Forged Alliance Forever

Re: Forced Disabling of Mods

2015-08-09T14:58:36+02:00

Swaygin wrote:
--snip--

It's OK you know, you can just admit you were being a d*** and back down, instead of doubling down on the idiotic behavior and continuing to make long inane posts. There's a very good reason these mods were disabled on you, it only takes a tiny bit of sense to understand what the errors it's giving you are, and it's not hard to ask if you're still not sure.

Statistics: Posted by CodingSquirrel — 09 Aug 2015, 14:58

Re: Forced Disabling of Mods

2015-08-09T14:51:14+02:00

Swaygin wrote:
(2) Search results appear from most recent to least recent. Since this post was in October 2013, it appears on the 19th page of the search result for EcoManager. If a link to this post or the address was in the error message, then yes, only the problem with the vault would remain.

One could have also taken a look at the first page of the sub-forum Mods & Tools.
There you would quickly stumble upon the post and simply ask there why you couldn't find the right version in the vault, to resolve your last issue.

Swaygin wrote:
(1)I still would have been unable to find the files in the vault.

Statistics: Posted by DeimosEvotec — 09 Aug 2015, 14:51

Re: Forced Disabling of Mods

2015-08-09T14:40:51+02:00

Swaygin wrote:
briang wrote:You could've gotten that answer one of two ways without having a rant post:
A: Noticing the server search button and thinking: "Hmmmm maybe I should SEARCH THE SERVER for newer versions."
B: Asking chat why you can't find updated versions of X mod.

A: Show me another search engine in which "Enter," when the cursor remains in the search box, does not result in a search. Further, when you type and the list is narrowed down, how exactly are you supposed to deduce that it didn't work already?

- As was pointed out earlier, it's sufficient to do a server search on the mod vault for "eco" (and we now have a GitHub ticket for the stupid UI problem that caused you to miss that first time round).

The obvious response will answer the question, "What do I do to install the dependencies?" No new information was provided; yes, I've already been told I'm missing a dependency, and yes I already know it doesn't work, which is why I've reported it to begin with. Without Cuddles comment telling me to download Common Mod Tools, it still wouldn't be functioning. The user is going to need to know this.

The best option in my opinion, especially for UI mods, is (1). Let the user keep their old haircut if they want to. People will have various requests and glitches, but they can still play the game. It'd be nice if you could improve/fix some things, but if you don't have the time no big deal. If you start working on a fix and something comes up, there isn't any pressure to fix it immediately; no one is going to be unable to play the game until you finish.

My earlier post exhaustively explained why every blacklisted mod has been blacklisted. As you can see, we only blacklisted ones that are now obsolete, or are completely broken and have working replacements.

Your haircut analogy doesn't really work, because the only things we're stopping you from having are things that don't work. A better analogy might be going for a haircut, instead having a bucket of untreated sewage emptied over your head, coming back the following week for another haircut, and demanding to the manager that they "get some sort of quality control" because this time nobody emptied a bucket of untreated sewage over your head.

When I say "broken" I mean "You cannot play with these mods".

a. What do I have to upgrade to?

Due to the slightly strange way the mod system works, it's not currently possible to find the name of a mod which is not installed, and printing out the UID wouldn't really do you much good. (this is a limitation that's been around since the GPG days, though there is work going on to solve this particular problem, as "missing dependency" by itself isn't vastly useful).

With one exception, my replies now consist of copy-pasting sentences from my earlier posts.
I urge you to re-read what I wrote earlier.

I think I've pretty exhaustively answered all your questions. I've justified each and every blacklisting decision, and you seem to be showing evidence of not reading what I'm writing, so I think I'm done here.
Frankly, if you aren't happy with my answers, you are warmly invited to take a long walk off a short pier.

Statistics: Posted by ckitching — 09 Aug 2015, 14:40

Re: Forced Disabling of Mods

2015-08-09T13:56:55+02:00

Swaygin wrote:
(1) I would know the name of the version and that Common Mod Tools v1 was required. It would not have answered all my questions, because I still would have been unable to find the files in the vault.

(2) Search results appear from most recent to least recent. Since this post was in October 2013, it appears on the 19th page of the search result for EcoManager. If a link to this post or the address was in the error message, then yes, only the problem with the vault would remain.

Whatever the case, EcoManager is a specific example of the problems with forcing people to upgrade mods in general, which is what the post was about.

I suggest you re-read ckitching's post.

Statistics: Posted by Sheeo — 09 Aug 2015, 13:56

Re: Forced Disabling of Mods

2015-08-09T13:43:57+02:00

(1) I would know the name of the version and that Common Mod Tools v1 was required. It would not have answered all my questions, because I still would have been unable to find the files in the vault.

(2) Search results appear from most recent to least recent. Since this post was in October 2013, it appears on the 19th page of the search result for EcoManager. If a link to this post or the address was in the error message, then yes, only the problem with the vault would remain.

Whatever the case, EcoManager is a specific example of the problems with forcing people to upgrade mods in general, which is what the post was about.

Statistics: Posted by Swaygin — 09 Aug 2015, 13:43

Re: Forced Disabling of Mods

2015-08-09T11:57:53+02:00

Well, how about looking for a forum post of a mod if you have problems with it.
Then you would have been greeted with these words:

Crotalus wrote:
NOTICE: You must use version 7 or above with patch 3641

v7 requires Common Mod Tools v1

The mod auther posted this on the 13th of July.

This would have answered all of your questions:
Which version to use and what dependencies it has.

Statistics: Posted by DeimosEvotec — 09 Aug 2015, 11:57

Re: Forced Disabling of Mods

2015-08-09T09:04:23+02:00

Here is a link to directions:

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=10543

There are 5144 downloads for EcoManagerV3, but only 280 downloads for EcoManagerV7 and 166 downloads for Common Mod Tools (implying many people have EcoManagerV7 but still cannot use it), so if you put this into the error message I bet it will save you a lot of questions and frustration.

Statistics: Posted by Swaygin — 09 Aug 2015, 09:04

Re: Forced Disabling of Mods

2015-08-09T08:41:55+02:00

Here's a decent analogy:

Let's say I offer to cut your hair, and you except with appreciation. However, after doing half of your head, I stop.

You're going to be a bit annoyed, yes? You'd prefer a new haircut most of all, but you would still greatly prefer your old haircut over a new haircut only on one side.

Many of the recent updates how been "half a haircut." Some things need to be fixed, no big deal. The problem is that it is forced upon users. Whereas previously various game functions worked, after updates many have not, and the previous version of the game is better than the new one. Prior versions aren't available anywhere - a few weeks ago I spent an hour or so trying to find them, to no avail, and instead all but stopped playing for a week.

Concerning mods in particular, you say an upgrade exists. Why not be clear about the process to acquire it? As of the last few days, there is exactly one version of EcoManager beyond 3, namely 7. Why not refer to it by name? Why not spend the 90 seconds (yes, 90 seconds) to verify that it exists and can be located in the vault? And that the user won't get any other errors (missing dependency) when they do?

Even in your latest comment your answers remain vague. I reported that I couldn't use the mod because of a "Missing Dependency." You responded:

ckitching wrote:
You've not installed the dependencies of the mod yet, of course it doesn't work.

The obvious response will answer the question, "What do I do to install the dependencies?" No new information was provided; yes, I've already been told I'm missing a dependency, and yes I already know it doesn't work, which is why I've reported it to begin with. Without Cuddles comment telling me to download Common Mod Tools, it still wouldn't be functioning. The user is going to need to know this.

Here is my entire point. There are two options:

(1) Don't force the user to update mods.
(2) Force the user to update mods, and be certain it is clear how to actually do so, it functions flawlessly, etc.

The best option in my opinion, especially for UI mods, is (1). Let the user keep their old haircut if they want to. People will have various requests and glitches, but they can still play the game. It'd be nice if you could improve/fix some things, but if you don't have the time no big deal. If you start working on a fix and something comes up, there isn't any pressure to fix it immediately; no one is going to be unable to play the game until you finish.

For option (2), the standards should indeed by high; when something isn't clear (e.g., "Missing Dependencies"), you need to give a detailed explanation. A possible way would be to write the directions out somewhere (e.g., the forum) and include the link for that mod with the error message. To do this you should go through the process yourself as if you were the typical user; this will confirm that it can really be done, and will alert you to the potential problems users might have. For this mod, "Upgrading the mod" leads to some obvious problems/questions for 95% of users:

a. What do I have to upgrade to?
- Since you're telling the user to upgrade, and you've gone through the process yourself, you must therefore know the name is EcoManagerV7. My use of the term "filename" was incorrect; what I meant was simply the name as it appears in the vault.

b. It isn't listed in the vault, what's going on?

c. Missing dependency? What exactly is missing?

I'm not saying that spelling out how to upgrade mods, etc. is fun. There will be a lot of stupid questions that will have to be answered ("Wait, where do I find the vault again?"), and it will inevitably consume some time. This is what you're signing up for when you forceably disable something. If you don't want to give clear, idiot-proof directions and spend this time...I don't blame you at all. But this means you shouldn't be forcing them in the first place. Don't give people half a haircut.

Statistics: Posted by Swaygin — 09 Aug 2015, 08:41

Re: Forced Disabling of Mods

2015-08-09T08:37:54+02:00

briang wrote:
You could've gotten that answer one of two ways without having a rant post:
A: Noticing the server search button and thinking: "Hmmmm maybe I should SEARCH THE SERVER for newer versions."
B: Asking chat why you can't find updated versions of X mod.

A: Show me another search engine in which "Enter," when the cursor remains in the search box, does not result in a search. Further, when you type and the list is narrowed down, how exactly are you supposed to deduce that it didn't work already?

B: And how many times should a user be expected to ask chat to be able to play the game as they did before? 1? 2? 10? This time, there were 3, when I was already perfectly content with what I had, i.e. 0. How long will it take for these 3 questions to be sequentially answered? Unknown. Thanks for the errands, but I'd prefer not be forced to do this.

Now, if you read the original post, you'll see that I'm addressing the general case, i.e. don't force people to change from something that works for them to something that may well not. This is the problem with glancing at the last entry of a thread and assuming you have something relevant to say.

Statistics: Posted by Swaygin — 09 Aug 2015, 08:37

Re: Forced Disabling of Mods

2015-08-08T12:30:53+02:00

we should just promote ckitching to the official communicator of all dev things. I like the patch notes for the beta, who did that?

edit: Swaygin: you need "Common mod tools" mod in the vault for EcoManager to work.

Statistics: Posted by Cuddles — 08 Aug 2015, 12:30

Re: Forced Disabling of Mods

2015-08-08T11:59:02+02:00

Swaygin wrote:
I found EcoManagerV7 and have downloaded it and replaced V3, but it is still forcibly blocked. When launching a regular FAF custom game, it is grayed and says "Missing Dependency."

This means another mod upon which this one depends is not installed.

Due to the slightly strange way the mod system works, it's not currently possible to find the name of a mod which is not installed, and printing out the UID wouldn't really do you much good. (this is a limitation that's been around since the GPG days, though there is work going on to solve this particular problem, as "missing dependency" by itself isn't vastly useful).

Swaygin wrote:
When launching a FAF (beta) game, EcoManagerV7 is now unclickable (unlike EcoManagerV3, which still functioned) yet there is popup, error message after the name, or color change. Note that this new code blacklisting mods itself appears to be buggy, and has created a new way to disable parts of the game from functioning.

I'm not actually sure what you mean here: unclickable in the sense that it's greyed out with "missing dependency"? That's expected behaviour if you haven't installed the other mods this one needs to work.
There was a bug in the mod manager prior to this update where it would actually let you turn on a mod when you didn't have its dependencies installed: this would allow you to have lots of fun crashing.

Swaygin wrote:
I have yet again removed and reinstalled FAF.

That is very unlikely to help.

Swaygin wrote:
Ckitching, the only part of your initial response that tried to address what I'd written said that this was done to save the developers' time. I don't think anyone's time has been or will be saved, and instead users' time will have been wasted and their freedom to play the game how they'd like unnecessarily restricted.

This isn't really true: my last post exhaustively explained why every blacklisted mod has been blacklisted. This feature saves player time by preventing you from playing with mods that we know are broken (very nearly all of which have never versions that aren't broken, so there's no point). With the exception of rks_explosions, we haven't blacklisted any of the known-broken mods that don't have new and working versions released.

Swaygin wrote:
First, there are less restrictive and intrusive ways to save developers' time from false error reports. Here's a possibility:

Yes, I know about the way the logfile contains the list of active mods, but the logfile is rarely the first thing we see. The flow is usually "Angry forum post" -> "Request for logs" -> "Failed attempt to acquire logs" -> "Days pass" -> "Logs appear" -> "You should turn of $BROKEN_MOD".
In cases where $BROKEN_MOD has a newer version that works, it is absurd to claim we are "unnecessarily restricting" users by compelling them to update to it. Nobody likes running in circles like that (and most players just won't bother, they'll just stop playing and have less fun).

Swaygin wrote:
Should a user encounter an error in the game, they will be less likely to blindly post in tech support after having repeatedly been shown this message at the start of their games.

This claim is wildly optimistic.

Swaygin wrote:
I still don't know what mod update you've even been referring to, as at every mentioning you've avoided the actual filename

This is due to a combination of the way the mod system doesn't allow you to figure out names of not-installed mods (without asking the server, something we're going to implement at some point, but until very recently it wasn't possible to send data in to the ingame lobby), and the way the mod vault's search function is kinda stupid.
As was pointed out earlier, it's sufficient to do a server search on the mod vault for "eco" (and we now have a GitHub ticket for the stupid UI problem that caused you to miss that first time round).

Swaygin wrote:
ckitching wrote:"Ally overflow"/"Ecomanager": All except the very latest version have been blacklisted. Spoke to Crotalus about them at the time: he's got a new version out of both of these that works just fine, I hear.

where the emphasis at the end is mine.

I hear from the guy who wrote the mod, who is surely the world authority on determining which versions of it work and should continue to be supported.

Swaygin wrote:
(1) Did you even know the name of the newest/very newest/very latest/new version you refer to?

It seems to be EcoManagerV7: you found it with a common-sense search earlier on.

Swaygin wrote:
(2) Did you look in the vault? If so, did you find it? If so, have you considered mentioning how to find it when you force people to try to upgrade?

I looked at the database while talking with Crotalus about which versions of his various mods he wanted blacklisted. For each one I observed the existence of at least one remaining non-blacklisted version, and confirmed with him that was the one he wanted to keep (and that he claims works).

Swaygin wrote:
(3) Did you try to play a game with the mod enabled in regular FAF?
(4) Did you try to play a game with the mod enabled in FAF (beta)?

It is the responsibility of mod authors to ensure their mods work. Crotalus is a particularly diligent mod author (who also sometimes contributes code to FAF), so I'm more than happy to take him at his word about which of the things he's maintaining aren't broken. This also puts him in a particularly good place to see what changes are occurring in FAF which may require changes to some of his mods.
I certainly don't have time to verify every mod in the vault (which is also part of why the blacklisting of broken mods has been so conservative: it's not really worth the effort to do more), and trusting the rest of the team to do their jobs right (as he seems to have done in this case) is necessary if I'm going to not go insane.

ckitching wrote:
So I somehow doubt the mod fails in both game modes for me yet works flawlessly in both for you (assuming you ever indeed got past step (1)).

You've not installed the dependencies of the mod yet, of course it doesn't work.

I am slightly surprised to learn the client doesn't recursively install dependencies when you ask it to download a mod from the vault. That's pretty stupid and would have solved you this problem: I'll make a ticket for that one, too.

Swaygin wrote:
If you can't spend 90 seconds to test a change that affects everyone playing the game, even after someone protests about a problem with its implementation, then there's a desperate need for some standard of quality control. If there aren't enough manhours for this then do everyone a favor and stop touching it until there are.

Well, it's a little more than 90 seconds to test if a mod works, and quite a lot more than 90 seconds to test if every mod works. It seems pretty reasonable to trust what mod authors say about the working-ness of their mods, and, indeed, in this case, it does work. You've just got a missing dependency. (I think this dependency for this mod is new since the old version, but you'll have to ask the author to be sure).

All the developers on this project (all 3-ish of us) are contributing their time, for free, to try and maximise the amount of fun people can have with our favourite computer game.
We do this as a hobby, because it's fun. While we are of course thrilled to help users, and to co-operate in the solution of any and all problems as part of our ongoing mission to improve the game, to waltz in here and demand "some standard of quality control" is pretty absurd.
We have automated tests (though not as many as I'd like), we have a beta phase now to help detect bugs we miss during our testing, and if you give me around £50,000 a year I can probably hire a professional QC team to make sure every release is completely flawless.

In the meantime, we're trying our best. If you, like I, don't like the current state of affairs, I'd be delighted to see some pull requests. It is a sad fact that "Wait until more manpower is available" is almost certainly non-terminating, so it's not really an option.
So, yes, mod vault is a bit fucked, and apparently the client doesn't resolve dependencies for some insane reason: we'll get to it as soon as we can, along with the zillions of other things that are currently broken and/or on fire.
On the bright side, the quantity of such things is going down. Just read (for want of a random example) the 3641 changelog.

Statistics: Posted by ckitching — 08 Aug 2015, 11:59

Re: Forced Disabling of Mods

2015-08-08T10:30:11+02:00

I found EcoManagerV7 and have downloaded it and replaced V3, but it is still forcibly blocked. When launching a regular FAF custom game, it is grayed and says "Missing Dependency." When launching a FAF (beta) game, EcoManagerV7 is now unclickable (unlike EcoManagerV3, which still functioned) yet there is popup, error message after the name, or color change. Note that this new code blacklisting mods itself appears to be buggy, and has created a new way to disable parts of the game from functioning. I have yet again removed and reinstalled FAF.

I reloaded EcoManagerV3 and can once again play on FAF (beta). Despite the obvious broader importance of EcoManagerV7 functioning with the beta, it's dumb of me to even mention this because I'm alerting people to "another opportunity to improve my user experience." I'll cross my fingers and hope no one "helps me" by blacklisting EcoManagerV3 too.

This entire situation demonstrates exactly why the user should be the one deciding whether or not they should use a mod, i.e. the argument of my original post. Whereas I would have previously agreed this could be a good idea for non-UI mods, I now strongly disagree.

Ckitching, the only part of your initial response that tried to address what I'd written said that this was done to save the developers' time. I don't think anyone's time has been or will be saved, and instead users' time will have been wasted and their freedom to play the game how they'd like unnecessarily restricted.

First, there are less restrictive and intrusive ways to save developers' time from false error reports. Here's a possibility:

(1) If a mod is problematic and enabled, use a pop-up screen (just as now) but make it a WARNING: "Use at your own risk." Have this pop up every time the mod is enabled, and additionally tell the user that before they post anything in the forums due to errors they should disable this mod. Should a user encounter an error in the game, they will be less likely to blindly post in tech support after having repeatedly been shown this message at the start of their games.
(2) If someone does post an error, go to the game.log file and search for "Active mods in session". Directly below this will be all the mods the user had enabled for the game. It would not be hard to make a program to automatically grab this information. Hell, you could make such a program spit out a couple of paragraphs which the person who claimed there was an error must then dig through to find the answer to their question; an appropriate disincentive to ignoring directions. Either way, very little developer time required.

Second, this has already led to a big waste of time for myself (it being "me" is important only to the extent that I represent a user) and others. I still don't know what mod update you've even been referring to, as at every mentioning you've avoided the actual filename, instead calling it:

- "the newest version"
- "the very newest version"
- "the very latest version"
- "the new version"

Although it needn't necessarily be such an awkward process, on second reading I noticed you wrote:

ckitching wrote:
"Ally overflow"/"Ecomanager": All except the very latest version have been blacklisted. Spoke to Crotalus about them at the time: he's got a new version out of both of these that works just fine, I hear.

where the emphasis at the end is mine.

So, how many of the steps in the process your message directed me to (which I "apparently didn't read") did you actually attempt before barring people from playing single player games offline with it?

Specifically,

(1) Did you even know the name of the newest/very newest/very latest/new version you refer to?
(2) Did you look in the vault? If so, did you find it? If so, have you considered mentioning how to find it when you force people to try to upgrade?
(3) Did you try to play a game with the mod enabled in regular FAF?
(4) Did you try to play a game with the mod enabled in FAF (beta)?

As I already said in my initial post, I just uninstalled/reinstalled SupCom, FA and FAF a couple days ago to try and eliminate another bug. So I somehow doubt the mod fails in both game modes for me yet works flawlessly in both for you (assuming you ever indeed got past step (1)). If it works, you've probably forgotten to re-enable the blacklist for yourself before trying this test; remember that the user won't generally have the luxury of disabling it. If, strangely, you're somehow able to get it to work nonetheless, then .... be sure to blacklist it immediately because it's causing at least one person at least one mysterious problem.

If you can't spend 90 seconds to test a change that affects everyone playing the game, even after someone protests about a problem with its implementation, then there's a desperate need for some standard of quality control. If there aren't enough manhours for this then do everyone a favor and stop touching it until there are.

Statistics: Posted by Swaygin — 08 Aug 2015, 10:30

Re: Forced Disabling of Mods

2015-08-07T20:08:13+02:00

The mod vault is definitely a train wreck that needs work.

Patches encouraged.

Statistics: Posted by ckitching — 07 Aug 2015, 20:08

Re: Forced Disabling of Mods

2015-08-07T19:44:42+02:00

Maybe we can make the mod vault a little less stupid by allowing you to search by pressing enter, not just when you hit the button. https://github.com/FAForever/client/issues/219

Statistics: Posted by CodingSquirrel — 07 Aug 2015, 19:44

Re: Forced Disabling of Mods

2015-08-07T19:08:29+02:00

Thanks Zock

Statistics: Posted by Swaygin — 07 Aug 2015, 19:08