I'll make this suggestion once more and then shut up on the subject...
Ratings and a top-50 list on (or accessible from) the main OXP page would enable newcomers (and those, like me, who've been away for a while) to get up and running with the most celebrated OXPs quickly, while also dissuading them from downloading "controversial" OXPs. Yes, people can always ask for recommendations on the forum, but not every Oolite player is going to want to register for the forum as well, and that's nowhere near as convenient.
This way there'd be no need (as far as I can see) for an OXP "wrapper" (plus the whole licensing issue would become, well, less of an issue), and while admittedly I've no idea how difficult it would be to set up, I know it's doable, as we've done it before!
OK, clarity - my definition of a Meta OXP in this post OSE world is "an OXP that wraps around other existing OXPs and OPTIONALLY may change them in some way".
I'm dead against OXPs that arbitrarily include other OXPs lock stock and barrel, since there is the functionality within Oolite to override shipdata and shipyard settings on a case-by-case basis.
the missions pack i would probably install, even if not in the same galaxy (though it'd be better to have a G1 pack, G2 pack etc), simply because if some trigger when a condition is hit (planet visited, number of kills) i might miss out until way later, or miss out completely. Doesn't seem harm in having a mission trigger and then being able to ignore it if i don't wanna play it.
the missions pack i would probably install, even if not in the same galaxy (though it'd be better to have a G1 pack, G2 pack etc), simply because if some trigger when a condition is hit (planet visited, number of kills) i might miss out until way later, or miss out completely. Doesn't seem harm in having a mission trigger and then being able to ignore it if i don't wanna play it.
And missions that span multiple charts? Or a mission that starts in chart1 but only if you've been round at least once.
Missions are being created all the time - I remember when LB created Asteroid Storm - lots of the more advanced players already in GC5+ mulled over the missed opportunity and announced that they may loop round again just to get back to GC1 to play the mission (even though it would be potentially much easier for the more advanced player)
The Wiki lists a whooping 206 OXPs at the moment. For the veteran, it's a wonderful source of freedom and diversity. For the new guy (and that's me, a month and a half ago) it's a source of confusion and quite likely to overwhelm.
Here's the progression I'd like to see:
1) Discover & download Oolite
2) Discover the OXP concept
3) Download a StarterBundle or five
4) Start cherry picking OXPs
5) Start writing your own stuff
As it is right now, there's a big leap between 2 & 4. Something to bridge that gap could only help recruit more people. Myself, I will never go beyond 4, but it's a crying shame if we lose potential OXP writers at stage 2.
I am fully aware of the reluctance to "tell" people which OXPs to get because they're the "best". But as the number of OXPs continue to grow, the task of picking your first few ones will eventually become insurmountable to anyone but the most determined and dedicated. Can we really expect that from someone who discovered Oolite half an hour ago?
This is a real problem, and a general downside to flexibility. I think a “starter pack” of ships widely considered well-balanced and non-über, and perhaps some early missions, would be a Good Thing. As long as it was kept up-to-date, I’d be willing to push it through “official” channels (but not partake in the editorial decisions).
Making it a single “meta-OXP” would have almost no benefit and cause several problems. It would be much simpler to just provide a zip archive with the original OXPs, a read me with summaries of the project and the selected OXPs, and a folder with the original documentation.
Ideally, this would be managed by a group of non-OXPers, including at least one long-standing forum member and at least one recent newbie. I hope I don’t have to point out that the authors of the OXPs should be asked…
Also note that I wrote in the singular here. Having several starter packs would just bring us back to the same problem.
First of all: Sorry for this perhaps being a little late into the discussion. I wanted to post it about 22 hours ago, but then there was a power-cut (I am living in a 3rd-world-country after all, so these happen quite frequently) and no more internet. So I went home with the unfinished post and had the whole evening to expand even more on it. Therefore I apologize for its length. The upside is that it now—I think—contains everything I have to say about the matter, both generally and on the particular case. So, here it is:
Recycling (and much expanding on) something I have posted elsewhere, before I saw this thread:
I have strong doubts about the usefulness of meta-OXPs as such. While it may make sense to combine e.g. various station variants into one OXP, or certain ship types which have a common denominator, from my perspective it makes no sense to bundle more than that.
After all, the very purpose of the OXP system is that the player gets to choose how they want to expand on their Oolite. If all OXPs are bundled together, what is the difference to including them all into the Oolite code itself, and completely remove the ability to make OXPs? And then we call the resulting game "Oolite 2", and the player has to take it as it is, without being given any choices.
I would like to point to a special problem with meta-OXPs that want to bundle everything. I don't think this makes even sense as a goal for a meta-OXP. After all, there are OXPs which conflict with each other. There may even be some which contradict each other. I don't know whether there currently are any concrete examples, but the case is not hard to imagine. Take farsun.oxp, which moves the sun further away. Somebody could for good reasons create a nearsun.oxp, which—you guessed it—does exactly the opposite. Obviously it is impossible to include both into a "contains all"-collection, without breaking one of them. This may be a constructed example, but generally we have OXPs whose intention it is to make things easier for the player, and OXPs whose intention it is to make things harder for the player. If all of them are simply included in a "contains all"-collection, none of them is done justice, and the resulting collection becomes flawed. For this reason I don't believe in a "contains all"- collection.
Now a word on "derivative works", and a—I feel—necessary distinction between two groups of derivatives:
I have licensed all my OXPs under CC-by-nc-sa, because I want to encourage any other OXPer to open them, study them, and take out of them what is useful for their purpose. If somebody in their OXP wants to do something similar to what I have done in one of my OXPs, they don't need to re-invent the wheel. They are allowed and even wholeheartedly encouraged to just take a bit of code—be it script, be it AI—of mine, which already is proven to work. This is what I imagined when I opted for allowing derivative works. Using tidbits, smaller or larger. This is what I have done with other people's OXPs, and I am happy to let new OXPers profit from our combined experiences.
But I never anticipated that somebody would want to re-distribute my entire OXP under their own name, at a time when it is perfectly available without any problem, distributed by myself. In other words: I never anticipated meta-OXPs, because in general I don't find them useful, and didn't take into consideration that others could.
I think this is an important distinction, and maybe worthwhile to somehow keep in mind. At least for me there is a huge difference between (a) making a derivative work through using parts of my work in your own work, or (b) simply re-distributing my work wholesale (with some small adjustments to accomodate for the new context in a meta-OXP) under your name. Technically both are derivatives. But for me they smell very differently. (Remark on the particular case: I don't even know whether any of my OXPs were to be included in OE, I can only conclude from Lestradae's vocalized intent to include "all" OXPs that this would include mine as well. The "under your name" is an issue here. Even if I was accredited in the readMe for my included OXPs (and I have no reason to doubt that I would be), on the box it would read "Lestradae", not "Commander McLane" (and all the others). This is one reason why I am feeling extremely uncomfortable with Lestradae's verbalized claim to "rule" over all OXPs, and his self-identification with a "dark lord". It wasn't very diplomatic, especially in such a delicate matter as laying a claim on things which are dear to other people. I'm not talking about legal ownership and licenses here, but about the simple fact that I have an affection for my OXPs, and other OXPers have an affection for theirs. Claiming an overlordship over them, even jokingly, was inappropriate and unnecessary, and hurtful. Even worse if it was meant even a little seriously.)
Back to the question of meta-OXPs, and again speaking as someone whose own works may be chosen by somebody else for inclusion in their meta-OXPs:
For me it depends very much on the specific meta-OXP in question.
If I think that the meta-OXP in question is useful and good to have (which in many cases I won't), I may consider helping to keep it up to date, if it contains some of my stuff. However, this would require me being as proud of the meta-OXP as I am proud of my own creations; and it is clearly on the meta-OXP's bundler's side to make me this proud of their creation, and make me willing to continuously contribute to it. In other words: they should be able to sort of let me take ownership (mentally, not legally; I hope I am making myself clear here) of their meta-OXP, make it as dear to me as it his to them, and let me see it as a common cause worth contributing for. I simply should be comfortable with the meta-OXP. And if I enjoy it, I will be happy to nurture it and help maintaining it. I don't see a big deal here.
But, what happens if I do not think that the meta-OXP in question is useful? What if I for good technical reasons dislike it? What if I even think that it has the potential to damage Oolite? Or what if its author fails to make it dear to me?
In this case I would rather like my work and name not to be associated with this meta-OXP. And much less do I want to support it, be it by maintaining the parts taken from me, or be it in any other way. I even want to feel free to say why I think that this meta-OXP may do harm to Oolite, and why I think that potential users are better off without it.
And before anybody tells me that at the end of the day I cannot exercise control over my OXPs on the player's computer anyway: Of course I cannot influence what the end user will do. He may install my OXPs alongside other OXPs which do things to Oolite which I don't like. I won't even know about it, and I can't prevent it anyway, so I don't need to bother. However, for me this is different when my OXPs get into one meta-OXP which also does things I don't like. I simply don't feel good about about it, and I'd rather not be connected to it. I certainly don't feel responsible for it.
(Remark on the particular case: For me personally the problem with RS/OSE/OE was never that it is a meta-OXP as such. The problem is that is a meta-OXP of the second type. Over the period of its existence in its various incarnations it always had a lot of flaws, some of them serious or even fatal. Unfortunately my offers of advice and help were usually misconceived as personal attacks by its author, and generally turned down (the odd exception confirming the general rule), because it was his OXP and his freedom of artistic expression, and he could not give me any say about it. I could not argue with this point, as long as it was his work. But certainly this attitude did not help to make RS/OSE/OE dear to me. I simply did not download and install it, and I didn't recommend it to anybody else for downloading and installing. Later, when RS/OSE/OE was meant to be a meta-OXP and include the work of basically everybody who had ever written an OXP, the "mastery" attitude of its author felt increasingly inappropriate. And it alienated me even more from it. Therefore it became the test case of the second type.)
I've re-read that post a few times and I can't find anything in it that I don't agree with. It makes me realise that the concept of a meta OXP is not a particularly workable one, since it raises too many issues.
It also stretches the concept of "derivative works" a little too far, at least in the way that L tried to do it - it is really derivative to take an ENTIRE product and contain it within a collective product? In short, I think not. It would be like an art gallery owner taking some paintings and putting them in a room in which he was made a pretty display and a good lighting system, then putting a sign over the door saying "Art Gallery Owner's Room Of Paintings". The art gallery owner hasn't done any work on the content other than to arrange them nicely and improve the lighting, but his name's all over the front of the entrance.
Yeah, I'm with McLane on this one. He's made the thing a lot clearer to me. Thanks.
