Request model resource rule change

[Zwiebelchen]

Currently, the submission rules for models lack one important bullet-point:

• Submitted attachment models must have at least a stand animation and a death animation that hides the model

So, why is this important?
When applying the model as a special effect via trigger, as soon as you remove the effect, the model will stay on the unit for an additional 5-second window (default settings; can be edited in gameplay constants, but this is not recommended).

To fix this, users can add a simple death animation that hides all geosets instantly by setting the geoset/material alpha to 0 on the starting frame of the sequence. This is literally just 5 clicks away in Magos.
Which is why I consider attachment model submissions incomplete, that don't have a death animation.


Can we please add this rule? It's a pain in the ass having to edit every single attachment model downloaded, especially if you use many of them. A death animation should be mandatory for approval of a model submission.

 

[PurgeandFire]

Seems like a good rule to me. If a model moderator doesn't respond to this, I'll toss this over to the other mods.

 

[Zwiebelchen]

If requested, I can write a small step list on how to add a death animation to attachment models via Magos.

But I suppose this is basic knowledge of everyone submitting models.

 

[MiniMage]

Hm. Yeah, it's a good point. Let's throw this thing into the melting pot over at the Mod Lobby.
It's a rule suggestion so I'd suggest we condense it all in there. But yes, it's a good rule suggestion.

 

[Misha]

hm.. why not? although to me, this is just a dude complaining, while he edits the models that (in rare cases maybe) he doesn't even have permission to edit..

but yeah, it might be a good idea, But i wouldn't leave an attachment pending just because it lacks a death anim

 

[rulerofiron99]

while he edits the models that (in rare cases maybe) he doesn't even have permission to edit..

That's part of the problem - for some of these models to be usable in certain maps, we need to fix them by adding e.g. the death animation, but if you aren't allowed to edit the model and the author isn't a regular visitor anymore, you basically can't use the model.

 

[Misha]

I'm wondering one thing btw.. does the same thing happen if one uses triggers to add/remove the dummy-ability that has the weapon/or sfx ? does the model then still linger?

 

[GhostWolf]

It could easily be injected at upload time, if that's truly the correct fix.

 

[PurgeandFire]

I'm wondering one thing btw.. does the same thing happen if one uses triggers to add/remove the dummy-ability that has the weapon/or sfx ? does the model then still linger?

Yes it will still linger. It looks really ugly.

 

[Zwiebelchen]

It could easily be injected at upload time, if that's truly the correct fix.

Yeah, but why invest so much time into fixing something retroactively that clearly should be done by the uploader himself?

After all, we reject unit models or leave them pending if they have unused geosets or materials.

This is a matter of standards. An attachment model without a death animation is incomplete just as a unit model that doesn't have one is and should be treated the same way.

hm.. why not? although to me, this is just a dude complaining, while he edits the models that (in rare cases maybe) he doesn't even have permission to edit..

but yeah, it might be a good idea, But i wouldn't leave an attachment pending just because it lacks a death anim

The problem is that attachment models without a death animation are actually quite useless unless you never remove them from a unit again.

Attachments are meant to be used dynamically, that's the whole point. We have high standards for unit model submissions. Why not apply the same standards here?


And btw, I also think that the "ask for permission" rule doesn't really make sense for attachment models anyway. Sometimes, you simply have to edit them to make them fit your hero. Weapon submissions in the model section are ridicolously oversized 90% of the time. Armor submissions are usually designed to fit the villager; if you want to fit them to other characters, you usually have to resize the the model directly, as there is no way to scale attachment models at runtime.
If you'd have to ask the author every time you make such changes, you can basicly quit mapping.

I think the rules for attachment models should be a little bit different here in the regard that you are always allowed to rescale them according to your needs. Permission should only be granted for actual design changes and re-uploads.

 

[Ralle]

[...] Permission should only be granted for actual design changes and re-uploads.

Depends on who you ask. I have talked to modelers who did not want anyone to make any changes to their models. But those people wouldn't make the mistake of not adding those animations.
If something is available publicly and you added an animation and used it in your map, it will be nearly impossible to track down that you did this and check with the author if he/she is okay with it. It is best to ask first, especially if their posted terms prohibit it.

 

[Zwiebelchen]

Depends on who you ask. I have talked to modelers who did not want anyone to make any changes to their models. But those people wouldn't make the mistake of not adding those animations.
If something is available publicly and you added an animation and used it in your map, it will be nearly impossible to track down that you did this and check with the author if he/she is okay with it. It is best to ask first, especially if their posted terms prohibit it.

Obviously. I mean, it's not like anyone really cares or notices if I manually add an animation of resize the model.
But we are talking official rules here, so it's fine to be a little bit more nitpicky about it.

 

[Maker]

I support this rule.

It was so frustrating to get rid of the already destroyed special effect when it was already destroyed. It would stick there for the default five seconds unless performing a unit transofrmation trick which itself caused other side effects.

 

[InfernalTater]

Currently, the submission rules for models lack one important bullet-point:

• Submitted attachment models must have at least a stand animation and a death animation that hides the model

So, why is this important?
When applying the model as a special effect via trigger, as soon as you remove the effect, the model will stay on the unit for an additional 5-second window (default settings; can be edited in gameplay constants, but this is not recommended).

To fix this, users can add a simple death animation that hides all geosets instantly by setting the geoset/material alpha to 0 on the starting frame of the sequence. This is literally just 5 clicks away in Magos.
Which is why I consider attachment model submissions incomplete, that don't have a death animation.


Can we please add this rule? It's a pain in the ass having to edit every single attachment model downloaded, especially if you use many of them. A death animation should be mandatory for approval of a model submission.

It would be a good feature to add, but since there are other ways of utilizing attachments, such as passives or item abilities (which can be hidden for no icon), I don't think it should be mandatory but rather very much encouraged; moderators should influence users to include this feature in their models by having it be their standard policy to mention it as a flaw of the resource in their reviews but not by rejecting their model, as it still functions and is useful. Users will still want to fix their attachments because just by the flaw being pointed out by moderators, it will affect the ratings they receive from users as everyone will be more aware of this problem because they scroll past the moderator's review to download or comment on the model; thus fixing the issue the majority of the time without rejecting useful models. However attachments that do not contain a death animation are still useful and can still function properly if attached via other methods rather than triggers; so they shouldn't be prohibited because this would stop a lot of useful resources from being available to the community.

I myself always used dummy item abilities for attachments, so I had no idea this was an issue. I'll include death animations for all of the attachment models I upload from now on.

 

[Zwiebelchen]

I myself always used dummy item abilities for attachments.

I get that, but considering Hive has pretty high quality standards when it comes to unit models, it's not a far stretch to ask for a certain minimum standard on attachment models aswell.


Plus, I'll just admit that this thread was more a thing to bring this issue to the attention of mods than to actually enforce a rule change. If mods actively mention the lack of a death animation in the review, modellers might be more inclined to add those to their model.

 

[The_Silent]

Well, it positivly ruins the sphere ability, since that ability destroys the model on attack. But I guess I'll just have to attach items with another ability in the future haha.

 

[Zwiebelchen]

Why would you use sphere for attaching models that aren't supposed to vanish on attacks? That's literally what sphere was created for. There's plenty of other abilities you can use that don't have this drawback if you are hellbent on using abilities (whyever you want that in the first place, considering it's much easier to attach via SFX).

 

[The_Silent]

Why would you use sphere for attaching models that aren't supposed to vanish on attacks? That's literally what sphere was created for. There's plenty of other abilities you can use that don't have this drawback if you are hellbent on using abilities (whyever you want that in the first place, considering it's much easier to attach via SFX).

Really? To my understanding SFX causes leaks unless you track them (or the unit) and clean them up, which gets messy if you use attachments for a lot of units. And alot more complex than just adding and removing abilities, or additng an ability to an item, ect.. Anyway, yes, should use another ability, as I said in my post.

 

[Zwiebelchen]

Really? To my understanding SFX causes leaks unless you track them (or the unit) and clean them up, which gets messy if you use attachments for a lot of units.

Which is still less effort than having to create a new ability for every single effect model.

And alot more complex than just adding and removing abilities, or additng an ability to an item, ect.. Anyway, yes, should use another ability, as I said in my post.

I don't see why it's more complicated, ... but meh; I'm looking at it from a coders point of view, so maybe you're right. Inexperienced mappers might prefer abilities over special effects.

 

[The_Silent]

Which is still less effort than having to create a new ability for every single effect model.


I don't see why it's more complicated, ... but meh; I'm looking at it from a coders point of view, so maybe you're right. Inexperienced mappers might prefer abilities over special effects.

One ability per attachment model, not per unit. Which is alot easier. Plus this whole question is redundant, since a good programmer should destroy the attachment after use anyway (Or they causes leaks). And mate, just stop it already, I've programmed C++ for 10+ years. Stop thinking other methods than your own is bad, and that makes people who use them worse than you.

 

[Zwiebelchen]

One ability per attachment model, not per unit. Which is alot easier.

I never said something else.

Plus this whole question is redundant, since a good programmer should destroy the attachment after use anyway (Or they causes leaks).

Correct. Hence why my request is legitimate. I can understand why people use abilities. But that doesn't mean that using SFX should not be supported. That's absurd.

And mate, just stop it already, I've programmed C++ for 10+ years. Stop thinking other methods than your own is bad, and that makes people who use them worse than you.

Why the sudden personal attack? I never insulted anyone or said that their solutions were bad.

 

[The_Silent]

I never said something else.

My bad.

Correct. Hence why my request is legitimate. I can understand why people use abilities. But that doesn't mean that using SFX should not be supported. That's absurd.

Never said it shouldn't. But again, the anmation might be redundant as users should use the following code always anyway:

TRIGGER]Special Effect - Destroy (Last created special effect)[/TRIGGER]

Why the sudden personal attack? I never insulted anyone or said that their solutions were bad.

I'm looking at it from a coders point of view, so maybe you're right. Inexperienced mappers might prefer abilities over special effects.

No, i didn't. But you might have. Because I'm not sure what all that in your previous post was about then? If not insinuating your way is superior, and mine that of "Inexperienced mappers".

Anyway, we shoud probably not fill this thread with anymore of our discussion. Feel free to pm me if you still think there is an issue to be discussed.

 

[Zwiebelchen]

Never said it shouldn't. But again, the anmation might be redundant as users should use the following code always anyway:

• Special Effect - Destroy (Last created special effect)

Aaaaah, now I get why you're so pissed: you didn't actually read this thread and missed the point...

You see, destroying the special effect will not remove it instantly in case it has no death animation. Which is the whole reason I started this thread. The reason why we need a death animation is because of properly destroying it, not despite.

No, i didn't. But you might have. Because I'm not sure what all that in your previous post was about then? If not insinuating your way is superior, and mine that of "Inexperienced mappers".

I apologize if you felt offended by that.

 

[The_Silent]

I'm neither offended nor pissed, but you did completely misunderstand my original post then and made a big fuss of it. And stop assuming you know what i feel, haha. Anyway, as I've already said: Lets not fill this thread anymore, especially since, as you pointed out, this discussion was completely pointless to begin with.

 

[Zwiebelchen]

I'm still not sure if you actually understood the initial problem, though...

 

[The_Silent]

#Discussion moved.