To MOD Or Not To MOD

[Hatch]

To MOD or not to MOD

That is the question before us fellow players, this thread started at the Sonalysts forum, but it was suggested by some contributors to the discussion that it be moved here to continue a spirited debate.

I say Not to MOD, the prevalent reasons I stated for my stance were mainly rooted in the fact that MODS were created by amateurs and tinkerers not fully qualified to mess with the natural order of life, which is to rewrite the developers behavioral code to seemingly fix bugs which they (the Modders) thought ought to be fixed or remade according to their whim.

An opinion that validated To MOD, was offered by a gentleman who described opting for a MOD when a developer ceased to produce patches for a sim to correct bugs present from the original design, in lieu of the developer’s support, a lot of gamers do opt to go for a MOD, never thinking of the consequences that it can bring to the gameplay, and why not, their computers integrity, one can not discard the evil intentioned modder to include a virus or Trojan or whatever into the MOD to disrupt or even damage your rig. I remember one MOD made for Falcon 4.0, where during the mission loading, it displayed pictures of babies in the center of the screen, though it was harmless, it serves to illustrate how easy it is to infiltrate your system by blindly trusting a source not reputably established (A Modder)

Then there are online gaming groups that as a prerequisite to join their ranks one must have a MOD, be it because in most cases it was developed by someone in its ranks, or because its high command decided it that way for their own reasons.

My only suggestion is that there shouldn’t be any MODS, other than an amateur tinkering with its original design for his own learning purposes(This is not an insult to Modders, they are by definition amateurs and tinkerers, not professionals), I don’t see any other reason than maybe to have bragging rights in front of his peers in a chat room or forum In order to gain notoriety from an unsuspecting group of bystanders who get duped into believing that that person has the “Right Stuff” to best the original developer, sort of like saying “In your Face”, I’ll prove it to you, how many online gaming groups use the MODS?

A very small fraction of players, why? Because of their unreliability and because most players are extremely weary (As am I) of changes made by someone who claims to have the know how to do it, yet his/her credentials wouldn’t stand a simple audit by an educated source. Oh there have been improvements designed for online gaming that in no way affect the game’s parameter behavior, such as the Seawolves Enigma communication program, or their tweaking of the crew complement and sub improvements, but they never ever designed or promoted a MOD, they are not to be trusted.

In all honesty, in my time of playing online games, which dates back to its beginnings in 1989, I’ve only seen one MOD (of the games I played) that was widely accepted, and that was the NATO MOD for Rainbow Six, I heard of MODS for Falcon 4.0, Mechwarrior and many others, but they never went past the testing by a very tiny number of players, and usually they were acquaintances of whomever had designed the MOD, who subsequently engaged in interminable discussions as to its applicability and usefulness, until they tired of it when its audience failed to grow and eventually moved on to the next game that came out, and the MOD, inevitably faded into obscurity from whence it came.

To put this in terms you can understand, the success of an application be it a MOD or any program for that matter, is its acceptance and implementation by the general public, other than that, they are just experiments, that plausible they maybe for its designers interest and good will to improve on a game, they generate false expectations to a small audience which sooner rather than later, realize that it will go no further than a futile testing which in the end yielded nothing, excuse me, it killed time which would have been better spent playing the game as their writers intended it to be played.

In conclusion, MODS are a poor excuse to supplant the original developer of a game because “my game was forgotten and further patching ceased” thence “I’m going to force the situation and find someone who can patch it for me, I’ll show them”

So there is my opinion, if you want to contribute to this debate, I urge you to please refrain from flaming anyone, the aim here is to gauge different reactions and opinions regarding this issue, its purpose is to maybe help define a standard of understanding among players so that it creates a plateau in which all players meet using the same version of a game (An unreachable Utopia of course), thus increasing the probabilities of you finding a fellow player to engage with in a game easier. Who knows, maybe someone with a 3 watt light bulb in his head will convene a council which would have as its defined job judge the appropriateness and therefore usefulness of a MOD and make recommendations to the general public To MOD Or Not To MOD…

So lets have it, take your best crack at me…

[Ramius]

of changes made by someone who claims to have the know how to do it, yet his/her credentials wouldn’t stand a simple audit by an educated source.

So lets have it, take your best crack at me…

So, let me get this right in my head - you don't like mods for games then ???? :rotfl:

Fair enough, thats upto you. Each to their own.



So I guess you are putting yourself forward as the "educated source" then. So test me :yep: :yep:


http://img86.imageshack.us/img86/5092/100pxdonotfeedtroll6ll.jpg


btw. You missed an option from the Poll - By those who know what they are doing and get the assistance of the games makers to do so :up:

[Hobnail]

Geez dude, you'd be more happy with a console methinks.

[TLAM Strike]

Proud to be an “amateur tinkerer” despite my computer programming education.

[Hatch]

of changes made by someone who claims to have the know how to do it, yet his/her credentials wouldn’t stand a simple audit by an educated source.

So lets have it, take your best crack at me…

So, let me get this right in my head - you don't like mods for games then ???? :rotfl:

Fair enough, thats upto you. Each to their own.



So I guess you are putting yourself forward as the "educated source" then. So test me :yep: :yep:


http://img86.imageshack.us/img86/5092/100pxdonotfeedtroll6ll.jpg


btw. You missed an option from the Poll - By those who know what they are doing and get the assistance of the games makers to do so :up:

Nope, I never claimed to be the trained professional to conduct such a test sir, but I was hoping for a more in depth intelligent discussion of the subject of this thread, including views as to why you do like the MODS or feel you are qualified to claim you can do a better job than the developers in reprograming the game, from what i can see, this is going to turn out to be a wash out as your only response is "just because".

My mistake. :damn:

[OKO]

why you do like the MODS or feel you are qualified to claim you can do a better job than the developers in reprograming the game

SCS just doesn't have enought time to change everything wrong on this simulation.
why is there so much wrong things ? because this simulation is probably the most complex ever made, and because sonalyst is NOT a company with lots of people to develop this simulation.

this doesn't mean stock DW is full of error, this mean, MODDERS could improve the stock DW by working on specific aspect where SC didn't had enought time to improve.

Why ? because they (modders) are enthousiast and informed about lots of things, things where sometimes SCS didn't want to lost time to correct some "errors".
And I agree with them, their job is to solve the main bugs, as they actually do, not to improve the realism factor.
just because this could be made by ... modders.

let SCS debug and modders modding.
And we are going to live in a great world.

As beta tester, I exactly know what I'm talking about.
I know also SCS enjoy the fact there is modders to IMPROVE this game.

So, in this story, you are the only one contesting this fact ...
I hope now you have more informations about it, you will better understand the situation.

it's a complementary works, not antagonistic work.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

My mistake. :damn:

Yes, it is your mistake, coming in as a newbie to a mod forum filled with dedicated modders to post your view that, to put it bluntly, Mods SUXORS (to use crap Internet vernacular). At the very least you could put it in the Users forum (the main one), since that's where the guys who don't with mods might reside. Anyone here plays with mods almost by definition and loves it.

My answers would be specific to DW mods:

The "division of labor", so to speak, is clearly delineated in DW. Modders can change the text files (doctrines and databases) as well as 3D models, but not the main program and its DLLs (at least they can't distribute it - no one can stop them from changing their own copy). That greatly reduces the chance of a trojan being transmitted. We can't even change enough in the program to change the Weapon Loadout interface's titles. I think you have little to worry about from trojans or even Easter Eggs from the DW mod community.

A modder is generally closer to the applied side of the game than the developer. This allows them to clearly see some things the developer doesn't. For instance, Sonalysts knew the cable for a dipping sonar is hundreds of meters long. Yet for some reason they decided it was better for gameplay to limit it to IIRC 400 feet (I'm not exactly a helo player; having toyed with everything but the helo...). That move did nothng good for either realism or gameplay - now it won't go through many deeper layers, to say the least. Let's just say a modder fixed that.

Same with the VLAD buoys - by increasing their depth, we have something that will go through the deeper layers, as well as providing a real reason to use both DIFARs and them.

There are also times when a quick check would identify mysterious errors. I was pretty stunned when I walked into the DB one day and realized that almost every Russian SSM, even the Sunburns and Switchblades used doctrines made for nonseaskimmers, which made the missiles fly way too high = vulnerable to shootdowns. Let's just say I had to go change that. If this is some kind of realism error, it should be changed, no? If this is some kind of gameplay, well, I'm not sure how this is going to improve gameplay, but gamers can better decide whether they like "gameplay" or realism.

Some people actually apparently saw real Akulas and/or their diagrams and came to the conclusion that the stock 3D model doesn't come close to it. Are you telling me their eyes are fooling them?

Sure, for all of this maybe if we beg Sonalysts it may eventually all get changed. But why? They can, as OKO noted, use that time developing the main program - improved sonar models or actually detecting masts that stuck above water, or improved handling of objects travelling at >55 knots, or new interfaces, better ballast controls - all things we CAN'T control. Few of us can do that stuff in the first place and it is now blatantly clear no one can change that stuff legally. Might as well do the stuff we can ourselves and let SCS do the stuff we can't.

There are also other considerations in MP than reliability or even the quality of package.

Suppose we have a mod package that everyone in the know agrees is decisively superior in all respects to the original. Even then, many people won't mod. There will always be the Suspicious, like you. And there will be even more Ignorants who never go to a BBS to find out what mods are available.

To put it on a reduced scale, I use LW's mod and go on to make a few refinements here and there. But when I go MP, I'd have to revert to LW's mod, or even the Stock.

The MP community faces the same dilemma. Everyone has the stock version stashed away somewhere. Not everybody has the modded version. This is where what one may call a quality vs quantity dilemma comes in. Does a community want to force its players to mod for a superior gaming experience?

Or do they just want more, on the theory that more players = more good players and good players are more important than realism improvements (after all, DW is a long way up in realism from 688 Fast-Attack, but many people played that too).

[Hatch]

My mistake. :damn:

Yes, it is your mistake, coming in as a newbie to a mod forum filled with dedicated modders to post your view that, to put it bluntly, Mods SUXORS (to use crap Internet vernacular). At the very least you could put it in the Users forum (the main one), since that's where the guys who don't with mods might reside. Anyone here plays with mods almost by definition and loves it.

My answers would be specific to DW mods:

The "division of labor", so to speak, is clearly delineated in DW. Modders can change the text files (doctrines and databases) as well as 3D models, but not the main program and its DLLs (at least they can't distribute it - no one can stop them from changing their own copy). That greatly reduces the chance of a trojan being transmitted. We can't even change enough in the program to change the Weapon Loadout interface's titles. I think you have little to worry about from trojans or even Easter Eggs from the DW mod community.

A modder is generally closer to the applied side of the game than the developer. This allows them to clearly see some things the developer doesn't. For instance, Sonalysts knew the cable for a dipping sonar is hundreds of meters long. Yet for some reason they decided it was better for gameplay to limit it to IIRC 400 feet (I'm not exactly a helo player; having toyed with everything but the helo...). That move did nothng good for either realism or gameplay - now it won't go through many deeper layers, to say the least. Let's just say a modder fixed that.

Same with the VLAD buoys - by increasing their depth, we have something that will go through the deeper layers, as well as providing a real reason to use both DIFARs and them.

There are also times when a quick check would identify mysterious errors. I was pretty stunned when I walked into the DB one day and realized that almost every Russian SSM, even the Sunburns and Switchblades used doctrines made for nonseaskimmers, which made the missiles fly way too high = vulnerable to shootdowns. Let's just say I had to go change that. If this is some kind of realism error, it should be changed, no? If this is some kind of gameplay, well, I'm not sure how this is going to improve gameplay, but gamers can better decide whether they like "gameplay" or realism.

Some people actually apparently saw real Akulas and/or their diagrams and came to the conclusion that the stock 3D model doesn't come close to it. Are you telling me their eyes are fooling them?

Sure, for all of this maybe if we beg Sonalysts it may eventually all get changed. But why? They can, as OKO noted, use that time developing the main program - improved sonar models or actually detecting masts that stuck above water, or improved handling of objects travelling at >55 knots, or new interfaces, better ballast controls - all things we CAN'T control. Few of us can do that stuff in the first place and it is now blatantly clear no one can change that stuff legally. Might as well do the stuff we can ourselves and let SCS do the stuff we can't.

There are also other considerations in MP than reliability or even the quality of package.

Suppose we have a mod package that everyone in the know agrees is decisively superior in all respects to the original. Even then, many people won't mod. There will always be the Suspicious, like you. And there will be even more Ignorants who never go to a BBS to find out what mods are available.

To put it on a reduced scale, I use LW's mod and go on to make a few refinements here and there. But when I go MP, I'd have to revert to LW's mod, or even the Stock.

The MP community faces the same dilemma. Everyone has the stock version stashed away somewhere. Not everybody has the modded version. This is where what one may call a quality vs quantity dilemma comes in. Does a community want to force its players to mod for a superior gaming experience?

Or do they just want more, on the theory that more players = more good players and good players are more important than realism improvements (after all, DW is a long way up in realism from 688 Fast-Attack, but many people played that too).

Mr. Kazuaki, thank you for that eloquent description of what is you do to the game. Yet it served to validate one of my points, and that is one of acceptance by the general public, as you patently put it, you have to revert to the stock game for MP playing, there is no unison in version usage, MOD or not MOD, further, you also validated one other concept I put forward, and that was the tinkering with the program for your own personal use, the only consensus as you put it was the patched developer stock game, which clearly outlines the plateau where all gamers can meet in a leveled arena of playing. Which is one of the points I described on my initial assessment?

As for the suggestion of SCS not having enough time to tweak the realism models, I think it’s a weak argument; it certainly does make a convenient one to validate the Modders existence.

A picture is emerging here my friend, and that is; if the tweaks you have made to the realism model are as good as you describe, certainly as obvious as you describe, and if there is a consensus of players regarding those changes, the problem here is one of distribution and acceptance by the general public, what you have here is a situation of non endorsement by the manufacturer to convince skeptics such as me, and thousands of others, that the changes do warrant their implementation to further better gaming, I for one would be delighted to try another patch or fix, provided the developer avails itself to approve that work.

I’m assuming that Sonalysts is unwilling to underwrite your work for whatever reason, be it secret (Which I think its ridiculous) to one of man hours spent reviewing your work, and do you know why they do not avail themselves to underwrite any MOD? It isn’t because it’s a top secret changes you made to a game, its one of credibility and corporate image, to put it simply, this is what people would say “Oh SCS, them guys are selling a buggy, unfinished game, and a bunch of hackers, amateurs, tinkerers and Modders had to finish it for them with their approval, and those guys didn’t get a dime for finishing that product, so SCS made out like a bandit, yet we are paying full retail price” all of this yields a dilemma of credibility for all you hard working modders, and thus here we are, without a general agreement on which version of the game to use, except of course, those of us who use the original developer patched versions, you are facing not having the real recognition and endorsement for the work you have done.

So you see, as good as your work maybe (I can’t say anything either way having never tried a MOD) you don’t have the acceptance of the general public, and my friend that spells a doomed product, if you did the changes for yourself great, you can go look in the mirror and blow kisses at yourself and say you are a happening guy, if it isn’t adopted by the general public (And I mean a lot of gamers not just your friends) as I described it, it will fade into obscurity in the long run.

[MaHuJa]

As for the poll, the two options are complementary with DW.

There are some issues (USNI reference and associated copyrights, for example) that would prevent SCS from adopting the lwami mod databases and doctrines into the next 'official' patch (which would prove our point very well) but had those issues been solved I wouldn't be surprised if they actually made such a move - assuming that LW&AMI are willing to give their work to scs in that fashion, which I don't believe to be far-fetched.

Yes, it is your mistake, coming in as a newbie to a mod forum filled with dedicated modders to post your view that, to put it bluntly, Mods SUXORS (to use crap Internet vernacular). At the very least you could put it in the Users forum (the main one), since that's where the guys who don't with mods might reside. Anyone here plays with mods almost by definition and loves it.

Then again, maybe he was looking for just the sort of input he's getting here.

Or for that sake, he could have been trolling - I don't jump to conclusions, but that is a possibility - though perhaps the scs board thread he referenced would more or less prove otherwise.



The "division of labor", so to speak, is clearly delineated in DW. Modders can change the text files (doctrines and databases) as well as 3D models, but not the main program and its DLLs (at least they can't distribute it - no one can stop them from changing their own copy). That greatly reduces the chance of a trojan being transmitted. We can't even change enough in the program to change the Weapon Loadout interface's titles. I think you have little to worry about from trojans or even Easter Eggs from the DW mod community.

It *might* be possible (very unlikely, I think, and even then it would take a heck of a lot ofeffort) to create a bad database that causes code execution. The "packaging" may include some bad code, in self-extractor/autoinstaller or mod-switcher. Though if you're worried, just use tiny firewall.

As for easter eggs - well, it's possible to make ships have a big greenpeace logo (etc etc etc etc) on their sides, and if you consider the russian/italian(?) panels, the interfaces too.

That said, it's genereally few people in the community who will do any of it - at least in the "established" SC/DW community. And I believe anyone trying any of it would be detected fairly quickly.

[XabbaRus]

If he is trolling then this thread will be locked.

If it stays I nice discussion I'll leave it open.

[TLAM Strike]

As for the suggestion of SCS not having enough time to tweak the realism models, I think it’s a weak argument; it certainly does make a convenient one to validate the Modders existence. The "Weak Argument" is in fact the truth. In three patches SCS has done almost nothing to increase detection ranges to known realistic levels. SA is limited to what they can put in to the sim due to their Government contracts and secrecy (They are a military contractor staffed by many ex-military people). They KNOW stuff is unrealistic (they have admitted it), they know the true speed of a Seawolf Class submarine or the true sensor range of a TB-16 Towed Array, but they can’t change it in DW since putting that information out there could endanger the lives of American service men in the future. Us modders on the other hand can evaluate based on unclassified data that SCS hasn’t paid to use and 1st hand accounts the true speed or a Seawolf Class submarine or the true sensor range of a TB-16 TA and input that in to the sim. If you don’t believe me ask a Russian Submariner if they have a torpedo called the “53cm” or ask a P-3 pilot if his Maverick missile has a 40-mile range and can hit a submarine a 1000 fleet underwater or a SONAR operator if a supertanker just pops up on sonar 20 miles away.

[Hatch]

If he is trolling then this thread will be locked.

If it stays I nice discussion I'll leave it open.


Now it all fits, that's why you wanted me to bring this discussion here, nevertheless, I beleive so far I've received some of the answers I was looking for, and I have made an analysis for you Modders to review and adjust your thinking if you desire to improve your credibility and exposure to the general public, on the other hand, if you are happy with your status quo ante nothing else, then I suggest you lock or even remove the thread, I will take my discussion elsewhere.

Thank you.

[Hatch]

As for the suggestion of SCS not having enough time to tweak the realism models, I think it’s a weak argument; it certainly does make a convenient one to validate the Modders existence. The "Weak Argument" is in fact the truth. In three patches SCS has done almost nothing to increase detection ranges to known realistic levels. SA is limited to what they can put in to the sim due to their Government contracts and secrecy (They are a military contractor staffed by many ex-military people). They KNOW stuff is unrealistic (they have admitted it), they know the true speed of a Seawolf Class submarine or the true sensor range of a TB-16 Towed Array, but they can’t change it in DW since putting that information out there could endanger the lives of American service men in the future. Us modders on the other hand can evaluate based on unclassified data that SCS hasn’t paid to use and 1st hand accounts the true speed or a Seawolf Class submarine or the true sensor range of a TB-16 TA and input that in to the sim. If you don’t believe me ask a Russian Submariner if they have a torpedo called the “53cm” or ask a P-3 pilot if his Maverick missile has a 40-mile range and can hit a submarine a 1000 fleet underwater or a SONAR operator if a supertanker just pops up on sonar 20 miles away.

I understand the need to preserve some of that data of realism undisclosed, submarining has by nature been "The silent service" but to counter you point, even though the realism model published by SCS in the stock isn't real life, I beleive a compromise should have been reached by the designers in the fashion that although those values aren't real, they could at least be made into a proposition that satisfied the players gaming experience, not having been made it so extremely bad that warranted a Modder to seemingly step into the fray and stand on the bow and say "I bested their work, I've brought the simulation to a level of reality that the manufacturer couldn't" That my friend is arrogancy at its most blatant display.

[MaHuJa]

as you patently put it, you have to revert to the stock game for MP playing, there is no unison in version usage, MOD or not MOD,

I never play DW unmodded nowadays. And I'll tell you this - when I've been playing, in "open" places where mod/not mod has not been predecided by other people, modded has been far preferred.

further, you also validated one other concept I put forward, and that was the tinkering with the program for your own personal use, the only consensus as you put it was the patched developer stock game, which clearly outlines the plateau where all gamers can meet in a leveled arena of playing. Which is one of the points I described on my initial assessment?


You seem to be deliberately misreading him.

Essentially, if a player is gonna be able to play "everyone" then the simple count of "who has stock installed" and "who has mod installed" goes in favor of the former - BECAUSE NEARLY ALL OF THE LATTER ALSO IS IN THE FORMER GROUP.

(I'm one of the few people only in the latter group.)

As for the suggestion of SCS not having enough time to tweak the realism models, I think it’s a weak argument; it certainly does make a convenient one to validate the Modders existence.

One could say they have the time, but that would slow down the work on the more important issues that only they can fix.

what you have here is a situation of non endorsement by the manufacturer to convince skeptics such as me, and thousands of others, that the changes do warrant their implementation to further better gaming, I for one would be delighted to try another patch or fix, provided the developer avails itself to approve that work.

I’m assuming that Sonalysts is unwilling to underwrite your work for whatever reason, be it secret (Which I think its ridiculous) to one of man hours spent reviewing your work, and do you know why they do not avail themselves to underwrite any MOD?

I can think of a number of reasons. For one, they seem to be very short on manpower nowadays, and secondly, perhaps related to being in the government defense contractor business, they may have some overly paranoid lawyers having too much say in it to allow such a thing. I don't know, but that's certainly a possibility.

It isn’t because it’s a top secret changes you made to a game, its one of credibility and corporate image, to put it simply, this is what people would say “Oh SCS, them guys are selling a buggy, unfinished game, and a bunch of hackers, amateurs, tinkerers and Modders had to finish it for them with their approval, and those guys didn’t get a dime for finishing that product, so SCS made out like a bandit, yet we are paying full retail price”

Umm... I think you're WAY off track on this.

I believe (someone know if this is actually the case?) counterstrike started out as a *mod* for halflife... and did anybody say that about valve? At least not many - as the sales statistics for hl2 probably shows.

CS was a bottom-up remake, but that still doesn't change the fact that it pretty much took over for stock HL in multiplayer. And as for endorsement, all valve said at one time was something like "as long as they have to buy a copy of HL it's ok". ("ok" might have been "we don't care", but I went for the most endorsing version)


The sum total: Your argument is in shreds. Presuming a popular mod is more "reputation-damaging" in that way than one that "only a few people uses" as you put it.

(Note, nearly everything I know of HL/CS is secondhand.)

all of this yields a dilemma of credibility for all you hard working modders

Please elaborate...

you are facing not having the real recognition and endorsement for the work you have done.

Ummm... how much do you think they should expect?

Most good software - at least open software - starts with the developer scratching a personal itch. This is no different from modders.

Then others find it useful, start using it, and provide feedback on what else can be done. This is also no different from modders.

As for the "recognition and endorsement" - you're speaking as if you're assuming everyone goes into the "mod business" hoping and expecting (and there makes it somewhat an oxymoron, doesn't it?) to be recognized like the CS people did - hl2 multiplayer mode *is* CS:S by what I hear.

That's just an accidental result.

>...you don’t have the acceptance of the general public,

We don't know that. My impression is that nearly everyone on the subsim forum uses it, and of those nearly everyone can switch back for a mp session with someone who doesn't have it yet - or won't play with it. How many more?

Since installing a mod involves an extra set of actions, publicity is implicit (everyone who knows the mod knows the game), the 'stock' has an advantage over a mod, always.


>and my friend that spells a doomed product,

Generally speaking, only if "the general public" is the target audience you depend on.

>if you did the changes for yourself great, you can go look in the mirror and blow kisses at yourself

...could certainly qualify as incendiary...

if it isn’t adopted by the general public (And I mean a lot of gamers not just your friends) as I described it, it will fade into obscurity in the long run.

I hardly consider myself a close friend or even associate of them. In "market" terms I'm a happy 'customer' of the modders.

(Everything fades into obscurity in the long run. Make the run long enough and perhaps the same can be said of humanity.)

Most groups playing online seems to choose to play with the stock game instead of modded. I believe the entire reasoning comes down to small things like tech support - in endorsing it and requiring it, they may have to help people install it properly, the manhours required for which may be more than they feel like spending. Then again, I suggest we ask them directly for their reasons.

[MaHuJa]

That my friend is arrogancy at its most blatant display.

I don't think arrogancy enters it at all.

Just look at how the LW/AMI expects to be superceded by DWX, whenever that comes.

I don't know how it happened that some of the issues described was in the release, but it was. You can (figuratively at least, some people will look at you crosseyed otherwise...) spit on the game for that - but remember that it is the unmodded version you claim preference to you spit on.

It was within our capabilities to change much of it, so why not?



Honestly, I don't think you have that much of a case. In the general case, as well as the DW one.

Mods can recreate a game perhaps as much as an expension can. Occasionally more. Though all I can really do about it is say "that's your loss".

We don't actually know how many have the mod and how many does not - you're making assumptions here. You may come from an "environment" where few has it, I'm from an "environment" where many has.


Anyway, here's what I would wish for you to do:
1) Get the lwami mod, try it. Establish if you think it fixes anything, i.e. if it's better than the stock version. Independently of who else has it.
2) Anytime you talk to a DW player, ask if he has the lwami mod.
3) If they don't, ask why. If they do, ask why.
4) Report back the results. Make sure to include the environment you've been asking in, for completeness. If most are seawolves, that will give a different result from mostly active-subsim-forum-posters.

I'd guess, that the most common reasons for not having it would be
-Haven't heard of it (common answer for most any mod, most any game)
-Those I play with don't use it (notice the self-reinforcing part of this)
-Rules in a virtual fleet don't allow it for matches, and I don't want to spend time with different sonar-etc-etc parameters than I'll use in a match
(which begs the question why are the rules like that)

---
As for the trolling possibility, I only mentioned that as a possibility - most cases follow certain patterns and some patterns did match. As for trolling or not, I believe the intention to be a cruicial part.

I certainly don't have conclusive evidence, nor do I find particularly much reason to believe that was his intention. My current assumption is that it's accidental that he matched some trolling patterns.

I do believe, however, that he is quite stubborn on a weak case. ;)

[Hatch]

Thank you Mr. Mahuja, my initial question was to MOD or not to MOD, as you described it, Modders are using their work for a closed circle of friends and acquaintances and or fellow modders, it isn’t aimed at the general public, but rather as you pointed out, people in the Subsim community, which is maybe a few hundred players, hardly could be considered the general public.

As for my argument in shreds, I think its closer to reality than you think, I expressed a run of the mill way of thinking or popular thought if you will, and I for one would be one of its most loudest detractors of using an untested, unendorsed and unreliable, hacked edition of my favorite game, I am certain that these thoughts are shared by the greater majority of players and gaming groups on the internet today.

In conclusion, MODS are for MODDERS, like birds are strictly for the birds, and being you such a small amount of players, I kick myself for even thinking you could make a difference with the public at large producing something worthy of even the slightest benefit of the doubt which would warrant a second look.

To end my participation in this discussion, I will end it on an upbeat note, you guys have put work into your MODS, if you really believe that you have done something worth contributing to the public at large and the improvement of an already great game, then find a mechanism to somehow get endorsements or at the very least, a public nod of approval from the developers to justify your work, and above all, gain the credibility of the public at large.

I will stay with my stock game.

Thanks to all you gentlemen who participated in this amiable discussion.

Hatch

[TLAM Strike]

As for the suggestion of SCS not having enough time to tweak the realism models, I think it’s a weak argument; it certainly does make a convenient one to validate the Modders existence. The "Weak Argument" is in fact the truth. In three patches SCS has done almost nothing to increase detection ranges to known realistic levels. SA is limited to what they can put in to the sim due to their Government contracts and secrecy (They are a military contractor staffed by many ex-military people). They KNOW stuff is unrealistic (they have admitted it), they know the true speed of a Seawolf Class submarine or the true sensor range of a TB-16 Towed Array, but they can’t change it in DW since putting that information out there could endanger the lives of American service men in the future. Us modders on the other hand can evaluate based on unclassified data that SCS hasn’t paid to use and 1st hand accounts the true speed or a Seawolf Class submarine or the true sensor range of a TB-16 TA and input that in to the sim. If you don’t believe me ask a Russian Submariner if they have a torpedo called the “53cm” or ask a P-3 pilot if his Maverick missile has a 40-mile range and can hit a submarine a 1000 fleet underwater or a SONAR operator if a supertanker just pops up on sonar 20 miles away.

I understand the need to preserve some of that data of realism undisclosed, submarining has by nature been "The silent service" but to counter you point, even though the realism model published by SCS in the stock isn't real life, I beleive a compromise should have been reached by the designers in the fashion that although those values aren't real, they could at least be made into a proposition that satisfied the players gaming experience, not having been made it so extremely bad that warranted a Modder to seemingly step into the fray and stand on the bow and say "I bested their work, I've brought the simulation to a level of reality that the manufacturer couldn't" That my friend is arrogancy at its most blatant display. Were proud, were arrogant, were proudly arrogant. (points to who can name where I took that line from…) But we sat down and fixed the problem. If our arrogance fixes problems then we need more arrogant people in the world. Damn it this country was built on arrogance! Arrogance is the American Way! O>

You keep saying the way it should be, we are telling you how it is. :roll:

[OneShot]

Two things ... first its pretty interesting to see how Mr. Hatch (to keep in tune with how he adresses people) nicely side stepped more or less every single argument that might prove him wrong or at least points that way. Now thats a class act :rotfl:

Second, just some food for thought and to pick up a line from MaHuJa about Mods normally being the result of someone "scratching an itch" ... ever read : "Just for FUN - The Story of an Accidental Revolutionary" ? Its about Linus Torvalds who began Linux, which you can actually call a Mod. Well he didn't mod a game, he just sort of modded his PC by writing his own Operating System.

P.S. : MaHuJa was right, as I pointed out in another thread Counter Strike started of as a Mod to HalfLife. And interestingly enough was later adopted (actually the modders themselves) by Valve.


Cheers
OneShot

[Hatch]

As for the suggestion of SCS not having enough time to tweak the realism models, I think it’s a weak argument; it certainly does make a convenient one to validate the Modders existence. The "Weak Argument" is in fact the truth. In three patches SCS has done almost nothing to increase detection ranges to known realistic levels. SA is limited to what they can put in to the sim due to their Government contracts and secrecy (They are a military contractor staffed by many ex-military people). They KNOW stuff is unrealistic (they have admitted it), they know the true speed of a Seawolf Class submarine or the true sensor range of a TB-16 Towed Array, but they can’t change it in DW since putting that information out there could endanger the lives of American service men in the future. Us modders on the other hand can evaluate based on unclassified data that SCS hasn’t paid to use and 1st hand accounts the true speed or a Seawolf Class submarine or the true sensor range of a TB-16 TA and input that in to the sim. If you don’t believe me ask a Russian Submariner if they have a torpedo called the “53cm” or ask a P-3 pilot if his Maverick missile has a 40-mile range and can hit a submarine a 1000 fleet underwater or a SONAR operator if a supertanker just pops up on sonar 20 miles away.

I understand the need to preserve some of that data of realism undisclosed, submarining has by nature been "The silent service" but to counter you point, even though the realism model published by SCS in the stock isn't real life, I beleive a compromise should have been reached by the designers in the fashion that although those values aren't real, they could at least be made into a proposition that satisfied the players gaming experience, not having been made it so extremely bad that warranted a Modder to seemingly step into the fray and stand on the bow and say "I bested their work, I've brought the simulation to a level of reality that the manufacturer couldn't" That my friend is arrogancy at its most blatant display. Were proud, were arrogant, were proudly arrogant. (points to who can name where I took that line from…) But we sat down and fixed the problem. If our arrogance fixes problems then we need more arrogant people in the world. Damn it this country was built on arrogance! Arrogance is the American Way! O>

You keep saying the way it should be, we are telling you how it is. :roll:

No Mr. Tlam, lets be accurate here, you claim that you fixed the problem, if there was ever one, now get someone who really counts to back that statement for you, SCS springs to mind.

[Hatch]

Two things ... first its pretty interesting to see how Mr. Hatch (to keep in tune with how he adresses people) nicely side stepped more or less every single argument that might prove him wrong or at least points that way. Now thats a class act :rotfl:

Second, just some food for thought and to pick up a line from MaHuJa about Mods normally being the result of someone "scratching an itch" ... ever read : "Just for FUN - The Story of an Accidental Revolutionary" ? Its about Linus Torvalds who began Linux, which you can actually call a Mod. Well he didn't mod a game, he just sort of modded his PC by writing his own Operating System.

P.S. : MaHuJa was right, as I pointed out in another thread Counter Strike started of as a Mod to HalfLife. And interestingly enough was later adopted (actually the modders themselves) by Valve.


Cheers
OneShot

No Mr. Oneshot, I have not sidestepped your arguments at all, I’ve reaffirmed my claims with some of you gentlemen’s answers, you in fact confirmed pretty much all my initial claims in one way or the other, as for me having a weak case, you have failed to prove me wrong, that’s why I stated on my initial post: So lets have it, take your best crack at me…” One can be arrogant if one knows the truth is on ones side.

“For if you spend word for word with me, I shall make thy wit bankrupt”
William Shakespeare.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

I beleive a compromise should have been reached by the designers in the fashion that although those values aren't real, they could at least be made into a proposition that satisfied the players gaming experience, not having been made it so extremely bad that warranted a Modder to seemingly step into the fray and stand on the bow and say "I bested their work, I've brought the simulation to a level of reality that the manufacturer couldn't" That my friend is arrogancy at its most blatant display.

You "believe" a compromise could have been reached. The reality is that the stock DW still AFAIK uses the "uber-65" (this one dates back to Sub Command) and the 400 feet dipping sonar (they flat out tell you in the manual that this is wrong, so secrecy has nothing to do with this, but they are doing it anyway).

It really doesn't take a genius to build a mod that corrects these two points. Now, one can make theories all day long as to why it is done like this, but it doesn't change that this is what they decided, and it is, to put it bluntly, quite wrong.

No Mr. Oneshot, I have not sidestepped your arguments at all, I’ve reaffirmed my claims with some of you gentlemen’s answers, you in fact confirmed pretty much all my initial claims in one way or the other, as for me having a weak case, you have failed to prove me wrong, that’s why I stated on my initial post: So lets have it, take your best crack at me…” One can be arrogant if one knows the truth is on ones side.

Your claim is that you think more people would use our mod if SCS endorsed it. No ****. Except that if they endorsed it, it would be integrated into a patch, and people like you would never realize that they have endorsed our thing and that's why you finally have a longer than 400 feet long dipping sonar... any thank-you would be very low key.

Another of your claims is the potential of viruses. I've already dealt with that one by pointing out the mods that are actually being done in DW are of the types unlikely to hold a virus.

Most modders are hardly malicious and mean well, a point I believe you would agree on. Malicious people, I'm sure, have better ways to attack computers than burying trojans into a less than bestselling game's Mod DLLs. DW is not that popular a game - a sim, in a world that likes First Person Shooters...

A third claim is that they are used by a few people. Well, the good mods like LWAMI and the old SCX for Sub Command are placed publicly on websites. It is not like the makers distribute them off private FTP or Bittorrents or requiring password access. You just have to look for mods. SubGuru (where LWAMI and a bunch of others reside) is only like third on the search list you get by typing in Google '"Dangerous Waters" mods'. One would think if you are interested in mods, you would do that much, would you?

As for the point as to whether the modders are qualified ... well, in this board I've heard of people who are Navy men, or have been on very real Russian Akulas (I'm not sure even the Sonalyst guys had that privilege) to verify they do use that cream color and SSAZ sonar - you catching my drift?

On the final point, regardless of credibility is it an improvement? Well, why don't you download it and see - I promise that replacing a few text files won't infect your computer. Personally, I understand some people like playing the helo. I find it hard to believe they belive a situation where they can only dip to 400 feet to be the superior one. I was conservative in naming my examples to ones that are quite clearly off, and so were everyone else that had answered so far. If you are so frightened, then I can only say like the others my sympathies.

[MaHuJa]

I'm not going to tell you that you are wrong, (even though that is my opinion) but questioning ones own beliefs semi-regularly is healthy. I would indeed like you to pick apart the arguments that came before, which you sidestepped instead - perhaps we're wrong somewhere.

However...

>...an untested, unendorsed and unreliable, hacked edition of my favorite game,

Untested is certainly not the case. Unless you refer to a specific type of testing, in which case you should specify it clearer.

Unreliable?
The mod hasn't made anything more unreliable - the only issues are also issues without the mod.

Hacked?
Now *that* a poor choice of word for any discussion - without specifying what you mean, which is why you wrote something in the first place...

And for the big one... unendorsed...

Just how far would it have to be endorsed before you would play it?
-Included in patch
-Developers say they like it?

I hope that the modders enjoy working on their projects as much we (and the rest of the community) enjoy playing them.



>I am certain that these thoughts are shared by the greater majority of players and gaming groups on the internet today.

If one considers it on the per-game basis, the player breakup would be in categories like:
1-Players who didn't like the game, and shelved it. (or returned it, either way they're not relevant)
2-Players who liked it somewhat, but didn't want to spend a lot of time at it
3-Players who liked the game a lot, but don't even look for improvements.
4-Players who liked the game a lot, and start looking for improvements/mods but don't use them.
5-Players who liked the game a lot, and start looking for improvements/mods and start using them.
6-Players who liked the game a lot, and start "tinkering".

Every game will have a different distribution of players in those groups. If you want to include #2 or even #1, then of course you're right - but then the whole thing is totally beside the point.

If #3 counts depends on the definition of success - is it a good product VS is it a "market-successful" product. The latter will require them to be counted. The former doesn't because this group would need it stuffed down their throats... That is, we'd need somewhat more "push" marketing. Usually this costs money. While IMO #6 should be counted, they are such a minority (I agree with you there) that they don't make a difference.

#4 vs #5 (&6) should give you some indication of the quality of the product. Add #3 to the left to get the "market-success".

Now here's what I consider an important point:
If a better product is available, but not as widely used, why go with the inferior one?
Note that the better product also provides backwards compatibility. There are no cost differences involved, no maintenance cost differences, or anything such.

Way I see it, you're going for the inferior product because "the biggest portion of the others has it". For me, this is a quite backwards way of thinking.


I would have you try the mod properly, and then explain why you'd want to discourage people from trying it. But given the way you've been speaking, I doubt you will, so I will have to modify the question: Why will you NOT try it?

By the sound of you, you may have been 'burned' by (a) bad mod(s) earlier, and associate the troubles you had with that with all mods. Is that why?


>I kick myself for even thinking you could make a difference with the public at large producing something worthy of even the slightest benefit of the doubt which would warrant a second look.

Please do keep the incendiaries tucked away somewhere safe, ok?


[i]>then find a mechanism to somehow get endorsements or at the very least, a public nod of approval from the developers to justify your work, and above all, gain the credibility of the public at large.

First of all, the "public nod of approval" is there. See the quote from the simhq interview mentioned earlier. Justification is *already* covered as soon as the modder himself (or the rare herself?) plays it and likes the changes. (Scratching ones own itch is the primary purpose...)

As for the last part of the sentence, I'll go by what you meant and not what you said...

That is, for reasons mentioned, a slow process, and one we're currently going through. The only "quick" way would be if SCS adopted the lwami mod, perhaps similarly to the way valve adopted CS - though maybe without the hiring part. For what we know, they may be restricted from doing so by reasons we can only guess at. The other way is to win them over one by one. (I suppose you may have noticed we've been trying with you ;) )


As Jamie said in the aforementioned interview, the community tries to increase the games success; to have it continue and grow better. We do that in several ways, but one is to have people use a mod which makes the game better. (At least we are convinced it is.)

[Hatch]

I beleive a compromise should have been reached by the designers in the fashion that although those values aren't real, they could at least be made into a proposition that satisfied the players gaming experience, not having been made it so extremely bad that warranted a Modder to seemingly step into the fray and stand on the bow and say "I bested their work, I've brought the simulation to a level of reality that the manufacturer couldn't" That my friend is arrogancy at its most blatant display.

You "believe" a compromise could have been reached. The reality is that the stock DW still AFAIK uses the "uber-65" (this one dates back to Sub Command) and the 400 feet dipping sonar (they flat out tell you in the manual that this is wrong, so secrecy has nothing to do with this, but they are doing it anyway).

It really doesn't take a genius to build a mod that corrects these two points. Now, one can make theories all day long as to why it is done like this, but it doesn't change that this is what they decided, and it is, to put it bluntly, quite wrong.

If they "endorse" any of our modifications, the most likely result is that you will just see a patch with that change - any thank you would be relatively low key. Being a person who doesn't trust mods, you won't bother keeping up with them. Which means you'd dumbly install the patch, and never realize that an endorsement happened, and then you come back and tell us about how our mods are unendorsed...

Exactly Mr. Kazuaki, I would dumbly install it without a whimper of dissent if it came from a developer sanctioned patch, if you made the changes, no one would ever know, you'd still remain an unrecognized contributor, shall we say, an anonymous footnote to the designers, which validates one of my initial points sir, as long as you do not have that endorsement, your chances of increasing your credibility and hence your audience are thwarted beyond repair.

[TLAM Strike]

I beleive a compromise should have been reached by the designers in the fashion that although those values aren't real, they could at least be made into a proposition that satisfied the players gaming experience, not having been made it so extremely bad that warranted a Modder to seemingly step into the fray and stand on the bow and say "I bested their work, I've brought the simulation to a level of reality that the manufacturer couldn't" That my friend is arrogancy at its most blatant display.

You "believe" a compromise could have been reached. The reality is that the stock DW still AFAIK uses the "uber-65" (this one dates back to Sub Command) and the 400 feet dipping sonar (they flat out tell you in the manual that this is wrong, so secrecy has nothing to do with this, but they are doing it anyway).

It really doesn't take a genius to build a mod that corrects these two points. Now, one can make theories all day long as to why it is done like this, but it doesn't change that this is what they decided, and it is, to put it bluntly, quite wrong.

If they "endorse" any of our modifications, the most likely result is that you will just see a patch with that change - any thank you would be relatively low key. Being a person who doesn't trust mods, you won't bother keeping up with them. Which means you'd dumbly install the patch, and never realize that an endorsement happened, and then you come back and tell us about how our mods are unendorsed...

Exactly Mr. Kazuaki, I would dumbly install it without a whimper of dissent if it came from a developer sanctioned patch, if you made the changes, no one would ever know, you'd still remain an unrecognized contributor, shall we say, an anonymous footnote to the designers, which validates one of my initial points sir, as long as you do not have that endorsement, your chances of increasing your credibility and hence your audience are thwarted beyond repair. We don't care about a bigger audience. Our audience knows we are creditable. Your right when you say mods are for modders.

”Submariners are born tinkers”
-Captain Edward L. Beach

This is the type of sim that attracts people like us, people who are highly knowledgeable and skilled, who like to take things apart and rebuild them better than before. Subsimers are always in search of realism, mods bring us that. You are looking at it from the perspective of a gamer, we are looking at it from the perspective of someone who could one day be standing in the conn of a US Navy fast attack submarine one day (or already has).


Also if you never seen a developer sanctioned patch screw up a program and require the community to step in and fix it you must live in a hole in the wall.

[Hatch]

Mr. Mahuja, you have argued your points well, though you did not dispell my doubts alltogether, I will give you gentlemen a fair shake in this discussion and see for myself what the MOD actually contributes or subtracts from the game. I will be back.

Thank you.

[TLAM Strike]

Mr. Mahuja, you have argued your points well, though you did not dispell my doubts alltogether, I will give you gentlemen a fair shake in this discussion and see for myself what the MOD actually contributes or subtracts from the game. I will be back.

Thank you. I recommend you attack an AEGIS ship with missiles from a good distance (say 50 to 100 Nmis) in Stock and LWAMI. The difference is shocking.

[Molon Labe]

I think it needs to be said, that the bugs and issues in stock DW 1.0-1.01 were well on their way to killing the game. It was a lot of fun to play out of the box for a few months, but as players started to learn the game well, and change their tactics to keep up with everyone else, we reached a point where it was the game's problems that defined those tactics and it ceased to be fun (except for a few limited kinds of matches that DW's predecessors did better at).

Then LW/Ami came along, and fixed the issues that were killing the game. DW became balanced again, and player skill and tactics started to matter.

As much as I'd like a game that works out of the box, and official patches to correct problems, the reality of the situation is that SCS was not willing or able to spend the time and money to fix what was broken. The modders were.

[sonar732]

This topic should be on the brink of being locked. For one, it started as a "bait" if you will on placing the topic in the DW Mod Workshop forum.

1. The reaction was a no-brainer from the DW modding community.
2. I can put money down that the a few of the modders were on the BETA testing team due to their experence and speak with SCS regarding the mods.
3. The BETA team was experienced in their perspective backgrounds and spoke with SCS regarding the shortfalls of the game and still do with each perspective patch.
4. With the DOD contracts that hold SCS to economic stability, it is understood and I've stated it multiple times, that you can't expect them to be able to give us the realism you want. If they did, the DOD would surely take them to the cleaners.
5. Hence where the modders come in, as stated, it's a no-brainer that some of them are on the BETA team and talk with SCS on a regular basis.
6. I have been in phone conversation with multiple members of this community who contribute. As a former member of the USS Alaska SSBN-732, we hold a spirit de corps for each other and respect the other's opinion.
7. I'll have to admit that due to my family constraints; 5 kids, going to school full time, and working full time, I haven't had time to contribute to different aspects of the game that multiple members are aware of. However, that doesn't stop my respect for the other's contribution.
8. As a former sonar operator, you won't find a non-DOD game that emulates my former job as close as this does. Yes, there is Harpoon. However, Harpoon doesn't have the classic interface that the US Navy spent 5 months of training for me on.
9. This game is all about ultilizing tactics with RL emulation. You couldn't employ the classic tactics; surface, air, or sub-surface using the patches that SCS provide us due to #4 above. For instance, give me a shadow zone to hide in and I'll sneak up on you in a heartbeat, or a strong surface duct that would render the surface fleet death to where I was. Before the LWMod, you couldn't do this...now you can! :rock: :up:


I've said my peace as both a player and "contributor" to this community. Enough said.

[XabbaRus]

I asked him to move it from the SCS forum to here as it was the most appropriate place for it.

amongst other things...

[Hatch]

Ok I'm sold (can't beleive i'm writing this, but it is fair to acknowledge your good work) I made up a mission with the editor to test acoustic detection ranges, the thermocline layer did not really differ a lot from above or below the layer as far as passive and active detection is concerned, if I pinged (I was using a helo) from above the layer (which was at 954 feet), i got a contact, then I went below, and I also got a contact, the difference in visual representation of the contact did not change any, alhtough it is possible to detect the contact from above and below the layer not taking into account where the contact resides at that point, one of these situations should give you a better visual return, that is a brighter blip on the active display, or a stronger aural reception on the passive mode, which you would then interpret as the contact being below or above the layer, which in turn will determine your attack presets for the weapon.

The longer dipping cable certainly is nice, now I can see your point, on an MP game, that poor helo driver would never have found a sub below 400 feet (assuming the detection parameters would work as I described above), same is true for the sonobuoys.

I'll keep on testing the other enhancements you denote on the readme file with the other platforms.

After testing your MOD in a very superficial way, I find that the realism improvements are there.

Gentlemen, I congratulate you on a fine job, and I apologize for my doubting your word, now if you can only get SCS to implement these improvements, everyone who plays this game will be a winner.

Hatch

[sonar732]

Ok I'm sold (can't beleive i'm writing this, but it is fair to acknowledge your good work) I made up a mission with the editor to test acoustic detection ranges, the thermocline layer did not really differ a lot from above or below the layer as far as passive and active detection is concerned, if I pinged (I was using a helo) from above the layer (which was at 954 feet), i got a contact, then I went below, and I also got a contact, the difference in visual representation of the contact did not change any, alhtough it is possible to detect the contact from above and below the layer not taking into account where the contact resides at that point, one of these situations should give you a better visual return, that is a brighter blip on the active display, or a stronger aural reception on the passive mode, which you would then interpret as the contact being below or above the layer, which in turn will determine your attack presets for the weapon.


Hatch

That depends on how "strong" the layer is. If the SSP showed a "bend", then the layer is almost non-existant. However, if the SSP showed a huge shift in direction, the layer would be stronger and you wouldn't have received a good return, if any.

I am glad that after testing, you see the benefits the mods have given this community. :up:

[OneShot]

Just to put your testings in the right perspective ... to what level did you patch the game ... 1.01 + Hotfix (assumed you own the 1.0DW from Battlefront) or 1.03b (given that you just recently bought DW which would be 1.02) or completely unpatched? Along with this, do you use the "right" mod for your patch ... means LwAmi 2.03 for 1.01 + Hotfix or LwAmi 3.00B for 1.03b. Based on your last post I would guess you are using 1.03b & LwAmi 3.00B ?

Depending on your Enviroment Conditions the Layer in 1.03b (and of course 1.03 once released) is really noticeable.

P.S. : The above might sound confusing now, but rest assured once 1.03 finally is released that problem will cease to exist as everybody is (hopefully) going up to 1.03 hence cutting the mod selection down to just one mod (LwAmi 3)

[Hatch]

Yes, my version is the original from battlefront, and I did have it patched with 1.03b before I installed the LWAMI.

My illustration was just a little example of a tiny occurence I noticed, I'm sure there other major issues lurking around in there I'm not aware of and you are, I've been away from this game for an easy 6 or 7 months, I've only returned to it encouraged by the 1.03b patch seeing as the developer is still supporting it (as it should be)

[Hatch]

Sh**t, no i was using LWAMI 2.03, the game original is DW 1.00, patched to 1.03b, I didnt see a link to LWAMI 3.00????

:damn:

[TLAM Strike]

Sh**t, no i was using LWAMI 2.03, the game original is DW 1.00, patched to 1.03b, I didnt see a link to LWAMI 3.00????

:damn: www.Subguru.com has it just ctrl-f search on the DL page.

[Bellman]

Like many, I have followed this 'debate' and remained on the sidelines.
From the SCS forum posts I had concluded that a 'bait' was in progress and had to force myself to follow the thread here.

Hatch rightly tested the 'modders' defences and I think most of his criticisms were answered in detail and with
admirable restraint, (generaly.) Let's hope that the excellent advocacy shown will win more and more converts
for LwAmi, and other mods with w.i.p.

Thanks to sonar732 we have a great summary but that doesn't detract from the excellent contributions
from the likes of Molon, Mahuja, OneShot and TLAM.

The way you have conducted yourselves speaks volumes for why this community is 'simply the best.' :|\

Thanks to you all. :rock: :up:

[OneShot]

Well in that case (using LwAmi 2.03 on 1.03b) try this link : http://www.orionwarrior.com/forum/showthread.php?t=174 and do another series of tests. Take notice of the fair difference between for example Mud and Rock Bottom in terms of Sonar Conditions.

[Theta Sigma]

The way you have conducted yourselves speaks volumes for why this community is 'simply the best.' :|\

Ditto!

Not only did you not take the bait, you won him over. Why the the hell you guys are playing wargames, I don't know.

You should be diplomats. ;)

[Hatch]

Like many, I have followed this 'debate' and remained on the sidelines.
From the SCS forum posts I had concluded that a 'bait' was in progress and had to force myself to follow the thread here.

Hatch rightly tested the 'modders' defences and I think most of his criticisms were answered in detail and with
admirable restraint, (generaly.) Let's hope that the excellent advocacy shown will win more and more converts
for LwAmi, and other mods with w.i.p.

Thanks to sonar732 we have a great summary but that doesn't detract from the excellent contributions
from the likes of Molon, Mahuja, OneShot and TLAM.

The way you have conducted yourselves speaks volumes for why this community is 'simply the best.' :|\

Thanks to you all. :rock: :up:

Actually Mr. Bellman, there was no bait, I started a thread on the SCS forum called "Sonar operator not calling incoming torpedoes?" within that discussion, Mr. Lutwolf asked what was behind my thinking not to prefer or even to consider MODS, I obliged and responded to his challenge, then Mr. Xabarus suggested I move the discussion here to continue a healthy and respectful debate on this issue.

http://www.sonalystscombatsims.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=310

So you see, the connotation of "Bait" does not play a part here, I could say I was "Baited" into moving the discussion here, would you agree?

Still, and to make matters clear, much of my arguments stand as they were presented, the fact that I tested the MOD and was convinced by its improvements to the game, does not invalidate the fact that MODS still have no following from the general public (In regards to this particular MOD, I find that is a shame having seen its contribution to it) you didnt disprove that argument, the fact it is extremely difficult to win over a larger audience without a visible, explicit and advertised nod of approval from the developer stands as I presented it. As far as my critism of amateurs and tinkers is concerned, I concede the point as I have praised the work you have done.

But the controversy over credibility which was my main point remains untouched sir.

We can argue for as long as you'd like over these and other issues, you'll find that I could have sold a machine gun to Ghandi. :rotfl:

[Bellman]

:rotfl: Hatch its always difficult to 'call time.'

You accounted for yourself with considerable chutzpah taking on many vets and gave a good display.
Driving your sub with some style you steered into a Wolf Pack and although under considerable pressure
and attacks from all sides you gave a good account of yourself.

A stylish and cheeky nose tweeking exercise - I think a Nelson or a Napoleon would have been impressed.
Winning or losing is irrelevent, in the circumstances.

I hope you will continue to evaluate LwAmi and learn to love it. Whatever I am sure that, when we catch
you in a positive mood, you have much to contribute to DW. I hope you will carry your energy into MP waters.

I shall look forward to that. :yep: ;)

[Hatch]

Thank you sir, I appreciate your words, but personalities not withstanding, I am an engineer by training, I look for facts and mathematical solutions to every day issues. Thence my moods play no part in the search for demonstrable truth and acknowledgement where it is deserved.

I will continue to test the MOD and post my appreciations here.

Hatch

[LuftWolf]

I'll keep on testing the other enhancements you denote on the readme file with the other platforms.

After testing your MOD in a very superficial way, I find that the realism improvements are there.

Gentlemen, I congratulate you on a fine job, and I apologize for my doubting your word, now if you can only get SCS to implement these improvements, everyone who plays this game will be a winner.

Post any and all observations, thoughts, questions, and critiques you have! :) :know:

LWAMI has grown to what it is in 3.00b because of the contributions, involvement, and support of the DW community, particularly here at Subsim. :up: :rock: :arrgh!:

Without the users of the mod giving us extensive feedback, we would just be left changing stuff and asking you to trust us, which is something I specifically wanted to avoid. ;) :)

I believe in supporting anything I release. Members of the DW community deserve a quality mod and a mod team that is responsive to them. Subsimmers are too knowledgable and dedicated to receive less. :sunny:

Cheers,
David

[Molon Labe]

The way you have conducted yourselves speaks volumes for why this community is 'simply the best.' :|\

Ditto!

Not only did you not take the bait, you won him over. Why the the hell you guys are playing wargames, I don't know.

You should be diplomats. ;)

Or maybe lawyers. :|\