Selection criteria for UMC Pack Project

Discussion and development of scenarios and campaigns for the game.

Moderators: Forum Moderators, Developers

alep
Android Port Maintainer
Posts: 159
Joined: June 24th, 2013, 6:22 am

Re: Selection criteria for UMC Pack Project

Post by alep » May 4th, 2016, 2:06 pm

Aldarisvet wrote:I have awesome news!

Alessandro Pira (alep in this forum), the author of Wesnoth android port, agreed to include our UMC Pack to his Wesnoth 1.12 android port (that is available for free in Google Play ). His port have cool installation pack selection system, you may choose whether to install or not - mainline campaigns pack, sounds pack, language pack - so nothing hard in adding UMC campaigns pack there also. Actually that was a reason I was suggesting that Pack idea from the beginning. There would be no need to change anything in wesnoth code, only to android wesnoth installation application.
Yes, I am looking forward to to include UMC campaigns in android package listings.
Just, as I said to Aldarisvet I will be able to patch/upgrade UMC campaigns only when upgrading wesnoth release too (i.e. on 1.12.6, 1.12.7 and so on...).

User avatar
loonycyborg
Windows Packager
Posts: 273
Joined: April 1st, 2008, 4:45 pm
Location: Russia/Moscow

Re: Selection criteria for UMC Pack Project

Post by loonycyborg » May 4th, 2016, 2:49 pm

Aldarisvet wrote: To say short: status quo is insufficient. In the situation of poor interface of the add-ons server and very poor feedback flow authors can simply lose enthusiasm (and this game survives only because it provides a space for creation). There is a little hope that something would be mainlined in near future, and moreover, mainlining 1 campaign in 4 years would not change the situation at all.

My first reaction when I saw the content of the add-ons server was: and they really think I have to dig in that? Just compare interface of Google Play and our add-ons server.
And the point is that if people even aren't looking into mainlining campaigns then there's little hope someone will be up for making a pack of campaigns in the project. Either there aren't any campaigns that devs are willing to endorse or not enough developer time is available for reviewing campaigns. I myself aren't even a WML developer, I contributed in a different way. But to me it always seemed that wesnoth has the best support for third party content out there. Most games even don't have an equivalent of addon server. Publishing on addon server and getting feedback on forums is the way it works currently and as far as I saw it works well enough. There is always room for improvement, mind you.. Maybe adding support for browsing associated forum topic in game would approximate google play's comment section.
"meh." - zookeeper

User avatar
pyndragon
Posts: 89
Joined: February 20th, 2013, 10:10 pm
Location: Midwestern United States

Re: Selection criteria for UMC Pack Project

Post by pyndragon » May 4th, 2016, 3:47 pm

Aldarisvet wrote: To say short: status quo is insufficient. In the situation of poor interface of the add-ons server
Plot twist: there is an on-going redesign of the Add-ons interface.

Edit: I just now noticed that zookeeper already mentioned that here, but based on the WIP I've seen I'm fairly excited for it.
AKA pydsigner
Current maintainer of The North Wind and author of Heroics Mode.

gnombat
Posts: 226
Joined: June 10th, 2010, 8:49 pm
Contact:

Re: Selection criteria for UMC Pack Project

Post by gnombat » May 4th, 2016, 4:19 pm

loonycyborg wrote:There already is a way for developers to endorse a campaign: by mainlining it. Any "developer approved" pack would be wholly redundant considering that wesnoth already contains a builtin pack of campaigns. Most of current "official" campaigns started as UMC that got mainlined with author getting commit/push access to wesnoth repo.
I think a selected UMC pack is actually better because it gently introduces players to the concept of add-ons and user-made content. Sure, you could mainline some more add-on campaigns - but once a campaign is mainlined, it is no longer an add-on (and most players have no idea the campaign started out as a UMC campaign on the add-ons server).
loonycyborg wrote:But to me it always seemed that wesnoth has the best support for third party content out there.
Generally Wesnoth has good support for add-ons and third party content, but the user interface to the add-ons server is pretty confusing, especially for new users. For example, almost every other program that supports add-ons has some way of highlighting selected add-ons as "featured".

For example, Firefox shows "Featured Add-ons":
firefox.png
WordPress has "Featured" and "Recommended" plugins:
wordpress.png
NetBeans has "Certified" plugins:
netbeans.png
SuperTuxKart uses a little heart icon for featured addons:
stk.png
In contrast, BfW just presents the user with an unsorted list of several hundred add-ons.

User avatar
doofus-01
Art Contributor
Posts: 3788
Joined: January 6th, 2008, 9:27 pm
Location: USA, the civilized part.

Re: Selection criteria for UMC Pack Project

Post by doofus-01 » May 5th, 2016, 3:32 am

gnombat wrote:In contrast, BfW just presents the user with an unsorted list of several hundred add-ons.
Well, you can filter down the add-on results significantly, though I guess if you are seeing it for the first time, it is probably discouraging and not as intuitive as it could be. But it is better than it used to be.
alep wrote:Just, as I said to Aldarisvet I will be able to patch/upgrade UMC campaigns only when upgrading wesnoth release too (i.e. on 1.12.6, 1.12.7 and so on...).
I'm not saying that's not understandable, but that does seem to further the schism between this "pack" and the other add-ons, not really doing the add-on system any favors. Maybe it depends on how you actually package it, I guess we'll see. :)
Aldarisvet wrote:I just wonder, wasnt you against mainlaining Dead Water or what also was mainlined last for the same reason?
I have no idea what you are talking about, and am not sure what it has to do with what I said earlier.
-----------------------------
(And regarding what I said earlier, I didn't mean to come across as hostile to those campaigns I mentioned. They are nice, but so are many others.)
BfW 1.12 supported, but active development only for BfW 1.13/1.14: Bad Moon Rising | Trinity | Archaic Era |
| Abandoned: Tales of the Setting Sun
GitHub link for these projects

kurt751
Posts: 232
Joined: June 4th, 2016, 11:17 pm

Re: Selection criteria for UMC Pack Project

Post by kurt751 » June 23rd, 2016, 11:20 pm

Sorry to chime in, being just a humble newbie player. :oops:

I was attracted by the topic since indeed, the Add-On server is quite overwhelming. Lots of stuff, little information, and in my experience from other games' user content the stuff offered can range from a quick & dirty hack to a pure jewel justifying a game on its own, passing by things which will break everything and make sure you'll spend a nice afternoon reinstalling everything... :roll:

What I would think would be a nice addition to the Add-On server (and would make choosing stuff for an UMC pack much easier) is grading. Something like you get on the Android Play Store (but less easy to cheat). I've noticed you get a golden laurel wreath around the finished campaigns; This wreath should also unblock the possibility to give the given campaign a grade from 1 to 5. So, content which has an average grade of over something (and more than a given minimum of voters) automatically qualifies for the "Top of the crop UMC pack". Democratic, and not requiring much work. It does require additions to the game engine and the add-on server though, I don't know how easy is that.

Post Reply