ideas Add criteria for "MODs"

[ArelyelKrele]

Lately I have noticed (and so have several other members in the VPU community) there have been several low-effort MODs being released on VPU. And it's upsetting the community that these MODs are getting approved when, for one these MODs largely do not actually improve the table, and two VPU has a perfectly good remixing tool that can be used instead.

 

I would like to request that VPU institutes some ground rules on what is classified as a "MOD", and anything that doesn't fall under that classification is rejected if attempted to be submitted as a MOD (and instead, the author directed to use the VPU remix tool instead and submit as a patch). This is regardless of an author's designation of whether a MOD can be freely made or if it requires permission first.

 

My suggestions for classifications of a MOD (OR, e.g. so long as it meets one bullet, it is allowed as a MOD):

• A complete re-theme or re-skin of another table (not just visual enhancements; for example, a Spongebob table re-themed as a Fairly Oddparents table is a MOD, but a Spongbob table which has had enhanced graphics or lighting is not a MOD [that would be an "upgrade" instead and should use either the remix tool, or better yet, passed to the table author for release as an update to the original table]).
• When a table's core game play (modes, multiballs, wizards, etc) has been modified to the point one can reasonably consider it its own spin-off of the original (e.g. a Spongebob table can be released as a MOD, and still be Spongebob-themed, but only if its game play is significantly different / unique from the original).

In all cases, a MOD should also be required to include credits to all the authors and contributors of the original table from which was modded.

 

Why do this? It's to cut down on the number of table downloads (low-effort MODs should not be their own entire table uploads), it's to give respect to the original author (VPU remix patches still require the original table, so the original author still gets a download hit / comments / ratings), it's to respect what the true definition of a MOD is in game development, and it's to save on bandwidth and disk space for VPU's site.

 

What do you all think?

Edited September 4, 2024 by ArelyelKrele

[falumpagus907]

I agree with you.. it's giving big-us. I also believe that any contribution is a net positive. That said, maybe creating a new sub section for the mod category might be the best way to go about this.

[CarnyPriest]

I agree that routing the various sewer pipes to  sub-categories is the best approach. The example is that there is a special sub-category for Mature Content for the modders (it's always just one or two people) that believe that nothing more is needed to improve a table than slapping cartoon titties all over it. And "u r gey" if you don't care for it.

 

LED Mods would best go into a special sub-category, "LED Mods", which can be popularly known as the clown puke channel. There's a years long thread on the phenomenon at Pinside: https://pinside.com/pinball/forum/topic/no-rainbow-puke-club-post-pics-of-worst-color-gi-fails These mods can be swept into its own special pile for people who don't think these detract from playfield legibility in the base table.

 

It's not a perfect solution. I wouldn't know where to place the nudie LED mod with the "updated" physics that help toddlers keep the ball out of the drain.  

 

The thing to remember is Sturgeon's Law, "90% of everything is crap", not just table mods but also music, movies, consumer products, clothing fashions, medicines, buildings, restaurants... everything! Even 90% of VPW work is crap. They are a great team with motivation, an experimental spirit, and a process for self-improvement. They can really polish a turd. It's still a turd if only because the underlying real machine was kinda crap to begin with. 90% of pinball is crap and always has been. Just like everything else. 

 

The corollary is that something far less than 1% of anything has universal acclaim and something far less than 1% of anything has universal derision. So, we are all arguing over which 10% is not crap. VR mods are crap to me because I don't have a VR setup. I'm not enthusiastic about the "kid patch" mods. I remember having a great time playing on unmodified real machines in the 70s when I was a kid even though I was just batting the ball around. But, those patches would be great for allowing access to tables for players with a disability. I'd have a quick change of heart about them if I found that I needed something like these. 

 

If you are concerned about quality then it is fair to post feedback and constructive criticism in the support thread for the mod... as respectfully as you can (which can be really hard, I know) and hope that it won't be taken personally. Alternatively, I think it is fair to be a curator. Go ahead and publish your award list of quality work members should know about. And it is fair to publish your raspberry award list for subpar, less than mediocre, art. I don't think that you would be talking out of turn to post serious criticism as topics for community discussion. Personally, I'd love to see someone's list of top Pup Packs. There's gotten to be so much crap to wade through in that area. Internet star ratings are... NOT helpful.

 

VPU Remix System in theory seems like a nice solution in that it was a way to keep development on a table going without waiting for approval from the base table author that likely had simply disappeared from the scene. In practice, it's not so good for modding. If the base table is updated and replaced then the patch is objectively and totally useless. Either the modder has to create a new patch or the old patch sits there wasting space and wasting people's time. It would be bad if there were a bunch of truly useless patches accumulating over time. At least that uploaded mod is playable even if the base table has moved on or has been re-built.

 

Also, we need to remember that for the admin and moderators this is a volunteer, unpaid gig. Given how large and active the community is, they can't be expected to spend time verifying with authors if so-and-so got permission or to recognize from the hundreds of projects who nicked what asset from which project. They just have to assume at least initially that modders are following site rules and appropriately contacting authors. Like how things work with the cops and the Law in practice, not much gets done unless a specific complaint is made. Members should demand sources and citations if they are missing from a mod description. Modders should be able to describe exactly what has been modified. Authors should speak up and identify bad actors if they care to. There are legitimate reasons why authors would restrict mods. Typically, they still have plans to update/upgrade, so it would be saving a modder effort wasted on an, as yet, unfinished project.

 

Moderators can't be expected to be gatekeepers for what is worth hosting and what is not. Again, we are not going to come to an agreement on which 10% is not crap.

 

I would not worry too much about space and bandwidth. It seems like these generally get cheaper over time, and in the ten years or so that VPUniverse has been around, I've not heard of any issues with the site not keeping pace with the growth of the community. 

 

  

[Wildman]

1 hour ago, CarnyPriest said:

Also, we need to remember that for the admin and moderators this is a volunteer, unpaid gig. Given how large and active the community is, they can't be expected to spend time verifying with authors if so-and-so got permission or to recognize from the hundreds of projects who nicked what asset from which project. They just have to assume at least initially that modders are following site rules and appropriately contacting authors. Like how things work with the cops and the Law in practice, not much gets done unless a specific complaint is made. Members should demand sources and citations if they are missing from a mod description. Modders should be able to describe exactly what has been modified. Authors should speak up and identify bad actors if they care to. There are legitimate reasons why authors would restrict mods. Typically, they still have plans to update/upgrade, so it would be saving a modder effort wasted on an, as yet, unfinished project.

 

Moderators can't be expected to be gatekeepers for what is worth hosting and what is not. Again, we are not going to come to an agreement on which 10% is not crap

Hit the nail on the head right there  And dont forget that 90% are just leechers, no comments or interaction with the community but are the biggest complainers .

They dont understand what free time means, volunteer, cause I like making things, most think we owe them something for nothing LMFAO  🤣🤪😜🤣..

[ArelyelKrele]

Those are some good points. I'd still argue, however, in favor of my original proposal. Low-effort MODs should not be deserving of detracting from visibility (and download hits) of the original table author. But they do because they are full table files (except when using the remix tool, which is why I'm advocating for it; you still have to go to the original download which means you see the description and are encouraged to rate / comment on it... and you contribute a download hit towards the original table / author which boosts its rankings on VPU).

 

I'd be happy to change my position on the matter but I request that someone rebuttal that point with something that could resolve the above issue (or just flat-out telling me I'm wrong and why).

 

It might be expensive for VPU to do, but considering the limitations of the remix tool, I would be in favor of the site grouping MODs together with the original table file (if that were possible somehow). E.g. a "sub-download" or a "sub-file". The idea would be the following:

• More visibility to the original table because you have that parent-child download relationship
• A download of a child file (e.g. a MOD) would also count towards its parent (the original table), thus the original authors still benefit with rankings.
• However, ratings / comments on the child download would NOT count towards the parent download; you could have a great original table but someone makes a bad MOD, and vice versa.
• On the rating / comments section of a child download (e.g. a MOD), a message prompts the user that feedback is for the MOD specifically. And they are encouraged to leave feedback on the parent download (original author) as well... and a link is presented to that.

[Supergibson]

Yeah, it's a tough call. Honestly I don't think there's a perfect solution. I'm not sure it's even a question of low effort or the quality or the significance of the change. Contributions to the community, whether they are to yours or my tastes, are still contributions. But maybe we need to find the right home for them. Maybe we need to just add more categories instead of trying to define criteria. We want to encourage people to try things, to participate, to learn. But at the same time we want to maintain the integrity and quality of the amazing tables that are being produced which take immeasurable amounts of time and effort to create. 

 

As mentioned above, Using remix means that any mod done with that tool will get broken with any version changes/updates on the original table or if that table file is pulled by the author. 

 

Being able to post mods in appropriate sub-categories but with an actual table file would be preferable. This way updates to the original file don't break the patch.

 

Maybe part of the discussion should be the type of mod. Maybe we need a few more sub categories of tables and mods that clearly delineate things.

 

1) Recreations

2) Visual Mods

3) Retheme/Reskin

4) Functional Mods  (changing or adding functionality)

5) Physics/Sound Updates.

6) VR room additions/modifications

I'm sure there are more...

 

As this community continues to grow, we need to figure this out. The whole premise of VPX is the creation and sharing of tables that can be moded/upgraded/improved by other community members. This is how we got to where we are today. If we start putting up walls to innovation, beyond the unwritten rules around timelines and modding of originals and such,  we may stifle the progress we have been making in the effort to protect the current product.

 

Like I said at the start, there's no perfect solution.

[LynnInDenver]

There's another issue that people aren't considering with regards to the patch tool... and that's when it's based on a table at VPForums. And not because those could be updated and, again, break a patch.

 

VPF has had at least two major backup issues over the past few years that forced an almost one month rollback of downloads and forum attachments. Given the lack of movement I witnessed over there in terms of bringing that site up to modern standards, I believe it's a matter of when, rather than if, they suffer a catastrophic and unrecoverable crash.

 

This doesn't mean the patch tool doesn't have a place - the VPF issue would only really impact the posting of Funhouse here - but it still impacts any decision to actually use the patching tool.

[RabidUrko]

Clown Puke Channel sums up LED for me.

[CarnyPriest]

On 9/6/2024 at 2:17 PM, RabidUrko said:

Clown Puke Channel sums up LED for me.

 

It's bad. Real bad. But to be fair, the modder does post before and after screenshots. Users can judge for themselves.

 

The sad part is that I sometimes see questions/requests for table support in these mod release threads. Good luck with that. The original authors are never going to see those. *Sigh.

[VPinWorkshop]

VPW's stance on mods of our tables is that if it's a reasonable mod we'd prefer to roll it into the options on our own version (with full credit obviously), this means that when the table is updated, the mod gets updated with it and you don't have the 10 versions of Attack From Mars all out of sync with a variety of fixes and issues..

 

However we'd sooner not discourage people getting into modding no matter what the mod is (within reason). Everyone starts somewhere and learning the VPX editor enough to make, for example, Ejse's LED mods is a good start to being able to make some real improvements to tables that could do with it, and as Wildman says actively contributing the this free hobby should be applauded.

 

And in regards to the LED mods specifically, if you look on real life pinball tables you'll see that plenty of real pinball owners happily put them all over their real machines, taste is a matter of... taste, we'll stick to how machines came out the factory ourselves but there's obviously a market for it.

 

Six.

 

[RabidUrko]

Each to their own i guess, but i like my virtual tables to be as near the original bar/arcade release as one can get.

I want an emulation of the actual factory released table as near as can be, its why virtual pinball appealed to me from 2000 +, not for the tables to be mutated, no matter how much work goes into

the mutation. 

 

Please note noone until above mentioned anyones name, my view is on the LED scene as a whole.

It isnt about discouraging anyone , and i am sure some work goes into any mod, but im not going to say i like something when i dont.

 

 "we'll stick to how machines came out the factory ourselves" <<< because you know the bigger "market" is to stay true to the original factory releases.

If it went that all that was being created were LED versions id sell my cabinet.

Edited September 16, 2024 by RabidUrko

[Supergibson]

I think we should branch recreation tables into two streams similar to how B2S are done with Authentic and Fantasy. If properly categorized like that, people could be free to release as actual tables and not be subject to the pitfalls of the VPU Remix tool.

 

Authentic: Tables as real as possible. Functional mods for general improvements allowed in this category by default. Visual improvements, lighting, physics, etc.

 

Fantasy: Any additions outside of the original machine. Kid mode, alternate lighting, alternate playfield or artwork. Colour mods.

 

Thoughts? Would that resolve the concerns?

 

Side note: @VPinWorkshop - I understand your desire to stick to one version and to amalgamate positive changes into your next versions. Allowing people to publish their mods would not stop you from then asking the author of the mod to include it in your next release. We need to make it easy and welcoming for new creators to make mods and share them. Whether they are fantasy or authentic. Whether we like the look of them or not.

 

Now for the crazy thought: There are a few groups of very talented creators that have come together over time to work together for the greater good of tables. VPW being the biggest player in this space. What if we create a sub-category of VPX Releases for these larger groups. This would give VPW a place to host their creations within the current framework of VPUniverse while maintaining control of their versions and removing any version confusion. You want to download the latest legit VPW version, go to their folder/category.

 

Does that make sense?

[iaakki]

Originally vpw was not put up to release anything. We only aimed to help authors to improve their own releases. We failed that plan and started making our own releases and started bloating the servers and spreadsheets.

 

But even more thorough idea was about having everything in some version control system. I desired it could be Git, but there was no easy way to utilize it. Just because vpx file format is a binary blob. VPE will allows co-operation in git and this will open up an approach where all the mods etc could be just branches to the mainline table release. Main could be the default factory setup and each mod could be just a separate branch or even a commit you could add into your version. This would have improved the community a lot and there would not be any debate about what is considered as a mod and what is about stealing free content.

 

Of course all this should be made as user friendly as possible also, so it would need some UI where one just picks up which mods you want to be loaded into your cabinet. 

[RabidUrko]

Marmite, but ill never be forced to eat something i dont like.

Edited September 16, 2024 by RabidUrko

[Zimond]

8 hours ago, VPinWorkshop said:

And in regards to the LED mods specifically, if you look on real life pinball tables you'll see that plenty of real pinball owners happily put them all over their real machines, taste is a matter of... taste, we'll stick to how machines came out the factory ourselves but there's obviously a market for it.

 

Six.

I fail to the see the appeal of these. It's like erasing the unique atmosphere of each table and turning them into the same thing.

Edited September 16, 2024 by Zimond

[trueanimus]

I think they look pretty good. Most tables dont really capture the essence of the arcade with simple lighting and layout.  The LED mods look pretty cool and i usually add the original table in to my lanchbox and then a separate copy for mods, plamodels, puppacks etc with a rom change name so they dont interfere with the original one. The only mods i have no use for are the kid ones, but to each his own.

 

Have to admit... some are really good, like the T2 LED mod (T2 was such a boring looking game without the reflections from the rest of the arcade on the glass) and the LED mod really brings back memories and looks great (to me anyway)

[ArelyelKrele]

Some good suggestions here. I ultimately think what @iaakki suggested would be the big solution to the issues. And I do recall Freezy mentioning VPE may support a git-like collaborative environment regarding table development. That is a huge need in the VP community and I think will not only make dealing with Mods easier but table development as a whole.

 

But VPX can't support that. As mentioned, it's a BLOB. And BLOBs don't work in source control except on a binary comparison. But for 99.9% of us, we have no idea how to do that. So the categorization ideas might work on the VPX front, of course ultimately up to Dazz on how that works on VPU.

 

Regarding VPF, not entirely defending them, but so long as they have backups and hardware to run the IPB version they run, they can always recover, even if they lose data in the process. I wouldn't count on a catastrophic failure anytime soon. More crashes though? Absolutely. They need to update their site badly. But VPF is still a critical part of the VP ecosystem and have many tables and authors that aren't anywhere else (even if that number is decreasing).

Hey, maybe they should contact me for assistance? I am a web developer, after all.

 

VPW/Six has a good point. A lot of us might not like certain MODs but a) A few do, and b) the point is to encourage others. I'd also be the kind to prefer (though with the requirement of consent) merging in someone's improvements into my creations so long as they followed the vision of the original table and improved on them. That way, as mentioned, there are less versions and less confusion.

I'm the type who prefers organizations and standards (not everyone is like that, but I'd imagine some can share in that respect as well). And with "MODs" seemingly becoming more a blurred line as to what they are, it is the reason I brought this issue to attention.

 

On 9/16/2024 at 2:06 PM, iaakki said:

We only aimed to help authors to improve their own releases. We failed that plan...

I know this is a side topic but... Even despite having been in the group a little while in the past, although I'm aware of the original intent of VPW, I don't know where things went wrong / changed. How did VPW fail / change there, and what can be done / learned from that experience so we the VP community can ensure we're helping each other out, especially new and emerging authors?

 

 

Edited September 20, 2024 by ArelyelKrele