Suggestion about changing/editing a rule

[Uncle Fester]

As the title already suggest, i would like to bring up the idea of a minor change or edit of a certain modelling rule. After uploading a model of mine, the moderator in charge said that it can't be approved for the following reason: "only actual portrait should be uploaded in the portrait slot". In my case, the portrait is the item (drop) version of the attachment, and not a real portrait. This is the "troublesome" ressource. After this message, i checked again the Model submission rules and found out that the rule in the last line prohibits uploading another version of the model in place of the portrait. I uploaded many attachments this way in the past, and most of them are now approved. In each case i posted a hint at the model about the "portrait" and that it is the item version and not a real portrait. Both, item and attachment version use the same icon.
So, my question is, is it possible to make a sub-rule into this very rule, that makes an exception for attachments with corresponding items. In other words, make the rule look like this:

• The field to upload a portrait may ONLY be used for a portrait of the model.

° An exception are attachments in combination with the corresponding item (drop) model.


The reasons why i support this idea are the following:

• storage space from the Hive is unnecessarely lavished
• the users have to download two different ressources instead of one, which would be easier
• moderators have to moderate twice a very similar ressource, which costs time. Time in which they could moderate other things
• bothe versions use the same icon, so only one of the two version will have the icon as corresponding ressource, while the other will require a seperate link in the model's discription

One last thing i want to say: same models with only different skins should be excluded from this rule (i.e. the same models, one uses usual faceless one's skin and the other the unbroken one's skin), unless their portraits are integrated in the actual model, so tha both can be uploaded in the same thread.

 

[Misha]

I would like to add that some of Vermilion's dwarven models are also bunched into two like that, and while i could moderate them and leave them with 'needs fix', i don't really want to.. why? because they're all really great

I guess I'll see how this goes..

 

[Ralle]

It is a recent rule. I understand why it is annoying, but that field was made for the portrait, not a different model. I will change this in the future, but for now each field should be for what the label says. I suggest posting a comment with the other model and then linking to it from the description. That is one way to do it. I know they won't be in the same downloaded zip but that is acceptable in my eyes.

 

[Uncle Fester]

I would like to add that some of Vermilion's dwarven models are also bunched into two like that, and while i could moderate them and leave them with 'needs fix', i don't really want to.. why? because they're all really great

I guess I'll see how this goes..

I can understand that. It's like a tight-rope situation (i hope it's spelled right).

It is a recent rule. I understand why it is annoying, but that field was made for the portrait, not a different model. I will change this in the future, but for now each field should be for what the label says. I suggest posting a comment with the other model and then linking to it from the description. That is one way to do it. I know they won't be in the same downloaded zip but that is acceptable in my eyes.

I understand that, but since the upload option is for all models the same, i think an exception in this rule would be somewhat user-friendlier. Furthermore, the model isn't rly different, it's just another version of it. Well, i guess i can leave the dagger for now as is in the "Needs fix" section until the rule changes/gets an excepting sub-rule.

 

[Ralle]

I guess if we renamed the field "portrait" to something else, it would make me willing to to change the rule to the following "The x field must be used for a portrait if the model is a unit/building but can be used for ... if not." Perhaps you can help me complete things.

 

[Daffa]

Make portrait optional, but enforce it in the rules if it's for viewable models, ehm.... Selectable.

 

[GhostWolf]

Models can have a built-in camera for the portrait, so no.

 

[Ralle]

GhostWolf, you need a separate model for the portrait to work in Wc3.

 

[GhostWolf]

GhostWolf, you need a separate model for the portrait to work in Wc3.

You can have a portrait camera, and tag animations as Portrait, and you will have a fully working portrait in the game.

I would suggest that WC3 resources work exactly the same way as SC2 resources, but that would require quite a few changes.

 

[GreeN!X]

Yeah, a separate model for the portrait is not really necessary. That's why some people have been doing these 2 model submissions. I thought this was allowed since there's been a lot of these kinds of submissions.

"The x field must be used for a portrait if the model is a unit/building but can be used for ... if not."

Err.. Complementary model?

"The Complementary Model field must only be used with a model that will complement the main resource or with a model that is a variation of the resource."

Word it out like this? I dunno. But I definitely agree with Uncle. There are some models that would be more useful with a complementing model. Like an attachment with the item version, melee and ranged version of a unit, orc and fel orc version, ranged unit + its missle, etc.

 

[Ralle]

Yeah, a separate model for the portrait is not really necessary. That's why some people have been doing these 2 model submissions. I thought this was allowed since there's been a lot of these kinds of submissions.



Err.. Complementary model?

"The Complementary Model field must only be used with a model that will complement the main resource or with a model that is a variation of the resource."

Word it out like this? I dunno. But I definitely agree with Uncle. There are some models that would be more useful with a complementing model. Like an attachment with the item version, melee and ranged version of a unit, orc and fel orc version, ranged unit + its missle, etc.

This is good stuff. I can live with that. +rep

 

[Uncle Fester]

I guess if we renamed the field "portrait" to something else, it would make me willing to to change the rule to the following "The x field must be used for a portrait if the model is a unit/building but can be used for ... if not." Perhaps you can help me complete things.

Maybe name it "Addional Resource" or such. I agree with this idea. "Addional Resource is reserved for portrait, same model with different skin, or supplementary parts, like the item version of an attachment".

Make portrait optional, but enforce it in the rules if it's for viewable models, ehm.... Selectable.

For models which talk and such, a portrait is vital. It's optional for buildings and mechanic things, which only make noises. (IMO).

Models can have a built-in camera for the portrait, so no.

As above, this IMO works only for buildings and mechanic stuff, but not for organic, especially talking units.

GhostWolf, you need a separate model for the portrait to work in Wc3.

The camera option works too, like in buildings and catapults, but yes, i agree that most units need a separate portrait for working properly.

You can have a portrait camera, and tag animations as Portrait, and you will have a fully working portrait in the game.

I would suggest that WC3 resources work exactly the same way as SC2 resources, but that would require quite a few changes.

The point is that it is possible, but not all too plausible for most stuff. I am not familiar with SC2 stuff, so i can't say much about this suggestion.

Yeah, a separate model for the portrait is not really necessary. That's why some people have been doing these 2 model submissions. I thought this was allowed since there's been a lot of these kinds of submissions.



Err.. Complementary model?

"The Complementary Model field must only be used with a model that will complement the main resource or with a model that is a variation of the resource."

Word it out like this? I dunno. But I definitely agree with Uncle. There are some models that would be more useful with a complementing model. Like an attachment with the item version, melee and ranged version of a unit, orc and fel orc version, ranged unit + its missle, etc.

Yeah, there you can see how much rules can change. When i first came to the Hive it was prohibited by all means to upload to similar resources (like an orc and a fel orc version of the same model) as 2 separate models. Now it is a must to upload them separately.

I totally agree with your suggestion. It could look like this:

Complementary Model/Additional Resource
This field is reserved for portraits, different variations of the same model (like orc fel orc), complementing models of the main resource (like the item for the attachment), an upgraded version of the main model (like the troll head hunter and berserker from the orcs) or a fitting custom missile for the main model.

The ranged/melee version could be integrated too into this. The only problem is that the portraits would have to be integrated in the main model, which doesn't always yield good results.

This is good stuff. I can live with that. +rep

I agree with his point too. The suggestion is very well described and a good thought.

 

[GhostWolf]

...

How are in-model portraits any different when talking about buildings or units?
The only reason to have a separation is when A) Only a small part of the model is viewed for the portrait (in which case this is an optimization), or B) The portrait model is simply different, e.g. the inside of a vehicle.
If neither of those is correct for a given model, it makes no sense to use two files.

Regarding SC2 resources, I mean that each resource is a collection of different files that have some relation between them. E.g. a model and its textures, or multiple models that are related, and while we're at it, why not also have a model(s) icon(s) in there too instead of linking to a different page?
Of course, this will require quite a few changes for the server.

 

[Ralle]

Thanks all, the rules are now changed as well as the upload page.

 

[Uncle Fester]

How are in-model portraits any different when talking about buildings or units?
The only reason to have a separation is when A) Only a small part of the model is viewed for the portrait (in which case this is an optimization), or B) The portrait model is simply different, e.g. the inside of a vehicle.
If neither of those is correct for a given model, it makes no sense to use two files.

Regarding SC2 resources, I mean that each resource is a collection of different files that have some relation between them. E.g. a model and its textures, or multiple models that are related, and while we're at it, why not also have a model(s) icon(s) in there too instead of linking to a different page?
Of course, this will require quite a few changes for the server.

Truly, but i think it would also fit, when C) the face is shown in detail. Trust me, it's hard to animate a face too in a model, when many details are shown in the portrait. The proudmoore is a good example. Animating the face of the actual model would be quite difficult (although makeable). I personally would prefer two models in this case.

Thanks all, the rules are now changed as well as the upload page.

Thanks a lot for that fast change! It makes things quite a bit easier.

 

[WerBackIII]

Regarding SC2 resources, I mean that each resource is a collection of different files that have some relation between them. E.g. a model and its textures, or multiple models that are related, and while we're at it, why not also have a model(s) icon(s) in there too instead of linking to a different page?
Of course, this will require quite a few changes for the server.

I guess this is a feature best save for Hive 2.0 (that thing is becoming mythical, like a leviathan of some sort.

I guess we need the same rule for the skins section. You get skins that complement each other (e.g. a model using more than one texture, like Arthas), you also get skins which are variations on each other (fel orc/orc, team-coloured/non-team-coloured) or even the same texture but in different resolutions.

For example, I have a map which contains 45 different textures that replace the water plane texture. It's uploaded in the map section because there is no way to upload them as one resource - I either have to upload 45 extremely similar 256x256 blp files, or upload them to the pastebin, a place most inexperienced users are unfamiliar with. Having all those files in the skin section, inside a zip archive, is much more user-friendly both to those who download and to those who upload content. It also helps people keep track of the credits, as a readme can also be included.

Just my two cents.

 

[Kyrbi0]

Great idea, UncleFester, and excellent suggestion GreenN!x

Not being a modeller skinner resource-creator in general, I can only say that "yeah, this makes some sort of sense". : )

 

[Uncle Fester]

I guess this is a feature best save for Hive 2.0 (that thing is becoming mythical, like a leviathan of some sort.

I guess we need the same rule for the skins section. You get skins that complement each other (e.g. a model using more than one texture, like Arthas), you also get skins which are variations on each other (fel orc/orc, team-coloured/non-team-coloured) or even the same texture but in different resolutions.

For example, I have a map which contains 45 different textures that replace the water plane texture. It's uploaded in the map section because there is no way to upload them as one resource - I either have to upload 45 extremely similar 256x256 blp files, or upload them to the pastebin, a place most inexperienced users are unfamiliar with. Having all those files in the skin section, inside a zip archive, is much more user-friendly both to those who download and to those who upload content. It also helps people keep track of the credits, as a readme can also be included.

Just my two cents.

The rule has been changed already for the models.

I'm not rly familiar with skins, so unfortunately i have to pass in this topic.

Great idea, UncleFester, and excellent suggestion GreenN!x

Not being a modeller skinner resource-creator in general, I can only say that "yeah, this makes some sort of sense". : )

Ty it has been changed already in the models section