The bug was known for v15 already. Wouldn't it be easier to fix it in UB itself?

[This topic was split from this]

Naturally, and I do wish it were fixed, as well as other issues. I like having UB and QP in my install, and it is rather annoying when well-made, well-liked and popular mods have issues. Hopefully the authors will have some free time in the future - I, for one, am looking forward to it.

UB and QP have been severely bugged for years. The authors apparently have lots of free time (as they spend a lot of time in various forums writing jokes and insults to others); yet, they don't spend 5% of those free time to fix their mods' bugs.

As a side not, a mod's stability is the most important factor for calling it "well-made".

I agree about stability.

....and likely writing insults is more "fun" to them...so much that it has priority, apparently.
Thankfully not every modder is like that.

"Stability" is not the only criterion, but it's the first and the most important one. It's an essential (though not adequate) condition (for me) to call a mod "well-made". I wouldn't call "well-made" a mod which has critical and/or numerous bugs.

Once the stability issues are fixed and resolved, then there are other criteria which I will take into consideration to assess a mod's quality (such as the author's creativity in making quests, graphics, scripts, the nature of tweaks it applies to the game and et al).

One other important factor for deciding over playing or not playing a mod is how willing and quick the mod's author shows himself in fixing the reported bugs and issues.

These flamewars are harmful to whole IE modding community.

It's strange. Even when you are doing something just for fun, you don't have problems with finding your enemies (I don't mean specifically you Sikret ;-)), who are doing the same thing just for fun... But they are EVIL (in addition)!

Maybe each forum (PPG, G3, BWL, Spellhold S...) should have its own Ministry of Foreign Affairs - because it's not fun, it's policy already!

P.S. Pardon me for any mistakes, I'm not a native speaker and I'm arrogant (just fun ;-)).

This post has been edited by Jab: Mar 19 2008, 05:13 PM

@Jab

It's funny that you quoted a paragraph which states only plain and undeniable facts, but you decided to interpret it as "Flamewar". However, when some people were writing the most rude and insulting lies about us, I never saw you interpreting their words as flamewars and sending any similar comments in response to them. Are you scared of some people but feel safe to reply to some others?

I think you need to read more carefully (what you want to reply to) before hitting the "reply" button. Misreading my name for Vlad's is the simplest example which can't be justified by being a non-native English speaker (though misunderstanding what I wrote can be justified in that way).

Just my simple mistake (both of you have that BWL modder rank) and argument for you. ;-)
Proceed in your flamewars. I promise, that I will never write it again. - Results are very poor.

This post has been edited by Jab: Mar 19 2008, 05:20 PM

No flamewar is in progress in this thread; it's all in your mind. I just stated some plain facts.

If I wanted to get involved in flamewars, I would do it in the true flaming threads in those forums where certain people were telling all sorts of incredible lies about us and our mods.

Trust me, I don't wish to fight against your "plain and undeniable facts" in your "paragraphs".
It's just surprising, that there are ANY fights when it comes to modding. It's hard to earn money or real "social power" in modding. It's just something you do, because you are enjoying it. So why care about "lies and accusations"?

Well, if you intend to study the psychological aspects of flamewars in modding community, perhaps the better question to ask is to ask the liar "why to tell lies and to make false accusations in the first place?" (rather than asking the victim "Why to care about those lies and accusations?")

There may be several interesting answers to that question, but as I mentioned before, you have chosen the wrong thread for talking about these issues. You could ask the question in the true flaming threads on those days and in those forums. No flamewar is in progress in this thread unless you want to turn it to one by continuing to send offtopic remarks.

This post has been edited by Sikret: Mar 19 2008, 08:41 PM

1) Some people consider this as a competition (or something like that) and/or want to make their site more popular, (so) they want to spread their mods (even by convincing other authors to change their own mods). A few modders even spread lies, just to cause harm to the other author. Or simply due to ignorance, envy or some other thing. They believe they don't need any more knowledge, and that they are right under any circumstances.
2) There are modders who invest a lot of time to their modding work (and this is true to many modders), and some of them becomes the victim of lies and attacks. Reasons detailed in (1) above.
3) There are forum users who have never made any mod, but love reading stupid topics and enjoy "fights". They enjoy the drama, the strain. Some of them prefer a certain modder, and defend that modder's interests/opinion even if they know jack about the topic. These users are the best troll army to support the people who I characterized in (1).
4) There are forum users who believe all the stuff they hear. Everything, even if they don't know the topic. Some of them belong to the group who I characterized in (3). Others aren't modders, and they get misled due to the things they hear.

But what is the answer to your question, "why to care about the lies and accusations"? The answer is above. Modders of group (2) invest a lot of time, and many of them are sensitive to lies (as most people). Jab, a mod is an intellectual work, intellectual property. They invest a lot of time, and is it a wonder they are furious after seeing that the people in group (4) believe all the lies told by (1) or (3)?!

In other words, a person has full right to reply accusations and reject lies about his or her intellectual work. Especially if there are naive users who may believe those lies unconditionally. I "love" the scenario when a modder tells total nonsense or perhaps a subtle lie, several trolls start to support him, but someone dares to defend the mod/feature in question, and what is the result? "You are going to get a heart attack", "You are over-defending it!" etc. Are they surprised that someone rejects lies? But they are hopeless. They enjoy the strain, enjoy ridiculing other's work, and so on. And the envy. Human envy is a big lord.



Version 16 was released, yet the bug wasn't touched. It is about changing three lines of its TP2:



For example, it can be changed to this:



So it has nothing to do with free time. It's about principles (or ignorance, sometimes). Modders often don't realize (or just don't care) that they may break "backward compatibility" when they modify the potential dependencies of mods by altering the original game.

In this specific case, mods that use ar0004.baf will be broken (for example, these mods use EXTEND_TOP in order to summon a creature in ar0021.are). A little illustration, specifically about the bug of Unfinished Business:

An "unmodded" game:




Five mods are installed, Mod1 and Mod3 depend on ar0004.bcs:



If the reference from ar0021.are to ar0004.bcs is removed, the content/plot of Mod1 and Mod3 may be broken.

Mod6 (e.g., Unfinished Business v16) is installed. It replaces the reference in ar0021.are (this is where we "fix" something and actually introduce a bug by violating backward compatibility):



The file ar0004.bcs is now a lonely file among the game resources of BG2. It has no function.

Note that it doesn't matter if Mod6 is installed before or after other mods; if installed, it may break Mod1 and Mod3. It's also important to note that ar0021.bcs has no function in the original game (it doesn't exist), so UB doesn't restore any original but unreachable game content here.

There are several other types of dependencies as well. This was just one example.

The best example for such (and similar) changes is the G3 BG2 Fixpack, of course. These changes cause severe incompatibility risk for other mods, and can't guarantee backward compatibility even with the original game itself. It can be acceptable for real bugfixes where the incompatibility risk should be ignored due to the severity of the problems (in other words, don't make mods that rely on bugs). On the other hand, it's unacceptable in case of subjective changes and quasi-fixes (quasi-tweaks) such as "Keys should be consumed after use" (may easily break certain mods) or "That person cannot be neutral because he is a smuggler and attacks you when you reveal him" (alignment changes may break certain mods' scripts). I brought up G3 Fixpack because it's the best example. But I know the usual reaction: "You don't like the mod so you try to discourage players from playing it" (no comment).

So now I hope it's clear why I keep emphasizing all the time that mods (especially those which are meant to be installed with many other mods, such as fixpacks and small mods) should only modify as much original content as *needed*. And no more. If the mod has lots of dependencies (such as Improved Anvil) due to its nature, its compatibility with other mods should be examined with even more attention, and proper documentation should be provided to help players and the author too (Improved Anvil offers all this).

If an IE mod is a plug, the IE game is the socket. You can imagine what would happen if the standard socket was modified...



Yes, all plugs (i.e., all devices with such a plug) would have to be modified. All existing copies. Funny.

"That is why bug reports and tests are needed". Funny statement. Wouldn't it be easier to build a reliable mod instead of mistaking players for testers and expecting others to change their earlier and current mods as well? (Needless to repeat that G3 Fixpack is the best example: it's not an ordinary mod, it's a fixpack which requires mods to constantly fix themselves to be compatible with the fixpack )


Ensuring backward compatibility can be tough. One of the main problems of big systems (as well). It's not hard to introduce new, shiny features, but what about the software or hardware components, tools, source code etc. that were produced for/with the earlier version of the system/language?

Finally, a concrete example again. Quote from the WeiDU readme:

Yes, that's the only way to solve it. (For those who aren't familiar with this topic: the quote isn't a negative example to criticize WeiDU. It's an example how WeiDU solves a problem -- correctly. A problem that arises quite often in this field.)

I was going to post about how backwards compatibility is only an illusion and accidents are bound to happen even when doing test units, but I think I'll rather take the time to say that I'm sorry for having posted the "not real" post, or any other over-the-line comment/insult I've thrown over the years.

Accidents and problems always happen, but:

1) It doesn't mean we shouldn't care about it (shouldn't try to work on it) just because "it's an illusion anyway" -- especially when it's possible to guarantee it.
2) We're talking about a relatively small system, and with some care, attention, responsibility and cooperation, it's not so hard to build good mods and proper documentation (at least, for experienced modders).

For example, "let's pack all stuff into the mod that we find cool, crashes & bugs will be reported anyway after the release and hehe the forum will get more traffic anyway" isn't the way to go IMO. Especially if the mod is meant to be a fixpack, installed by all players.

I'm deeply reluctant (as a newish observer of all this) to get into a deep debate, but I do feel you're exaggerating. I've written code with/without the BG2 fixpack and I haven't had any problems at all. As far as I can tell, provided you allow in a fairly generic fashion for the possibility that some other mod has modified game resource X (so you don't, for instance, do WRITE_BYTE 0x335c4 0 without checking that 0x335c4 is really what you're after) then it's fine.

Exaggerating you say? Well, not at all. I believe Baronius knows very well what he´s talking about, and he´s definetely trying to show up that some original game bugs (maybe not bugs literally, but some things that were forgotten by developers and doesn´t do any harm to the game especially) doesn´t need to be corrected, because some other mods (UB and TOD are perfect examples of collision) may use the same resources as the fixpack has corrected, but in original untouched form... Why are these so called "bugs" taken as bugs anyway? Who knows, maybe developers intended something we have no knowledge about...

But definitely it´s not exaggerating...

First of all, it's important to note that the severe technical problems of G3 Fixpack are used as an example here. G3 Fixpack has other problems as well -- e.g., conceptual ones such as "guessing developer intent" and adding quasi-tweaks, but they are beyond the scope of the present topic. Nonetheless I will probably mention/detail them after all, considering most technical issues follow from the conceptual ones, or closely related.



I have never said that G3 Fixpack (or mods that make the same technical mistakes) actually break lots of mods etc. On the other hand, the technical mistakes cause very many problems, the practice confirms this.

It breaks/broke certain mods (such as Improved Anvil or Sheena NPC), let alone the global bugs that affect(ed) almost all mods that are installed together with it. There are several mod types that don't interact much with this type of technical problems, but complex mods (e.g., which have many dependencies and interrelations) are very sensitive to the arbitrary changes made on the original game. Needless to say the reasons, they are obvious.

The biggest trouble (beyond conceptual and developer attitude problems): on top of the fact G3 Fixpack already includes severe risks for certain mods types, it's continously changing, possibly affecting new game resources again and again. Iroumen perfectly summarized what I've shown in those diagrams of my long post in the present topic. And what is the consequence?

The consequence is some broken mods, and the constant "obligation" for authors of many mods (and not just complex mods) to keep their work "synchronized" with G3 Fixpack. If they don't do it, there will be incompatibilities.

G3 Fixpack forces modders to follow and support its own arbitrary changes (and forces players to install these changes). If modders don't want those arbitrary changes, they have to spend a lot of time to negate (!!) those changes. If they don't or can't, their mod will either be broken (e.g., think of dependencies -- yes, I'm still on-topic), or conceptually incompatible (because he/she didn't agree with a change).

DavidW, you didn't encounter severe problems for more reasons:
(1) You have no problems with WeiDU TP2, you're skilled in WeiDU and G3 Fixpack so you don't have to spend hours to learn the basics. If you work for a longer time on a code after all (e.g. because of a more complex problem to harmonize a mod with G3 Fixpack), you gladly do it because you agree with the principles of G3 Fixpack. Not everyone agrees, and not everyone has the skills and/or time to spend hours for such things.
(2) Many of the mods you (also) deal with aren't such mods that are too sensitive to arbitrary changes on the game. So in this case it's not hard to implement compatibility and "cure" dependency problems via "reactive" coding. With a few or a few tens of WeiDU LOC.

The problem is that many of you guys there at G3/PPG don't realize (or don't care, though you seem to care DavidW, so this isn't directed at you) that there are OTHER mods as well beside your usual mod types, and these other mods have different structure and complexity. Which means they couldn't be harmonized with G3 Fixpack without conceptual changes or enormous technical alterations even if their authors agreed with G3 Fixpack's arrogance. But it's easier (and reflects big weakness) to reject the responsibility with a comment such as "it's a poorly designed mod, otherwise it could be made compatible with G3 Fixpack". So instead of actually reconsidering the attitude and principles, the developers and supporters of G3 Fixpack enjoy the wide reputation of G3 Fixpack thanks to propaganda it gets (e.g., "the game will crash more..." , or the pinned topics in all gaming/modding forums, telling about "hundreds of fixes" and "Baldurdash is totally obsolete"). They abuse this reputation, and mislead new players, e.g. discourage them even from trying mods such as Improved Anvil, Never Ending Journey, or Tortured Souls (mods which authors don't share their viewpoints and don't follow what they want to dictate).

Furthermore, not all players like that all things are dictated to their fixpack installation, because they also realise the severe technical risks. And it's present all the time, as we can see. Incredible, players complain due to subjective changes -- AGAIN. It's a mystery why such stuff can't be put to a different mod, to a mod similar to Improved Anvil, Grey Clan or any non-fixpack mod. It's a mystery why G3 fixpack creators want to dictate a default installation to players and brand-new default conditions/environment to modders, offering them the "possibility" to *negate* those changes in various ways. I've brought this up many times I know -- it's a mystery for me, and I guess many others.

Let me quote a post by Caedwyr (highlights added by me):


Caedwyr admits that older fixes might have caused issues. It's OK, but he also admits that their current versions "will cause less issues with other mods/material". That is, he is well aware of the fact that G3 Fixpack code is a possible source of problems. Of course, I know that he would say that modders can post feedback and/or fix the problems in their own code -- but that is what I was talking about: it can be a lot of effort for beginners, and in case of certain mod types, it's not possible!

Shouldn't a fixpack work like this: it's installed after the official patch, and modders can develop their own mods peacefully, players can be sure they don't have to "comment out lines". A fixpack that doesn't have to touched, its documentation and code (both are hundreds of pages) doesn't have to be read by others, etc.

I know I've actually been writing about concepts and attitudes in the latest paragraphs above, but 80-90% of the severe technical issues directly follow from these conceptual problems.

It's a mystery why those arbitrary changes have to be forced into G3 Fixpack, and thus forced onto the installations of hundreds of players (with the support of "this is the only stable, and practically the only usable fixpack -- the only option for you" propaganda). I have some guesses but I don't want to share them.

Finally, three quotes (highlighting added by me):


So players have right to request/convince G3 FP developers to remove arbitrary tweaks that shouldn't be in a fixpack at all? No comment


Of course, now kulyok would certainly say something like "it was back then, it was an old version, in fact a beta, now it has been improved and it doesn't keep introducing bugs anymore". This quote ("My only concern...") was just to reflect: it's obvious that the bugs started to come from the beginning, and G3 Fixpack's development principles haven't changed since then. It's also a mystery why a fixpack's beta can "start introducing bugs". Beta or not, it's meant to be a fixpack, so even in worst case, it may not fix all bugs it intends to fix, but to introduce new bugs?



(No comment for this one)


(Sources: Caedwyr, kulyok, Wounded Lion)

The is pretty good work, guys. You're actually having an argument without any opposition present.

So why don´t you write your opposition answer here instead of that ironical sentence you just did I wonder...

Because this is all daft and I don't care?

This post has been edited by SimDing0: Mar 22 2008, 01:51 PM