other_ip_topics

[inland sphinx]

creative commons allows you to redistribute, but steam doesn't allow you if you don't have sufficient rights, which that CC license doesn't grant you

[regal mountain]

didn't know that

[inland sphinx]

If you have explicit "You can reupload to steam" permission, thats still not fine according to steam subscriber agreement, but noones gonna hunt you down when you have explicit permission

For Enhanced Movement specifically I know that Bad Benson doesn't give permission for reuploads, yet you still have that reuploaded.

[regal mountain]

ill make changes to our pack

[inland sphinx]

You can post your community advertisement again once all violations are gone

[vast stump]

make a collection

[cursive sedge]

or add other workshop items as required mods instead of repacking

[inland sphinx]

They are already using a collection, but they have their reupload/repack mod inside their collection

[vast stump]

[pastel delta]

What is the point of reuploading a mod without editing or cutting it?

As in, genuine question, is there any difference anywhere or anyhow

Other than controlling update dates

[frozen jackal]

"reducing the length of startup line" is the most popular I've seen right after update control

[cursive sedge]

there's no need to reduce it, that steam query issue was resolved

[frozen jackal]

I am well aware of it but people doing repacks apparently don't have that knowledge

[regal mountain]

The mod isn’t just repack, we have a lot of our original or edited things in there as well. The main reason we did this was to control updates (as said above) and so we can keep the collection looking clean (not having 30 extra mods that are like 5 mb). I only included things in the repack that I thought were okay, everything else is in a collection/dependency

[frozen jackal]

why would you need a "clean" collections if it's just for downloading stuff? You literally just have to click "subscribe all" button, bah, you can even add a html preset in the description if someone has to join the server through in-game browser, not by launcher

[regal mountain]

I mean don’t more mods affect performance and stuff

At least so I’ve heard

[frozen jackal]

you have heard wrong

it does not matter whether mods are separate or within one folder because it's just one folder

there's no magic behind that.

[inland sphinx]

badly made mods affect performance, whether you have one or many.
And you still have many mods, you just put them into a single folder. They don't become less just because they are at the same place

[elfin coral]

This one will be worth following, while the gameplay elements, visual or technical, by themselves are not copyrightable, taken as a whole this other title looks to me like an almost carbon copy.

https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2022/01/pubg-maker-sues-mobile-clone-apple-google-for-copyright-infringement/

Legal doc: https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/krafton-lawsuit-against-sea-apple-and-google.pdf

[chrome plinth]

The largest sites for the sale of 3D models Turbosquid and CG Traider blocked accounts of artists from Russia and Belarus. Withdrawal of funds became impossible.

[lean plover]

not to sound biased, but this might reduce the amount of ripped content on those sites

[long beacon]

Realistically speaking it would. but for the legit artists its now difficult time, because as i understand from friends in those countries, they pretty much exclusively work with western companies

[zealous ore]

while that might be true, there are other ways to limited stolen models besides blocking countries on their side

[lean plover]

That is very true, and I'd love to see others measures rather than blocking a whole country due to war sanctions

[frozen jackal]

after two years of being inactive on NexusMods I noticed they have introduced some internal currency that you can earn through people downloading your files and that can be exchanged for real money.

let's say I keep some Arma mods there, does it break the "no selling mods" rule? People download them for free anyway, but I would get revenue for those downloads, not just for me being alive like it's on Patreon

[meager fractal]

that's a trick question! I would say on first thought that you are not selling them (keeping them free to the end user) yet still getting money from it, but from the structure itself

worth a BI monetisation email shot I believe

[devout imp]

Might get complicated with dependencie's dependencie's dependencies. Like all those "ACE3 but without the medical system". Or re-skins of CUP or RHS mods.

Possibly a conflict of interests in splitting your mod into as many as possible too, if the metric you choose to measure is individual download count.

But yeah, it would be nice if some of the real heavy-lifters could get some revenue like the ACE team, RHS team or CUP team.

[willow crane]

Depends if they are your mods. If someone uploads other people's content without express permission... seems like commercialisation to me. And in this scenario exploitation, fraud-by-deception maybe too.

[meager fractal]

I trust you on that! My scenario assumed they were his own mods indeed.

[frozen jackal]

oh no, I'm talking about my own mods without 3rd party dependencies. I wrote the email anyway, hope I'll receive any answer soon

however I actually forgot to ask about retextures or even totally custom content but dependent on 3rd parties, but my guessing is if the author disallows any monetization then it is also applicable for getting the nexusmods' "revenue".

[zealous ore]

@meager fractal
https://cdn.cloudflare.steamstatic.com/steam/apps/1873540/ss_7634d9518d5b12e60f839c4b604cfd320a3b755c.600x338.jpg?t=1648097501
https://store.steampowered.com/app/1873540/World_Empire_2027/

Steam

World Empire 2027

Game Story

Price

$10.49

▶ Play video

[meager fractal]

lul
but that's #ip_rights_violations (BI stuff) I believe, can you send to [e-mail] pwease?

[zealous ore]

:)) no idea, dwarden has me confused - i will send an email, but please take care of this
#ip_rights_violations message

[meager fractal]

I wish I could nuke on demand 😄 @chrome plinth perhaps?

[zealous ore]

some/one of you can :))

[meager fractal]

amma ask additional hammer power

[frozen jackal]

i laughed so hard at that picture, lol

it has that mobile mafia game vibe.

[inland sphinx]

we know already, already forwarded it

[zealous ore]

cheers, one less email to send from my part

:))

[proper scroll]

What to do / who to contact when a server is hosting our missions without permission? (NOTE: Arma 2: OA/CO)

[vast stump]

Server provider I suppose

Should be possible to dmca that too

[proper scroll]

Yeah, I found their abuse e-mail and form with WHOIS and sent them a takedown request

[proper scroll]

Lol, now they're asking for help on #end_of_life_arma , I assume they're still editing our mission

[bitter umbra]

I was wondering, if I took the satellite texture from Livonia or Chernarus Plus from the game files and published it online for others to download, would that be an issue? I'm asking because it could provide some good examples for terrain makers.

[inland sphinx]

yes it would

cannot send game files to non owners I think says the eula

[bitter umbra]

Alright, thanks. I understand that. Just out of curiosity, what's the difference between what I wanted to do and copying BI's original A3 textures and putting them into your own .pbos? You can download addons with those textures without having to own the game. I'm not trying to argue, I'm just curious.

I guess you're not allowed to redistribute BI's original content (unless it's from the data packs) like those A3 textures in people's .pbos I just mentioned, but I've seen people do that anyway. Is it technically against EULA, but ignored/tolerated in some cases?

GDT Textures would be a great example. If I wanted to make a Greek terrain and use textures from Altis, I need to copy BI's GDT textures into mine .pbos and redistribute them. Technically illegal (I think), but people do it.

[inland sphinx]

Is it technically against EULA, but ignored/tolerated in some cases?
Basically yes.
Of course BI is modding friendly, so if you reuse our textures thats tolerated (though there is no reason for you to copy A3 textures into your own pbo...)
But if you just throw someone elses content, out on the internet, without the rights to do so, thats not okey

I need to copy BI's GDT textures into mine .pbos and redistribute them
why? Why can't you just reference BI's textures? I don't see a reason to copy something that is already there

Like if you take our music tracks out of the pbo's, and put them up for download on the interwebs, thats not okey.
If you copy them into your workshop mod, thats technically not okey, but practically unless you are doing something bad with it, its usually-ish tolerated. But you won't get any guarantee that BI won't take down your mod as technically you're still in the wrong

[bitter umbra]

why? Why can't you just reference BI's textures?
When it comes to GDTs and terrain making you really can't unless you create a dependency on the terrain that uses those GDTs you're referencing or overwrite it's clutter and surfaces. At least I'm not aware of third option.

But thanks for your answers, I think you've summed up everything I wanted to know.

[strange shadow]

You just copy them to your namespace

[cursive sedge]

https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/Arma_Reforger:Packaging_Process#You_are_not_the_owner_of_the_asset interesting 🙂

[coral raft]

Hey @lapis crown I dont consider your open ended question as recruitment. For all i know you could be asking me if i know of any good ones. Try better in the future please and thank you.

[inland sphinx]

Hey licensing question.
I have a mod that is a closed license, open source but basically no touchy for the most part.
That mod takes plugins, and I want to make a sample plugin thats MIT license, that requires/imports that closed license code via git submodule.
That shouldn't be any problem right?

Technically I should be able to do different licenses per source file right?
Like code in one source file is all like "yeah do whatever with it I don't care" and other source file is "no copying/reusing, no commercial use bla bla bla"
The end result mod will be a closed license, some source files will be closed license. But some select source files inside will be open.
So people can take that open stuff out of the mod and use it for their own purposes, but essentially not modify/re-release the mod itself

I don't think I've seen such a setup before. Usually everything is one license.
ACE has where some model files in one pbo/folder are seperate license.

[barren tartan]

Is the gitsubmodule referencing the original closed-source repository? In that case I think that would be fine as long as you are not really distributing it. (I would be wary of how Github handles. E.g. if I click the download button do I also get the submodule source tree?).

While in general you are always able to license individual parts as desired, I've never seen a conclusive answer to whether script and plugin based are considered derivative work. The following answers suggests that by default the mechanism used e.g. dynamic/static linking or interpreted vs compiled does not matter. https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/1579/when-is-my-project-a-derivative-work-in-an-interpreted-language/1580#1580 which makes sense considered LGPL specifically gives you the right to dynamic link for instance. So unless the closed-source gives have some clause that allows you to, I am not sure you can even make your own (derived) plugins MIT license.

[inland sphinx]

"E.g. if I click the download button do I also get the submodule source tree?)." afaik no. zip download doesn't include it.

So unless the closed-source gives have some clause that allows you to
Thank you, then I have to add that I guess

[dusky cliff]

I had a question about licenses.
if I use something that's under BSD license, do I actually have to publish the license along with the product?

e.g. zstd uses BSD. does it mean I have to make a readme or something in my mod folder and throw the BSD license clauses in there?
because it has this:

Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.

[dark tulip]

You can either add the license(s) to your own license file, with a header to indicate for which part it is. Or create a folder in your project with all the license files for each external source you use.
I usually do this for projects I release, unless the license is already included in some other way by default (like in my case it's included by default through the packages I download and include in the project).

[frozen jackal]

@pseudo spruce https://cdas.com/fair-use-in-gaming-content-faqs-for-creators/ about the fair use, tl;dr whether something is fair use can only be decided by a court

[pseudo spruce]

damn 😅

[austere fog]

@dark tulip its still not a valid reason to ban him from uploading mods if he didnt know he used stolen models atall. So it would also be ok to ban you if you would buy a stolen Gun model which you did not know about and use it in Reforger or what ?

[remote haven]

but the worst part is that they are not stolen models

[austere fog]

This whole thing does not seem fair Atall rn. it seems like he is getting banned for not using a Military Topic. since his models are not stolen. i have looked at all the links he send me they are from Valid sellers on known Websites so idk why you banned him.

[zealous ore]

did you read the license attached to one of the models?

or you are just running your keys because you can?

and how would you know if the models are stolen or not? did you see a receipt regarding a purchase?

[austere fog]

so thats now a reason to ban people. instead of telling him that it has the wrong license you go ahead an ban him from uploading mods.

everyone told him they were stolen models

they are not

they just have the wrong license.

also do you know what license he has gotten. you can upgrade on most sites

no you dont

[zealous ore]

not really, not about everything

[austere fog]

well why would he need to show a well on the sites he bought them on he can

[neat yew]

How do you prove that you made it, even if you "remade a masterpiece", you physically made it 1:1.

[austere fog]

well are you a BI empolyee? No you are not so why would he need to show you proof of purchase.

[zealous ore]

i didn’t ban him, nor can i ban him on workshop. It’s just BI who can, and it seems they did. There is surely a reason behind such an action

[remote haven]

NO, unjustified and unjust

[zealous ore]

considering you are not an affected party, i am not sure why you are making such a fuss about it

[austere fog]

how can he appeal then. since he obviously has gotten banned unjustified.

[neat yew]

contact BI directly, via email, nicely.

[austere fog]

why because iam also part of this community and i dont like people being mistreated for doing nothing wrong.

[zealous ore]

how would you know there’s nothing wrong?

[austere fog]

he bought the models on a site and got told he is using ripped models.

there is something wrong

[remote haven]

how would you know there is something wrong?

[zealous ore]

legal at bohemia dot net

[austere fog]

idk why you think its justified if you have no clue about it either

[zealous ore]

i never said it is or not justified. I said i find some question marks, i also think that it is not a concern of yours

[austere fog]

well how is it a concern of yours to prove me wrong. if you are not a BI employee ?

or why does this whole thing even concern you in general. if you are not a BI employee. idk Iam just here talking about this since it can happen to everyone ...

[zealous ore]

as i have told you after you sent me a dm, considering i haven’t seen any purchase proof, and i also see at least one linked to an editorial license, i cannot comment further on stuff i haven’t seen. I said from where i am standing, editorial license does not allow re-distribution and/or derivative work

[remote haven]

https://sketchfab.com/licenses

[austere fog]

why tf do you need to see proof if you are not part of BI

[austere fog]

ok then take that mod down but not outright ban him. for a 1 time offense.

[zealous ore]

i don’t need to see proof, and i have not seen any proof, nope

[zealous ore]

you need to check that attitude towards me, i told you i haven’t banned him, i haven’t asked for proof and it’s only bi who can workshop ban

and for the nth time it is not a concern of yours

[remote haven]

false

https://sketchfab.com/licenses

read..

[austere fog]

then why is it a concern for you I really dont understand why iam not allowed to stand up for someone who is clearly being mistreated.

[dark tulip]

Because the Licensed Material is not represented or warranted to be accurate, complete, **reliable **or free of errors, defects or harmful components, Licensee should examine all Licensed Material for possible defects (whether digital or otherwise) before downloading or using any Licensed Material for Reproduction. Without prejudice to Section 5 above, Sketchfab and Licensor shall not be liable for any loss or damage suffered by Licensee or any third party, whether directly or indirectly, arising from any alleged or actual defect in any Licensed Material, its caption or in any way from its Reproduction.
Even SketchFab states that they do not know the source or reliability of the content you buy/download from their site. So it's up to the buyer to make 100% sure it's not protected by copyright or ripped from anywhere.

[zealous ore]

you say he is being mistreated, i am saying he isn’t. now it’s up to him and him alone to contact BI directly if he hasn’t

[austere fog]

ok and how would one proof or disproof that its stolen or not. you cant.

[zealous ore]

it’s actually pretty easy

[dark tulip]

by not buying it when there is no proof provided with the bought assets

or even better; make it yourself

[remote haven]

https://sketchfab.com/stecki

[remote haven]

not in my skills

[frozen jackal]

that's why you're not the one banned

[zealous ore]

What is forbidden?

You may not use the 3D asset in a way that allows others to use or access the 3D asset as a stand-alone file (for instance, no sub-license or sale by you to others is allowed). For similar reasons, you may not distribute the 3D asset incorporated in a derivative work if the derivative work is too similar to the 3D asset (for instance, you may not print a 3D asset or a slightly modified version of it and sell it).

[austere fog]

waht has this to do with the topic ?

[zealous ore]

it is part of the editorial license from sketchfab

[remote haven]

but it's not a stand-alone file??

[austere fog]

also this is about reselling not sharing in the sense of a mod community. that would have been clear of you have read it fully and understood what it said.

[frozen jackal]

do you know what "for instance" means?

[austere fog]

and you do know that that paragraph is about reselling the model in derivative forms not redistributing it inside a mod.

[frozen jackal]

redistributing is not only reselling. only the example says about reselling. Read the page again.

[zealous ore]

i am well aware what an editorial license allows or not. Distribution inside a mod needs a minimum of attribution royalty free license.

[austere fog]

I just saw it was editorial i may have missed that.

but this could still have been handled differently. he is one small modder if someone would have told him that he is not allowed to use the models in a mod with the editorial license he would have removed them from the workshop. but seemingly noone said anything to him and just let it happen when he clearly posted progress pictures on this Discord before he released the mod.

[frozen jackal]

he could just read the license and learn that himself, we're not in a kindergarten

[zealous ore]

everyone is responsible for the stuff they upload. He didn’t asked, he wasn’t told

[austere fog]

so you think that everyone in this modding community outright needs to know everything. I thought this was also a learning environment for new modders.

[frozen jackal]

you have to ask first if you want to learn, not just do shit straight up and then learn post-factum

[austere fog]

still not a reason to just ban him without making it clear first.

[austere fog]

well he posted progress pictures and links. if he did not know how should he learn that thats the case. so in your world you are not allowed to make any mistakes or what ?

[frozen jackal]

I've learned to respect intellectual property and licenses in a worst way possible because I was in a court once, he should be thankful it's just a ban he can appeal for

[frozen jackal]

do you think people, especially BI, follows every picture posted on this Discord and guides everybody because they have nothing else to do? If he said "hey, I bought this model from XYZ.com and I don't know if I can use it freely because I never did this, can someone help me" wouldn't cause him the issue

modders tend to call all the "bought" work as OC and then cry about consequences of lack of knowledge.

[austere fog]

no but I thought this was a mod friendly environment where people try and learn everything there is but he was never contacted by BI nor did they ask if he had proof of purchase etc noone asked ever they just banned him. if they dont check the discord how would they have know that the models were bought but had a editorial license. they cant. so they just banned him without a reason.

[vast stump]

@austere fog I believe we were through this before?

[frozen jackal]

It's mod friendly but it's not a nursery. If you want to mod, do everything by yourself or spend your money and ask questions, even the dumbest ones.

[vast stump]

Skyrix is not new to modding or IP rights

[frozen jackal]

ignorance of the law does not absolve from compliance with it etc etc

[austere fog]

that may be but he tried to make things correct for Reforger by buying models. he made a mistake and did not read the license. And for that is being punished super hard by getting a perm. ban for the workshop.

[dark tulip]

sees Arma 3 mods on Workshop with similar bought models
I doubt someone who has been publishing mods for over a year can be called a new modder, but that's just my 2 cents...

[frozen jackal]

Ignorantia legis non excusat sounds even better

[vast stump]

I dont know what he has told you, but the models he had used have been traced to other ripped things he has used elsewhere years before. You are either trying to waste our time deliberately or you have been played to defend him.

[austere fog]

umm idk have you looked at the mods he uploaded and the links. I know he Ripped models for other games before but the ones he used for Reforger are different.

[vast stump]

They are not.

[austere fog]

they are. they are the ones he has links and proof of purchase of.

[frozen jackal]

what proof of purchase has to do with him not obeying the license? do you read what you write?

can you for once stop playing Saul Goodman and think?

[austere fog]

what kind of anwser was that i know it was not 100% correct what he did. esp. with the Editorial license. still this could have been resolved differently.

[frozen jackal]

he can easily appeal for unban and yet you spend your time defending it certainly knowing you can't do jackshit about it, because it's now a case for Bohemia. or for a court if he wants to bring it there

[austere fog]

so in your mind Iam not allowed to say what i think. or make comments o things.

[frozen jackal]

in my mind you should read what people are telling you, not blindly defend a ripper.

[meager fractal]

you are but, accept when you are proven wrong

[austere fog]

in what way am i proven wrong. he bought the models that had a wrong license i understand that.

[meager fractal]

if you state "warning before pure ban", OK, it's heard.
if it's anything else, let's drop it

[austere fog]

thats all i want. to let people know and let them resolve it before a ban

thanks

[meager fractal]

sorry if I didn't read it all, it was a big wall of text and it also comes after another mess in #ip_rights_violations , sooo let's say I'm a bit tired about IP thingies

but again, correcting people, yes
defending rippers, no
and I believe we are on the same page 👍

[austere fog]

yes we are.

[inland sphinx]

sees Arma 3 mods on Workshop with similar bought models
You don't see the stuff that was taken down because it was ripped from CSR2

[cursive sedge]

https://www.reddit.com/r/arma/comments/vkwl4h/as_some_predicted_the_internalised_mod_system_of/ 🙂

[meager fractal]

oh no!

[hard ravine]

Reddit moment

"conspiracy by BI against life servers"

[static obsidian]

I have a question about a mod published under GNU General Public License v3.0. This license allows for modification and redistribution of the original code as long as the new code is also released under the same license, correct? If I repack it (author has explicitly allowed it as long as you obey the license), do I have to license my entire mod under GNU General Public License v3.0, or do only those PBOs from the original mod have to be licensed under GNU General Public License v3.0?

(for arma 3 ^)

[cursive sedge]

If you don’t need to make modifications then add it as a dependency instead?

[static obsidian]

I was wanting to repack it with attribution for simplicity but if that's not possible them I'm fine just not having it. It's a nice to have mod, not an essential one.

Oh, actually, forgot to mention this in the original post. I'm interested in repacking it not just for simplicity, but also because I want to run the optional PBOs for the mod which reduces some of the graphical effects for more FPS. So adding it as a dependency won't work as I'd have to have my guys manually enable the optional PBOs.

[heavy gate]

@zealous ore pinging you here because its off topic in #ip_rights_violations :
What would be a legal way to do modpacks? I assume Arma3Sync or sth simliar but aren't these technically also unlicensed uploads (albeit a lot less public).

[frozen jackal]

Mod authors usually restrict their mod distribution to publicly accessible repos, an A3sync instance for your server members does not fall into that category

Ik I wasn't called out but that's what I was told few years ago

[vast stump]

some might want only their steam release to be used so there is no universal answer to that

[pseudo spruce]

a3sync is the less "ilegal" way, but its not 100% legal either...
creating a mod, with only propose to have all dependency for all mods you need is the closest, but is far from perfect for steam and arma launcher issues.

but there is no point here really, ppl keep saying mudpacks are useless when is the most common ip right violation issue on arma 3 steam workshop, and there is a ton of ppl using arma3sync, witch afik it was discontinued like a long time ago.

a real solution of this could be have a reference of a mods and version of them inside a folder, that steam does the job to download and fill, link

myModpack:
/ace_modid_version
/cba_modid_version

and when you download it, steam fill all the folders downloading the mods in that folders.

But this need to be a steam based solution, something that valve will never do ( because to be honest, don't worth it)

[dark tulip]

Technically it would be possible for Valve to have multiple revisions of a mod (applies to Enfusion Workshop as well), and give each an unique ID (or subID).
However mods should be good enough be run the latest version at all time, even compat mods by third parties (can be solved when modders would communicate).

A3sync and similar tools are just leftovers from pre-Arma 3, and there's no real reason anymore not to use modlists for Arma 3. Unless you really want to annoy your playerbase with outdated mods (or stuff which can't be public)...

And yes, I understand the "we have a mission now, but half of the people just got the latest update and now we can't play together". It's annoying, but not a reason to create re-packs or annoy devs with old issues because the server didn't update their stuff...

[heavy gate]

Technically mod should be good enough to run the latest version.
Our public servers with their steam mods prove the opposite, always some mod that updates while forgetting to update bikeys etc.

For OP nights we use A3Sync and being in cotrol of when updates happen makes it so much easier.

[inland sphinx]

Technically it would be possible for Valve to have multiple revisions of a mod (applies to Enfusion Workshop as well),
Valve is already doing that
And if oyu can get the manifest ID, I think you can even download older versions?

[fiery egret]

Yes, you can

[pliant valve]

I'll tell you what, outdated mods were /Never/ the issue in any units I've been in, it's /always/ been mods randomly updating right before or during mission night that fucked the operation and set it back for hours, making it so we'd lose half of our European players that night, all of which was solved by forced configuration of modpacks through a3sync.

Forced mod updates is dumb, has always been dumb, and will forever be dumb.

[vast stump]

From mod maker stand point, outdated mods are problem.

In long run (and in my opinion and skirting IP issues too) something bothering mod maker trumps something bothering the user. As if mod maker loses interest in modding users lose mods.

[pliant valve]

Disagree entirely, mod makers have zero, absolutely ZERO say in what I do with my computer and the content on it. If they want to tell people who are using outdated mods to update or sodd off, that's their prerogative. Having to sit at my computer, 24/7, watching the workshop, so that people can play on a server without constantly being locked out from playing on it due to mismatching mods, is going to make players leave. This is especially problematic with servers that don't persist over restart, you either spent an hour trying to downgrade some ones mods, to get them playing or erase all progress so you can redo just that thing in an hours time all over again.

Server Admins, should be, the only ones that have any say in what mod versions are loaded, if they only want to update on a weekly basis, that should be the case.

I'd still be playing a dozen other games if they did not have forced updates, now I just don't because I'm not spending 24 hours minimum reinstalling all my mods for those games and ensuring it runs stable again.

[vast stump]

Future says, we play vanilla when modders are gone.

🧙‍♂️ 🔵

[pliant valve]

Honestly if putting a disclaimer on your workshop page saying "Use latest mod version or no support" is too much of a bother for you, maybe not be a mod author to begin with.

Not once in my now 9 years hosting servers for Arma 3 have I ever seen or heard a community member go directly to the mod author about bugs, it has always been that they go to the server staff team about them, who go to said mod authors, and they all know if a mod is outdated or not, and if it has received an update they simply don't report it but instead either update the modpack and test if it's resolved or wait for the next patch day to roll it out.

[inland sphinx]

The people who play in a unit often don't know what version they are running.

If they have nothing to do with mod management and installation, but are a player that has an issue with a mod, chances are they'll go to the mod author

[pliant valve]

Never seen that happen in a unit that I have managed, we had one that said he was going to report it, but got told to simmer down and it was a known issue with the current version, the problem we had is if we had updated said mod it would've rendered our server useless due to a server crash it caused. Which, is exactly why server admins ought to be the ones dictating what version is running on a server, and not the mod author. Because as turns out, the mod mentioned above worked fine on its own but crashed the server when loaded with another one of our mods, which we reported and the mod author kindly fixed.

[willow crane]

I wasted 9 months chasing down a repetitive signature and compatibility problem caused by someone's refusal to update their mod pack.

Version control is an issue for mod makers. Especially when the reporter keeps slagging you off. Claiming your mod is "shit/corrupt/poorly coded" and so on when in reality they are using an unsupported or modded version.

I can see both sides but you have to remember modding is a hobby. A lot of people don't have the time or the patience to support anything but their current version.

Scream and shout all you like but all its going to do is piss off the modders until they leave.

[pliant valve]

I understand that, and it's entirely valid not to support any version or none but the current one.

[willow crane]

Find a way that satisfies everyone and you will be a hero.

[pliant valve]

Really simple, do it the way my unit does it, make it part of introduction to tell them not to report any bugs on their own and only report it to our operations department. They know better than the average player.

[vast stump]

applies to well organized units only though. which is only a narrow slice of userbase

[inland sphinx]

If I don't want people to use old versions, I'd just add a version check in my mod and annoy the shit out of the users for updating.
But with SQF that is kinda hard to do

[dark tulip]

if modders keep version numbers in their configs that is... which isn't a problem with well build ones, but those also don't have (as much) issues with updates

[fiery egret]

And then your server holding the "curent version number" goes down and so does your mod and everything that depends on it 😛

[inland sphinx]

If you're a bad programmer, yes 😄

[fiery egret]

inb4 "and remember to add this dummy line to C:\Windows\System32\drivers\etc\hosts, otherwise you won't be able to play on our server, due to our specific modset" 😛

[inland sphinx]

There were life servers that did that

They blocked the Arma3 website's domain

[fiery egret]

B-but it was meant as a joke!

[pliant valve]

Wait, does that even do anything??

[cursive sedge]

Read TXT records from DNS, then DNS dies

[fiery egret]

Wow, i didn't think of using DNS entries for that! 🤯

[dark tulip]

version.txt on GitHub and a secondary location should be enough, and a lot easier than trying to implement a method to read DNS headers 😉

[inland sphinx]

ooooor.. when you cannot fetch current version, you just do nothing

[cursive sedge]

That’s crazy talk!

Remember to have a 5 minute timeout as well

And block game start until resolved

[inland sphinx]

[pastel delta]

I don't see how this makes any sense.. As in literally. Could you elaborate?

The first part of the msg

[fiery egret]

I wasted 9 months chasing down a repetitive signature and compatibility problem caused by someone's refusal to update their mod pack.

[vast stump]

That's about it yes

[pastel delta]

I thought you meant from a "mod making" pov

But if somebody wastes 9 months without once checking what version of the mod the issues happened with... the problem is probably somewhere else than smby choosing to use an old version

[dark tulip]

it's not uncommon for developers (not only in modding) to spend massive amounts of time on finding a bug while it doesn't exist anymore, and that can take weeks/months/years

[fiery egret]

You know, it's always so simple on paper 😉
Been there, done that 😳

[dark tulip]

especially if the reporter is not giving you the correct answers...

[pastel delta]

If the reporter is absolutely certain that there's an issue, but you're not seeing it, nobody you know is seeing it, and according to the code/config/etc there shouldn't be such an issue - I'd fairly quickly say that the problem is on the side of the user, not the mod

Only exceptions I can think to this are stuff that can be very different for everybody, such as things related to game engines. Luckily however, those are not the issue at hand

[meager fractal]

can we move this chat to #offtopic_arma though? as it is not really IP-related anymore. thanks!

[pastel delta]

It's the benefits of things like version control, A3Sync, etc - isn't that IP related?

[vast stump]

Is it just me or does this "blame the mod maker" just feel absolutely bonkers? I totally stand by my estimate that vanilla content is what future holds.

[meager fractal]

I would say Version Control is not (always/especially) IP-related
Also this conversation is now "how are bug reporters sometimes unable to report/comply properly"

[pastel delta]

Fair

[pseudo spruce]

ACE3 has almost 1 million suscribers, and on github has 3500 bug reports, its well known a lot of ppl use older version of ace, beacuse changes like medical system and other stuff annoy a not large, but significant playerbase.

So ill like to filter how many of that 3500 bugreports are from ppl using an older version of ace

so i dont think the outdated version reports its a real issue, and going back to the "modpack" or alternatives solves all this problems in one shot ( and you cant change my mind here, because in years managing a milsim unit, changing to a3sync solved a lot of compatibility issues, even the steam freakout that want to download all the mods again)

Also, if there is bug issue, ppl will complain with who made the pack, not with the modder itself

you dont see the use of it? fine, but for some of us, version control of mods its a needed feature, and ill like to do it with out breaking any rules, doing it on steamworkshop will be much more confortable than use a3sync

[austere hare]

Your group is clearly more well behaved than the average then.
As a mod maker myself, I’ve been on the receiving end of many players from a single group hammering my workshop pages with hate because an update to another mod or the core game resulted in issues when using out of date versions of my mod.

[pseudo spruce]

how many? different groups? how they know it was your mod if its on a pack?
i mean, im not saying that not happen, but as i said, ACE has 1 mil subscribers, and a lot of ppl use legacy versions of it, and even if you assume the 3500 bug reports are from this legacy versions, its a really small proportion, so justify it with it, its a nonsense.

also, with a3sync you can share ripped models, with a modpack created with a version control insde steam workshop will be better in this way too... and as i said before, arma3sync its 100% legal either, since you are distributing the mod outside of steam, something that a modder can be against it.

[austere hare]

3 different occasions that I can remember but probably more in total - mod making is exhausting so you generally try to block out all the crap that comes along with it.

It’s pretty simple for people to complain to the original maker as the pack generator will normally have a whinge at some point which seems to provoke that group into the abuse torrent. They go to your site, see images of all the gear that they normally use in WS page images

Also, I don’t think arma3sync is legal in all circumstances - isn’t any unauthorised sharing of IP is a breach? It’s just kept much quieter/less public than other means.

To receive this kind of crap just once it totally unacceptable so I strongly argue your point “so justify it with it, it’s a nonsense”

Clearly you’ve educated your group better than many others and I thank you for this.

[cursive sedge]

Looking at ACE slack history will reveal many complaining about issues when they are using an outdated version

[pseudo spruce]

I didn’t say it not happend, It’s a small proportion

[pseudo spruce]

The first thing supper ask you when Troubleshooting on electronics is “is connected?”

Idk what mods you made, but I will be surprised if you didn’t have a complain for a missuse or some other stuff messing with your mod… we had to make a template to filter this too

i had an unpopular opinion on this topic, and i dont see this going anywhere, thank you for taking your time and keep it civil, this topic is quite sensitive here

[cursive sedge]

I think for ACE the most common issue was that they had subscribed to "wrong" item on steam workshop

[pastel delta]

Unfortunately any topic that goes against what some modders say is very sensitive here. "Modders above all" & "they might stop modding!" are both such silly arguments that contribute alot to a lack of growth.
Having an official, well working, and "IP rights Friendly" way of version control for mods would be a godsend for the vast majority of the community

Worst case scenario of adding such a function would be making it optional - where those who don't want it can turn off version control for their mods.
Maybe they'll get 1 less bug report per year, or maybe they get less people using their mods as they don't want to have a ruined scheduled mission, and instead use alternatives from more sensible people

[cursive sedge]

if turning it off would be an option I think most of the larger mods will do that 😛

because investigating issues because someone didn't update just sucks

[fiery egret]

And I think that the biggest issue is with these larger mods, actually 🥲
(because people wouldn't complain that they have to redownload 300MB at the last minute, before the scheduled game)

[pseudo spruce]

ACE with some "unwanted features" is a problem too, like weapon cook off.
it ruined a mission to us becase it was updated a few hours before the mission...

using mods like ace as reference for this argument is kinda wrong too, since ace schedule its updates, but less popular mods ( like mines) i pull a random update, and even with a bug i didnt notice at the moment.

So be capable of say when to update is a important feature too

[cursive sedge]

I think a sensible middle ground would be for outdated versions to be purged after say 30 days automatically by the CDN. would save bohemia a lot of costs as well 🙂

no last minute updates, resonable time for groups to make timed updates

[pseudo spruce]

yea that will be perfect

[south remnant]

you can literally just disable it in your server addon settings

r.e ace weapon cook off

[pseudo spruce]

yes, but if this happend 1 hour before your mission and you didn't notice this change in change logs, you wont have time to change that before.

[south remnant]

if you dont read the change logs to rather essential mods before youre about to host an operation thats on you

and you absolutely do have time to change that before seeing as its literally a single click in the settings

[fiery egret]

Until cyberbrains become a thing, people will make mistakes, be it forgetting to read the changelog or reading it but missing one crucial line 🙂

[fiery egret]

Actually, a "release on X" scheduled update kind of thing would be nice. Modders could push an update and be done with it, and it could be previewed by anyone for X amount of time and then automatically released for everyone.
Yes, modding groups can do it by themselves, manually, but such a feature would be nice anyway

[south remnant]

It's still an easy fix within the mission, though. Literally click disable addon 🤷

[cursive sedge]

I like the idea but I don't really see the need for it as long as server can pin version

[pseudo spruce]

server can pin version, but players dont ( i mean, you can disable autoupdate on steam, but thats a quite complicated step, since it disable for all games afaik)

[cursive sedge]

ah, I was thinking about reforger, not arma 3 😄

[pseudo spruce]

if i join a server with a mod with a newer version, it downgrades to join?

[fiery egret]

That still could be helpful as server owners would then be able to decide whether they want to pin that version or not, based on the release date

[cursive sedge]

It’s probably broken atm but that would be resonable. Or keep multiple copies.

[fiery egret]

Ugh... I can't imagine having 4 RHS copies 😬

[cursive sedge]

Still ”pinned” while its running 😉

[cursive sedge]

With smart storage the delta wouldn’t be that big

[cursive sedge]

make it even smarter. autopin to latest version unless specified. add notification, for all or admin, once one or more mods are outdated. let admin choose to update and bump the pinned version.

if server goes past the X days grace period for old versions, autobump

[pastel delta]

I'd say other way around. Size doesn't matter, rather issues and problems do - Larger mods usually know what they are doing so it won't happen, but smaller mods may delete or change a classname, or altogether delete a pbo.

Also issue is that server needs to be updated, not clients, and in larger units or cummunities that might not always be an option. So clients can't connect

Another thing is when a mod does update and breaks its keys - and that happens way, WAY too often

I'm honestly surprised by how somebody who isn't new to modding can fuck up something so simple. And so often too

[fiery egret]

Size doesn't matter
That's what she... nevermind! 😛
It sadly does when you have a 10GB RHS that updates before the game and people join at the last moment (or are even late to the party). I remember one of our players telling me that he won't be able to play with us that one day because the update is going to take roughly 10h for him (I don't even want to know what kind if internet speed he had 🙄 )

server needs to be updated
We literally had a !update_server discord bot command for that so that was a non-issue for us 😉

[pastel delta]

Our community did read the change logs. Onfurtunately default ace weapon Cook off was a stupid high % that make M249s cook off after 50 bullets. Other guns very quickly too. This case he brought up is a perfect example, no way to blame users for "muh changelog"

[pastel delta]

We have a bot that announces mod updates and pings server managers too - but that doesn't solve the issue of availability. We're hundreds large with 15 server managers, and still sometimes nobody is available to solve the issue, esp when an update happens way before a mission start

A simple solution we sometimes do is do a little illegal action of uploading the old version of the mod to smth like Dropbox so that ppl can use it for that one mission. That is only possible however with small mods, since you can't reupload 25 GBs of mods in a timely fashion))

But you're right, a mod like rhs, 3cb Factions, cup or a CDLC update is problematic as the update is very big. However its usually justified since its a large amount of new content & happens so rarely.
Different thing is when a mod updates with this in the changelog:
"added North Korean localisation"

[south remnant]

Step 1: read changelog an hour before
Step 2: test massive feature change
Step 3: alter accordingly

its not on mod developers to compensate for you

[pastel delta]

God, how did nobody think about that? You're so smart, man!

Mindblowing solution from young Einstein here!
Now read again what is being said. Nobody said mod makers need to compensate or adjust to others

[south remnant]

Great then you'll agree you don't get to upload someone elses content somewhere it has not been approved

[pastel delta]

It also often doesn't work..
And causes problems when you need to right-click repair a 100+ mods modpack))

[fiery egret]

Large mod releases update half an hour before the game (this actually happened)
Step 1: read changelog an hour before Cannot do
Step 2: test massive feature change Cannot do
Step 3: alter accordingly Cannot do

you'll agree you don't get to upload someone elses content somewhere it has not been approved
That's why you can ask for approval btw 😏

[pastel delta]

What do you mean you can't completely change and test a mission in 30 minutes?!?!?!?!??!!!!!???

[fiery egret]

Btw I'm just trying to point out that things are much more complicated in practice than they look. There will always be edge cases

I still think that scheduled releases would help everyone plan ahead, even if it was by DMing players "RHS/Cup/Whatever is going to update 5h before the game; remember to update your mods early enough!"

[pastel delta]

It would indeed be an improvement, but still an issue for those who have scheduled OPs beforehand. For them it would instead be "scheduled doom")))

[cursive sedge]

IMHO you shouldn't make any changes to mods X amount of days before an event. depending on internal or external that X can be 1, 7 or more 😛

[pseudo spruce]

something i like from modpacks in a3sync is only 1 person manage the servers of an entire group, if you have 30 players, its 30 posibles mistakes, so this version control, even with the 30days limit, will be awsome, 1 moth is more than enought to read the changelogs

[fiery egret]

And if I release an update to my mod, as long as it's not a hotfix, I don't really feel the need to make everyone use the latest version. I'd be okay with letting everyone update in 3 days, as long as I don't have to be there to push the "release" button at 3am 🤷‍♂️

[pastel delta]

Don't think that's something anybody can account for, if you mean mod updates

[cursive sedge]

1 person sounds like a bad bus factor

[cursive sedge]

sure there is, don't use steam workshop 😛

[pastel delta]

True))

That's how some communities i play with do it, and it's really nice, but unfortunately not an option for everybody

[cursive sedge]

that's how events were done in ofp 20 years ago and it still works 😄

[pastel delta]

Even less than a month would be fine too. A week is more than enough for people to change anything I can think of.

Worst case scenario of things that happened but all combined:
CDLC updates, ACE medical rewrite, ACE weapon Cook off added, jBad breaks all classnames, and 5 mods update and break keys

All of those things are realistically solvable within a week

That way it's cheaper for steam/bi and solves the problems discussed)

[pseudo spruce]

1 person stupidity is less of the sum of 30 others lol, experienced players haven't so mouch trouble, but its thought to new ones, so make it simple for them is the priority in my case.

[proven magnet]

As long as you have someone else who can step in if the proverbial bus is in the wrong place