Theres something I still dont get though, Baronius and Sikret.

No one is forcing you to use BG2 Fixpack at all. No one. Not CamDawg, not me, not DavidW, not George Bush, not Nelson Mandela. You can explicitly state in any mod you like that Fixpack is not supported, anyone who wants to use your mod should remove it from their computer and never use it again if they plan to use your mod.

Is there a big problem with that? Is there a problem with letting Fixpack do what Fixpack does, and then you just do what you do? Why do you have to keep on attacking it? IA is explicitly incompatible with it, so why bother attacking it?

If you relied on Fixpack, and needed Fixpack, and depended on Fixpack, then perhaps you would, as a stakeholder, have a say in how it should be run. But because you obviously never use it, then perhaps just leave it alone? I think Apple products are overpriced and too restrictive, but I dont go telling my colleague his iPod was a big waste of money. I let him do what he wants, it doesnt affect me. How does Fixpack affect you?

I'm well aware that Fixpack makes some changes that you disagree with. But lets set out some facts:

1. Baldurs Gate 2 has problems that need fixing.
2. To fix those problems, some changes are needed.
3. Because of those changes, some mods that depend on things being broken, or at least different, may no longer work correctly.

Fixpack then, as I see it, has several options. They can

1. Do nothing.
2. Fix things as they see fit.
3. Fix things as you see fit (which, some might argue, is very similar to 1.).

Now, I prefer 2. I understand that, as BG2 can be a heated issue for some, some changes can be controversial. But surely Camdawg et al have the right to decide what goes into their mod, and what doesnt? It is their mod after all. It may be used by the public at large, but at the end of the day it is still produced by people who have a right to do what they like. Conversely, BG2 players have a right to NOT use it, or use it if they will. Also, mod makers have the right to support it, or not support it. Given that, I dont see why you have a problem. They could, if they wanted to, turn Irenicus into a 18/22 Mage/Cleric. Doesnt mean anybody is forced to use their mod, doesnt mean anybody is forced to play with Irenicus as a Mage/Cleric.

The thing to remember is that, despite its stated purpose (to fix things), it is still a mod. Thus, it is NOT compulsory for anyone to use. Should I rip on IA, even though I dont use it? Would you think that was fair? Should I criticize IA for not being compatible with my favourite mods, for "breaking" things? I dont see any difference in the two activities.

As for testing... Sikret, are you volunteering to donate the much needed hours to testing? Camdawg et al dont work for free, its unreasonable to expect testing, just as its unreasonable to expect everyone to use it. If you dont like it, dont use it. Testing is definitely worth doing in a software development environment, but it takes a lot of time, something that these guys, who give their time for free, dont have too much of. If you dont like the fact that it is not tested before being released, are you willing to do anything about it? Or are you just going to complain about it and not use it?

We are not attacking it, we are stating plain facts. Since the developers of BG2 fixpack use their propaganda/brainwashing machine to deceive players, it's our duty to enlighten players that what they say is not true.



Yes, I do that for my own mod. They should do so for theirs, but they don't. Players have the right to play tested and relatively bugfree mods. This is a difference between two modding philosophies. We respect the players' right to play tested and bugfree mods; they don't. For us, there is a well-defined difference between a tester and a player.

Moreover, since their mod is supposed to be a fixpack, they should give even a more serious attention to testing it than other mods. A fixpack should not add so many new bugs to the game. At its current status, the Bg2 fixpack is best be called a "bugpack" rather than a "fixpack".

Ba ha ha ha ha! Yes, you are attacking it. You are attacking its authors and their methodologies, and again I ask you WHY? WHY?

Answer me this honestly - does it affect you if someone uses BG2 Fixpack?

Really, your choice of words - "brainwash" and "deceive" - quite clearly displays this is more than just professional disagreement for you. Releasing a buggy fixpack is one thing, but claiming they practice "propaganda" and "brainwashing" is something even a 13 year old couldnt say he honestly believed with a straight face. Do you not like the fact that their mod is popular? Is that what gets you? Of all the things to be angry about...



Actually no, players who use free mods have no rights at all, because they havent paid for it. They can make requests, but not demand. Do you think that users of IA should have a right to complain if something is too hard? You dont seem to have been too accepting of criticism in the past.

Ancalagon_UK, I would suggest to you to study the problem more thoroughly, because you've oversimplified several matters in your post, which reflects that you're not familiar with the topic, especially in a technical, scientific respect.

Nonetheless, here are some answers:

1. For example, we get constant attacks why we don't support it. On a certain gaming forum, if someone recommends G3 FP and say we prefer Baldurdash to it because G3 FP may break other mods, some supporters of them (like you) who believed all their propaganda suddenly starts to question us.

2. Supporters or sympathizers of G3 Fixpack were spreading (and some of them still probably spreads) lies about Improved Anvil and our other works. We wouldn't care about it, but many players arrive here with similar misbeliefs, which they read somewhere on a different forum.

3. BWL has a good credibility as far as technical problems and modding solutions are concerned, and it would be against the spirit of our core team to allow players and mod developers to be misled and misinformed by some populists who want to increase their mod's (and site's) reputation at any cost. As you can see, my initial train of thought about G3 Fixpack is always of technical nature, but after those arguments are ignored and lies are spread that "it's a rant, Baronius doesn't like the Fixpack", I have no other choice than to clarify that it's all about propaganda. So, it belongs to our modding activity to provide credible technical, "scientific" information about mods to all mod developers and players interested in it -- we don't allow populist and other modding 'politics' interests to interfere (yes, the authors of G3 FP spread various untrue things about modding, such as that "patching is always superior to overwriting", "all mods can be made technically compatible without changing their concept" etc.)


It isn't, but:
1. Thanks to their propaganda, most players believe it IS compulsory to use it, and we tend to get players all the time who install G3 Fixpack even for Improved Anvil, and when we enlighten them, they are surprised. One of them, a new player, believed -- after reading the Improved Anvil readme -- that Baldurdash is actually the BG2 Fixpack, so he installed the BG2 Fixpack. No wonder, as it's advertised everywhere as pinned topics, and they convinced/misled everyone that it's a fixpack with crucial, essential fixes, and its name also implies the same: "BG2 Fixpack", the ultimate fixpack (let alone the misleading slogan "Baldurdash and a few hundred fixes more" -- they even abuse the name of Baldurdash).
2. Thanks to their propaganda, most players believe lies such as that serious bugs are unavoidable (and e.g. they even influenced plainab, who said "there is no way to know what the problems will be until they arise"). Most players don't realize that a high number of bugs which third-party mods seems to have while G3 Fixpack is installed are actually caused by G3 Fixpack. They believe that the bugs that appear are third-party mod bugs (because they seem to appear in third-party mods indeed, but caused by the G3 Fixpack), or if they are G3 Fixpack's bugs, then it's natural ("because every mod has bugs, and it's only Baronius who doesn't like the G3FP and tells that there are too many bugs").
3. They blackmail mod developers to use the G3 Fixpack and learn how to remove its fixes if the third-party mod would be broken or negatively affected by a fix. If you dare not to use the G3 Fixpack, you can expect retaliation and harassment. This is what happened with Improved Anvil V1 as well.


They abuse a simple fact to keep their supporter base (i.e. players like you) in terms of modding 'politics' as well: most players don't understand the technical bases of my trains of thought (mod dependencies, game interfaces, compatibility theory), so they just understand that for "some reason" I don't recommend it. After this point, it's easy to convince them "Baronius' post is just a rant, he doesn't the Fixpack [due to personal preferences]". And players -- including you -- and many mod developers believe this.

You've addressed the following statements/questions to Sikret, but since they're general questions, and I agree with all of Sikret's claims, and this is a public forum, I would like to give answers.

This is also a common misbelief what those certain G3 FP spread for players. "We have not enough free time". (It reminds of their other favourite justification for the bugs of their untested but over-advertised work: "bugs are natural, inevitable". Indeed they are, but it does matter how many and how serious.) So no, Ancalagon_UK, proper testing IS possible, if they allocate time for it. Yes, it significantly DELAYS the releases, but that's how it works. It results in slower development, but the released work will have quality. But they didn't want and don't want to delay releases, because it might be disadvantageous to their visitor count and popularity. The industry must be running with a high performance!


If they advertise it as the standard base mod for all game installations for all players, and the standard base mod for third-party mods, then it IS reasonable to test your work before you give it out of your hands. (On a side note, in my culture, you're taught that you should do precise and accurate work, if you want your conscience to be clear.)

Yes, we keep informing players and mod developers about it, so they know they play/use an untested work, and the bugs they believe to belong to third-party mods (due to the propaganda they hear from G3 FP developers) are actually caused by G3 Fixpack.

If you imply that we should volunteer and test the G3 Fixpack, then no thanks -- even if we had the time, it would be hopeless because G3 FP has an incorrect architecture, and would have to be revised from scratch. They made the problem for themselves, they should be who correct it. However, they don't intend to, because they are content with the fact that they misled tons of players and mod developers that they do their best to ensure the quality of that mod, and that their methods are superior.


As I've said, it is a professional disagreement, but there is no way to fight with propaganda and manipulation with technical reasoning, because most players don't understand the technical reasons, while it's easy for them to believe the propaganda ("Baronius and Sikret don't like the Fixpack"). So when we say it's manipulation and propaganda, we say it because that's what is happening -- but we wouldn't emphasize it if they ever tried to answer our "professional" i.e. technical arguments, questions about their work. They ignore them, then mislead players that we criticize them for other reasons than technical disagreement. Admittedly very subtle.

Don't they even have the right to know that the mod they are going to install is full of bugs? We state the facts about Bg2 fixpack to let players know the facts and then decide freely.

Again, I emphasize that this is even a more important issue when we are talking about a mod which was supposed to be a fixpack. Many players install it just because of its misleading name and the fact that they don't know how bugged it is.

hey I'm a professional software developer with a BSc in Computer Science - but thanks for implying you know it all and everyone else understands nothing.

Even if you are right, if you resort to posting like you seem to always do - ie attacking Camdawg's character, accusing them of spreading propaganda - you completely destroy your own argument, and nobody takes you seriously. Besides which, if you have something important to say, say it once. The more often you repeat the same thing, the less likely people are to care. Because you repeat the same thing over and over, no matter what the truth value is of your initial statement, nobody listens. It becomes, "Oh look, Sikret and Baronius are wanting to start an argument about how they hate Fixpack, I wish they would drop it"

Nobody listens and your point is wasted. Look at how people respond to you when you do so, on both G3 and SP. They just about ignore you, or at the least deride you. And no, its not Camdawg's "propaganda". Its the fact that you wont shut up about it.

Your complaints about Fixpack are essentially identical to what people say about Microsoft whenever a new .NET or Windows comes out. Are you going to suggest that Microsoft should never change anything, and that backwards compatibility is more important than moving forward and fixing things? The same applies to Fixpack. Some things need to be changed, and some of those changes require an authors interpretation. You dont agree with their interpretation, but with the way you act towards them, I'm not surprised. You post with such venom towards them! No wonder they dont listen.

If you want to develop your mod on a base of Fixpack, it is your duty to either specify that users either use a particular version of Fixpack, or update your mod accordingly. The same applies to every single other piece of software - for instance, it is up to the author to decide whether to support Vista, if he doesnt want to, he can state "DOES NOT SUPPORT VISTA". And everybody is happy. He doesnt need to drag it down.

As for the bugs.....

As I see it, there are 2 kinds of "bugs" that you refer to.

The first is a bug caused by human error, eg Irenicus's race being set to Dragon erroneously. Thats a bug, and thats a bug that could cause problems in other mods. It should be fixed as soon as it is found.

The second is a change not caused by human error, but fixing what the Fixpack authors think needs fixing. A well worn example is the true neutral pirate who became Lawful Evil. That could break some mods, but that doesnt mean its a bug within the Fixpack itself. Indeed, if a mod claims Fixpack support, then it is a bug within the mod itself. If the mod does not support Fixpack, then its a compatibility problem.

From what I can see from your rantings, the second type is far more common, and thats mostly because you just dont agree with them. I'm aware that there are a few of the first type. But software development is an iterative process - I would state it is highly likely that Fixpack v6 has far fewer bugs than v1, simply because those discovered earlier will most likely have been fixed as part of the iterative process. yes, they could introduce new bugs, that is possible. I'm sure they have. Again, in that case, the onus rests with the mod maker to decide on a compatibility stance and then develop according. Either support it or dont support, the choice is yours.

I work for a company that makes real time graphics software for TV. Sometimes, we find bugs in drivers - Nvidia drivers, DVS drivers, bluefish drivers etc etc. We report those bugs, but because we cant really on them being fixed timeously, we often have to do something ourselves. But thats the price we pay for using those drivers. Likewise, if you want to develop for Fixpack, you need to be aware of its bugs, report any if you find them, and develop accordingly.

I'm replying to this with some trepidation as tempers seem to run high very easily... but I think you may be misinterpreting Nythrun's post. She says


Which I read as saying: use whatever bugfix you want. Don't even use the official bugfix if you don't want to (though the game will crash and lag more if you don't use the official bugfix). If you prefer any version of Baldurdash, use that. Of course if you don't use this mod, you'll miss out on its content and its authors will be less able to help you.

(I think it's aimed at players rather than developers, btw).

They're still manipulating, and the practice has always seemed to prove that (regardless who interprets what post and how). For example, in case of Improved Anvil V1, after the repeated "No" answers of Sikret (who also provided technical arguments to reason his viewpoint), they still kept bothering Sikret (and trolls also arrive), and when it finally ended, certain people -- including mod developers -- started to spread various false things about Improved Anvil ("it is built to deliberately break other mods"), because that was what they believed, or they simply lied. The G3 FP developers involved didn't clarify them, in fact kept manipulating everyone. Otherwise, why would a mod developer believe such things? It's OK that a player misreads something, but a mod developer is either not a modder if speaks like that, or simply believes all what the G3FP main developers say and advertise.

It's a question of definition, but I agree with you -- in this topic, I've never said it's a fixpack "bug" that it may break other mods. It's a severe problem, no matter how we define it. Exactly as you say: a compatibility problem: that is what I call "incompatibility risk". If you think it's acceptable to have tons of "compatibility problems" (which could be avoided with correct design and verification) in standard fixpack that is meant to be used by ALL game installs and that it's the duty of the third-party mod to correct these problems, then there is no need to say anything.


*sigh*
When the topic is brought up, I tend to repeat my arguments, perhaps in a different form than earlier, but the point is the same.
Look at those people whose post I linked in an earlier post (Ymarsakar, luan, etc.) -- do you think I bribed them?
Look at the person who is one of the BG1NPC project authors, Blucher. Do you think I bribed him? Yes, what he said is very similar to what I say, totally independently from me (yeah, I'm not saying I convinced him about anything -- we haven't ever communicated online).
Look at Wounded Lion, who also brought up at G3 that the G3 FP isn't correctly tested. Did I perhaps bribe him or influence him?
So, please allow me to decide on my own what I think readers may be interested in, or what I think they may not be interested in.

On a side note, mentioning the .NET framework is a poor analogy here. It's not something that is untested or tends to break software that is based on it. OK, it might have bugs here and there (I had the possibility of seeing an ExecutionEngineException caught by VS2008 in WPF), but it's not something that regularly causes problems.

Is this partly the issue? I don't and didn't get the impression that this is being said at all - certainly not in the documentation. (Indeed, I read Nythrun's post to be saying exactly the opposite.)

(Obviously it advertises what it does and presents itself positively, but what mod doesn't? - certainly not my mods, certainly not BWL mods.)

This post has been edited by DavidW: Aug 29 2008, 11:46 AM

Well, I do. They have succeeded to advertise it everywhere and convince tons of players to use it -- which be OKAY until this point, don't get me wrong -- but then they abuse this popularity to manipulate players and mod developers (otherwise, for example, why would anyone believe the lies about Improved Anvil, Vlad's works and so on?). To cut a long story short, they believe their methods are superior, and instead of offering technical facts, they (ab)use their reputation to convince others about it.

Proper testing requires many more things than time, because it requires a different skillset than developing. The skills needed for testing are also much harder to teach and/or learn through use, making skilled testers a rare find. Moreover, ideal testing requires that the tester is a different person than the developer. I read a report somewhere (sorry if I can't provide links or other proofs) that a software company had run an beta test of its new software (anybody could request a copy of the beta by signing up). Over one thousand people signed up, less than 100 of them sent ANY feedback, and 5 of them did 99% of the reporting.
Sikret has been lucky enough to find thetruth and Raven, I have been lucky to find cmorgan, devSin and Taimon, but Cam hasn't been this lucky (or hasn't looked hard enough for the conspiracists). In the absence of that, he took the Unix approach (release early and release often) - which is why there is a separate BETA component in FP (and the fact I completed one and an half runs with the component and found no bugs is proof that either time is not enough to test something if you don't have the proper skills, or the component is flawless).


Well, the UB bug that is denounced in the title this very thread is a compatibility problem with ToD et similia which doesn't cause problems in-game.

Okay, so since I don't really want to get into a long discussion about who said what where (not least because those things never end well) I'll leave it there. Thanks for the discussion: I'm not persuaded, I'm afraid, but I'm clearer on the framework.

As I said, it's a general phenomenon -- it's not about jsut some statements of certain individuals. You surely also know that the best propaganda is a propaganda you don't notice. In other words, the best propaganda is what makes you believe there is no propaganda; it's all implicit and builds on the credulence of players and starter mod developers.


As I've said, it's a question of definition. In that case, I used the "bug" in that meaning, but it doesn't change on anything, it's indifferent. I could as well say "UB is presenting an incompatibility risk by overidding the original game's element when it's not necessary at all", that is, it's bad practice. The reason it became an illustration is that the G3 Fixpack seems to do the same -- but to a great degree, unlike UB.

A potential compatibility problem with all mods that are based on the original game (and well, mods are based on the original game). plainab's code solves it, but as I've descibed in that long post, you can't base your whole mod on hundreds of intelligent code blocks, because a (big or complex) mod -- when working according to the wishes of its author -- assumes too many intact original game elements.

On a side note, if you (possibly also) wanted to express that I contradicted myself, then, well, I didn't:

Which means I didn't use the term "bug" to refer to the incompatibility risks caused by G3 FP. It was used for UB, indeed. But it doesn't matter at all, it doesn't change on anything -- it's a matter of definition.

G3 FP won't break more mods or won't break less mods if we define "bug", "fix" etc. in a different way (unless its developers start to use e.g. my definition of "fix" to build/revise G3 FP, of course).

-------------------------------------------------

@TheBigg: what you said about testing is all true and nice. However, we're talking about IE mod projects. Not about huge and complex software projects. Although IE modding seems to be difficult (and indeed, it isn't easy for beginners, especially because it's a hobby for most mod developers and they lack preliminary skills in certain fields), it can't be compared to the real software projects that are being commercially developed. Although it's very beneficial, there is no need for very skilled "real" software testers in order to find the obvious and a few less obvious bugs in an Infinity Engine mod. A few people who dedicate some time and play the game carefully (and make typical tests according to the developers' specifications) are often enough to find many obvious bugs.

(However, as I've emphasized earlier -- but perhaps not in this topic --, proper testing would be just one crucial thing for the G3 fixpack; categorizing "fixes" and revising the mod would be another must. Furthermore, before applying a new "fix", it should be examined compatibility-wise.)

But just to clarify I've understood correctly: you wouldn't feel that categorizing "fixes" and revising the mod would be another must if you didn't think (rightly or wrongly) that it's being advertised in a misleading way as a must-install for everyone's computer. If it was being advertised appropriately your only concern would be a lack of testing (given your view that it's up to mod authors how much to worry about compatibility).

Sure, an IE mod isn't Microsoft Windows. However, I'd bet that the most complex works are, complexity-wise, on par or over with, say, creating a new map (or weapon) for an FPS. However, if professionals studios fail at it despite a nine years development cycle (and Valve is usually known for its rigorous testing practices), I'm open to accepting that bugs leak in amateurs' work. Yes, I'm aware that IA is hailed as bug-free - which, to my mind, means that (excluding accusations of foul play) its authors are either extremely lucky or have superhuman skills.

A player's perspective - I am not even going to pretend any knowledge about modding.

If I want to play Improved Anvil I install Baldurdash, since that is what is recommended. If I want to play SCSII, I install G3 Fixpack. If there are problems with particular mod components reported on forums (eg in UB the rather problematic Minsc & Boo quest), I don't install them. If I've experienced problems with particular components in the past (eg Improved Yaga-Shura in Ascension) I don't install them unless and until they are fixed.

Surely the key is for players to behave intelligently and read:

-the readme of the mod, particularly the section on compatibility
-the relevant game forum, which may have hotfixes etc for any particular issues and any particular outstanding bugs.

A huge number of the problems experienced by players that I've seen on a number of forums seem to be due to neglecting these two fairly basic steps. I think the debate should be more about how you could educate players to actually read the damn literature, learn from their experiences and solve problems which are often of their own making. It's all very well telling people that they should use Baldurdash with Improved Anvil, but without a bit of wider awareness of which mods play nicely with each other, they then go and do something idiotic like install the Darkest Day on top of it.

Yes, if it's installed with certain other mods. But the IA isn't so perfect either in the same respect. The TDD etc.

Don't know about the IA, but it's compulsory for all the former BP megamod related mods, as one of the fixes is needed for the Worldmap mod which is needed for the BP megamods, yes, it's a mess...

Of course you Baronius are right that the G3BG2Fixpack's core fixes component needs overhaul, to separate the components as well as the modern WeiDU can, while still reserving the ultra compatibility with the Big World Project with the one button push... For this there the question must be ala: Would you like to 1) to install all components(ala BP megamod), 2) to install all components(ala XYZ megamod)... A) to ask for each component, N) for no, and Q) for quit.

For this to be realistically done, does anybody have:
1) The time and knowledge to code this. (or)
2) More precise documentation of the fix resources than the .tp2 and this, ps. I could see the blue headlines on the link to be the base for the different components.
3) A willing group tester.(this should be easy)
4) Additional components.

This post has been edited by Jarno Mikkola: Aug 29 2008, 01:52 PM

If this has been your impression, then I must have phrased ambigiously. I'm not a native speaker (English is the third language I've learnt), so it's possible.

(1) Categorizing changes (or "fixes", using their definition), moving the "non-strict" fix categories (or in my interpretation: non-fix categories) to another mod, and starting to properly test the mods involved is a must, regardless how they advertise it, regardless whether they have a propaganda or not, etc.

(2) The fact it's advertised as a must-to-install (or more precisely, advertised in a way that most players will feel it to be essential) and as a must-to-use (for developers) just worsens the whole situation; on top of it all, they abuse the resulting popularity to convince players that the points of those who critcizie G3 FP are senseless.

Due to (2), players consider it a must (they are convinced -- more precisely misled -- that it must be used for ALL mods), and install it for all mods they have, even if many of those mods aren't prepared for it, or their readme doesn't recommend it. Because they all believe "it's probably good and needed, if it's advertised everywhere; it can't do any bad if I install this instead of Baldurdash" or similar things.

So I would be less harsh and explicit if it was only about (1) (more precisely, the lack of it) -- of course, I would still not recommend the mod for the well-known obvious technical ("professional") reasons. On the other hand, since (2) is present too, I can't just disregard it -- it affects players who play BWL's mods, and it affects mod developers who would like to create new mods.

Furthermore, I wouldn't be half as loud as now if it was about a "usual" mod. But it's supposed to be a fixpack, and a fixpack should NOT force all mod developers to add Fixpack-specific code to their mod in order to prevent the fixpack from breaking or corrupting their mod. The other choice for a mod developer is not supporting fixpack, which as two consequences. Due to (2), players will believe it's a bad and not modern mod ("if it doesn't support the new Fixpack which supersedes Baldurdash, then something must be wrong with it...") and will ignore it, or if they don't, then the other consequence "helps": some sympathizers of the G3 FP will bad-mouth his or her work (this is what happened with Improved Anvil V1, certain mod developers started to spread lies about it on other forums).


Improved Anvil is a mod which adds content (similarly to Grey Clan and other similar mods). G3 Fixpack is supposed to be a fixpack. A fixpack is supposed to correct the problems of the original game and to make the original game better while offering a compatibility-friendly ground for mods that are based on it.

Let me tell an example.

Mod A gives a main villain one (or two) equipped items (e.g. two new swords) which the villain will use during an important battle (and thus replaces the original equipped items).

Mod B gives the same villain one (or two) equipped items (e.g. two new swords) which the villain will use during an important battle (and thus replaces the original equipped items).

Mod C is a special mod: a fixpack. It gives one (or two) equipped items (e.g. two new swords) which the villain will use during an important battle (and thus replaces the original equipped items). The reasoning: the new items seem to be more suitable, because e.g. according to the D&D manual, that type of creature/race can't use the item type that the villain was wielding in the game.

Mod D adds a check to one of its scripts, whether any party members possess the items (taken from the gear of the slain main villain). It is required for its plot to advance. (The script checks the inventories for the original game versions of these items, not the items added by Mod A, B or the fixpack.)

------------------------------

Mod A and Mod B are obviously incompatible with each other, and with the fixpack too. However, this isn't an issue. Installing Mod A or Mod B after the fixpack will override the fixpack's changes. There is no problem here.

Obviously Mod D is also broken by Mod A, B and the fixpack (Mod C). Because the script of Mod D will never find those items in the inventory of party members (as they're replaced by Mod A, B or C). However, while Mod A and Mod B aren't meant to be standard parts of every installation or base mods for other third-party mods, it's an acceptable incompatibility. On the other hand, the fixpack (Mod C) should NOT replace those items, because it's a FIXPACK and unless the original versions of those equipped items broke the game or a part of the game (or caused some "unambigiously undesired effect"), it should NOT overwrite them just because there is some sort of subjective reasoning. (On a side note, can anyone tell a counter-argument against the example reasoning I've provided, i.e. the D&D rule mismatch? Please do so )

So these types of "fixes" (changes) which have some sort of reasonable but subjective justification BUT introduce potential dependency violations are not real fixes (= in my interpretation: they are not fixes).

A "usual" mod can introduce incompatibility risks because there is no other way to install new content (new content often affects existing interrelations and interfaces), but if a fixpack does it (and NOT just for 2-3 files or game elements), it's another question because a fixpack is used by ALL mods as a base mod.

Just imagine that the new mods are houses to be built, and the fixpack is the soil layer. If the soil layer can easily collapse, it WILL collapse for some houses, and break them. On the other hand, when a mod is installed on top of another, the previous mod (which is far not as big as a fixpack) will only introduce some holes. If the hole is big enough and a mod element (e.g. a person living in the house) steps into it, it breaks a part of the mod -- but this won't endanger other houses. "Usual" incompatibility between mods, perhaps even it's unsolvable (for example, a villain can only wield two weapons, not four...). If the holes cannot be filled up, the house can be built on another place (= the mod will never be installed together with the other mod that caused the incompatibility). On the other hand, there is no way to fill up a giant volume of collapsing soil layer...

As for the documentation and generally about incompatibility, it is WeiDU which has severe disadvantages here. I know how to efficiently build and implement a much better system than WeiDU (with long-desired and completely user-friendly features), but so far no one has asked me about this matter, so I assume there is no interest or intention.

This from a person who actively participates in the topic (at G3) dedicated to slandering/ridiculing some BWL members. Let's see... twenty-three pages AFTER it's been split from the original topic... Reiteration to the point of monotony anyone?

it appears he never posted there (unless I'm checking the wrong thread).