Most of us here make mods but also subscribe to them as well.
Perhaps we could all start categorizing our mods and commenting on other peoples mods so we all know what we’re subbing into?
Example;
A non-Core mod that does not need to be introduced to a fresh map and won’t destroy save games can simply be labelled “Non-Core Mod”.
Whereas a mod which involves a modified map or likely requires a fresh map to be “Core mod”.
Any ideas would be great because I feel like it’s a hit and miss when I’m testing and personally I’d feel a bit safer knowing exactly what i’m about to download.
This could also be beneficial for when mod managers are implemented etc so that a mod can be easily identified by the method in which it was created.
I have a feeling quite a few people would end up categorizing it incorrectly too…which I could see some problems with potentially. But I do think we should try to implement this or something along the lines of this as a community. That way we can ensure maximum compatibility, and our fellow Arkian’s can be happy campers
I’m very happy with how well the community is working together already! What a great suggestion TroJan!
Was thinking the other way around also… a “core” mod implies a change to the core of the game… which would radically impact existing worlds (engram points already spent no longer usable, tamed dinos that exist that are no longer obtainable because they are replaced by remaps).
A non-core mod would be something that changes the periphery of the game… adds some extra dinos/strctures/mechanics… and can be safely removed without “losing” stuff like engram points, tamed dinos etc.
My focus is going to be on non-core personally. Was hoping we could alter (rather than remap) “core” blueprints… to do stuff like rename dinos, remove tame damage multipliers etc… but as clarified by WildCard this capability won’t be available.
Anyway… I do agree it would be good to start defining categories for mods… and setting a practice on how to inform people/admins what the map does or will do if you remove it.
I agree and that does sound like an interesting mod(s) you’re working on
Perhaps we as a community could comment on mods we subscribe to in an informative manner (to the other users and also to the author him/herself), by specifying the difference in it’s comment section on the workshop?
As I see it now we have 3 categories:
Complete Overhaul - Most existing content changed. Requires a vanilla world & save. Period. Core-mod - Some existing content changed. Most likely requires a vanilla world & save. Use on existing saves/worlds with caution. Non-Core - New content added, existing content unchanged. Integrates with current save and world without affecting otherwise normal game-play.
Could work on our signatures on the forum as well.
Generally agree, though I might substitute or add the below verbiage to make clearer:
Complete Overhaul(most existing content changed) - Requires a new save/world file. Period.
Core-mod(some existing content changed) - Most likely requires a new save/world file. Use on existing saves/worlds with caution.
Non-Core(new content added, existing content unchanged) - Integrates with current save/world file without affecting otherwise normal game-play.
I would also add that new save/world files be managed from within the game/mod selection screen so the user doesn’t need to technically know which files to move/rename around on their file system.
Stackable mods probably raise another set of questions depending on how they are implemented. My guess is the safest route is to always create a new specific save/world on a specific key/combination of one or more mods.
What about maps which don’t change anything like Complete Overhaul or Core-mod?
Then we would have these catergories:
Complete Overhaul
Core-mod
Non-Core
Map
Also there should be a tag stackable tag which tells people that the mod should be working when stacked on anotehr mod. For example someone uses a map, stacks a Complete Overhaul mod on top (highest priority) of it and then chooses to load a stackable Non-Core mod to add a few extra items.
I think a map category is redundant, since a map intended for the vanilla game would just be a non-core mod, and maps with more interesting features are the same as the other categories.
I have sorted the concept into 3 different ranges (see my signature).
In this case “Overhaul”, is a mod category that deems the mod unfit for stacking. As far as I’m aware regardless of which root mod you use, an unstackable mod will conflict with another mod (such as an overhaul which replaces read-only data that another mod will require to read from and fail).
There are mods that aren’t stackable but may alter things another mod doesn’t touch. This is what a “Dirty” mod is. It’s unsafe to stack but it may work. Clean is obviously a mod which adds entirely new objects which only reference default core Ark files. As a result any additional mods will NOT conflict with each other.
A lot of people won’t know that stacking mods has a certain requirement, I don’t see why the concept is redundant?
Note in my signature the labeling is different now.
Feel free to note it somewhere on the mod description . I feel people will start looking for that tag more often in time anyway.
I am not really sure, whether I understand clearly the concepts core content. Maybe I will copy TheIsland map for adding a new clutter_layer and that is the mod. Is it clean then? Because existing content is unchanged, but new is added?
And when I add new actors (animated) and ressources, is it an overhaul? Or could it be a clean and a dirty mod also?
