seed Poll is posted.

*********************************

Which means that the kickoff is over (although I edited the title and first post after the fact).

Into the breach folks! Go go go!


Due to my inability to produce a FAQ or the base resources that I promissed earlier they will have to wait until I finish my module for this month.

Modifié par henesua, 04 février 2013 - 03:54 .

[Rolo Kipp]

<rolling on the floor...>

*pointing at page 4 and trying to say something*
Go... It... Londra...

*Bwahahaha*!!!

Ok. Who's cleaning up the coffee I just sprayed everywhere? <oh, my. look at the time. must be off gathering snails. ciao, boss>

<...laughing helplessly>

Modifié par Rolo Kipp, 04 février 2013 - 03:03 .

[Tarot Redhand]

Having just checked the voting status, I see a potential problem if the votes stay as they are. While we have a clear leader, there are three ideas each with 2 votes. So how do you decide which to drop?

While I'm asking questions, how does the sponsorship thing work for next month?

TR

Modifié par Tarot Redhand, 09 février 2013 - 11:35 .

[henesua]

I can always make an executive decision if we have a big tie.

Sponsored content will remain the same for the following month. Unless we receive another sponsor OR one of our existing sponsors leaves the community. In the later case their content would no longer be usable for future challenges.

[olivier leroux]

What? Is anyone planning on leaving the community? I hope not! *Quickly, seal the doors!*

[Tarot Redhand]

While I freely offer your choice of any of my stuff for use in this, I do suspect that I may well wish to change which particular custom content of mine is sponsored for any particular month as I may well think that other haks are more appropriate given the winning seeds. Any chance of this?

TR

[henesua]

I would prefer to keep the list consistent rather than constantly change what each artist has sponsored for the month. An artist's list of sponsored content may grow, but for the immediate future I'd like to keep each artist's offering as it is.

Quarterly I think it would be cool to change things. But this is not solid enough in my mind to explain how it will work.

[PLUSH HYENA of DOOM]

I think those of us who are "sponsors" are liable to make a great deal of feeble whining noises when there are things we wish to add to our sponsored content for future challenges and hope Henesua has PITY... or make long-winded, spurious arguments for how useful this exciting new CC would be to everyone (or to ourselves at least)...
Quarterly, maybe those who want to could add one or two things and, in terms of keeping the list from becoming a colossal Contentzilla kind've thing, simply remove anything nobody's used for a challenge in, say, six months or whatever.

[Ribouldingue]

Well I've already got a couple of decades scripting handicap, did I really have to be one week late on the starting line?

Doesn't matter... I'm going to win this... so where is the subject then?

[henesua]

 We will all win if you complete your module. I'm looking forward to be a winner.
This month's challenge has its own thread.

[Invisig0th]

Two quick comments.

Earlier in this thread, Babayaga offered up his Improved Creatures pack as sponsored content long with the tilesets he mentioned. Did that one get overlooked when compiling the sponsored content list? I'd be very interested in using some of those creatures, if they are allowed (because they are awesome!)

Regarding ongoing testing and bug fixes for a module after the deadline, I think that could be a big problem, depending on how you are planning to distribute each month's submissions. Based on the fact that you have requested a compressed file of each entry, it sounds like you are planning on uploading them all to one central Vault page for that month's challenge. I really don't think that will work. For starters, it will severely limit the author's ability to update their module and fix problems in a timely manner. I think it would make a lot more sense to have each author submit (and maintain) their module as a typical NWVault module submisssion, and then we can use the monthly ABC NWVault entry to provide a list of links to all the modules which were a) announced in the relevant thread and  completed according to the rules and within the specified time period. It would take a little double-checking at the end of the month, but it should be pretty easy to verify if a submission complies with the rules or not (based on date and file size). I think this approach would be beneficial for both the authors and the players, and it would have the added bonus of substantially reducing the effort needed to manage the challenge itself. Win-win.

Modifié par Invisig0th, 12 février 2013 - 04:53 .

[henesua]

Hello Invisigoth, thanks for posting.

Regarding BabaYaga's creatures. I was aware that they were offerred, but Baba and I carried on some discussion in private, and we settled on the tilesets. In order to keep the list manageable I've been working with each sponsor to focus the content they offer.

Regarding your ideas about posting the modules. Those are good ideas. My plan at this point however is to post all the submissions on one page when they are submitted. And call them out as rough drafts ready for review. Then they will gradually migrate to vault pages maintained by their respective authors. The idea is to capture a time capsule of the monthly challenge, while linking to the ongoing improvements created by each builder.

[Invisig0th]

As a module author, I really don't agree with having to submit my module through you. I have nothing but the best regard for you personally, and I am not questioning your dedication to properly manage all this yourself. However, I'd still much prefer to manage (and fix) my own content directly. I see nothing about that which contradicts what you are attempting to do here with this challenge. I really do understand that your intentions are pure here, and that you do not mean to make things more difficult, but filtering everything through you seems like a bad idea that adds no real value.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your intention here. Exactly what problem are you trying to prevent by forcing everyone to only upload their submissions through you (at least initially)? 

Are you worried that the "snapshot" at the end of the month will be tainted by subsequent author updates? Well, the need to publish post-release fixes is absolutely guaranteed. No one is going to want to download and play a module which contains known bugs for which there are already fixes. In fact, considering the very limited timeframe for development, it's reasonable to assume that there will be on average more bugs in these modules.

If (as I assume) you were expecting to personally handle exactly these kinds of updates, then all you're doing by forcing everyone to maintain their module through you is needlessly delaying the availaibility of each fix. You'd have to upload all of those yourself, as your busy schedule allows. For potentially 12-20 module authors.  That is a ton of extra work that would be completed in a more timely and more efficient way if each author managed their own submission.

Or is is that you are worried that authors will keep working on their module after the deadline, by adding substantial new content? I see how that would sort of undermine the idea of the challenge, but honestly -- does anyone really care if that happens?  Isn't the purpose of this entire exercise to generate more content for the community? This is not a competition, and absolutely no one gets hurt if an author decides to take their submission somewhere that is not in line with the challenge rules. Feel free to exclude them from the list of links for that month if that occurs. Problem solved.

I haven't ignored what you said about linking to the "ongoing" version of the module, but that really doesn't fix my concerns, and it also creates additional problems. What's the value in having two versions of my module (one potentially buggy) available for download? That sort of thing has been done before on the Vault, and it always causes confusion. A simple link to the module author's submission is clearly better on all counts.

Based on your comments above, I see no value in you submitting everyone else's work and thereby limiting their ability to make timely updates directly themselves. If you can provide some convincing justification for taking that route I might be on board, but as things stand now what you're suggesting causes nothing but problems (and extra work for you). It makes no sense to me at all. And honestly, it doesn't seem fully respectful of the module authors and how they manage their own content with their players. I know that's not your intention at all, but I do think this topic deserves further discussion -- particularly if it might motivate authors like me to skip the challenge entirely.

Modifié par Invisig0th, 12 février 2013 - 06:08 .

[henesua]

I want a record of the modules as they were submitted for the challenge, and a central repository for the modules during the review period immediately after they are submitted.

HOWEVER, I do not intend to be a middle man for publishing edits of these modules. Builders are not restricted from creating their own vault posts for their modules and updating them. Any builder that submits to the challenge is encouraged to send me a link to their vault page as well. That will allow me to prominently post the link to the module.

What this achieves:
the challenge is tightly defined as a month long effort, and the product of that work is captured in a time capsule.
The projects as submitted will be centrally located for any that want to take part in the following month's review.
The builder however will have full control over their creation, and linked to from the challenge page. The participants along with links to their works will be displayed at the top. And I will explain that the most up to date version of the module can be found at those links.

The submissions for the challenge will be down below with the files.
If the review process ever gets going, we'll also post reviews there as well.

[edit]
I want to add as I have many times before, that I am figuring this out as I go. If this doesn't work we can adapt the policy to make it work better.

Modifié par henesua, 12 février 2013 - 06:12 .

[Invisig0th]

Sorry, as a module author I am simply not comfortable with allowing someone else to archive and maintain a potentially buggy version of my module when a simple link to my own submission page would accomplish the same goal. the fact that you are not 'trusting' authors to keep their submission in line with the rules of the challenge is, honestly, a bit rude. I think I've made it clear why it's important for me as a content creator to make my content available only on my own Vault submission page, and to prevent outdated copies of my work floating around. That explanation is entirely reasonable. Your proposed approach, on the other hand, adds no value to the challenge, but does create several serious problems for module authors. It makes zero sense.

I really do appreciate you volunteering to do so much work to get this up and running, but I think you're going overboard and making rules regarding problems that simply do not exist. Forbidding folks from maintaining their own module submissions does not detract from this challenge whatsoever, and I am shocked by your strident opposition to the very idea. I hope you can see your way to a more reasonable response at some point.

Until then, you can count me out. My work is my work, and you don't get to be the gatekeeper to an archived, outdated version of my content that only you control. As a content author, that is simply unreasoneable and unacceptable. That sort of arbitrary decree is truly at odds with the concept of a community challenge intended to simply motivate authors such as myself to share more content with the dwindling NWN community.

Modifié par Invisig0th, 12 février 2013 - 06:49 .

[henesua]

I am sorry that you aren't comfortable with this approach. This is how the Custom Content Challenge works, and it has been a great success. I'm using the CCC as a model as we start out, while recognizing that we will find our own direction along the way.

Thats why I keep saying "lets try it this way and see how it goes. We can always change things later."

While the particular issue you raise is not a deal breaker for me, I do not want to back off the plan in response to potential problems. I am firm that we try things out, make mistakes, learn from then, and then make changes.

What does this mean in this particular instance: we may very well shift to the model you would prefer with all submissions on separate vault pages. But the change will happen after the first challenge is complete - meaning that we've made our submissions, and posted them for review.

And all that said, I recognize that some participants will prefer to not send anything in at all. I think we can find a way to accommodate this. I'm not sure how it will work yet so this is what I propose:

for this first challenge, trust me. Send in your submission, allow it to be posted with everyone else's. And lets see if we can get a formal review process working. Regardless of how that goes, I will gladly remove your submission after its been up for a couple weeks, and provide a link to your own vault page as well.

Modifié par henesua, 12 février 2013 - 06:50 .

[MagicalMaster]

Henesua, I think Invisig0th's point is the following...

Benefits of just uploading the module to the vault and sending you a link...

- No worries about an old version of a module floating around
- Ability to quickly fix any bugs that pop up and ensure people DLing the mod have the updates

Downsides of just uploading the module to the vault and sending you a link...

- ???

What downsides are you concerned about? Also, what is the difference between getting emailed the mod by a given date or getting sent a link to it by a given date (and thus just DLing it right then, meaning you have an "archived" copy anyway)?

Regardless of how that goes, I will gladly remove your submission after its been up for a couple weeks, and provide a link to your own vault page as well.

I think that's exactly his concern - that a few days after submitting people will find bugs and he'll want to fix them ASAP so that others don't suffer through them. Which is very easy if he can just upload a new module, and you could still keep your old, buggy version, right?

[Invisig0th]

You don't seem to be listening to me. As a module author, letting you distribute an outdated version of my module is simply unacceptable. You seem unwilling to respect my feelings on this matter, and you certainly aren't expressing any understanding regarding why an author might feel as I do. I won't be the only one concerned about this issue. This isn't very complicated. I simply do not find it acceptable to have
an outdated, buggy version of my work available for download . Ever. You
are insisting that I put myself in a situation wherethat is guarantteed to happen. It's your rules that need to change, not my
expectations regarding how I ensure the ongoing quality and integrity of my
content.

Comparing this to the CCC just doesn't hold water. There has been a lot of great content released for the CCC, but modules are orders of magnitude larger and much more complex. There are guaranteed to be many, many more bugs to deal with for the monthly ABC modules. That's exactly what I've been trying to explain to you above, but I guess I'm not doing a very good job of getting that across.

Nothing I've said here is unreasonable, and there is no reason you cannot be a bit more flexible here in order to respect the wishes of those who are willing to contribute their own hard work to make your challenge a success. I will again encourage you to go back to the underlying motivation behind this challenge rather than excluding people by insisting on rules that benefit nobody and which do not account for authors' reasonable wishes to be in control of managing their own content.

However, based on your responses, I will simply plan on completing and releasing
my own modules (entirely complying with the rules of the monthly
challenge). I will be releasing them on my own Vault submission pages as
I see fit. And I'll be announcing them in the monthly ABC threads and
providing updates and screenshots as I go. If you choose to not include
my hard work when you post your monthly CCC submission page, that's
entirely your choice.

Modifié par Invisig0th, 12 février 2013 - 07:32 .

[henesua]

Invisig0th wrote...

You don't seem to be listening to me.

And you don't appear to be reading what I've written.

Did you not see that I offerred a compromise that would result in your module not being archived on the challenge's vault page long term?

[Rolo Kipp]

<whistling...>

Wow.

Uh, guys?

Hrm.

I'll give the ABC a try the way the person who actually got it moving asks.
I like that he asks. (over and over again for input)
I like that he listens. (and types up walls of text explaining his thoughts on the matter)
I like most of all that *he* is the one doing it. (because I'm way too lazy to do something like this).

There are several very high quality projects on the Vault that actually refuse to host their content on the Vault, providing links to their personally safe-guarded treasures. I not only approve of that, I applaud it from an author's point of view.

On the other hand, we all know of great content that has simply disappeared, so I like backups and mirrors and what-not. I don't insist *I* (or the Vault) be the one to back up stuff. Hell, I don't insist anything :-)

Invis has a point about wanting control of his IP. So, go ahead.
Henesua has a point about giving the rules a chance and about a snapshot of the module. Yup, work with it :-)
MM has a point that the snapshot can be a DL of the author's Vault page. More work for H, but *shrug*.
I have a point on top of my little head. I cover it with this dunce cap, er, wizard's hat.

Personally, this discussion isn't fun any more :-P

Nevermind.

I'm just going to go over *there* and work on my mod.

<...up a storm>

[Invisig0th]

henesua wrote...
Did you not see that I offerred a compromise that would result in your module not being archived on the challenge's vault page long term?

Since I find it unacceptable to allow you to post a potentially buggy "snapshot" of my module, that's not exactly a solution to the problem, much less a 'compromise'.

Regardless, this is supposed to be a community project, isn't it? Or are you simply going to insist on limiting the pool of contributors simply because you yourself don't happen to share their concerns? That makes no sense, and it's not good for the NWN community as a whole.

I have provided very good reasons as to why what you have outlined won't work for me as an author, and probably won't work for quite a few other authors. You may or may not understand or sympathize with those reasons, but I am shocked that you seem not to respect them or be willing to accomodate them. 

Modifié par Invisig0th, 12 février 2013 - 07:55 .

[henesua]

Its a full solution as it gives everyone what they want. It is unfortunate that you are unable to see that.

I'm glad to see that you still want to create a module. Good luck.

[Invisig0th]

Your proposed "compromise" solution still includes me allowing you to post a potentially buggy "snapshot" of my module, completely outside my control. Therefore it does not "give everyone what they want", not even slightly. The only thing 'unfortunate" here is that you did not attempt to address my actual concern, which I've explained several times now.

Just for the record, I've followed the monthly CCC closely since it was first proposed, and they NEVER were so hostile towards contributors, particularly if those folks had reasonable concerns. We all know that ownership of custom content is a touchy subject, and not all of us will see eye to eye, It's one thing to disagree, it's another thing to be disagreeable.  Considering how few of us are left, I would hope that you could find a way to be more constructive and collaborative in the future when trying to initiate community initiatives. Assuming, of course, that you want to attract participants rather than drive them away.

henesua wrote...

Its a full solution as it gives everyone what they want. It is unfortunate that you are unable to see that.

I'm glad to see that you still want to create a module. Good luck.

[edit] On second thought, you've convinced me not to participate in the ABC at all. I'll still build and release my modules separately, complying with all the ABC rules, but no one playing my entries will be redirected back to the other ABC modules. Happy?

Modifié par Invisig0th, 12 février 2013 - 08:13 .

[henesua]

Invisig0th wrote...

It's clear you don't even understand what I'm objecting to. Your proposed solution does not address my concern whatsoever, and therefore it hardly "gives everybody what they want".

Then you need to better explain yourself. Please do so.

My understanding is that you do not want multiple copies of your work on the vault. Some of the issues you cited were buggy copies floating around, my being a gate keeper for the content, and slowing down your fixing of your content.

My solution addresses all of these concerns handily as I am clearly not a gate keeper - I am linking to your vault post. I am also removing the file you submitted after a short period in which reviewers have a chance to review them (maybe a couple weeks, perhaps shorter)

In addition I state that I understood that even that would be unacceptable to some participants and that i would need to come up with a solution.

In my view this definitely gives everyone what they want. Please explain how it does not so that we can consider how to accommodate you.

Invisig0th wrote...
Just for the record, I've followed the monthly CCC closely since it was first proposed, and they NEVER were so hostile towards contributors, particularly if those folks had legitimate concerns. The way you've handled this discussion is shocking and shameful. Considering how few of us are left, I would hope that you could find a way to be more constructive and collaborative in the future.

I think my responses to you show quite the opposite. Also, please refrain from the personal attacks. they distract from the actual content of your message, and they are upsetting.

[Invisig0th]

I don't expect you to share my concerns here, but please don't act like I haven't already stated them above (in great detail).

You have not yet proposed anything which does not include me sending you my module and you uploading it. That is just about guaranteed to result in you distributing a buggy version of my module which I have absolutely no control over. Say if you were to (god forbid) get hit by a bus, my buggy version 1.0 of that module would be available forever online, and I would have no say in the matter at all. None of that is acceptable to me, not even for a single day.

So how exactly are you giving everyone what they want? By saying that people that don't do it the way you want can simply not participate? That stretches the definition of the word "solution" to the breaking point.

At this point, I'm honestly not concerned with whether you address the concerns I brought up or not. The things I've mentioned were reasonable.  The content and tone of your responses were not. I will not be spending my valueable free time providing content to support this (or any future) initiative of yours.

Well done.

Modifié par Invisig0th, 12 février 2013 - 08:36 .