Reusability, Ports, and Author's Returns

Benji said:
Honestly, I just hope that I'm not breaking the rules just because of mods like are broken and have to be fixed by me or someone else. I just care to have a good time and if this helps with that, then I'm on board.

I do have an interesting question. Can someone port a pack that changes map or thing IDs to be better compatible with other packs? It's really small and something that can be fixed without modding the pack directly, but if mods were more plug-and-play then the game and mods would be more accessible for normies. It has been a while so I don't know if SRB2 or Kart have fixed the map ID problem, but I hope you see the point I'm getting across.
Click to expand...
In my honest opinion, it can be justified. Hypothetically lets say there's a super old KartZ map you wanted to port.
We have a community-maintained spreadsheet of all the Map IDs, and a lot of them are taken up. It's reasonable to want the port to work alongside a lot of the maps so we'd probably allow you to change the ID for compatibility sake.

It's also just an ID, changing it doesn't affect the experience or intent of the addon. If anything, allowing users to change it just allows for players to enjoy such ports alongside other addons with minimal risk or incompatibilities. Like the example of a photo being put into a new frame; it won't affect the actual product.
 
Damn, I wasn't expecting a change like this to happen anytime soon. But this is a really nice change, it'll be nice to see more old stuff given new life. (preferably without any modder harassment or spite)
 
Octosquid said:
This is an amazing change. Now there won't be any big arguments and people getting mad anymore! (hopefully)
Click to expand...
Considering this is part of the Sonic community...ehhh I'mma hold on to my cross just in case, everything else is cool tho!
 
Oh, that's a great change! Authors and porters were always part of this discussion, but I always felt most bad about players having to walk on their toes just to play on the Master Server. Many players are just kids or not active community members, and there's no simple list on what's "illegal" or not, so I always thought it unfair that the burden fell on them.

This alone doesn't eliminate that issue entirely, but it's a great step!
 
A surprising change to the status quo, but I suppose quite a welcome one. Though I want to inquire further about clarificiations as to the naming scheme that's been laid out.

  • In terms of, for example "ex_Thing_v2.1" becoming ported into "ex_Thing_IsaPort", how would the naming scheme go about version numbers? Would it have to be the same with "ex_Thing_IsaPort_v2.1" as per it trying to be a port? Or numbered like a new version(especially if it's allowed to take creative liberties for updating), either as "ex_Thing_IsaPort_v2.2" or "ex_Thing_IsaPort_v2.1.1"? I've even had an associate bring up the possibility that the original version number not being included and starting from scratch as a sensible solution, basically going from "ex_Thing_v2.1" to "ex_Thing_IsaPort_v1.0"
  • Pertaining to the naming scheme requiring the porter's name, the example in the OP has a shorter "CharybPort" as opposed to "CharybzidsPort", indicating that there's leniency in allowing shorter names as opposed to having to deal with files like "ex_Thing_NotablyPrettyCrazyPort_v2.1", and thus can instead use something like "ex_Thing_CrazyPort_v2.1" I'd like further clarification as to how lenient the shortening can be, would it allow for acronyms of a long username such as "ex_Thing_NPCPort_v2.1", or much shorter nicknames if it's a name a user is commonly referred as, IE "ex_Thing_NotPort_v2.1" due to me being commonly referenced as "Not".
  • Similarly, if a user that ported a wad happens to change their name, as occasionally happens in this community, would the port have to change its filename in accordance incase it needs to make an update? IE "ex_Thing_OldNamePort_v2.1" into ""ex_Thing_NewNamePort_v2.2"
  • Furthermore, let's say one party(in this example "Isa") ports an old wad to SRB2 2.2, thus ending up with "ex_Thing_IsaPort_v2.2", and then let's say yet another party(for example "Nova") ports it to SRB2 2.3, using the previous Thing as the basis for the new port, would the 2.3 wad have to reference both the porters like "ex_Thing_IsaPort_NovaPort_v2.3", or can the 2.3 port just be called "ex_Thing_NovaPort_v2.3" while making sure to credit the porter of the 2.2 version wherever else possible?
  • While the OP clarifies "We won't be hosting duplicates of the same mod", there may yet be variance between different ports, and the creative liberties those take when updating a wad. One example I can cite is SRB2 2.1's ports of Hinote - There was a port that buffed her moveset, including giving her lua abilities usable via the custom keys, due to 2.1 adding lua and thus allowing further flexibility for it; and another that strived to be as accurate to the original 2.0 version as possible. Would similar potential cases be considered for the upload process? Allowing both an enhanced version of a wad, as well as a more purist, historically version to be simultaneously available? Presuming the former was given permissions for adding said creative liberties, of course.
 
Hopefully this means the heated discussions and arguments can stop

1713104354603.png
 
I can't believe the staff actually made this decision! Great work guys! I love the fact you guys make it clear of it's "unofficial"ness and make sure to keep it faithful to the original. I'm so glad one of this community's biggest problems has been resolved (at least to an extent). High praise to both Charyb and the staff for making this change. Hopefully we can see some faithful and well-made ports of older mods in the future1

Good job guys. We did it. :wonderful::sadthumbsup:
 
I also want to say something else, and I actually never wanted something like the Workshop. I don't like Reusability becuase yes it did protect artist's rights (and thats fine) but it went too far. I believe ports without the author around that is faithful is fair game, and it's nice to see the staff realize that. I don't agree with edited mods, but ports are something else and it was dumb that people grouped the two together like they were the same.

I won't rant too much since this isn't the WS thread lol
Point is, glad to see people realize that ports are not the same level of edited mods and ports with heart are fair game.
 
In many ways, this must be a huge change to the whole MB, cuz people enjoy assets for a fangame and we are all free to modify the way we mostly play
 
idk if it said anything about this in the post but what if you wanna port sonething from a ded user AKA inactive user like Jman?
 
KitKatiscool said:
im so happy to see the mods actually care for the community for people who make ports except for trying to nuke their city when they make one
Click to expand...
contrary to popular belief, we don't want to restrict or attack our own community. We've been taking small steps to make this site better and it's culminated to this new announcement.

We always wanted to overhaul the rules to be healthier for the community, it just takes a while to plan these changes. Even now we haven't finished updating the Submission Guidelines.
 
What if an old map uses a thing type or texture in which a newer version is available? Would we have to port the old type or could we just replace it with the newer version?
 
Pikaspoop said:
contrary to popular belief, we don't want to restrict or attack our own community. We've been taking small steps to make this site better and it's culminated to this new announcement.

We always wanted to overhaul the rules to be healthier for the community, it just takes a while to plan these changes. Even now we haven't finished updating the Submission Guidelines.
Click to expand...
what would this mean for the users who got banned for porting such as sonic1983 etc
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Who is viewing this thread (Total: 2, Members: 0, Guests: 2)

Back
Top