Spring RTS Engine

Supercedeed on 13/12/2016 by community wide guidelines - https://springrts.com/wiki/Licenses_Forking_Mutators

Kept for reference only.

Just thought i'd post some official guidelines on BA's "Branding" use for in map/mod mutators & forks:

> Mutators and forks should contain some significant difference to the usual BA gameplay.
- Map mutators are best for small changes that are map specific (e.g. Duck Fusions).
- Mod mutators are best for small unit/game changes (e.g. King of the Hill)
- Substantial changes should be made with a fork & an entirely new mod file.

Naming conventions
> Mutator names should make it explicitly clear that the map/mod is a mutator which has a BAx.x dependence or will modify content from BA.x.x; e.g.
-- Something (BAx.xx)
-- BA Something (BAx.x)
> Names and version numbers of forks should clearly distinguish the fork from BA.


Not Acceptable
> Names designed to impersonate e.g. "Balanced Annihilation Vx.(x+1)" or "Balanced Annihilation Improved Edition".
> Anything which has a file based dependency on some particular lobby or engine version. (Forcing dependency on a particular BA version is allowed.)
> Any smartass work around of the above



If in doubt - ask! The Spring Mods have been supportive so far on the subject of Mod Hijacking so I'd appreciate everyone's cooperation on this :)

Balanced Analation?

You meant Game, not Mod!

Well, the theoricians between the game/mod terminology change push claim that BA, XTA, NOTA, etc.. are all mods of TA, and as such should be called differently from KP/GRTS/S44/IW/Cursed/Pure/EE/Fibre which are genuine new games.

Calling BA a game would warp the original intention into the exact opposite effect.
Calling mods of BA games even more so!

May you encounter a wild Alantai Firestar, to explain the matter to you with more more passion.

I was gonna say the same here, but then i though the BA sub-forum wasn't the best place.
Anyway, I agree and would like to add that I think it is ultimately the decision of the game-dev.
(or mod-dev for that matter )

Eh, no, because then every dev will use the most flattering naming.

Ah, memories... I recall Caydr complaining about the same things RE: Absolute Annihilation...

zwzsg wrote:Eh, no, because then every dev will use the most flattering naming.

I tent to say, only if there is a plan to let them stop doing that.

Personally I think starting from scratch truly constitutes a new game, and any mod has the potential to develop/evolve into a new game aswell, but I admit I wouldn't know what the point/moment of conversion would be.

Do you personally think putting "Annihilation" in the title (no matter if its called mod or game) makes for flattering name? (and naturally I'm not talking about ota)

I think abma was thinking about promoting the engine (witch might be done through its games) (I won't start about where the line is drawn between engine and game.)

Most of all I'm curious for the motivation of refuting someone who mostly agrees with you. (If i've been to offensive, or offended anyone, please let me know)

I modified BA by adding one file that announces kills and metal losses in battle. I modified the mod info so that it would be called it "Balanced Annihilation 7.50 with LEDZ V1.1"
Is that ok?