Mission Naming Convention

[jerryhopper]

Hi all!

im not really busy with mission-making, but im tracking all missions around with my ArmA Tracker system which is in development.
( http://arma.valuenet.nl )

What i notice is a lot of mission names, which are really confusing!
wouldnt it be a great idea to have a naming convention for every mission?

maybe something like :
GAMETYPE_NAME_MISSIONVERSION_MIN-MAXPLAYERS

i wonder what other people think of this idea...

[hoz]

Good initiative, I've always thought a naming convention was needed. 

I noticed today that the Official missions use the OnMissionLoad section of the description.ext. This is read ingame and presented to the admin or person controlling the server choosing mission, its also used to display the mission name in the GameSpy browser. An example is if you look at #2 on your list  01: Clean Sweep (Coop 6)  .  This is where you would have to enforce a naming standard along with a header class entry, if this is missing from the description.ext then its likely using the actual file name as a name and the gametype I think is Unknown.


It should be easy to pull the GameType as long as people are using the header class in the description.ext file. 

*edit: rewrote the entire post

[jerryhopper]

sidenote: the ArmA:Playertracker mechanism is working :)  ->> http://arma.valuenet.nl

[Terox]

I tried with some success to get a mission naming convention sorted about 3 years ago

After a lot of quibbling and debating about the various issues assosciated with both Linux and windows, some community servers opted for the following system

type addon tag number mission name . island extension

type
mission type (using the following abbreviations

co = co-operative
dm = deathmatch
tdm = team deathmatch
ctf = capture the flag
cnh = capture and hold
vip = very important person (rare gametype)
fb = flagball (rare gametype)
cti = capture the island
misc =  something that doesnt fit into other categories

addon tag
for any mission that requires addons other than a base mod, use the character "@"

number
Number of players
eg 12
if the number of player slots was less than 10, then the number would be preceded by a 0
eg 09

mission name
Whatever the mission maker desired

VERSION NUMBERS
This was not agreed upon and version numbering was in general attached to the end of the mission name

NB>>
No underscores were used, this helped clarity during browsing through the mission selectiopn while in the mission selection screen

NB>> Any mods would have a "Mod" tag at the start of the filename and not require an @ tag


some examples

co 32 mymissioname
co @ 32 mymissioname
wgl cnh 32 my missioname
ctf 08 smallmap

if you search the BI forums you will find the thread
There is an explanations of how to write special scripts for linux servers etc

[sharkattack]

thought this was an unwritten code amongst mission editors already ... evidently not ... have also seen a lot of confusing titles doing the rounds..
personanly i stick to the above ....

[Terox]

well the above system has suited the zeus community for a good number of years now, and doubtless we shall continue to use it.

It would however be good to get a community wide agreement to use this or a similarly well thought out system

The order of the tags was based on what an admin selecting a mission needed to search for, priority wise

Which basically came down too

I want to be able to select a mission by mod category
then
I want to see all similar game types together, so if i want to play a wgl coop i can find them all nicely listed
then
I want to be able to quickly select a mission that would cater for the number of folks on the server

At some point i need to know if the mission that i am selecting is going to require an addon from our addon pack because i dont want all these non regulars who havent downloaded our addon pack yet  to get kicked


Having no underscores between tags makes it much easier to quickly browse through the hundreds of missions that may be on a server.


In addition to this, i believe that the following tags would also make sense

BIS as a mod tag, this donates quite clearly that the only requirement for this mission is the basic arma installation, no mods or addons etc
Reason for this is... what happens if somebody forgets to add a tag where one is required


and then some form of tag to define that the mission is a beta, eg test

[jerryhopper]

ok, sounds good all...
with over 1861 missions already (http://abe.armamods.net/test/missions.php) , the above scheme is easy for me to filter out....

Terox :  i gather information from servers, meaning when a mission is played, i also note the addons used, this way i build up a dynamic database with missions and their dependancies.
furthermore, when the naming convention is used , i can display all 'official-usermaps' or just everything. remember that im recording a lot of numbers/info, which im happy to share....

hoz : ok, when i read your reply, 'official' maps makers should just submit the description.xml and i matchem up with the maps in the db. an approach from both sides : Mapmaker and Serverdata

Anyways -  check my developments - http://abe.armamods.net/ArmA.ServerList.php
any suggestions, spill them!
i have to get a load of stuff ready before 505 release.....

[Terox]

For your needs i would post  on BI forums, maybe linking to this thread


Ideally a naming convention needs a community wide agreement to become standard, or at least widely used

Unfortumnately the BI forum discussions often have input from folks who don't really understand the need for such things and see only their tunnel of vision and not the bigger picture such usage on the project you are trying to develop.


Your system requirements in my opinion, need to be accepted for use on both linux and window systems and agreed with by server admins who would be responsible for complying with any naming convention when uploading missions

The end product would be a complete list of any tag that could be used and a set layout procedure
Support examples of special Linux scripts used to read strings with spaces etc etc

I would really like to see something like this widely accepted and used.... remembering the early days of ofp when multiple filenames would be held in the server mpmissions but would in fact  be the same mission


The one thing that could be developed further is a mission versioning system

[WarGamesQ]

the convention is widely known and used from former OFP people - however most new guys dont know about it and to get near 100% you have to do advertisement for that convention every day and everywhere.

just note one small change to the convention which is a must for linux servers, if you wanna take advantage of the checkfile command of the server:
there are NO blanks allowed.
because of this the convention was slightly adapted by most people to exchange blanks with underscores.

[Gnat]

Also, because the PBO name doesn't always determine the mission name, especially when manually renaming the file;

Originally Posted by Numbat
The following line [briefingName="BIS CTI, updated briefing";] is inserted to the start of the mission.sqm when the file is first saved. Any updates in version number etc from that point on will need this line to be changed as well

[Cheetah]

I've been following this discussion about the mission naming convention for a while now, it's time to reply.

The past few years I've made some SP missions for OFP, didn't want to make MP missions as I find that testing them is a lot harder to do. And I enjoy trying to create a good storyline for my missions, wether I succeed in that is not the point .
Most people following the discussion on the official forums have probably heard of the unwritten rules of MP names. I didn't read the forums before ArmA came out, that's why I've never heard of these unwritten rules on mission names.

To get to the point, I think that you should also try to reach mission makers outside the official forums. So after thinking about these rules, they have to be made clear to a lot of editors. The official forums are one thing, but there are numerous people finding the official forums boring (in the past few months I, again, find the BIS forums to become a bit boring) or have another reason not to check them. If you want to make a mission naming convention, you should make it widely accepted by all the fansites. News items should appear on almost all famous OFP/ArmA websites. And the rules should be easy to follow and implement, or a tutorial / instruction has to be written.

I hope that there will be a widely accepted naming convention in the future, but I just want to remind you guys that it's really hard. To illustrate that I mentioned myself not having heard of it despite my five years of playing/mission making in OFP.

[bedges]

i should also point out that if a naming convention is accepted by the community at large, anything which goes through the OFPEC missions depot will apply that convention with rigour, and any missions we host will abide by it.

mikero will see to that

[Terox]

i was sure that there is a small script or some such piece of code that can be run to solve the linux checkfile issue and am sure it wasn't difficult to implement. (Will have to try and dig it up)

the point of having no underscores was for clarity, maybe the following examples might show that
thinK BIG, hundreds of missions on a server and not only looking at the list through the mission selection screen, but also in your ftp, ssh window

co 08 my mission v1.0
co 10 waterline beta1.0
co 10 bridge run
co 12 my other mission v2.1
co 24 another map
ctf 18 rolling thunder
ctf 24 hillfight
co 24 my mission v1.0

co 08 my mission v1.0
co_10_waterline_bet_1.0
co_10_bridge_run
co_12_my_other_mission_v2.1
co_24_another_map
ctf_18_rolling_thunder
ctf_24_hillfight
co_24_my_mission_v1.0

it should be evident that the listing without underscores is far easier on the eye

As for your mission database project, could you not utilise the  command "missionname" instead of a filename or some system that requires a mission maker to manually implement a piece of code, i can assure you, this will make your project much more sustainable.
For each task that you require manual intervention, you can average out losing 50% of the cliental


It would also seem that your system is picking up "test" missions which are probably run on a private debugging session, maybe you could filter out any missions with "test" in their "capture string"


and sort by A-Z


ADDED NOTE:

I found the old BIS thread

http://www.flashpoint1985.com/cgi-bin/ikonboard311/ikonboard.cgi?s=212863b088e5fb923a5a4fc3d502f898;act=ST;f=2;t=26694;st=0

and have started a new post on BIS
http://www.flashpoint1985.com/cgi-bin/ikonboard311/ikonboard.cgi?s=65f26ff14754a96f0bbcdc3cc9e00e03&act=ST&f=71&t=57948&st=&&#entry1004695

to get a community wide agreement, unfortunately it really is the best place to achieve it


lets see how it develops

[jerryhopper]

ey! thnx for posting there...

Note : i always think BIG

and lets continue there on the flashpoint forums.....