Suggestion for Improving the Mod Website

[Renrogn]

I've noticed that many mod developers list dependencies in their mod's description—requirements without which the mod won't run.

Sometimes it's easy to miss this text.
I would like to suggest creating a separate section, perhaps under the "Latest Release" and "For Testers" tabs. This section could be called "Required Add-ons" or "Dependencies."

Compatible mods can still be mentioned in the main mod description. However, a dedicated "Dependencies" section for mods that are essential for it to work is a very important feature.
Is it possible to implement this?

I am not a mod developer myself, but as a frequent visitor to mod sites, I can say that it's often very difficult to notice dependent mods without having them highlighted in a separate section.

 

[Phantom72]

Whilst on the topic... 

I would absolutely love to see a section: "Impact on world when mod is removed"

We just need the basics e.g.

• no impact
• major, crash
• major, need world restart
• major, chunk generation issues
• minor, missing blocks
• minor, missing items
• ...

or something like that;  And big thanks to all you modders!

[Dirty_Wizard]

This is a good idea. Also a section for "known incompatibilities" would be good too, and would probably help mod authors with making their mods compatible with others. 

[Tyceberg]

Personally, on many mod sites I go to for different games, it's usually up to the Mod developer to maintain a list of Dependencies and Incompatibilities within the mods description section. And on here I have noticed that is usually the same case; the bigger, more popular, or more organized mods and mod makers tend to include these in their descriptions already. Same for @Phantom72's idea, mod makers will generally warn you of those kinds of complications if they're known.

So, by and large, this already happens so long as you read the description (and I don't know who wouldn't anyway to be absolutely sure of what they're getting and adding to their game.) Adding these field spaces is minorly more visually apparent, but it would still fully depend on the mod maker to fill in these fields and the player to read everything on the page.

Those who don't add these things to their mod descriptions now aren't much more likely to add them into a different section either. Those who don't read everything about the mod now aren't likely to start.

 

[Renrogn]

3 hours ago, Tyceberg said:

Personally, on many mod sites I go to for different games, it's usually up to the Mod developer to maintain a list of Dependencies and Incompatibilities within the mods description section. And on here I have noticed that is usually the same case; the bigger, more popular, or more organized mods and mod makers tend to include these in their descriptions already. Same for @Phantom72's idea, mod makers will generally warn you of those kinds of complications if they're known.

So, by and large, this already happens so long as you read the description (and I don't know who wouldn't anyway to be absolutely sure of what they're getting and adding to their game.) Adding these field spaces is minorly more visually apparent, but it would still fully depend on the mod maker to fill in these fields and the player to read everything on the page.

Those who don't add these things to their mod descriptions now aren't much more likely to add them into a different section either. Those who don't read everything about the mod now aren't likely to start.

 

(ATTENTION. Mod developers, I apologize for taking screenshots of your work. I needed a clear example. If my actions offended you, please message me privately. At your request, I will remove the screenshots and personally apologize.)

I understand that this ultimately depends on the mod developer.
But let's be honest: each of them does it their own way.
I'm attaching a few screenshots.

I think it would be convenient if the required files were listed right below the download section.
As for compatibilities (other mods) and recommendations, developers could fill those in themselves.

Required mods should be clearly visible so that users notice and install them immediately.
Yes, the game has a built-in mechanism that prompts you to download missing mods without leaving the game. But my suggestion would help avoid such minor inconveniences.

I’d like to hear the development team’s thoughts on this suggestion.

[Phantom72]

3 hours ago, Tyceberg said:

, mod makers will generally warn you of those kinds of complications if they're known

I'm not really too sure about that. There are also a lot of younger and passionate modders out there that are so keen that they wouldn't even think of the flip side. So radio options or check boxes that they can tick, and of course, an option to fill in the notes if they feel the need to. It would take most modders 2 seconds to complete the section so I really don't see a downside as it will save everyone time. And structure > all.

[Renrogn]

1 hour ago, Phantom72 said:

There are also a lot of younger and passionate modders

I’ll echo the point that there are many young mod makers (mod developers).
Many of them sometimes don’t even think about uploading a mod icon — let alone in-game screenshots (those are forgotten most often).

That’s why I really think it would be great to improve sections like "Required," "Compatibilities," and "Incompatibilities."

I’ve already shared my thoughts on the "Required" section.
Regarding compatibilities and incompatibilities — I have a small idea for implementation (I’ll share an example below).

All of this might sound a bit tedious, but over time everyone could get used to it, and there would be almost no problems. Everyone would know what works with what (and similarly, what doesn’t). And mod chat rooms would have far fewer messages like "It won’t launch for me, here’s my mod list."

I think if features like these were implemented — many people would appreciate it.

Still, I’d really like to hear from the VS development team.
Their comment on ideas like these is very important.

[Tyceberg]

All of these statements echo my previous points. 

 

11 hours ago, Phantom72 said:

There are also a lot of younger and passionate modders out there that are so keen that they wouldn't even think of the flip side. So radio options or check boxes that they can tick, and of course, an option to fill in the notes if they feel the need to. It would take most modders 2 seconds to complete the section so I really don't see a downside as it will save everyone time. And structure > all.

Again, this: "... so keen that they wouldn't even think of the flip side," would fall under smaller and unorganized. If they do not take the time to check or plan around other mods because they're too "keen" on getting their mod out, then they still wouldn't have anything to list or add to a dedicated area. "... option to fill in the notes they feel they need to" This is what the Description section is--a large note pad to list the important information related to the mod. And, if they don't feel the need to include that information now why would they then? "It would take modders  2 seconds to complete the section ..." Correct, just as much as it would take them two seconds to add it into the description section if they really wanted/planned to add that info. "I really don't see a downside as it will save everyone time ..." The downside would be pulling VS developers away from working on the game and its mechanics to implement something that mod developers can already easily do within an already provided area and easily draw attention to it with text formatting. As an employee for a game developer myself, our company often tells us to dismiss small things similar to this because users can already do the things mentioned easy enough and our development team's time is better spent elsewhere. It also now adds new sections a user has to check, not just the description. Specially since some modders would choose to continue to just list it in their descriptions as @Renrogn pointed out, "... depends on the mod developer. But let's be honest: each of them does it their own way." Therefore if there's only one way to do it, it wouldn't add to the confusion of where to look per-mod.

 

8 hours ago, Renrogn said:

I’ll echo the point that there are many young mod makers (mod developers).
Many of them sometimes don’t even think about uploading a mod icon — let alone in-game screenshots (those are forgotten most often).

"... don’t even think about uploading a mod icon." Then what would make one think that they've taken the time for researching or listing compatibilities or incompatibilities either? Going deeper, then, being young developers, they may not even know how to test for or track compats and incompats yet, so, again, the sections purposed would be more for organized and established mod makers who would be more likely to use those items. But it doesn't change that they aren't entirely necessary.

 

11 hours ago, Renrogn said:

I understand that this ultimately depends on the mod developer.
But let's be honest: each of them does it their own way. 

...

Required mods should be clearly visible so that users notice and install them immediately.
Yes, the game has a built-in mechanism that prompts you to download missing mods without leaving the game. But my suggestion would help avoid such minor inconveniences.

As you say the game does already have a built in mechanism to help download missing required mods. And, frankly, this--providing you a large list and downloading them all at once to the mods folder--would already be faster than scrolling through a list on a mod page and visiting each independent mod's page on-by-one to download and then having to slide them to the mods folder. This already happens by using links in a description as it stands, so it doesn't adjust much.

"But let's be honest: each of them does it their own way." Quite right. Therefore, there is no guarantee that all. or even most. mod developers would use it. So, you've essentially now added two or more spaces a user would have to go through to make sure they have successfully found all the information listed for requirements, incompatibilities and compatibilities. By this you're increasing the frustrations of users because they now spend more time on each mod page determining whether the Mod creator has listed them in the description or a number of separate areas. Whereas, they could start the game and automatically get the required ones they're missing or read the mod description for incompats and compats.

I still pose the question; if the mod developers do not take the time to list dependencies and incompatibilities now, what makes them more likely to do so just because there's an input section for them? And, is it worth frustrating the user installing them by giving them both a description to have to check as well as multiple other spots on the page every time for every mod? It sounds more hassle inducing, in my opinion as a user, anyway.
 

-----

 

So I still stand by my convictions: those who don't add these things to their mod descriptions now aren't much more likely to add them into a different section either. Those who don't read everything about the mod now aren't likely to start [regardless of which section it's in]. And I'll also now add: if they're a new or inexperienced mod maker they aren't necessarily going to have this info to add in anyway except for dependencies.

 

I just personally do not see any grand necessity for such a feature, nor the need to pull VS resources away from the actual game development for something that can already easily be done and added to a mods page as-is.

Edited September 5, 2025 by Tyceberg

[Renrogn]

24 minutes ago, Tyceberg said:

All of these statements echo my previous points. 

 

Again, this: "... so keen that they wouldn't even think of the flip side," would fall under smaller and unorganized. If they do not take the time to check or plan around other mods because they're too "keen" on getting their mod out, then they still wouldn't have anything to list or add to a dedicated area. "... option to fill in the notes they feel they need to" This is what the Description section is--a large note pad to list the important information related to the mod. And, if they don't feel the need to include that information now why would they then? "It would take modders  2 seconds to complete the section ..." Correct, just as much as it would take them two seconds to add it into the description section if they really wanted/planned to add that info. "I really don't see a downside as it will save everyone time ..." The downside would be pulling VS developers away from working on the game and its mechanics to implement something that mod developers can already easily do within an already provided area and easily draw attention to it with text formatting. As an employee for a game developer myself, our company often tells us to dismiss small things similar to this because users can already do the things mentioned easy enough and our development team's time is better spent elsewhere. It also now adds new sections a user has to check, not just the description. Specially since some modders would choose to continue to just list it in their descriptions as @Renrogn pointed out, "... depends on the mod developer. But let's be honest: each of them does it their own way." Therefore if there's only one way to do it, it wouldn't add to the confusion of where to look per-mod.

 

"... don’t even think about uploading a mod icon." Then what would make one think that they've taken the time for researching or listing compatibilities or incompatibilities either? Going deeper, then, being young developers, they may not even know how to test for or track compats and incompats yet, so, again, the sections purposed would be more for organized and established mod makers who would be more likely to use those items. But it doesn't change that they aren't entirely necessary.

 

As you say the game does already have a built in mechanism to help download missing required mods. And, frankly, this--providing you a large list and downloading them all at once to the mods folder--would already be faster than scrolling through a list on a mod page and visiting each independent mod's page on-by-one to download and then having to slide them to the mods folder. This already happens by using links in a description as it stands, so it doesn't adjust much.

"But let's be honest: each of them does it their own way." Quite right. Therefore, there is no guarantee that all. or even most. mod developers would use it. So, you've essentially now added two or more spaces a user would have to go through to make sure they have successfully found all the information listed for requirements, incompatibilities and compatibilities. By this you're increasing the frustration users because they now spend more time on each mod page determining whether the Mod creator has listed them in the description or a number of separate areas. Whereas, they could start the game and automatically get the required ones they're missing or read the mod description for incompats and compats.

I still pose the question; if the mod developers do not take the time to list dependencies and incompatibilities now, what makes them more likely to do so just because there's an input section for them? And, is it worth frustrating the user installing them by giving them both a description to have to check as well as multiple other spots on the page every time for every mod? It sounds more hassle inducing, in my opinion as a user, anyway.
 

-----

 

So I still stand by my convictions: those who don't add these things to their mod descriptions now aren't much more likely to add them into a different section either. Those who don't read everything about the mod now aren't likely to start [regardless of which section it's in]. And I'll also now add: if they're a new or inexperienced mod maker they aren't necessarily going to have this info to add in anyway except for dependencies.

 

I just personally do not see any grand necessity for such a feature, nor the need to pull VS resources away from the actual game development for something that can already easily be done and added to a mods page as-is.

Thank you for providing such a detailed discussion.
I understand that my suggestion might not be necessary, and developers could implement this themselves in the mod description.
Still, I’ll say it: this was just a proposal for a small extension to the site that, in my opinion, could be a nice addition.
It might not be essential, but I’m curious to hear the opinion of the VS development team.

Thanks to everyone participating in this forum.
I’ll be glad to hear new comments from all visitors to this page.

[Tyceberg]

53 minutes ago, Renrogn said:

Thank you for providing such a detailed discussion.

My pleasure!  This kind of logistical stuff is what I happily do for a career. I enjoy providing a professional opinion on these types of back-and-forth discussions. Questioning, providing rebuttals , sound-boarding off each other and so on--it's all a grand and fun process! (Just gotta have a strong backbone for criticism in those offices, haha!) 

[Phantom72]

2 hours ago, Tyceberg said:

The downside would be pulling VS developers away from working on the game and its mechanics to implement something that mod developers can already easily do within an already provided area and easily draw attention to it with text formatting.

I seriously doubt that would be the case, as in a game dev doing the site development; BUT.. even if it was the case, I have 100% confidence that game would be prioritized over something as unimportant as an impact field on a submission form. BUT, again, if it's NOT the game dev doing the site and backend, then having the field will up the quality of the site. I've see junior and senior devs do really silly things all the time; everyone needs a hand holding once in a while, and everyone comes with and brings different expertise.

Edited September 6, 2025 by Phantom72

[Tyceberg]

40 minutes ago, Phantom72 said:

I seriously doubt that would be the case, as in a game dev doing the site development; BUT.. even if it was the case, I have 100% confidence that game would be prioritized over something as unimportant as an impact field on a submission form. BUT, again, if it's NOT the game dev doing the site and backend, then having the field will up the quality of the site. I've see junior and senior devs do really silly things all the time; everyone needs a hand holding once in a while, and every one comes and brings different experiences.

Well, what I'm about to say is purely conjecture. However, considering that this site is ran via premade templates and coding by another service (see the "Powered by Invision Community" link listed at the bottom of every page.) I doubt they have a 100% fully dedicated team for purely the website alone. You'd be amazed how often this is actually the case with smaller businesses and developers. Being a small company, this would not be cost nor time effective with how infrequently major layout or function updates are done to this site (or at least that I've seen). Their own employment opportunities page states, "Anego Studios consists of a team of passionate game developers working remotely from multiple countries. We are a loosely organized team ... we are looking for talent that we ourselves are lacking." This would indicate they might not have the man power to separate departments like that. And, from my own experiences at multiple companies over the years, nearly half or more of members outside of PR and Marketing had some form of HTML and CSS coding knowledge on top of any other languages for coding the actual game or even on top of 3D modeling knowledge.

I still must disagree with it raising the quality of the site, as it does not truly add anything that isn't already available, viable or functional to the same ends as what's already there. At most it would simply maintain the status-quo as it is or even cause frustration by leading to too many options or places to check or look for and add certain information since anyone could choose to or not to use it.

"... every one comes and brings different experiences," to this I do agree, however, those experiences should not be dismissed. You’re learning from someone else’s trials so you can make better decisions without wasting time or repeating every potential mistake yourself. And these are my experiences and wisdom that I have gained in my 12+ years of game development that I wished to provide.

I do believe, though, we've hit an impasse in this thread that will cause us to continue to loop and repeat ourselves from here. We have all provided our full opinions and thoughts on the matter and it ultimately remains the decision of VS's Anego Studios and it's members to make. Both my comments, yours, and everyone else's provide them with insights into the logistics of the situation based on practicality of the suggested implementation and the desire of an indeterminate portion of users. With that in mind we can all be happy that we have provided to the community and wait with happy anticipation to see what happens.

Edited September 6, 2025 by Tyceberg

[Phantom72]

Quick response to P1-4

1. Makes no difference and I don't think Anego needs our guidance, just our suggestions .
2. No structure = No filter = No difference to quality? Hmmmmm....Nope
3. Unrelated - No one said anything about dismissing anything 
4. True  

Edited September 6, 2025 by Phantom72

[Tyceberg]

1 hour ago, Phantom72 said:

Quick response to P1-4

1. Makes no difference and I don't think Anego needs our guidance, just our suggestions .
2. No structure = No filter = No difference to quality? Hmmmmm....Nope
3. Unrelated - No one said anything about dismissing anything 
4. True  

1. Team size can, but does not always, make a difference to how things should and would be handled. And, user suggestions do indeed provide guidance to a company on which direction they should take for their customers/users. That's the nature of Feedback.

2. Against your quip; While structure can help, I don’t think its absence automatically equals poor quality. Many great works—classic books and artworks, early mods, even open-source projects—were created without strict formatting rules. Their quality came from the dedication, clarity, and passion of the creators, not from external organizational systems. These are two sides of the same coin overall. A well-written description from a conscientious modder can be just as effective as rigid fields or filters. Quality ultimately comes from the effort and clarity of the creator, not solely from the presence of predefined slots, filters, or structure. A careless or rushed creator can misuse structured fields, leading to misinformation. In contrast, someone who takes care in their unstructured description can convey precise, accurate details without needing filters. Both ways have their positives and negatives.

3. I wouldn't say unrelated entirely, but you’re absolutely right—nobody here is trying to erase or dismiss anyone’s viewpoint, they're all equally valid in the grand scheme. (Although, I'd be lying if I said your second point here didn't make me feel that way personally in some regard, but I doubt it's your intention, just like it's not mine towards anyone here.) We’re all contributing valid observations based on our own experiences: mod devs, seasoned users, industry workers, newcomers—we all bring valuable insights to the table. It’s a collaborative effort, a friendly discussion, not a debate to “win.”

4. Glad we can agree on that. The suggestions and the thoughts from everyone—including yours—has definitely added value. Whether or not Anego acts on it, we’ve collectively helped clarify what may or may not improve with this suggestion's implementation. That in itself is a success for everyone, because it provides the devs much to consider and understand towards potentially integrating this and other suggestions around the forum.

Edited September 6, 2025 by Tyceberg

[Phantom72]

1 hour ago, Tyceberg said:

suggestions do indeed provide guidance

Suggestions don't inherently dictate guidance, and "guiding" someone versus "suggesting" to someone can lead to a completely different outcome, but let's leave it at that. It is however, obvious we're not on the same wavelength, but I'm sure we're both on the "Whatever makes Vintage Story better" team. Let's not get this thread locked with walls of text discussion over differences of opinion. 

[Tyceberg]

7 minutes ago, Phantom72 said:

Let's not get this thread locked with walls of text discussion over differences of opinion.

Indeed.