Hard Light Productions Forums

Announcements => Announcements => Topic started by: Goober5000 on May 12, 2008, 07:49:53 pm

Title: Hosting Policy
Post by: Goober5000 on May 12, 2008, 07:49:53 pm
We strongly prefer people to join existing projects rather than create new ones, but if you feel equally strongly about starting your own project, here are the requirements for applying for project hosting:

1) You must demonstrate significant progress on your project.  Examples of significant progress would be a modeldump or demo release, or evidence of strong and detailed internal project organization.

2) You must have a campaign outline.  (You don't have to release it publically, just show it to the person evaluating your hosting request.)  It can be detailed or vague, but it has to lay out a plan of attack.  This ensures that projects will make progress and will not wander aimlessly for years before settling down with a design.

3) If you want to be listed as a "hosted" project, then you will need a website, or a project page that people can visit to view story, screenshots, news, and so forth.  It doesn't have to be very big, or very complex, but it has to be halfway decent, not something you threw together in five minutes.  All hosted projects are given their own subdomain on hard-light.net.

4) We will not approve new project requests from any projects with campaigns longer than 20 missions.  History has shown that the failure rate for such campaigns has been very, very high, probably upwards of ninety percent.  Of those campaigns that do eventually release something, most languish for years, often going through one or more dormant stages before finishing.

5) Provision must have been made for what will happen if your mod does die. Too many campaigns have been hosted on HLP for several years only to end up unreleased. All the effort involved is then wasted, often because although there are many assets which could be released, people have moved on and can't be contacted and asked about making a public dump.

6) The team must have a clear policy over who owns assets while the mod is being worked on and after release. Releases that use Creative Commons or some other license which allows other members of the community to use the assets after release will be looked upon more favourably.

The object of this policy is not to discourage projects per se, but to ensure that the energy expended on projects is profitable and productive.  There's nothing worse than pouring months and months of effort into a bloated albatross only to have it die off or be abandoned.  Smaller campaigns of 5 to 10 missions have a much higher chance of succeeding.

It is also worth noting that FreeSpace has been out for a long time.  If you have an idea for a fantastic new campaign of epic proportions, chances are pretty good that someone, or several someones, has already thought of it.  In this situation, you're much better off finding an existing campaign similar to your own and joining that instead.
Title: Re: Hosting Policy
Post by: colecampbell666 on May 12, 2008, 07:56:51 pm
I think that is a good guideline. And on a side note, could you get rid of all the old projects on the hosted sites list?
Title: Re: Hosting Policy
Post by: GTSVA on May 12, 2008, 07:58:46 pm
BUT who'd want to play such short campaigns?

Derelict
was long, but it was worth my time (disappointed when I finished it.)

Just asking-I'm not a fredder... :doubt: :blah:
Title: Re: Hosting Policy
Post by: colecampbell666 on May 12, 2008, 08:01:25 pm
Most campaigns are only short. BP was only like 12 missions, IIRC. (I could be wrong)
Title: Re: Hosting Policy
Post by: Nuke on May 12, 2008, 08:11:46 pm
does this also apply to game warden hosted things? like nukemod?
Title: Re: Hosting Policy
Post by: colecampbell666 on May 12, 2008, 08:51:06 pm
This isn't about space so much as clutter, I believe. I think that GW has it's own rules.
Title: Re: Hosting Policy
Post by: Droid803 on May 12, 2008, 08:55:12 pm
Most campaigns are only short. BP was only like 12 missions, IIRC. (I could be wrong)

BP had 23 (00 through 22)

A 20 mission maximum is a little harsh, but if it comes from experience, then...well, I can't argue.
Title: Re: Hosting Policy
Post by: blowfish on May 12, 2008, 09:03:27 pm
Q: Will you allow exceptions to the 20 mission rule if a campaign shows much promise and the creator(s) seem like they will finish it in a timely manner?
Title: Re: Hosting Policy
Post by: phreak on May 12, 2008, 11:55:43 pm
I think they'd be more likely to accept a 20+ mission campaign if half of it is already done.
Title: Re: Hosting Policy
Post by: blowfish on May 12, 2008, 11:59:13 pm
BTW not that I am going to anytime in the near future, but how do you apply for project hosting?
Title: Re: Hosting Policy
Post by: Goober5000 on May 13, 2008, 12:24:10 am
...could you get rid of all the old projects on the hosted sites list?
Which ones?


BUT who'd want to play such short campaigns?
Who'd want to play The Procyon Insurgency then, which only has 17 missions?  Or Shrouding the Light, with 15?  Inferno, with 14?  Aeos Affair, with 10; Cardinal Spear, with 8; Destiny of Peace, with 7; Twilight, with 6; Deus Ex Machina, with 5; Echo Gate or Phantoms, with 4 each?  You would know better than I.


does this also apply to game warden hosted things? like nukemod?
This policy only applies to HLP.


Q: Will you allow exceptions to the 20 mission rule if a campaign shows much promise and the creator(s) seem like they will finish it in a timely manner?
Not gonna answer that, as it's a hypothetical question.


how do you apply for project hosting?
You contact one of the admins and ask.
Title: Re: Hosting Policy
Post by: blowfish on May 13, 2008, 12:53:09 am
Q: Will you allow exceptions to the 20 mission rule if a campaign shows much promise and the creator(s) seem like they will finish it in a timely manner?
Not gonna answer that, as it's a hypothetical question.

But that does acknowledge the possibility of it happening...
Title: Re: Hosting Policy
Post by: Goober5000 on May 13, 2008, 01:46:49 am
But that does acknowledge the possibility of it happening...
You just don't know when to shut up, do you?  Fine.  Just for you, I'll eliminate the ambiguity.  NO.  No, we will not grant any exceptions whatsoever to the 20-mission rule.  This policy exists for a reason, and if we let members hack it to death with a thousand hypotheticals, it will quickly become meaningless.

We are not going to countenance a ninety-percent failure rate on new campaigns.  It's discouraging to the project members and it's harmful to the health of the community -- just look at what happened to SectorGame.  If you want to challenge the policy, then man up, come back in six months with your twenty-plus mission campaign, and prove us wrong.  Whining about it when you don't even plan on applying for hosting will get you nowhere.  The rule stands, no exceptions.
Title: Re: Hosting Policy
Post by: Fury on May 13, 2008, 07:10:37 am
And here I thought episodic content would be the word of the day. I've never really understood why projects had to keep partially finished campaigns to themselves when they could release it in parts. Episodic release design also endorses proper outlining, planning and mission designing. Which again actually improves the chances of someone being able to finish it, even if that someone would be someone else than the one who started it all.
Title: Re: Hosting Policy
Post by: blowfish on May 13, 2008, 08:56:55 am
But that does acknowledge the possibility of it happening...
You just don't know when to shut up, do you?  Fine.  Just for you, I'll eliminate the ambiguity.  NO.  No, we will not grant any exceptions whatsoever to the 20-mission rule.  This policy exists for a reason, and if we let members hack it to death with a thousand hypotheticals, it will quickly become meaningless.

All right, I'm sorry for being an annoying n00b.  I was just in a bad mood last night.  And I am known for asking hypothetical questions.
Title: Re: Hosting Policy
Post by: Hellstryker on May 13, 2008, 09:20:20 am
And here I thought episodic content would be the word of the day. I've never really understood why projects had to keep partially finished campaigns to themselves when they could release it in parts. Episodic release design also endorses proper outlining, planning and mission designing. Which again actually improves the chances of someone being able to finish it, even if that someone would be someone else than the one who started it all.

QFT. Me, Bengal, Retsof, Shiv, And Blowfish are working on a 40 mission mod, released in 10 mission chapters
Title: Re: Hosting Policy
Post by: Polpolion on May 13, 2008, 11:35:20 am
But that does acknowledge the possibility of it happening...
You just don't know when to shut up, do you?  Fine.  Just for you, I'll eliminate the ambiguity.  NO.  No, we will not grant any exceptions whatsoever to the 20-mission rule.  This policy exists for a reason, and if we let members hack it to death with a thousand hypotheticals, it will quickly become meaningless.

We are not going to countenance a ninety-percent failure rate on new campaigns.  It's discouraging to the project members and it's harmful to the health of the community -- just look at what happened to SectorGame.  If you want to challenge the policy, then man up, come back in six months with your twenty-plus mission campaign, and prove us wrong.  Whining about it when you don't even plan on applying for hosting will get you nowhere.  The rule stands, no exceptions.

Now I'm afraid to ask if the mod's already done before the request. :nervous:
Title: Re: Hosting Policy
Post by: colecampbell666 on May 13, 2008, 01:10:28 pm
...could you get rid of all the old projects on the hosted sites list?
Which ones?

[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: Hosting Policy
Post by: Mobius on May 13, 2008, 01:34:28 pm
You must have had a good reason to do this. Question...what led you to to post this Announcement? Someone recently asked for project hosting and you denied it without letting us know? Just curious.

Who'd want to play The Procyon Insurgency then, which only has 17 missions?  Or Shrouding the Light, with 15?  Inferno, with 14?  Aeos Affair, with 10; Cardinal Spear, with 8; Destiny of Peace, with 7; Twilight, with 6; Deus Ex Machina, with 5; Echo Gate or Phantoms, with 4 each?  You would know better than I.

I'm sorry  but these are bad examples. First of all, PI has been dead for a long while(CP, correct me if I'm wrong)and would have never been hosted I think. Secondly, these are campaigns, not "complete" projects. What's the point in asking for hosting a 5-10-15 missions campaign before FREDding it? People can simply FRED it and ask for direct hosting as soon as it has been completed.

When you're dealing with a modpack in very good shape and a campaign whose number of missions exceeds 20 you can't do that, not under a moral point of view. You can always host models and graphics that risk to get lost if they remain in the hands of common members. Furthermore, teams can be renewed even after a while in an unexpected way - Inferno's an example.

And what if the number of missions is 21?
Title: Re: Hosting Policy
Post by: colecampbell666 on May 13, 2008, 01:43:49 pm
CP is always here. And PI was only finished less that a year ago.
Title: Re: Hosting Policy
Post by: Jeff Vader on May 13, 2008, 01:46:15 pm
And what if the number of missions is 21?[/i][/color]
I'll eliminate the ambiguity.  NO.  No, we will not grant any exceptions whatsoever to the 20-mission rule.  This policy exists for a reason, and if we let members hack it to death with a thousand hypotheticals, it will quickly become meaningless.
Reading is fun.
Title: Re: Hosting Policy
Post by: Mobius on May 13, 2008, 01:49:04 pm
Does the forum activity count so much? People can come here to post without working on their projects and can even create new accounts to come here without letting the others know("Hey, what about...?").
Title: Re: Hosting Policy
Post by: castor on May 13, 2008, 02:11:51 pm
So, do the strictly  "cinematic" missions count towards the total of 20?
Or are only the missions where player actions can affect the events counted in (take Blue Planet for an example)?
Title: Re: Hosting Policy
Post by: Mobius on May 13, 2008, 02:34:50 pm
"20" is a generic number. No specific conditions. Meh.
Title: Re: Hosting Policy
Post by: karajorma on May 13, 2008, 02:47:44 pm
...could you get rid of all the old projects on the hosted sites list?
Which ones?

What the **** have you got against FRED Zone! :confused:

And Casualties of War is finished, released and sequelled so I don't know why you'd be nominating it either.
Title: Re: Hosting Policy
Post by: colecampbell666 on May 13, 2008, 02:51:25 pm
They are no longer updated. It is kinda a put-off having half the projects on the list from 2003. I suggest incorporating FRED Zone into the Wiki or something, or else something to make it look more updated. (even just remove the dates on the messages)

And CoW may be finished, maybe hide the site and put it on FSMods.

Even just make another list that says "Outdated Sites".

I remember even seeing an HLP banner on one of these sites in 05, and I was like "hell, these places are so old that HLP probably doesn't exist any more!"
Title: Re: Hosting Policy
Post by: Mobius on May 13, 2008, 02:54:09 pm
Which is a good idea :yes:
Title: Re: Hosting Policy
Post by: karajorma on May 13, 2008, 04:21:31 pm
Somehow I don't think that complete project = unhosted is a message we really want to be sending out. :p
Title: Re: Hosting Policy
Post by: colecampbell666 on May 13, 2008, 04:39:18 pm
Somehow I don't think that complete project = unhosted is a message we really want to be sending out. :p
Even just make another list that says "Outdated Sites".
Title: Re: Hosting Policy
Post by: Polpolion on May 13, 2008, 04:50:16 pm
I can see it now: "Hey, Casualties of War dev team! Congrats on you release of your mod, but now that you're done, your site is now OLDE and we're marking you as an strange, dead project!"  :rolleyes:
Title: Re: Hosting Policy
Post by: GTSVA on May 13, 2008, 04:57:00 pm
Quote from: Goober5000
BUT who'd want to play such short campaigns?
Who'd want to play The Procyon Insurgency then, which only has 17 missions?  Or Shrouding the Light, with 15?  Inferno, with 14?  Aeos Affair, with 10; Cardinal Spear, with 8; Destiny of Peace, with 7; Twilight, with 6; Deus Ex Machina, with 5; Echo Gate or Phantoms, with 4 each?  You would know better than I.


Oh....I just like long campaigns... :D
Title: Re: Hosting Policy
Post by: colecampbell666 on May 13, 2008, 05:17:33 pm
I obviously mean that .01 seconds after the campaign is done it should be archived. :rolleyes:

Like I said before, even just remove the old news links.
Title: Re: Hosting Policy
Post by: Axem on May 13, 2008, 05:21:21 pm
What if I have a 21 mission campaign encapsulated in a single mission? What if I decide to bump up my missions at the very last moment from 5 to 98? What if I make a compilation of greatest hits missions, am I limited only to the top 20?

These are all very pressing questions that I can't go on living without.
Title: Re: Hosting Policy
Post by: blowfish on May 13, 2008, 05:29:07 pm
QFT. Me, Bengal, Retsof, Shiv, And Blowfish are working on a 40 mission mod

Though I actually haven't had anything to do for it yet.
Title: Re: Hosting Policy
Post by: colecampbell666 on May 13, 2008, 05:57:57 pm
What if I have a 21 mission campaign encapsulated in a single mission? What if I decide to bump up my missions at the very last moment from 5 to 98? What if I make a compilation of greatest hits missions, am I limited only to the top 20?

These are all very pressing questions that I can't go on living without.
Exactly. I've made so many high quality epic FRED missions I could never select which ones to use. You hit the nail on the head, Axem.
Title: Re: Hosting Policy
Post by: blowfish on May 13, 2008, 06:04:25 pm
You didn't sense the sarcasm :rolleyes:

I'm sure that if half of the missions were done already and the rest were progressing quickly, they would make an exception.
Title: Re: Hosting Policy
Post by: colecampbell666 on May 13, 2008, 06:06:43 pm
What sarcasm? What post?
Title: Re: Hosting Policy
Post by: haloboy100 on May 13, 2008, 06:16:12 pm
BUT who'd want to play such short campaigns?
Who'd want to play The Procyon Insurgency then, which only has 17 missions?  Or Shrouding the Light, with 15?  Inferno, with 14?  Aeos Affair, with 10; Cardinal Spear, with 8; Destiny of Peace, with 7; Twilight, with 6; Deus Ex Machina, with 5; Echo Gate or Phantoms, with 4 each?  You would know better than I.
Not me, for one. I've never even heard of most of those. Hell, the only ones I'm familiar with are the Procyon Insurgency and Inferno.
But I don't see the point of the 20 mission rule. Some people (i'm sure) lose motivation to finish a campaign on the third mission, and some lose it 1/4 way through the first mission (like me). Setting a deadline of 20 missions too me just seems like a purpose to rush and get it done and over with, resulting in bad mission design.

What if I have a 21 mission campaign encapsulated in a single mission? What if I decide to bump up my missions at the very last moment from 5 to 98? What if I make a compilation of greatest hits missions, am I limited only to the top 20?

These are all very pressing questions that I can't go on living without.

Will you do that?

And, damn, I'd love to join an existing project, but despite my proficiency with FRED (more then most people think), I have no imagination (motivation issues aside) :(.
Title: Re: Hosting Policy
Post by: BlueFlames on May 13, 2008, 06:32:53 pm
Quote
This is turning into the Month of Policies™.  ...  Blah, blah, blah.  I'm not so rude as to quote the whole post for a short reply.

Thank you for the ongoing effort to focus the community on completing viable projects over hyping recently-announced, never-to-be-released megaprojects.  I, for one, prefer seeing a host of smaller releases much more than decade-long waits punctuated by half-assed cancellation notices.

[Insert obligatory bile here, because it would be wrong for a user to approve of something the administration came up with.]
Title: Re: Hosting Policy
Post by: Hellstryker on May 13, 2008, 07:03:15 pm
QFT. Me, Bengal, Retsof, Shiv, And Blowfish are working on a 40 mission mod

Though I actually haven't had anything to do for it yet.

Because bengal is a very lazy UV mapper
Title: Re: Hosting Policy
Post by: The Spac on May 13, 2008, 11:08:28 pm
I'm sick of the *****ing you people are giving the rules have been laid out and you've been given the reason. They know what they were doing when they posted the 20 mission limit and a reason was given. If you don't like it you can always host it somewhere else.
Title: Re: Hosting Policy
Post by: NGTM-1R on May 14, 2008, 12:57:35 am
We strongly prefer people to join existing projects rather than create new ones, but if you feel equally strongly about starting your own project, here are the requirements for applying for project hosting:

You will be invited to note bitter irony with me as we go along...

1) You must demonstrate significant progress on your project.  Examples of significant progress would be a modeldump or demo release, or evidence of strong and detailed internal project organization.

Perfectly reasonable...and poorly adhered to, honestly, but oh well.

2) You must have a website.  It doesn't have to be very big, or very complex, but it has to exist.  And it has to be halfway decent, not something you threw together in five minutes.  You can put a temporary site up on GeoCities or Angelfire prior to moving it to HLP.

I'm tempted to say "**** you too." because I don't build websites, I build goddamn campaigns, and this is one that's been violated before. (Try the Halo for FS site kiddos.) In fact, I'd even point out this is detrimental to your arguments as you have posted numerous campaign examples as good ones that don't have a website anybody saw fit to tell me about.

3) You must have a campaign outline.  (You don't have to release it publically, just show it to the person evaluating your hosting request.)  It can be detailed or vague, but it has to lay out a plan of attack.  This ensures that projects will make progress and will not wander aimlessly for years before settling down with a design.

Also perfectly reasonable. Now if only most projects would keep their stuff in this category up to date.

4) We will not approve new hosting requests from any projects with campaigns longer than 20 missions.  History has shown that the failure rate for such campaigns has been very, very high, probably upwards of ninety percent.  Of those campaigns that do eventually release something, most languish for years, often going through one or more dormant stages before finishing.

This is, on the surface, a reasonable request, yet it ignores the episodic content thing discussed earlier in this thread; I'd like to hear an opinion on that.  However I also think it's a damn shame.

There's also that matter that AFAIK most of the projects on these forums are not being held up by a lack of FREDders. Getting people to do missions is easier than it ever has been before. Now if somebody wants to be an elitest ass and say nobody else can work on their campaign, that's their problem and you can boot them in the head all you like. But completing a 20+ mission campaign is more feasible now then it ever has been before, so it seems short-sighted to ban them.

And I suppose I need to go out and indict the whole damn community, myself included, while I'm here.

Somebody once said that the difference between Blaise Russel and the rest of us was that he would actually get off his ass and FRED.

That's absolutely true.

The rest of us are out here insistant on either slacking or whining about models, cutscenes, tech anis, voiceacting, or **** knows what. How many campaigns on this forum are currently held up on this kind of thing? I would guess most. I know for sure of several. Think of all the campaigns like Homesick we could have made in the amount of time we've wasted on bells and whistles. If you're actually sitting there and working at it, not alt-tabbing out to do other crap, a mission shouldn't really take more than six hours of actual work. At one hour a day it is totally within the realm of possiblity to finish a 20-mission campaign inside of a month and actually have it be decent. Not great, but decent. I know for a fact I managed to build a 5-mission campaign in less then a week (Operation Savior) and most of that time ended up being used up in consulting the community on FRED issues. It probably would have originally met the target of being built within a 24-hour period but for FRED.

20 missions and epic story is not the problem. 20 missions, a new fleet, voiceacting, cutscenes, tech anis, and CB anis. That is the problem. And you've failed to acknowledge it. You're confusing number of missions with scope of the project.

The object of this policy is not to discourage projects per se, but to ensure that the energy expended on projects is profitable and productive.  There's nothing worse than pouring months and months of effort into a bloated albatross only to have it die off or be abandoned.  Smaller campaigns of 5 to 10 missions have a much higher chance of succeeding.

Difficult to object here, but then again, see above.

It is also worth noting that FreeSpace has been out for a long time.  If you have an idea for a fantastic new campaign of epic proportions, chances are pretty good that someone, or several someones, has already thought of it.  In this situation, you're much better off finding an existing campaign similar to your own and joining that instead.

Except, they probably died along the way. Except, you even point out that they probably died along the way. Except, sorry, but not all stories have yet been thought of here.

I think I've been around long enough to say reasonably safely it's not hard to think of a new idea nobody's ever made a campaign out of. Hell I have a stack of them, most of which bear very little resemblence to the concepts of other campaigns I've seen, and not all of which I'm likely to use. And dear god, we haven't even started with the different presentation of old ideas yet, or the general improvement upon. This point is pure talking out of your ass, Goob. I'm sorry to put it that way, but not as sorry as I am to hear you say it.
Title: Re: Hosting Policy
Post by: Goober5000 on May 14, 2008, 01:35:46 am
I'm faintly amazed at the level of childishness on display in this thread.  Do you guys simply enjoy complaining for the sake of complaining?  I thought I could put a stop to it by laying the smackdown on blowfish; I now apologize for singling him out, as it clearly did little to establish precedent for everybody else.

Now look.  You need to realize that letting projects run wild with no focus, no direction, no strategy, and no definition of success is very bad management practice.  (Go look at the Iraq War for a real-life illustration.)  What we're trying to do here is harness the creative efforts of members and channel them into productive projects.  Not throw them away on vague albatrosses that will cause burnouts five years down the road.  If the project is destined to die or fade away anyway, then it's better to save those five years and use them on something more profitable.  (Look up pruning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruning) for another real-life illustration.)

Now that that's out of the way, let me address the mosquito posts with a well-dispersed shotgun blast:

1) We are not going to remove projects from the Hosted list simply because they're old.  They're still hosted, aren't they?  Have some respect for your elders -- both the campaigns and the people.

2) Releasing campaigns in chapters, while a good solution in theory, adds too much risk in my opinion.  It's far too easy for somebody to disguise an albatross as a chapter'ed campaign, and then we end up with the very same problems we had before.  Sequels, however, don't fall under this category.

3) The reason I posted the policy is because I found it in the admin forum and realized it had never been announced.  And the reason it was in the admin forum is because it was composed after we hosted Procyon Insurgency and Halo for FreeSpace, and we figured we should have something official written down.

4) I don't think cinematic missions should count toward the 20.  We wouldn't count cutscenes, after all.

5) For those not familiar with the short campaigns I listed, I highly recommend you go check them out, as they're well worth playing.  That's not an exhaustive list, either... there are a bunch more short campaigns I didn't list.

6) If you don't like the hosting policy, there's nothing forcing you to host it here.  Go apply at Game-Warden or SectorGame.

7) It's worth keeping in mind exactly what hosting means.  It means you have a website and, optionally, a development forum.  So obviously, if you want presence on the web then we would really like you to know how to design a website.  We aren't going to do it for you.

8) As a corollary to #7, if all you want to do is post a campaign and you don't need or want a website or forum, then you don't need "hosting" and this policy doesn't apply to you.  Just go ahead and release your project in the Missions and Campaigns forum.  (Most of the short campaigns I listed were released this way.)

9) I'm going to clarify that this policy only applies to campaigns in development.  If you came along with a finished campaign, most of the rules wouldn't apply to you and the rest wouldn't make sense.  If we denied your hosting application, it would be for an unrelated reason like lack of space or bandwidth, neither of which look like they'd be a problem for the foreseeable future.

10) I actually do think projects are held up by a lack of FREDders, for the simple reason that FREDders are in short supply on HLP.  Look at the frequency of posts in General FreeSpace (plot, writing, and commentary) and FreeSpace Modding (models) compared FRED Discussion.  Also, note that, by definition, mission design is the one and only prerequisite to a campaign release.  Everything else, from cutscenes to new mods to new graphical effects, is just polish.

11) If completing a 20+ mission campaign is easier now than ever before, where are all the 20+ mission campaigns?  We have plenty of examples of HTL models, rendered cutscenes, bumpmapped textures, and other such excellence in many other areas of expertise.

12) Agreed regarding the fact that people try to be too epic for their own good.  However, I still think number of missions is a good metric, as the scope of the project seems to scale linearly with the size of the campaign.

13) Nearly all the campaigns here fall into one or more of several well-trodden categories.  Terrans fight against Terrans; Terrans fight against Vasudans.  Vasudans fight against Terrans; Vasudans fight against Vasudans.  Terrans and Vasudans fight against Shivans, either together or separately, and sometimes in parallel with one of the first four.  Some faction discovers a technology or secret that they shouldn't have, or that somebody else wants.  A charismatic leader is causing trouble and must be captured/defended.  Etc.  To pick on CP5670, Procyon Insurgency was basically Silent Threat with cooler missions and with plot elements swapped around.

14) Less posting, more development would be beneficial for us all.

Okay, so this was a long post, and I don't want my bullet points to take away from the first two paragraphs.  Let me close with two good quotes that are applicable here:

Make everything as simple as possible, but no simpler. (Einstein)
A designer knows he has achieved perfections not when there is nothing to add, but when there is nothing left to take away (Saint-Exupery)
Title: Re: Hosting Policy
Post by: Fury on May 14, 2008, 01:58:03 am
So, a 50 missions long campaign is easy enough to get hosted (provided you have a decent writeup finished) by dumping the last 30 missions into a sequel campaign. After completing the 20 missions long first campaign, you still have your project hosted and can continue on with the remaining 30 missions. You just need to choose your words carefully when presenting your hosting request.
Title: Re: Hosting Policy
Post by: FreeSpaceFreak on May 14, 2008, 05:49:13 am
Isn't that what Inferno does?
Title: Re: Hosting Policy
Post by: NGTM-1R on May 14, 2008, 09:52:11 am
I'm faintly amazed at the level of childishness on display in this thread.  Do you guys simply enjoy complaining for the sake of complaining?  I thought I could put a stop to it by laying the smackdown on blowfish; I now apologize for singling him out, as it clearly did little to establish precedent for everybody else.

I'm faintly amazed at lumping everyone into a catchall belittling category like that. I apologize if my use of adult language somehow made my post seem more childish. (Paradox...) I do not apologize for pointing out that the arbitrary limits you wish to impose on the degree of work to be done have massive loopholes and these need to be closed.

If you want us to act like adults, then let's have a bit less of the "do as I say, not as I do." Opposition to this is not all poorly founded, Goober, and your complaining that you did something you must have known would be controversial and it generated controversy is...well, surely you must have known this would happen. If you didn't want to deal with it that much then you should have stayed quiet or not done it in the first place. That you resorted to calling us all childish instead is probably the most childish thing anyone in this thread has yet done.

4) I don't think cinematic missions should count toward the 20.  We wouldn't count cutscenes, after all.

I've said it before, but you didn't seem to hear me, so I'll say it again. You probably should count cutscenes, or at least rendered cutscenes, because those take a lot longer to get out the door than a mission usually. If you're going to impose an arbitrary limit on the amount of work that is in these campaigns then you really should think such a thing through. And that cutscene mission thing is going to come back to bite you sometime. Perhaps a cap of 5 cutscene missions and 20 campaign ones?

10) I actually do think projects are held up by a lack of FREDders, for the simple reason that FREDders are in short supply on HLP.  Look at the frequency of posts in General FreeSpace (plot, writing, and commentary) and FreeSpace Modding (models) compared FRED Discussion.  Also, note that, by definition, mission design is the one and only prerequisite to a campaign release.  Everything else, from cutscenes to new mods to new graphical effects, is just polish.

Which is why ST:R and BWO aren't out the door...?

You're dodging the point. Mission design has always been the only prerequisite, yet you can do a lot more than mission design to make yourself have problems getting a campaign done.  If somebody comes in here with 20 missions and a rendered cutscene for each then odds are pretty good they're going to fail, aren't they? You're trying to impose an arbitrary limit on one aspect of the work involved in creating a campaign and refusing to make sense regarding any other particular aspect. Now, I'll grant that the 20 mission cap puts a damper on anyone really showing off an all-new fleet or the like and that might discourge them, but there's no accounting for people. (Or maybe it doesn't, since you listed INFR1.)

13) Nearly all the campaigns here fall into one or more of several well-trodden categories.  Terrans fight against Terrans; Terrans fight against Vasudans.  Vasudans fight against Terrans; Vasudans fight against Vasudans.  Terrans and Vasudans fight against Shivans, either together or separately, and sometimes in parallel with one of the first four.  Some faction discovers a technology or secret that they shouldn't have, or that somebody else wants.  A charismatic leader is causing trouble and must be captured/defended.  Etc.  To pick on CP5670, Procyon Insurgency was basically Silent Threat with cooler missions and with plot elements swapped around.

And if you really want to oversimplify like that then you have bigger problems then just not being able to parse that campaigns are more than just building the missions usually when they fail. Which Terrans/Vasudans/Shivans and why? We haven't even scratched the surface of all those. Somebody once asked for a pirate campaign in Campaigns discussion. Only one released example could be provided. There are no active Shivan POV campaigns at this time. The list goes on. We've seen Terran campaigns from the points of view of line squadrons and specops people and God knows what, but there are yet viewpoints unexplored. (So what was Han-Ronald corporate security doing during Capella?) There are methods of presentation, too. Missions alternating in viewpoint between opposing sides, or parallel views of the same events (generally or specifically) either in the same fashion or as two seperate yet connected campaigns.

And that's what I can list off the top of my head. I haven't even touched things like the rebuild of Derelict.

14) Less posting, more development would be beneficial for us all.

Two hours a day in FRED. Next point please.

Okay, so this was a long post, and I don't want my bullet points to take away from the first two paragraphs.  Let me close with two good quotes that are applicable here:

Make everything as simple as possible, but no simpler. (Einstein)
A designer knows he has achieved perfections not when there is nothing to add, but when there is nothing left to take away (Saint-Exupery)

Irony demands I point out that I have taken the second quote's stance and you have decided I am not correct.
Title: Re: Hosting Policy
Post by: jdjtcagle on May 14, 2008, 10:28:51 am
It really doesn't have to be this way, people.  It's more like having a problem with authority other than a problem with a policy, which is, in the best interest of them rather than you.  BTW, it's pretty nice of them to even offer hosting.
Title: Re: Hosting Policy
Post by: Jeff Vader on May 14, 2008, 10:32:24 am
BTW, it's pretty nice of them to even offer hosting.
Indeed. If you don't like it, host it elsewhere. I admit to have difficulties understanding why people are raising a hell about this. Their space, their bandwidth, their rules.
Title: Re: Hosting Policy
Post by: castor on May 14, 2008, 10:53:32 am
4) I don't think cinematic missions should count toward the 20.  We wouldn't count cutscenes, after all.
I've said it before, but you didn't seem to hear me, so I'll say it again. You probably should count cutscenes, or at least rendered cutscenes, because those take a lot longer to get out the door than a mission usually. If you're going to impose an arbitrary limit on the amount of work that is in these campaigns then you really should think such a thing through. And that cutscene mission thing is going to come back to bite you sometime. Perhaps a cap of 5 cutscene missions and 20 campaign ones?
On the other hand, when only the cinematics are incomplete, its unlikely to postpone an otherwise completed campaign forever..
But this should be specified carefully, so that we don't end up limiting also the style of campaigns in addition to their size.
Title: Re: Hosting Policy
Post by: Mobius on May 14, 2008, 10:55:33 am
I don't think hosting projects here on HLP is the problem.

To me, this Announcement sounds like a way to tell forumites to stop coming out with (ambitious)project ideas and join existing projects instead to make them run faster...that's why I find it a bit harsh.


On the other hand, when only the cinematics are incomplete, its unlikely to postpone an otherwise completed campaign forever..
But this should be specified carefully, so that we don't end up limiting also the style of campaigns in addition to their size.

6-7 Steadfast missions are the equivalent of 20 normal missions. Yeah, the style tells a lot.
Title: Re: Hosting Policy
Post by: IPAndrews on May 14, 2008, 11:16:58 am
Ok since everyone is having their £2 worth. I like Goober's new hosting policy. It's his decision to make and I happen to agree with his reasoning.
Title: Re: Hosting Policy
Post by: blowfish on May 14, 2008, 11:28:35 am
I thought I could put a stop to it by laying the smackdown on blowfish; I now apologize for singling him out, as it clearly did little to establish precedent for everybody else.

I guess it doesn't pay to be at the front of a mob of n00bs :nervous:

ngtm1r has some valid points though.
Title: Re: Hosting Policy
Post by: Mobius on May 14, 2008, 12:37:35 pm
I know I can't change the decisions taken by the Administrations but I really need to say that this Announcement has...its consequences.
Title: Re: Hosting Policy
Post by: colecampbell666 on May 14, 2008, 12:52:45 pm
Seriously, what is all this *****ing about?
Title: Re: Hosting Policy
Post by: Mobius on May 14, 2008, 12:55:55 pm
There's someone who doesn't agree. "*****ing"? People have all the right to make their opinion public.
Title: Re: Hosting Policy
Post by: colecampbell666 on May 14, 2008, 01:20:12 pm
But Goob made a fair policy. I'll say it for those who can't read:


YOU CAN HAVE MORE THAN 20 MISSIONS IF YOU SHOW SIGNIFICANT PROGRESS BEFORE ASKING FOR A SITE.

God...I hate having to do that. It makes me seem like an asshole.
Title: Re: Hosting Policy
Post by: Mobius on May 14, 2008, 01:34:35 pm
I share ngtm1r's opinion. His good points weren't only about the limit of 20 missions. Read his post and let me know if he's completely or partially wrong.
Title: Re: Hosting Policy
Post by: Tolwyn on May 14, 2008, 01:59:35 pm
Read his post...

Mm-Hmm. There is not a single mention of "lesbionic," "sanchez," or "Man-Gina. "
Title: Re: Hosting Policy
Post by: karajorma on May 14, 2008, 02:07:28 pm
He's wrong because he doesn't seem able to grasp the difference between 20 missions being a yardstick and 20 missions being the yardstick.

I've got no idea why people seem to think the admins are morons who will approve total conversions from newbies with 19 missions but will turn down completed campaigns with 21. it seems that any admin posting intentions on this site has it then gone over by people looking for the slightest little thing to argue about regardless of how sensible it actually is.

Let's see if I can make it clear. If the admins think your project is too ambitious to see the light of day we won't host it. If we think there is a good chance of a release we will. If you're in the grey area you'll have to do enough work to convince us before we'll accept you.

Was that really so hard to grasp? :rolleyes:
Title: Re: Hosting Policy
Post by: blowfish on May 14, 2008, 04:49:09 pm
I guess the admins need to articulate better than :rolleyes:
Title: Re: Hosting Policy
Post by: Hellstryker on May 14, 2008, 05:22:52 pm
I agree %100 with Ngtm1r, This policy goes against what HLP strives and was created to achieve...
Title: Re: Hosting Policy
Post by: karajorma on May 14, 2008, 05:44:29 pm
I guess the admins need to articulate better than :rolleyes:

Or stop assuming that the board isn't full of pedants who think we're morons. :rolleyes:
Title: Re: Hosting Policy
Post by: blowfish on May 14, 2008, 06:10:32 pm
I guess the admins need to articulate better than :rolleyes:

Or stop assuming that the board isn't full of pedants who think we're morons. :rolleyes:

Look.  I'm not trying to start a flame war here.  What has happened here is partially the fault of the admins (goober) and partially the fault of us (the members).  Clearly, there was some confusion, so Goob didn't say what he wanted to say clearly enough.  But many of us (me included :nervous:) have been rather n00bish and nitpicky about it.  I realize now that any rule regarding number of missions (especially an open-ended one) would have sparked controversy, so the 20 mission rule is as good as any.  Had Goober explicitly stated that some exceptions would be made, I'm sure some people would whine about what exactly those exceptions would be.  I think what you (Kara) said summed it up pretty nicely:

Let's see if I can make it clear. If the admins think your project is too ambitious to see the light of day we won't host it. If we think there is a good chance of a release we will. If you're in the grey area you'll have to do enough work to convince us before we'll accept you.
Title: Re: Hosting Policy
Post by: Goober5000 on May 15, 2008, 08:41:34 am
"No exceptions" does not really mean "no exceptions, ever" because Rule Number 0 in this policy, as in all policies, is "Use common sense".  So common sense might require us to suspend one of the provisions in this policy, depending on the application.  The reason why I replied so strongly to blowfish was to head off his assumption that the policy wouldn't apply to him.  Nobody should assume that.  As I said in that post, the policy becomes meaningless if it is never followed.  We intend to follow it.

Let me reiterate, again, that most of these complaints are hypothetical.  A hypothetical question gets a hypothetical answer, which may or may not apply to a real-life situation. 

And finally, just because I apply the "childish" generalization to the thread does not mean that everybody in the thread has demonstrated childish behavior.  That's why it's a generalization. :rolleyes: There have been a few rational posts, but they're greatly outnumbered by the irrational ones.
Title: Re: Hosting Policy
Post by: blowfish on May 15, 2008, 08:43:21 am
"No exceptions" does not really mean "no exceptions, ever" because Rule Number 0 in this policy, as in all policies, is "Use common sense".  So common sense might require us to suspend one of the provisions in this policy, depending on the application.  The reason why I replied so strongly to blowfish was to head off his assumption that the policy wouldn't apply to him.  Nobody should assume that.  As I said in that post, the policy becomes meaningless if it is never followed.  We intend to follow it.

I'm satisfied with that.
Title: Re: Hosting Policy
Post by: haloboy100 on May 15, 2008, 09:27:36 am
The 20-mission limit to me just seems like a standpoint to start rule from when confronted with a proposed campaign. Depending on the scope, if it was a really ambitious campaign with not enough work being done then there would be no exception to the 20 mission rule and that project would have to show considerable effort to be hosted then. However if for example you already have 10 decent missions finished quickly  and you plan to go beyond the 20 limit, I could see how that could be an exception. As Goober said, this is a hypothetical statement, but since people here are looking for that for some reason, I'll offer it.

Compare this the one-month limit monkey rule. It can be elongated if the offense is more severe, and possibly (depending on whether the Admins will forgive that much) shortened if the offense is very minimal. However, Goober may have different logic behind this, but common sense states that this limit has some degree of reasoning involved depending on the situation. To my understanding, this reasoning will be held the same way for the mission limit.

The 20 mission rule seems good to me, as it just seems like a general standpoint to make rules depending on the situation. Aim your projects to not go over that limit and you'll be fine. Exceptions, if ever made (as I could be wrong with Goober's logic behind the rule), should only be rarely and if an ambitious project is showing considerable effort.

That being said, get out of here, go FRED a campaign, and worry about the limit when the time comes. Just keep in mind that exceptions will rarely be made (again I'm speaking on behalf of Goober, so I could be wrong.), so just aim not to go over 20. It's quite simple, really.
Title: Re: Hosting Policy
Post by: colecampbell666 on May 15, 2008, 12:55:47 pm
"Use common sense"
Thank you. That is what is wrong with the world, no one uses any.
Title: Re: Hosting Policy
Post by: NGTM-1R on May 16, 2008, 01:59:45 am
"No exceptions" does not really mean "no exceptions, ever" because Rule Number 0 in this policy, as in all policies, is "Use common sense". 

Y'see, this would all be so much easier if you would add some qualifiers. Surely you've figured that out by now? :P

But seriously. If you present things as if they're ironclad then people are going to assume they're ironclad. We can't read your mind and that's not in our job description. So if it's not a 100-percent-hard-and-fast rule don't come out here and make it sound like it is.
Title: Re: Hosting Policy
Post by: Goober5000 on May 16, 2008, 08:39:41 pm
Yeah, but after all the protests and complaints that came out of the monkey policy thread, I wanted to put a stop to it before it got started.  Obviously, I underestimated the enthusiasm of this forum for complaining. :p
Title: Re: Hosting Policy
Post by: ns161 on May 17, 2008, 06:02:12 pm
I know I don't post that much but I must say this policy seems pretty well thought out.

I certainly don't have the expertise to FRED or MOD or anything like that, but I can write (I may actually at some point churn out a storyline for a campaign...) and I will say this:

The "Sequel" idea to get around the 20 mission limit seems useful.  There's usually three or four points in a long story where you can wrap up a storyline, call it finished, and place the rest of the narrative into a "sequel" which is really just a continuation in disguise.  So I don't think the limit is as big of a problem as some people seem to think.

Goober, I must say I'm a little disappointed in your characterization of campaign categories as falling into "terrans vs. vasudans" "vasudans vs. terrans" etc.

That's like saying FS1 and FS2 are the exact same game because they both have "Terrans and Vasudans vs. Shivans."  Obviously the particular storyline makes a big difference.

I get what you were TRYING to say, but I think it came out wrong.

Overall though it seems like a well thought out policy. 
Title: Re: Hosting Policy
Post by: Mobius on May 21, 2008, 12:01:47 pm
I'd like to add something to the discussion.

IMO the possibility to get a project done depends on the developing team. If you have members working on multiple projects you can't have great hopes. I work for the FSCRP and INFA and I can claim without problems that working on two projects simultaneously is incredibly confusing. Passing continuously from FRED_INF to FRED is something I find exhausting and confusing, I can only imagine what a forumite working for the FS Port, SA, TVWP experiences(this is an example, I'm not refering to someone in particular). Giving my personal experience I think people tend to prefer a project for a long and indetermined period of time, which is bad, thus slowing down the other projects, which is worse.

Obviously there are many things to take in consideration: we had to put Steadfast on hold because most members of the team had the Uni to deal with. INF SCP is being negatively affected by Rampage's RL. Just to give a few examples.

I personally think it's a matter of reducing the number of badges or, at least, make sure that whoever has/is going to get 3+ badges is really going to help 3+ projects. If people want a lot of badges they must prove their reliability.

My opinion doesn't touch small campaign development teams.
Title: Re: Hosting Policy
Post by: Snail on May 21, 2008, 12:20:02 pm
Other important things are how committed someone is to the project, and whether or not they're actually as skilled as they say they are (or make themselves out to be). You coul say you have 10 team members, but all of them could just be in there to steal you secrets for their own campaign, or just to find out what happens (or even to leak it to the public). Some people might overwork themselves, join too many projects, start off enthusiastically and then lose interest completely after a while. Who's on your staff is an important factor. Having 10 useless sods is definitely going to slow down your campaign.
Title: Re: Hosting Policy
Post by: Mobius on May 21, 2008, 12:24:48 pm
So true, I agree with you.

IMO the badge side of the subject should be taken in consideration.
Title: Re: Hosting Policy
Post by: Polpolion on May 21, 2008, 02:50:17 pm
Other important things are how committed someone is to the project, and whether or not they're actually as skilled as they say they are (or make themselves out to be). You coul say you have 10 team members, but all of them could just be in there to steal you secrets for their own campaign, or just to find out what happens (or even to leak it to the public). Some people might overwork themselves, join too many projects, start off enthusiastically and then lose interest completely after a while. Who's on your staff is an important factor. Having 10 useless sods is definitely going to slow down your campaign.

It's up to the project lead to sort out those idiots from the real workers, not the HLP hosting policy.

EDIT: The HLP is not a socialism. Karajorma and Goober do not own your projects just because they are hosted here, and thus they aren't capable of regulating membership of projects. You can join/start any project you want. Whether HLP will give you webspace and bandwith to put a website and forum on is another matter.

Also, it's not their responsibility to make sure members aren't joining projects just for badges. If people in your project aren't working and you feel they're holding you back, by all means boot them from the team yourself, don't make an admin do it for you.

If Goober came into the 158th internal and started ordering people around and booting my team members, I'd be pretty pissed. The thing is, he can't do that because it's not his project to independantly regulate membership and development, just like he can't dissallow me to hire someone just because they have too many badges.
Title: Re: Hosting Policy
Post by: Mobius on May 21, 2008, 03:19:11 pm
Well I don't understand your point. A project leader needs to contact an Admin for Hosted Projects support and requests in the public forum. It's legitimate to debate the arrival of a new team member.

The Administrators should have all the right to verify the potential of the new team member because he will contribute to the release or the death of the project. This Announcement is intended to prevent projects that will surely die from being hosted here but I don't understand why it can't be used to introduce a new modus operandi in the badge system.
Title: Re: Hosting Policy
Post by: karajorma on May 21, 2008, 03:56:56 pm
It's up to the project to decide who they want on their team. As far as I'm concerned the only reason the admin should ever interfere is if they feel that a team are giving out positions just cause they want their friends to have an extra badge. Beyond that it's the projects job to decide who is a waste of space and who isn't nor mine.
Title: Re: Hosting Policy
Post by: Mobius on May 21, 2008, 04:08:36 pm
But it should be legitimate to ask since, as far as I know, Administrators care about the progress and the eventual death of a project.
Title: Re: Hosting Policy
Post by: Goober5000 on May 21, 2008, 05:55:24 pm
The admins are not your parents.  If a project is dying, we are not going to take over and do it ourselves; that's stupid.  We'll just archive it or delete it.

We may allow new project leaders to take over from where the old project left off, but then it becomes the new leader's responsibility.
Title: Re: Hosting Policy
Post by: Mobius on May 21, 2008, 06:06:11 pm
Oh well...
Title: Re: Hosting Policy
Post by: Nighthavoc on May 22, 2008, 07:23:14 am
ok let me set this straight for my small insignificant mind thats having a hard time processing all this
if i want to create a campaign put it on HLP see what all you guys think etc etc i need to do everything this
policy says
simple yes or no answer is cool
Title: Re: Hosting Policy
Post by: karajorma on May 22, 2008, 08:51:33 am
The hosting policy applies to anyone who wants to make a campaign and have us host their website here\give them a forum to talk about it.

If you want to make a campaign and not host it here we have no hold on you. Do whatever you like. :) You're certainly more than welcome to simply finish your campaign and then post about it in the Missions & Campaigns forum. In fact seeing as that's less work for us that's positively encouraged. :D
Title: Re: Hosting Policy
Post by: Nighthavoc on May 22, 2008, 09:27:49 am
ok thanks for clearing that up since im a n00b at this i will eventually need help in chucking up links etc
in the not too distant future  :)
Title: Re: Hosting Policy
Post by: Snail on May 22, 2008, 04:37:44 pm
ok thanks for clearing that up since im a n00b at this i will eventually need help in chucking up links etc
Not n00b, newb (n00bs are annoying, newbs aren't) :)

It's up to the project to decide who they want on their team. As far as I'm concerned the only reason the admin should ever interfere is if they feel that a team are giving out positions just cause they want their friends to have an extra badge. Beyond that it's the projects job to decide who is a waste of space and who isn't nor mine.
What I meant by that post was the credibility of the project. I mean if you have 2 requests for 20 mission campaigns, but one of them has a stupid staff of idiots and one who has a better staff makeup, you should probably decline the former one.


Ignore me, because I think I'm making no sense now. :doubt:
Title: Re: Hosting Policy
Post by: Mobius on May 22, 2008, 05:00:30 pm
No, I find your comment valid.
Title: Re: Hosting Policy
Post by: Polpolion on May 22, 2008, 09:38:50 pm
It's up to the project to decide who they want on their team. As far as I'm concerned the only reason the admin should ever interfere is if they feel that a team are giving out positions just cause they want their friends to have an extra badge. Beyond that it's the projects job to decide who is a waste of space and who isn't nor mine.
What I meant by that post was the credibility of the project. I mean if you have 2 requests for 20 mission campaigns, but one of them has a stupid staff of idiots and one who has a better staff makeup, you should probably decline the former one.

Stupid and lazy are subjective. Unless it is unanimously understood community-wide that the lead for the project is a lazy asshole, then it shouldn't be declined, assuming it meets the criteria.

That said, you're basically telling Karajorma to have some common sense.

That not said, you're telling the admins to have good judgment, which they probably do seeing as how the community hasn't died yet and they're still admins.
Title: Re: Hosting Policy
Post by: Mobius on May 25, 2008, 06:21:42 am
...although hosted projects are usually "left where they are" with poor consideration. The only tangible act that underlines the attention is moving a board to the archives.
Title: Re: Hosting Policy
Post by: Goober5000 on May 25, 2008, 01:15:22 pm
All right, I'm going to close this thread.  We all seem to have reached a point of understanding, except for Mobius who apparently just likes to argue for the sake of arguing.

If anybody has a question about hosting that wasn't answered here, feel free to PM one of the admins.