$12256 / $11500
As a discussion with @bluecarrot16 went on here, I've realized I'm not the only one frustrated about the many incompatible LPC forks and unnecessary duplications, so I think this topic deserves more attention.
There I wrote
And maybe it's time to join efforts and create a standardized, LPC-NG specification and collection, and make the other forks read-only? (Or at least give a big red warning something like "For LPC assets submitted after 2022-XX-XX, please use these guides (link) as well as these collections (link) and the LPC-NG tag", something like that). I understand that converting everything to this new LPC-NG standard is a HUGE task, but I'm 100% certain it needs to be done, and sooner the better. Any delay will just make this harder and would allow even more new incompatible forks to be born.
I'm volunteering to collect the best aspects and practices from all existing forks and write a detailed, well-defined updated style guide for the benefit of designers as well as for game developers. (I've many years of IT management experience, so I'm perfectly capable to organize this, plus I think this is going to be fun and very beneficial for everyone). I personally think up to this date @ElisaWy's "LPC revisied" is the best, most well-thought revision of LPC, so I would like to use her guides and palettes as a base for the new style guide, but I would like to hear your opinions too what else should be considered.
To make it clear, I'm not talking about creating yet another LPC collection, I'm talking about creating a new, detailed LPC style guide (a HTML page), which hopefully could one day serve as the rules for the new, advanced and compatible LPC-NG collections.
I'm thinking about include things such as: expected perspective; angle of light and drop shadows; what animations are supported; if those are merged into a spritesheet then what layout should be used; standardize the pixel coordinates for the head, hands etc. so that the compatibility of assets is guaranteed etc. There's nothing new in these really, you can find this information spread wide in form posts (sometimes multiple times, in an incompatible way sadly), what is going to different that I want to collect all of these into a single, coherent, convenient and easy to use LPC specification.
What do you think?
Cheers,
bzt
PS: after voting, we've settled with the LPC-Refined tag.
This website's content is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
licensing page looks fine. However, I should let you know I don't feel comfortable administrating the use of a "LPC-CERT" tag according to specifications that lack authority to certify LPC in general. It either needs some qualifier to indicate this is separate from the original LPC event, or it needs buy-in/approval from the "parents" of the original LPC event (Bart, Sharm, Redshrike, etc.) before I could do so.
--Medicine StormIm not sure how the generator operates, but is it not possible to allow/add code for layer movement for x & y axis for the 'layers'?
This feature could save a lot of 'reworks' and compatability issues for either sets?. Depending on 'base', having default x & y paremeters
Speaking of 'mirrored' sprites for left and right movements, its worth mentioning that head movements for up and down sometimes were coded in the frames, and not neccessrilly drawn with some games, if they heads are layered, which i suspect they are, then the same idea above could work.
Chasersgaming | Support | Monstropolis |
@MedicineStorm: "I don't feel comfortable administrating the use of a "LPC-CERT" tag according to specifications that lack authority to certify LPC in general."
You can relax, it is not about to certify LPC in general, and never was. It is to create a subset of LPC assets which are guaranteed to be compatible with each other. See "LPC-CERT", as in "LPC": based on LPC, "CERT": follows the same guides. Simplest way to put it: "LPC-CERT" tag does not change nor replace the "LPC" tag. It can be added in addition to it.
"it needs buy-in/approval from the "parents" of the original LPC event"
No it does not. Bart, Sharm, Redshrike, etc. already gave their authority away when they choose a free license for the LPC. Anybody who is willing to put the effort into is authorized plenty (the free license grants that right to anybody, no approval from the "parents" needed nor required). And that's if we were talking about certify LPC in general, which we are not. We are talking about LPC assets that also follows some additional coordinate guides.
FYI: I'd like to point out that I've suggested this tag in particular on Thursday, April 7, 2022 - 18:12, and there was no objections back then (not from you, not from anybody else). Regardless, we could revert to the "LPC-NG" tag that I originally proposed. As I've said earlier, I don't care what the actual tag is, as long as it says "based on LPC and follows the same guidelines".
Again, as a remainder, the issue with the current "LPC" tag is, it's definition is too vague, does not guarantee compatibility and it is given to half-ready new submissions too.
@Chasersgaming: "This feature could save a lot of 'reworks' and compatability issues for either sets?. Depending on 'base', having default x & y paremeters"
This is exactly what this specification addresses: using guides it creates defaults for the x & y coordinates; and thanks to the work ElizaWy did, regardless to the base (LPC revised has the same positions for heads and hands).
"is it not possible to allow/add code for layer movement for x & y axis for the 'layers'?"
That would in itself solve nothing. First, you can already move layers with lots of tools; and second, the feature alone is useless if you don't know the exact coordinates where the layer needs to be moved. For that, you'll need a specification that specifies those coordinates.
Cheers,
bzt
"This is exactly what this specification addresses: using guides it creates defaults for the x & y coordinates, regardless to the base."
regardless of base, or depending on base? It certainly helps addressing the issue going forward, 2 different guides, for 2 different bases, but does it help backwards compatability, or now gives a choice as which one to use? one has more (at the moment) than the other currently?
"That would in itself solve nothing. First, you can already move layers with lots of tools; and second, the feature alone is useless if you don't know the exact coordinates where the layer needs to be moved."
Well, i it may not solve the issue , but it may be of some help, if some of the compatability issues are layer positioning. Might not be to hard to find/know what those co-ordinates are, perhaps we can ask? This doesn't just have to be an artists conumdrum, perhaps programmers can help find a solution too. Having something like it available within the generator tool may mean less time using different tools and take out all the editing etc. :)
I have my own sort of character generator, which uses male and female bases. Weapons i use are the same but dont quite fit the female bases correctly, so i just move the layers x/y to adjust them and it works great, so i just wondered if the same approach may work here. I didnt have to redraw all the weapon sprites all over again. :)
Chasersgaming | Support | Monstropolis |
I voiced my concerns with that tag on April 10th. You dismissed that concern and gave your motivations. No problem; I dropped it because you didn't feel it was an issue.
I only brought it back up again because there has since been some hinted expectation of enforcement of the tag's usage. For instance
How is this enforced? If anyone can add the tag to any submission, what is guaranteeing compatibility? I assumed the answer was "an Administrator". If I've misread that, then disregard. I'm not saying it needs to be enforced, that just seemed to be the assumption going around. I'm not objecting to you or anyone else using any tag you/they want. I was informing you there won't be any special curation of that tag beyond each user's good faith.
--Medicine Storm@Chasersgaming: "regardless of base, or depending on base?"
Eliza has standardized the head and hands positions for both male and female bases. If anybody wants to add a masculine or pregnant female bases which also comply with this spec, then those bases must keep the coordinates for the head and hands too.
"Might not be to hard to find/know what those co-ordinates are, perhaps we can ask?"
Right now it is different for all bases and in many cases, for different submissions. The whole point of this spec is to mark submissions with a tag that follow the same guides, hence have standardized positions, so they are compatible and interchangeable.
Cheers,
bzt
@MedicineStorm: "No problem; I dropped it because you didn't feel it was an issue."
Then why haven't you bring it up before I created the first draft? I don't understand. But if it's the phrasing that bothers you, as I've said many times, I don't care what the actual tag is, just have a proper tag for compatible, ready-for-game LPC assets!
"How is this enforced? If anyone can add the tag to any submission, what is guaranteeing compatibility?"
...and we have already went through that. You volunteered, remember? But I said this shouldn't be "enforced" by the moderators, because that would mean too much work for you. (However it is welcome if you do of course.)
Quote from the specification's text:
and also
Cheers,
bzt
I think MedicineStorm's point might be that there is nothing stopping anyone from tagging anything as "LPC" or "LPC-Cert" or "LPC-NG" or anything else except the OpenGameArt administator. And she is the admin.
@Ragnar Random: and what would happen if someone adds an "LPC" tag to a submission which isn't LPC related at all? Now exactly the same should happen to this tag too.
BTW, MedicineStrom already volunteered for checking the compatibility for this tag, but I've said I think that's too much work for the administrators, we should trust the community (the designers should only add this tag if they indeed used the guides, and commenters should notify about incompatibilities if/when they run into any. After that the designer should fix the problem, and if not, then the moderator could decide to take the tag away. Simple.)
For the records, this isn't any different than how OGA already works, I did not come up with this, I've just written down the current process for this tag too.
Cheers,
bzt
ok i misunderstood then. sorry for butting in. carry on sirs and ma'ams.
"Eliza has standardized the head and hands positions for both male and female bases."
Head and hands? what about the bodys? Eliza'a body componants are the same as the originals?
Perhasp it might be a good idea whilst theres a 'spec guide' to have a 'compatability guide' too. least the community will know what isnt compatable and work on those in there own time.
Chasersgaming | Support | Monstropolis |
@Chasersgaming: "Head and hands? what about the bodys?"
Obviously the bodies are different for all bases, hence need different clothes assets (that's where Eliza's guides with all those pantline, centerline, neckline etc. really helps). Currently no assets are compatible, if everything except the clothes (hats, tools, weapons) would be at standardized positions that would be already a huge step forward. (More bases could be added later, keeping those coordinates. But for now, it would be an incredible feat if there were no male-dagger / female-dagger duplications for example.)
"Perhasp it might be a good idea whilst theres a 'spec guide' to have a 'compatability guide' too."
This is the compatibility guide! (The 'spec guide' as you call it would be the LPC styleguide.) This spec does not modify the original LPC's style, outlook, lighting etc. at all (so much so that it has verbatim copies of the original styleguide on those sections and illustrations). This spec just adds what's the original LPC styleguide was lacking to create compatible submissions.
Again, quoting from the spec (Preface / Goal):
Those "technical details" (if you read through it becomes absolutely obvious) being standardization of the animated asset's positions on each frame to make them compatible. It does that by providing downloadable guides (in XCF, PSD as well as PNG form) that can be used by the artist to position assets correctly. Nothing more, nothing less!
"least the community will know what isnt compatable and work on those in there own time."
That's exactly the idea behind the "LPC-CERT" tag.
Cheers,
bzt
Is there a preferred shortened version for "compatible"? Because I'm not sure if "LPC-CMP" or "LPC-CMPE" is obvious enough. What I'm certain is that "LPC-COMP" isn't good and "LPC-Compatible" is way too long. I think MedicineStrom would have the same feeling about "LPC-Ready" or "LPC-RDY" as with "LPC-CERT", so those aren't good alternatives either.
I think the best for now is "LPC-CERT", but I'm looking forward for someone coming up with a better tag. I hope there will be a suggestion that earns everyone's liking.
Cheers,
bzt
@bzt: I'm trying to clarify what I am (not) allowed to do. Not what you are (not) allowed to do.
You are correct that the open nature of the licenses means you can freely create a certification and specification for the content without permission or buy-in from the original authors. You can even enforce it in any way you desire that is within your authority...
...BUT I CANNOT. As an administrator of OGA, my actions carry different authority and they imply undue support for- or suppression of- those same freedoms granted by the license. When you do it, you're exercising your freedom. When I do it, I'm "picking sides."
I volunteered to moderate a tag before it implied endorsement. The "parents" did relinquish officiation over LPC content, but the license they used does say "You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use." So my concern may end up being negligible, but not unfounded.
As I stated before, "LPC-CERT" or "Liberated Pixel Cup Certified" implies a degree of officiation that this specification does not carry. Yes, you already said you don't care what the tag is. I'm just outlining my reasons for what I am saying about that particular tag in an effort to answer your questions.
This is similar to hosting a website called "Official Minecraft Mods" without having any relationship or agreement with Mojang or Microsoft. Even if the intent is to say "our minecraft mods are certified by our own set of specifications, so we consider them 'official' according to our own non-microsoft criteria", the name "Official Minecraft Mods" is still implying a level of oficiation and endorsement by others. In the same manner "Liberated Pixel Cup Certified" will appear to a reasonable person to be an officially enforced certification process pertaining to any LPC content, (A.K.A. "LPC in general") especially when this is enforced by an OpenGameArt.org administrator.
Well, because:
TL;DR: I'm required to care what the tag is if I'm enforcing it. If you don't care what the tag is or how its enforced, problem solved!
Nope, I have no issues with LPC-CMP, LPC-COMP, LPC-CMPE, LPC-Compatible, LPC-RDY, or LPC-Ready because they do not imply officiation. "Ready" is a bit weird in my opinion, but only because it's hard to tell what that means. Ready for what? I scoff at tags like "game ready" for the same reason because either nothing on this site is game ready or everything is.
--Medicine StormI'm not really talking about a 'style guide'. I'm talking about the inconsistant/incompatable assets available now, and now including Eliza's assets, for which she has created her own 'style guide'so that goes someway to additions for those using Eliza's versions/fork.
I'm at the opinion that those that created LPC assets since its creation that didn't follow the original style guide and 'TEMPLATESS'(which are available) have maybe caused the issues that the LPC faces today and have in some way ended up creating more deriatives/forks as a consequence to that.
Creating a newer 'style guide' or whatever you want to call it WILL help LPC going forward from the point it is finalised, BUT ONLY if the comunity don't resort back to ignoring the 'style guides' and 'templates' that already exist. it wont help backwards compatability, or address the issues facing the already created LPC that exist today that have compatability issues. Which ideally needs fixing, but those will need to be manually fixed either by the original authors or another community member.
Most recognise that the 'style guide' needs updating to be clearer about things LPC. but it should stress about how important it is to stick to whats original and not deriative works based on the original. The only way you can gaurantee that newer LPC assetscomply with a set of 'style guide' is to moderate them, which as you know is not going to happen.
Creating a new tag line isn't going to work either, because tags will just be abused and used in the wrong way. Anything remotely LPC related will have the author use all tag's associated with LPC to help their work be found on the search.
Whilts i admire you commitment to creating an improved 'style guide', im at the opinion that its not gona cut the mustard, because of the reasons i have said above, or should i say "That would in itself solve nothing.".
Chasersgaming | Support | Monstropolis |
@MedicineStorm: "When you do it, you're exercising your freedom. When I do it, I'm "picking sides.""
That's not so. There are no "sides", just less usable and more usable assets. Besides, as an administrator of OGA it is in your best interest to improve the quality of the assets submitted here, as that also improves the value of OGA as a whole.
"As I stated before, "LPC-CERT" or "Liberated Pixel Cup Certified" implies a degree of officiation that this specification does not carry."
You're mistaken that LPC is some kind of proprietary brand which needs an approval from some kind of board or majority shareholder vote or whatever. In reality, and legally as it's Free and Open Source, the one and only "officiation" it can have is if its used by the community or not. That's all. (And all my efforts about its standardization is aimed towards that goal, to make LPC suitable to be used in more and more games.)
"This is similar to hosting a website called "Official Minecraft Mods" without having any relationship or agreement with Mojang or Microsoft."
Not similar in any way! You're totally wrong about that, because Minecraft is a proprietary software with a centralized copyright holder group and not free licensed! The whole legal situation is entirely different, nothing is similar.
TD;LR this discussion ends here, because it leads nowhere. If you don't like the "LPC-CERT" tag, then all you have to do is come up with a better tag which expresses:
"I guess I missed the part where you said "I'll be starting the first draft now. No further change suggestions will be accepted after this!""
Of course you miss that, because I've never wrote that! (I was just wondering why haven't you mentioned that earlier when you commented on 8th and on 9th too.)
"Nope, I have no issues with LPC-CMP, LPC-COMP, LPC-CMPE"
Maybe you don't, but I'm 100% certain people won't associate to "Compatible" from those, so not good.
""Ready" is a bit weird in my opinion, but only because it's hard to tell what that means. Ready for what?"
Come on, it's pretty obvious. What else could be the purpose of the assets uploaded on OGA other than being used in games?
"I scoff at tags like "game ready" for the same reason because either nothing on this site is game ready or everything is."
That's only because OGA right now is a wild-west mess without a clear set of compatibility rules. Which was understandable when OGA was started and there were not many submissions, but after many years it clearly turned out to be the bottleneck and the biggest blockage to the LPC's success.
We all want to improve LPC. Some are adding more art to it, while others, like me approach it from the developer's point of view, and I want to improve its usability in games.
You need both parties (artists and developers) to make LPC successful. And it's almost there. Only a small push is needed to actually make it stand out from the "looking good but not really usable" crowd.
Cheers,
bzt
who do you propse is going to police the use of the LPC-xyz tag, whatever it ends up being named?
"who do you propse is going to police the use of the LPC-xyz tag, whatever it ends up being named?"
MedicineStorm has been nominated, being the only admin representative for OGA, as it seems having an OGA representative 'officiate' LPC content would go towards guaranting compatabilitys. But this approach is not going to work. Time to check the assets would take forever, and putting that burden and adding that expectation to them is not very fair. Thay have enough to do as it is.
Really the burden should fall to those responsable for setting the up 'specifications', as after all, they know what they are working with and what would constitute whats 'official' or 'compatable' or not. MedicneStorn has no input as to what the 'specification' entails, and would have to ask or get clarification from whom ever created the 'specification' in the first place to confirm 'official', 'revised' or whatever else.
Failing that, maybe a 'consortium' of LPC contributers could work as moderators. Each one verifying an new LPC asset upload. This would suggest that they would need to work together and communicate though, which is someting that doesn't seem to be happening, at least not well enough currently. and who gets to be part of this 'consortium', Whos gonna head this type of thing, and besides all that, it doesn't allow for freedom, who reallt gets to say what gos up or what gets turned away. Its totally against the OGA way of things.
The best thing to do IMO, is for every LPC character asset created, then just post the link to whatever base is was designed for/from, either the original, revised and what ever other fork/deriative there is out there.
Chasersgaming | Support | Monstropolis |
"This would suggest that they would need to work together and communicate though, which is someting that doesn't seem to be happening, at least not well enough currently"
Sure that's happening. There's a lot of thought and coordination going into building out the spritesheet character generator, which is where most (all?) of the newer assets end up. Pretty much all of the LPC character assets that have been released over the last few years have been cleaned up and made available there.
"The best thing to do IMO, is for every LPC character asset created, then just post the link to whatever base is was designed for/from, either the original, revised and what ever other fork/deriative there is out there."
Indeed.
"This would suggest that they would need to work together and communicate though, which is someting that doesn't seem to be happening, at least not well enough currently"
"Sure that's happening. There's a lot of thought and coordination going into building out the spritesheet character generator, which is where most (all?) of the newer assets end up. Pretty much all of the LPC character assets that have been released over the last few years have been cleaned up and made available there."
Yes, sorry, i should of said, "at least not well enough currently, that i can see"
i know there are a few of you working together, and i forget that there are other places you all talk, as well as privately and i might not see conversations going on in other threads. My apoligies. :)
Chasersgaming | Support | Monstropolis |
Ok, here's a serious question for you. Sit down, take a deep breath, and think it through, before you answer: Why are you against making LPC better? Is it lazyness? Pride or jealousy this wasn't your idea? What? I would like to address your issues, but you're just keep complaining and running in circles.
@Ragnar Random: "who do you propse is going to police the use of the LPC-xyz tag, whatever it ends up being named?"
I've already answered that question, multiple times actually, last time here.
@Chasersgaming: "MedicineStorm has been nominated"
No, not nominated, she volunteered, HUGE difference. But as I've said, that's not necessary as long as the community members aren't jerks, and I do hope we agree on that that they are not.
"But this approach is not going to work. Time to check the assets would take forever"
Yeah, that's exactly why this isn't about that, and never was!
"Really the burden should fall to those responsable for setting the up 'specifications'"
As per the current custom on OGA, this falls to the people trying to use the submissions. But I have already told that too... Multiple times... last time here.
"The best thing to do IMO, is for every LPC character asset created, then just post the link to whatever base is was designed for/from"
Can you filter the search results to tags? Yes, you can. But can you filter to the post contents for urls? Of course you can't. So this suggestion won't work in the first place, technically not possible with the current OGA website.
Cheers,
bzt
"Ok, here's a serious question for you. Sit down, take a deep breath, and think it through, before you answer: Why are you against making LPC better? Is it lazyness? Pride or jealousy this wasn't your idea? What? I would like to address your issues, but you're just keep complaining and running in circles."
If this is directed at me.
Complaining? i haven't complained. I asked questions, and given my opinions on why i think certain things things won't work, based from some of the experiences i see here on OGA. i am not against making the LPC better, it makes no difference to me, i don't use it. but if we are asking for user input and suggestions then i'm giving my view in hope that it may be of some help or highlight potential flaws at least. Instead you come across very dismissive. As for pride and jealousy? well, i take no pride in pointing out potential issues, or indeed highlighting them when they arise, but for feedback purposes i know they can be essential, so as long as its taken in good faith, i can live with it, and i'm not jealous that i didn't think about it first, I'm more than aware of what goes into things like this, and as i mentioned to you, i admire your commitment to the cause. Lazyness? C'mon, your 'complaint' is not having enough LPC content compatible with each other and want to see more, so your view would be to create a better specification and have content creators adhere to it, when what you should be doing is picking up a pencil and get drawing, or get the content that isn't compatable into a programming/editor software and do what you cn and fix those compatability issues, or editthem to suit your specification needs, like verybody else has too, and if you do, dont foget to share them back here for others to use.:)
If not directed at me.
Well, ive said it now, but may i suggest talking to those most involved with the LPC currently to find out what they think is a priority, and possible work with/alongside them, they may have already drafted a newer 'spec', so you could save yourself a lot of work and be going over things that have already been discussed here or elsewhere. :)
I'm not sure i can offer anything else to this discussion. So i wish you all well with it. :)
Chasersgaming | Support | Monstropolis |
@Chasersgaming: "Yes, sorry, i should of said, "at least not well enough currently, that i can see""
No problem, and sorry if it came across a bit sharp, that wasn't intended. There just seems to be some misconception by some that there is no coordination at all, which is incorrect.
You're right though that it's not very visible to the casual observer, which perhaps is something to think about? Not sure what (if anything) needs to be done with that, and who'll be doing it.
"i know there are a few of you working together, and i forget that there are other places you all talk, as well as privately and i might not see conversations going on in other threads. My apoligies. :)"
Again, sorry if what I said came across harsher than intended. Also, no need to include me in the "you" there; I dabble in pixel art for my own amusement, the real work is done by other people.
here's a not serious answer for you sir:
i was already sitting down. my lungs are in good shape.
the serious answer:
like ChasersGaming i have no loyalty to or interest in lpc at all. you making it better affects me not at all. wanting to bring together the original specifications with the best-practices gleaned from those who have contributed since the contest ended is fine and dandy. but you are not a contributor to the LPC. you have never contributed anything to OGA except caustic-attitude-laden posts in multiple threads, leaving many of us with a funny taste in our mouths.
my take on this is: a non-artist is telling artists what they should be doing, and wanting a volunteer admin to do extra work to enforce the specifications.
make your specifications, call it whatever you want, and trust the people who actually make art to follow your guidelines.
i'll not remark on this again, as i have nothing valuable to contribute to the discussion. i think i will instead go submit some actual content to OGA.
@Chasergaming: "i am not against making the LPC better, it makes no difference to me, i don't use it."
@Ragnar Random: "i have no loyalty to or interest in lpc at all. you making it better affects me not at all."
Then with all respect, what are you doing in this topic? Am I really supposed to interpret your confessions as you're just trolling here?
Please, let me point out your (plural) mistakes which is absolutely non-constructive and just interfere with real work (no offense, and nothing personal, no need to answer, just think about these):
"if we are asking for user input and suggestions then i'm giving my view in hope that it may be of some help or highlight potential flaws at least."
Yeah, user input from those who actually know and use LPC. In order to do that, you should at least read what's written on this topic so far. Please read it before you ask or complain about non-existent "flaws". Thanks.
"you are not a contributor to the LPC"
WRONG. I've put lot of effort and hours into LPC already. Best practices aren't collected themselves and that document hasn't written itself, you know.
"non-artist is telling artists what they should be doing"
Creating a game is a collaboration between designers and developers. The developers sometimes tell the designer where the asset falls short. Any problem with that?
"wanting a volunteer admin to do extra work"
That's a clear cut lie, on multiple accounts. No comment.
"follow your guidelines."
Not my guidelines. Should you have read this topic through and you wouldn't write such non-sense. I'm sorry, I don't want to be rude, but sadly that's how it is.
Cheers,
bzt
Now, back on issue at hand. Let us vote! Which tag do you prefer the most?
Rules:
I hope these rules seem fair to you all. I won't vote myself because I don't care which one will win, it only matters to me that such a tag is created. I will rewrite the spec according to the result.
Cheers,
bzt
for my part i would like to apologize for being a jerk. that's all i have to say.
y not take one letter from each tag to have tehm all in one new tag
Compatible
Cert oh nvm letter c is already used change word from certified to Official
Ready
Ng
then you have LPC-CORN
i vote for LPC-CORN
I'm sorry, there are several problems with that. First, "CORN" is a large family of plants, it does not express "compatible with each other" in any way, so it does not fulfill the requirement stated in rule #1, therefore this tag does not qualify in the first place. Sorry, your vote is invalid.
@zombietom: "y not take one letter from each tag to have tehm all in one new tag"
There's no point in taking one letter from each currently proposed tags (this list can - and hopefully will - change), what's more, that would be "CNRC" and not "CORN".
"change word from certified to Official"
You can't do that, for an armada of reasons. "Certified" means follows the guides, nothing more, nothing less. On the other hand "Official" means somehow endorsed by the original creators, which is not the case and something that MedicineStorm was clearly against (and I totally agree, there's no way "Official" wouldn't suggest that lie).
Please keep up thinking.
New suggestion added:
Cheers,
bzt
PS: If the original creators were foresighted enough to come up with such a clear set of rules and guides from the beginning, then you could use "Official" and we weren't having this conversation now. (Which is understandable btw, nobody thought how successful LPC will become and such rules needed for compatibility, but that also means it is up to us to solve this problem.)
> First, "CORN" is a large family of plants
so?? lpc means licensed professional councilor everything in the world means more than 1 thing
> it does not express "compatible with each other" in any way,
ya it does thats what the c stands for compatible
> There's no point in taking one letter from each currently proposed tags
then theres no point in any of the currently poposed tags
this has the same point that any of them have
> "Certified" means follows the guides, nothing more, nothing less.
dictonary doesnt say anything about follows the guides it says attest authoritatively so its more like the word official more than follows the guides bro
> On the other hand "Official" means somehow endorsed by the original creators, which is not the case and something that MedicineStorm was clearly against
she was against certified to but thats still on the list
just start it with -3 votes plus my vot is -2
@zombietom: "so?? lpc means licensed professional councilor everything in the world means more than 1 thing"
That's why it is important to find the proper tag. "Corn" does not suggest compatibility (and you've said nothing about why it would), so according to rule #1, not acceptable.
"dictonary doesnt say anything about follows the guides"
Yes, it does. Definitions:
In our case being formally accurate and meeting a standard stands for following the guidelines defined in this specification.
"she was against certified to but thats still on the list"
Nope, she was against suggesting endorsement, and I totally agree on that. What we disagree on is that I don't think "certified" suggests endorsement when there were no official standard in the first place, we are creating that standard right now. But even if I don't agree, to respect MedicineStorm, that tag started at -3 votes.
"just start it with -3 votes plus my vot is -2"
Can you confirm that you have voted for LPC-CERT with that sentence? Please be specific and clear when it comes to votes.
New tag suggestion
LPC-Standard - in the same meaning as in certified, verified, to follow the rules of a standard.
Cheers,
bzt
> "Corn" does not suggest compatibility (and you've said nothing about why it would), so according to rule #1, not acceptable.
lol r u jealous this wasnt your idea y r u aganst making lpc better
> Can you confirm that you have voted for LPC-CERT with that sentence?
wtf no can you confirm u voted for cnrc with this setence
> what's more, that would be "CNRC" and not "CORN".
cmon man u kno i wasnt voting for cert
u call it standard certification guide but in ur website you call it specification y not have the tag be lpc-spec
or lpc-spec1 to have version to
which rule dos that break
To @MedicineStorm what is the proper way of reporting trolls on this forum?
@zombietom: This attitude is exactly what stops LPC from becoming a great asset set. Think about if your post were constructive or not.
On the voting: so far no votes, which means according to the last rule LPC-CERT is winning.
Cheers,
bzt
verified sounds less official than certified. i dont know if my vote counts but i will go for verified.
@Ragnar Random: "verified sounds less official than certified."
Yes, that was the idea :-) Hopefully everyone agrees.
"i dont know if my vote counts but i will go for verified."
Of course it counts! Maybe I should have put that in the rules too, but all members' vote counts, this isn't like the technical details which expects some knowledge and former experience with LPC.
All OGA members can vote on what the tag should be.
Current status:
Question, maybe LPC-VRFD? But "Verified" isn't that long, so maybe there's no need for shortening at all.
UPDATE on the spec: ElizaWy have created the "climb" animation in the meantime, so that has been added as well (as an optional animation). Since it has only one direction, just like "hurt", I've placed it in the same row as the "hurt" animation on the spritesheet.
Cheers,
bzt
So, Eliza tags her submissions as "LPC" and puts "LPC Revised" in the title. I think that's the way to go for this, considering Eliza's revisions are a motivation and reference for the proposed style guide.
Aim for inclusion, rather than division, I say.
@Evert: "So, Eliza tags her submissions as "LPC" and puts "LPC Revised" in the title. I think that's the way to go for this"
If you think so, then you don't understand the whole concept. This isn't about marking ElizaWy's submissions with a tag at all.
"considering Eliza's revisions are a motivation and reference for the proposed style guide."
You couldn't be further from the truth!
LPC Revised isn't the motivation, it's just the most suitable submission in compatibility terms that this community produced so far. Then this isn't a "proposed style guide" in the first place (it relies totally on the original LPC Style Guide for the style!)
The real motivation is filling the gap where the LPC Style Guide is falling short, namely setting up rules for compatibility among different artists' assets by providing guides that they can use (so no, it is not, and never was about just LPC Revised).
"Aim for inclusion, rather than division, I say."
Yet you aim for division. I want to include all submissions that follow these guides, not just Eliza's.
Cheers,
bzt
Hey there! Recently I got back into a little pixel art. I'm working on refining my art that I included in my last submission of Jetrel's awesome rpg assets. I will update that forum topic and submission soon with my latest version.
Anyways, I read all this talk about a tag. Took long time to read... I dunno if anyone mentioned "Refined" so I'm mentioning or voting "LPC Refined" that's what I think when I'm re-organizing and re-working. It's a good word bro consider it. or if you don't like refined maybe "LPC v2"?
Take care-peace
http://duskrpg.blogspot.com/
@Zabin: ""LPC Refined" that's what I think when I'm re-organizing and re-working"
It's not bad at all. It suggests that there's some new standard rules behind the scene, so it qualifies. The only problem is, with your vote now there's no winner.
So I expand the deadline of the voting (which would expire today midnight) until another vote that decides the outcome is made or by another week, whichever happens next. If there's still no winner by then, then according to the last rule, the current remains (but I hope some will pop in and vote to decide the result).
Current status:
Cheers,
bzt
PS: About "LPC v2" I'm hesitant, as it somehow suggests it was made by the original creators. But you can convince me that's not the case, I'm not entirely sure if it qualifies or not.
i'll switch my vote from verified to refined.
Apologies if this is a stupid question - but would the original LPC assets ( https://opengameart.org/content/liberated-pixel-cup-lpc-base-assets-spri... ) satisfy the requirements to get this tag? It's unclear to me if this is meant to be guidelines to capture and document the design of the original LPC assets, or if it's for some kind of next generation, going beyond what the original LPC assets had.
If the former (i.e., the original would qualify for the tag), then "LPC verified" seems best to me. "Refined" seems confusing to me, and implies a difference to the original. I appreciate it's a refinement of the guidelines, but remember these are tags for the art, so if I'm searching I'll be thinking "why are some of the LPC art, including the original, tagged as refined?"
If the latter (original LPC wouldn't qualify), then "LPC refined" sounds good. Although I think there's still the possible issue of a fork using the LPC name without the original artists' endorsements. Yes, there are no trademark issues here unlike Minecraft (or Firefox, for an open source example). But I note sometimes in open source, new names are created for forks, not because it's required legally, but to avoid confusion or avoid implying endorsement from the original. But I suppose "refined" is at least better than "NG" (which implies a better, or official next version), so maybe that's okay.
That's a good question marko, I thought the same thing and I think the submissions like the one u linked to don't get the new tag.
I figure this is a new tag being applied to new submissions inspired by "LPC Revised" by Elizawy who pointed out some inpurities or inconsistencies in the original character animations. She gave more strict detailed player/clothing positioning guidelines and bzt adding those details to a new draft of the LPC style guide. Nothing changed in the style of the style guide, only expanded details on the character I believe.
Am I right thinking this tag is for new submissions? Mostly for organizing this fork of characters and clothing? Maybe re-submitting the terrain tiles.. maybe reorganized a bit.. with this new tag? Seems like an effort to get organized and I respect that.
http://duskrpg.blogspot.com/
So, LPC-Refined has won. I'll modify the spec.
@marko: "Apologies if this is a stupid question - but would the original LPC assets ( https://opengameart.org/content/liberated-pixel-cup-lpc-base-assets-spri... ) satisfy the requirements to get this tag?"
No, they don't, because they are incompatible. The main and most important purpose of this tag is to mark submissions which are compatible with each other.
"It's unclear to me if this is meant to be guidelines to capture and document the design of the original LPC assets, or if it's for some kind of next generation, going beyond what the original LPC assets had."
Well, yes and no. It does not change the design of the original assets, and I've used the current LPC sheet as much as possible, but it's beyond too as it adds the very much needed "jump" and "run" animations (and also some other optional animations, like "sit" and "climb", but those are just optional).
"Although I think there's still the possible issue of a fork using the LPC name without the original artists' endorsements."
We've already went through that, that's not the case according their licenses, plus the originals lack such guidelines therefore no conflict.
@Zabin: "She gave more strict detailed player/clothing positioning guidelines and bzt adding those details to a new draft of the LPC style guide. Nothing changed in the style of the style guide, only expanded details on the character I believe."
This, exactly.
"Am I right thinking this tag is for new submissions? Mostly for organizing this fork of characters and clothing?"
Yes, mostly for new, but I've put a lot of effort in the spec so that already existing submissions could get the tag with minimal modifications. For example most of the assets only need a +/- 1 pixel reposition on certain frames, but no redrawing required at all. Clothes might need a bit more modification, as they must follow the body guideline.
"Maybe re-submitting the terrain tiles"
Currently the spec has exactly the same requirements for tiles as the original style guide, so tile submissions can get this tag out-of-the-box. But @bluecarrot16 allegedly would like to add a section on tiles best practices. I don't know if he is planning to add some changes that break backward compatibility or not. We'll see. I trust @bulecarrot16's judgement on this matter in 100%, if he says it worth adding some stricter rules, then I believe him (so far I had no compatibility issues with tiles in my engine, but I've just used the final results, I don't know what guides needed for the artists to come up with such nice tile assets).
Cheers,
bzt
I've updated the spec (had to modify the url too). The new URL is
https://bztsrc.gitlab.io/lpc-refined/
Cheers,
bzt
This thread is starting to become a novel; is there a tl;dr version? Just wondering if there's any consensus or not. So far looks like we'll have two camps and both of them think the other is slightly worse
@tapatilorenzo: "So far looks like we'll have two camps and both of them think the other is slightly worse"
What do you mean? I can't see two camps here. The original LPC bases aren't compatible, that's a fact, which you can empirically prove (check this, the same helmet does not fit both base). Furthermore, lots of LPC submissions are incomplete, lacking some animations, again, a fact, which you can empirically prove (check this, see the big empty parts for the missing animations).
"is there a tl;dr version?"
Yes, the front page of the spec.
But here's it in a nutshell: this spec uses Eliza's LPC bases, because those are a) compatible with each other b) have interchangeable heads too c) include the very much needed "jump" and "run" animations d) has guidelines. This spec is all about placing the parts carefully so that the asset sprites became interchangeable, otherwise it does not change the LPC style in any other way.
Using this spec will guarantee that there will be no incompatibility issues with new assets and also helps fixing the already existing ones.
Cheers,
bzt
So it's about what I thought still. People divided between preferring classic LPC vs. Eliza's LPC styles (regardless of difference in quantity of sprites). Hence saying there's two camps
>This spec is all about placing the parts...otherwise it does not change the LPC style
Ah, good. I can do LPC things in the future when it strikes me and unless it's associated with people sprites it'll probably be compatible with either. I think that answers anything I wanted to know, thanks
"check this, the same helmet does not fit both base" - Again, the version from the character generator works fine (link). It's perfectly compatible if you use the correct spritesheet.
"Furthermore, lots of LPC submissions are incomplete, lacking some animations, again, a fact, which you can empirically prove (check this, see the big empty parts for the missing animations)." - Bad example, the axe, as a slashing weapon, is not animated for the cast, thrust and shoot animations, because... I don't really have to explain that, do I? Having it for the death animation would be nice, I guess, but it hardly seems essential. If anything, not having it is arguably better because then you can have it as an item drop, which works better if it isn't part of the sprite. So do try again and give a better example.
"a) compatible with each other" - As are the original character bases, at least in the sense that if you pick "male" assets, they work with the male sprite and if you pick "female" assets, they'll work with the female sprite - but that's no different with Eliza's bases.
"b) have interchangeable heads too" - The original bases are available with "modular heads", though admittedly not without issues, but those are actually being worked on.
"c) include the very much needed "jump" and "run" animations" - both of which existed for the original characters too (albeit without clothing).
"d) has guidelines." - Yup, love those. Very useful and overdue.
@tapatilorenzo: "People divided between preferring classic LPC vs. Eliza's LPC styles"
That's a total misconception. This spec uses only the guidelines from Eliza's submissions, that's all.
"Ah, good. I can do LPC things in the future when it strikes me and unless it's associated with people sprites it'll probably be compatible with either. I think that answers anything I wanted to know, thanks"
Cool :-)
@Evert: "Again, the version from the character generator works fine (link). It's perfectly compatible if you use the correct spritesheet."
Please Evert, stop this non-sense, your link has a "sex" parameter. You know very well that you have DUPLICATED the sprite sheets for every single assets! One for male and one for female. That's a completely unnecessary waste of resources, considering the only difference between these sheets is +/- 1 pixel shifts on certain frames.
"but that's no different with Eliza's bases."
Wrong! Eliza's bases are compatible, there's no need for "male" assets and "female" assets with those (except for the clothes of course). It is enough to have a single "sword" spritesheet, it will work for both bases because in Eliza's bases the position of the hands are standardized. Same with the hair, hats, glasses, eye-patches, earrings, etc. since the head's position is standardized too.
"both of which existed for the original characters too (albeit without clothing)."
I beg to differ. Those animations are NOT mentioned in the LPC style guide at all! They are missing from your ultimate character generator as well, and missing from 99% of the submissions too. (For the records, there's no bowing for the original characters either, but at least that made it through to the submissions.)
Cheers,
bzt
I think we all agree that Eliza's work is really nice. However, she made several changes that break compatibility with existing assets. Either all existing assets need to be modified to work with Eliza's LPC, or alternatively Eliza's LPC could be modified to work with the existing assets.
Changing everything that's already been created is not a good option. The edits required are not as trivial as bzt thinks, and none of us (except maybe Eliza) has the time.
Eliza's LPC may someday be the standard, but right now it isn't ready for that. It does not have the same wide range of assets, and the conversation that has been going on here shows that it does not yet have the required support from the community.
Are you aware of the existing project that was inspired by last time this was all discussed on the forum? When the next update is ready (and it almost is) this will no longer be a big issue.
Many of the artists who have posted in this thread have been (or currently are) involved with that project, and when it is ready I will create a fork of the style guide based on it.
Pages