This thread is for collecting information on how to use the asset browser. We will be writing up a short guide for both laypeople (members/developers) and for lead developers. This guide should cover:
- How a asset gets made
- How to become a developer of an asset
- Who can create + claim assets
- How to change the status of a asset
- How to upload, update, etc, a asset
- How to search and use filters
- How to mark assets ready for merging, review, etc
And anything else you can think of.
If you know how to do any of these things or have input, please post below. I will begin compiling a guide for these in this first post.
2015-12-12 23:47
3 years 4 months ago
Who can use it?
Anyone who is a member, you don’t have to be a developer or have special badges. Certain functions are only accessible to Lead Developers.
Where is it?
Main menu at top of screen, under development.
How can I post an asset?
Go to the asset browser. There is a button labeled “contribute an asset” near the top left of the page. Click that. Fill out as many of the boxes as you can; the only required field is the type of asset you want to post and also the title of the asset. The title of the asset should be the name of your book, quest, plant, whatever. The asset progress field is for you to put roughly how close it is to being finished in your opinion. Use the attachment function to attach files like a model, or a zip file, or textures. Use the image attachment function to attach images like concept art or screenshots. Hint: if you try to attach an image and it won’t make a little preview thumbnail, there may be something wrong with the file. Then, in the main text areas, type up a description of what it is you made or would like to see made in the body field. If you’re making a writing contribution (dialogue, a book/note, quest) please put your text in the text field, not in the body (only the asset creator can edit the body), and not as an attachment.
When do I know if my idea is ready to go in the asset browser?
The asset browser is for requesting and developing ideas into actual assets.
All models + textures should go in the asset browser regardless of their state of completion.
Concept art goes in the asset browser if: 1) it is helping develop an existing asset or request, 2) it’s distinct enough to be made into an actual model.
All books should go in the asset browser. Post only one book or book idea per asset.
All quest ideas should go in the asset browser. Post only one quest or quest idea per asset. If your idea is too vague to be considered actually a quest, consider posting it on the forums for feedback first.
All dialogue ideas should go in the asset browser. Check if someone’s already posted an asset relevant (Like, “old ebonheart dialogue”) and tack it on as necessary.
You don’t have to be able to make assets to request one; simply post in there that you want someone to make it.
You do not need the permission of a dev/lead to post something! Go right ahead.
If you’re looking for help on making an asset you can say so in the asset to attract extra help.
Can I edit someone elses’ asset?
Yes, by using the “develop this asset” button. Out of courtesy, never delete someone else’s files or images, just add your own. You can also just make comments if you aren’t actively editing the asset.
When do I know if it’s okay to edit someone else’s asset?
When in doubt, post a comment and ask. But, if it’s a request, go for it. If it’s still in the concept art stage, go for it. If there’s a model but it needs better textures, feel free to add on better textures for the main person to use. Again, never delete someone else’s files, but you can add on your suggestions at any time. If they put in a note saying “please help!” then that’s a good sign.
For Leads:
We have several categories of progress: (only leads can see/edit this)
Proposed – the default. Someone is offering us this asset or idea. All assets use this automatically.
Requested – for leads. If we a re requesting a particular asset for a region, etc, post it this way.
In Development – an asset that is in progress and someone has said it looks good, should be included.
Pending Review – Finished and waiting for people to review. Change to this when the asset maker indicates it’s ready.
Under Review – For reviewers, if they’re going to take a while to review or whatever.
Finished – The asset is totally done! It’s ready for merging if we do want to include it.
Merged – asset is done and actually added into TR data or made a claim or whatever.
Closed – We don’t want this or for whatever reason “merged” isn’t the right word for it. But it’s done.
Some of these categories could possibly be up for discussion.
Does: concepts, textures, youtube vids, admin stuff e.g. PR, handbook, assets, small website things. Activity level: wildly unpredictable. Still active. Find me on Discord.
2015-09-28 20:13
2 years 8 months ago
I had to add a new text field – imaginatively named “text” which is for writing collaborations, as opposed to “body” which only the asset creator (or a lead dev) can edit.
For the record and for any admin who might get funny ideas: do not change the field permissions of the Body field! It’s shared across 90% of all Nodes on the site and if you change it once you change it for everything.
2016-01-17 01:30
1 week 1 day ago
That sounds incredibly troublesome to me. Some people just like to ruin things for others and then the assets are gone… And they’d potentially never be uploaded again if the uploader lost his files or is simply inactive by then.
2015-09-28 20:13
2 years 8 months ago
Simply having it be a requirement for a Lead dev to manually add you as akin to claims is also a lot more troublesome for the (few) lead devs and it goes counter to the idea of the asset browser.
Maybe, since they are supposed to be vetted already, we should let Developers add themselves without lead dev interference and add normal users to a waiting list? Since “Developer” is a unique role, greatly helping with an asset might be a reason for a promotion. This won’t interfer with the claims system, since that relies on the other Developer roles (I/E/Q).
2015-12-12 23:47
3 years 4 months ago
I’m fine with that idea. Or we can break out the old “asset developer” role if we want.
Does: concepts, textures, youtube vids, admin stuff e.g. PR, handbook, assets, small website things. Activity level: wildly unpredictable. Still active. Find me on Discord.
2016-01-19 19:35
2 months 2 weeks ago
Some things I’m noticing while poking around:
--Proprosed does not offer the button “put up for review”, which In Development does. And I’m honestly not sure we need to make a difference between these as far as the browser is concerned. It’s a little confusing as is, so I’d suggest tightening up the system to something like this:
In Development. This asset is actively being worked on, either to complete it or fix bugs with it. If a developer knows they will not be able to work on it anymore, they can relinquish it back to Requested.
Review Pending: Dev team has been notified to take a look for candidacy to put the thing into TR. After review, this either gets moved back to In Development to stomp bugs or Finished.
Under Review: May not be needed? But otherwise, a reviewer has flagged the asset with their intention to look at it. May be needed when we start getting more reviewers so we’re not double-dipping.
Finished. All checked out and bug stomped, ready for merging.
Merged. Is now in the TR mod file and flags the asset browser entry to be deleted or archived (preferrably archived, because we can never have enough backups).
To add to this is the quasi-stage of Requested, wherein anyone can say “I think we need this”. Anyone can flag themselves as the developer and move this to In Development in which it goes down the usual pipline as outlined above. I would also suggest this being used instead of the Proposed tag for any “Do we even need this?” or “Hey I got a random idea but am checking to see if it’s good with everybody...” type assets.
--All those literature postings. A good deal of them are finished in that the edits suggested on their old threads have been responded to, however, I’m a little leery of marking them ready for review without some contact with their original authors. Judgement call on whether we should mark them as ready for review and possible merging anyway?
--Need a new Writing subcategory, perhaps entitled Planning Document, to be used for summaries like the stuff ThomasRuz and I are doing, but also possibly questline/plotline proposals (in which multiple quests are involved).
2015-09-28 20:13
2 years 8 months ago
We’ve got now three different topics where requests about the asset browser are made. It will take me the better part of a week to implement this particular post, and that’s if I skip all the other things on my platter.
I kinda want make Gnomey do it.
The literature assets can be added to in review and then finished, if two lead devs agree on it being worthwhile to implement. I keep meaning to look at them, but I just plain don’t have time for it.
Also, no Planning Document assets. I feel the asset browser is already overloaded as it is, and the planning documents should go in the forums. The asset browser is for implementation, not planning and long discussions that planning documents should have.
2016-01-19 19:35
2 months 2 weeks ago
Eh. So those summaries by me and ThomsRuz should probably go elsewhere?
Anyway, I can go through the literature stuff easily enough and start getting them marked for review.
2015-09-28 20:13
2 years 8 months ago
There’s a pretty big bone of contention on the use of the asset browser between most people and me. I would like to leave all quest proposals in the Implementation forum, but that’s not what we went with, so I’m just a bit grouchy about it.
The divide we should have is “is this something tangible that we can put in game?”.
Storyline discussions are too abstract, so they should go into the Conceptualisation forum. The forums are better equipped to handle large discussion strains, specifically because the storylines are still in the brainstorming period.
Concrete plans (such as cities, ranks, questlines) are more oriented towards the game, but still too abstract as they are both collections and implenetations of assets and the product of the conceptualisation period. The old storylines are not concrete enough yet I think, as we’re still digging through the old stuff and fact collecting.
The quests and literature derived from these, as well as meshes and textures, are practical and singularily tangible enough to warrant assets.
2016-01-19 19:35
2 months 2 weeks ago
I agree, quests in the asset browser should be in a state of near implementable. Mechanics thought out, possible location in mind. (Though some are built they can be set down in any town).
My only problem with any of the quest design stuff is some of them need special interiors created or editted to better reflect the rest of the storyline. Or, like that Criminal Lawyer claim I was doing, is dependent on interiors that have not yet been completed yet. And how to handle all that. Placing NPCs doesn’t need an interior dev designation because it’s easy, but if you have to create a whole new interior (dungeon, house) for the questline or rearrange an existing interior, that’s a problem.
2015-09-28 20:13
2 years 8 months ago
I’ve implemented that today.
Developers can click the Develop button (I fixed the typo, btw) and are automatically added as one of the asset’s developers and the status is moved forward accordingly.
This also goes for the author of the asset, as only lead devs can add requested assets now, so normal users can only add assets in a state of propsal.
Non-developers get added to the Applicant field, a PM gets shot out to leads similar to when a claim is claimed (going to add an Aspirant field there too eventually, if this works out) and it shows up in a shiny new dashboard box.
Not sure if proposed assets should be able to go into review post-haste, so I left that out.
2015-09-28 20:13
2 years 8 months ago
So, update as per yesterday: “Advance to Review” should now show up, if all of the following conditions are met:
2016-01-19 19:35
2 months 2 weeks ago
I see I’m being sent PMs to point me at literature assets ready for review. Do I need to go ahead and push through the system those others that I marked out as being ready for a second review/merging?
2015-09-28 20:13
2 years 8 months ago
Those ready for second review can be put in “Under Review”, I think?
Not really sure, honestly. “Under Review” would signify that they already had a review and need another before they are ready for merging.
(Plus it would mean fewer PMs.)
2016-01-19 19:35
2 months 2 weeks ago
Another question, not sure if it’s dependant on me working on my tablet today.
Is there a difference between selecting “None” for developers in the asset browser, and simply not selecting anyone at all?
2015-09-28 20:13
2 years 8 months ago
No, there is no difference.
Choosing “None” is a quick way to unselect all existing developer entries, though.