The Future... Lessons from Rome in mod development and team management

[Dol Guldur]

This exchange of views is very interesting and important. I'm not sure that I have any firm conclusions in my mind from it as of yet (other than knowing that Duke John does not smoke pot), but perhaps that will come with more posts (the firm conclusions, not Duke John smoking pot).

I do not think I disagree with any of it.

But what are the lessons and how do we tackle it this time around to increase the likelihood of more mods being finished?

[Epistolary Richard]

Any group needs the Final Decision Maker. Other groups who claimed to have none have one that acts like it unofficially. There's always a personality that's dominant and could convince others his way is the right way. I think it's better to point one person (usually the mod leader himself) for this position, to keep the goals focused. However, this person must also be open-minded and accepts suggestions and criticism.

I'd agree with this - decisions need to be made and people have to not have their noses put out of joint doing it. I'd be slightly wider than that though, I don't think a team needs someone who makes the Final Decisions (though it's undoubtedly efficient), rather they just need a process by which decisions are made (e.g. vote, decision by coordinator of that area etc. etc.) which all the team members are aware of.

With ME:TW I got quite frustrated with some of the reaction to our initial release. It was primarily a beta 'battle' release, and we had included the ability to load up our very early work-in-progress campaign map to 'have a look around'. Despite clearly stating on the downloads page, in the install process, in the readme, and in-game as well that it was no more than an alpha 'sandbox', we received a large amount of complaints about the campaign being 'unbalanced' or missing features (such as anything other than the core buildings!), and criticism of 'how crap our mod was' (purely based on this alpha campaign). I'm still unsure as to whether it was the right thing to do or not (including the campaign), as we did get a lot of useful feedback from people who understood what it was.

Hmmm... an interesting tale. IIRC Chivalry got something a little similar with their custom_battle release. Looking back on it do you think there was anything else that you could have done to avoid this issue - or do you think that it was inevitable.

everyone seems to disagree about the decisions made (and those who don't are being ignored :P).

Shurely shome mistake - ed

The fascination for the Napoleonic period - and the fact we're quite unique at that - is also a large factor of what makes the team so succesfull. The result is that anyone who considers making a Napoleonic themed mod is most likely to join us nstead of starting his own mod. If that was true for all other possible historical eras/themes the modding community would be a lot more succesfull.

The Lordz do certainly enjoy a brand-dominance in that area. Caused I think partly by the quality of the work produced (after all, how would most people match it?), partly by the sheer difficulty of converting to that period and also their reputation built up over the course of releases.

Periods and settings closer to the original game will have greater will be more likely to have modders who believe they can go it alone.

I recall there was even a chap once who was trying to do a whole Medieval RTW mod off his own back for a short while (and no, that's not referring to you Adherbal )

But what are the lessons and how do we tackle it this time around to increase the likelihood of more mods being finished?

I think the mere exercise of pooling these experiences and opinions and then recording them for M2TW modders to read helps in this matter.

More proactively, I think people would generally agree that every modder should have his chance with a 'Forge' thread to show what he can do - even if his initial pitch leaves the public lukewarm.

Modding forums can help highlight the those mod teams that seem to be heading in the right direction with things.

The idea of project debriefs (or post-mortems) has also been posited - though this would remain a controvesial tapic.

Any more thoughts?

[Duke John]

I don't think a team needs someone who makes the Final Decisions (though it's undoubtedly efficient), rather they just need a process by which decisions are made (e.g. vote, decision by coordinator of that area etc. etc.) which all the team members are aware of.

It works IMO much better if a single person makes the final calls. Although if the group is large enough you can have specializations with persons making the decisions in their area of expertise. However you must have the right persons for that, it's a bad manager if he is not able to defend his decisions against all counter arguments and if he cannot bring arguments on his own besides "I like that better."

[Lord Adherbal]

I recall there was even a chap once who was trying to do a whole Medieval RTW mod off his own back for a short while

I think I know who you're talking about - forgot his name though - he first joined ChivTW as a modeller but because we had most (european) models done already he left to basicly do the same mod on his own. It looked good but obviously died because he must've underestimated the workload, and IMO it was quite pointless trying to compete with ChivTW which was already in a far more advanced state.

It's a perfect example of how many people want to be their own boss and do what they like, and how this behaviour is bad for the modding community.

If it was up to me I would let all TW fansites disencourage/banish mod projects about themes that could be/are included in existing mods. I guess you can all be happy that it is not up to me

[Ciaran]

Indeed, and if only for my very deep conviction that variety and competition (though I don´t actually believe that mods compete against each other) is beneficial.

I do acknowledge that a great number of mods never makes it to release, but according to an intervie with a CDV product manager that I´ve read, the number of commercial projects that fail is around 80%. It´s a matter of fact, and maybe that is one of the lessons learned. You can´t force people into cooperation, you can only encourage it. If people leave or don´t join a team, there tends to be a reason for that.

[ozz]

Any group needs the Final Decision Maker. Other groups who claimed to have none have one that acts like it unofficially. There's always a personality that's dominant and could convince others his way is the right way. I think it's better to point one person (usually the mod leader himself) for this position, to keep the goals focused. However, this person must also be open-minded and accepts suggestions and criticism.

It works IMO much better if a single person makes the final calls. Although if the group is large enough you can have specializations with persons making the decisions in their area of expertise. However you must have the right persons for that, it's a bad manager if he is not able to defend his decisions against all counter arguments and if he cannot bring arguments on his own besides "I like that better."

From my experience in working on a team without an official decision maker, I tend to agree with wlesmana & Duke John on this. I think a team-leader or a final decision maker is best, as long as he is open-minded and is able to accept suggestions and criticism.

You would be surprised how often "civil wars" erupt in a "democratic" team for the dumbest reasons. Halting progress to a standstill many times because every member has his own vision of the mod or simply because of personal likes or dislikes. In the long run, the only casualty is the mod itself and the release date being pushed back once again, disappointing the eager fans and putting even more tension on the team.

You can have leaders in certain areas, but they must be VERY co-operative and open-minded to keep the mod moving while also keeping the rest of the team motivated and not losing focus on the end-goal. As to accepting suggestions and criticism, I think that boils down to the individual personalities of the team members... while it can be a pleasure and fun working with some, it can be hell working with others...

[khelvan]

Hi guys, ER asked me to drop by and give some thoughts.

I have to stress that there is no one right way or wrong way to organize and manage a team. This depends on the person and the team members, (and in a business setting, the organization at large).

In my experience, the more people are being compensated, the more they are willing to follow a single person's will. That compensation may be financial, for "real" jobs, or in the form of recognition, or even in the form of having their ideas used and valued, for non-paying jobs. Perhaps it is in seeing the realization of a purpose or cause, or end goal.

For modding I think that the more "power" that individuals have in a mod team, the more they feel valued, and the more engaged they are in doing their part. EB has never had a single brain at the top. We have had several "leaders," but not in the sense of creative control. Rather, we act as moderators, or very much like project managers in business whose subject matter experts are the people on the team. The manager just makes sure that all ideas are heard, that decisions are made efficiently, and that disputes are mediated.

Size matters - a big team is of course much more difficult to manage than a small team. However, ability and reliability are the primary factors in team size. There are times when a small number of people have a great deal of skill and dedication; these can be the core component of a team, and may be all that are needed to complete smaller mods. Or just one, for the smallest.

The numbers will likely have to increase as the size and complexity of the mod grows. Like business organizations, tasks will tend to become more specialized as the complexity (and team size) grows, and thus will need more management. Unlike someone said above, I think there is a place for many historians, if the mod is focused on history. But this has to be balanced with people who can do the work, in a mod where these tasks are broken out, otherwise lots of research will be done but the mod will never get going.

As a leader and/or the public face of a mod team, I can guarantee you that staying emotionally detached will be incredibly difficult. This is where I failed most as a "leader." Emotional attachment is sure to be high for all people on the team; there is no financial compensation, so people are dedicated for other reasons. As a public figure, you can't really afford to be engaged in this way, otherwise you will make poor decisions. For instance, I did not have a job for quite a long time, and dealt with a very serious medical condition, and I channeled my frustration and emotions into EB. This led me to state things emotionally in a way I would never do normally. Especially in a business environment, I would never have said things like that. Keeping your emotions in check is very important. This can lead to people leaving the mod, as well, and I guarantee it will if you get angry/snap at people easily.

A release schedule generally depends on the mod and the mod team. Here we consider individuals' goals. For instance, if one of the goals of the mod team is to be exposed to game companies so that the members can earn jobs in the industry, it is in their best interest to release only versions that could be considered polished. Likewise if the mod is hurting for members, the team has to do a very good job of keeping the fans involved, through distributing information, or through more quick releases. Releasing too quickly will be a problem in that case, though, as fans don't like to have to restart their campaigns often. It really depends on what your needs and goals are.

Finding some balance between introducing information to the public but not committing yourself to anything is very difficult. In general, if you care at all about pleasing the fans, never, ever, ever give a release date or make any promise of any kind at all. Even in the real software development industry where people are paid to do this work and can be held accountable by someone external to them release dates are often missed. Not missing the dates leads to great disappointment and even more heartache for all involved. Keep expectations low and you have a much greater chance of exceeding them and pleasing the fans.

However, keeping the fans involved is important to most mod teams. Regular information posts with teasers can help keep interest up. I am sure there must be some way to keep the fans informed, perhaps with some sort of constantly-updated post that contains percentages done for various areas of the mod toward the next release, but I don't know how to do it.

Potential members must be fully informed that if they can't meet whatever deliverables they are tasked with that they have to be able and willing to hand over the work they have done and keep everyone informed. In fact in a situation like this making sure team members' work is transparent is very important. Team members should keep the team updated at all times as to the status of their tasks. There should be no reason to hide what work is being done from the team.

I don't really have advice on how to make and stick with decisions. I guess this is just something that you learn through experience. There should always been room for improvement, but there is no need for endless debate about things where no new evidence is presented. Change control is important; you don't want the scope of the project to keep creeping, either.

Stay as light-hearted as possible. Learn what makes the team members happy, and try to give it to them. Make sure everyone stays civil. Jerks and people who are simply not nice to others do not make for a happy or productive team. The skill that they bring is not worth the problems with other people. Personality is important. Some people just do not play well with others.