Compatibility of TS v6.11, and general problems, [Topic split by Vlad, move by Baronius] Options

[cmorgan]

Currently reviewing TS v6.11 code alongside DR code to look for what could be causing hassles. ETA on summary is 6 weeks unless I am sidetracked (plenty of stuff going on) - please feel free to drop off specific problems on G3 or PPG or SHS boards.

(IA compatibility is a completely different question, please see the readme in that mod for more information).

While each of us in the IE community are allowed their own opinions, I think a constructive way of addressing those questions would to be to go to the NPC mod makers in question, and ask the same question. My current Tutu and BG games run with a large mod loadout for testing, and they all work extremely well, including several BWL mods (TGCep1 and Herbs and potions, and Jastey's Slime Quest on Tutu). At SHS, there is a section of MegaModders who successfully handle various versions of BP/BGT/etc., incorporating TS and NEJ, etc, on the same installs as many other NPCs from PPG and G3, et al.

I understand the frustration of two opposing philosophies of modding, but I am afraid that the choice of words indicating that development of G3 mods makes them widely incompatible is neither accurate nor fair. Nor is the development process a short one; widespread testing among several platforms, with anywhere between a handful of beta testers and an entire set of 12 or so folks specifically providing testing and feedback (depending on the mod, of course). Cooperation among teams of coders and an open policy of producing joint public code and testing it, then writing up tutorials on it and updating it with feedback allows modders access to many helpers, making coding review a strong and vibrant process.

The way to get folks to be able to identify the specific incompatibilities and give information on tracking the difficulty down is to experience the problem, get a savegame, and write up what the specific dialogue/action was that was taken. Then the modders in question can attempt to isolate and fix whatever is causing the trouble (assuming they wish to be friendly enough to help eachother out).

[Baronius]

Understood. I was unaware I was the one hijacking the thread. I apologise.

No, we both did it, but at least it was slightly related to trufa's question.

Your "summary" is exactly a very good example of why some modders here refuse to cooperate with those who you seem to represent. (They often talk in the same way as you in your summary.) It twists what I've said, it's highly exaggerating and generalizing. Where did I say they're untrained hobbyists? Where did I generally say or imply that their code is "widely incompatible"? You know it very well that I consider several G3 mods very good. And where did I say that *all* modders work/act in such a way? Etc. Etc.

And no one has said there are trained professionalists here. Everyone knows different fields of modding, and in a different level. Cooperation exactly means we're listening to each other and considering what the other says, and not forcing our methods on each other. Some of the "untrained hobbyists" (quote from you) know certain aspects of BG2 much better than I ever did. I've learned several things from them in the past. Similarly, it's possible that I'm more familiar with certain other modding aspects than others. It's really needless to emphasize these obvious things (i.e. that everyone knows different fields), but after the countless accusations ("They don't like the mod, so they mark it as incompatible"), I thought it's time to make it clear: I do know what I'm talking about e.g. when I say that a fixpack shouldn't break compatibility with an original game. (Similarly, Sikret or DavidW obviously knows the aspects of developing tactical content much deeper than others.)

So it's not me who considers anyone "untrained hobbyist". It's not me who comes to other mod's forums to harass the author (such as what certain people have done with Sikret or Vlad). It's not me who spreads lies about certain mods. It's not me who tells *anything* bad about others' works. The only big mod I've had objections with is the G3 Fixpack, and I've supported my statements with general proof. It's not me who used to regularly discourage players from trying TS (yes, it's kulyok), with arguments such as "it's not modern", etc.

for the IEcommunity has determined that it is better to leave things as they are rather than attempt to work together to provide utility to the players of IE mods.

And, you see, this is the big problem: if someone or something is different from you (and this applies to those who you feel to be attacked by me) or your methods, you immediately try to form it to your own shape. Cmorgan, you've been quite moderate in this (others were not), saying that "author advice should be followed" and similar things. However, your latest post reflects that somehow you also don't understand the real point. I'll tell an example.

G modder offers/recommends making a B mod and a G mod compatible to each other, via installation code. G modder calls this cooperation, and B modder too -- to this point, it's cooperation (because it's an initiation by one of the modders). B modder says that he doesn't support it, and G modder considers the whole thing as refused cooperation from B modder. G modder even doesn't think that the following is also possible: hey, maybe B doesn't want compatibility because he thinks that's the best for players (i.e. has good technical reasons, strictly *technical* compatibility could harm one or both of the mod's concepts). Instead, G modder believes "B modder doesn't like my mod, so he marks it as incompatible", simply because G is unable to accept B's arguments, they're out of his scope of the meaning of "argument". That is, cooperation is discussing problems together, and not a one-sided offer to "cooperate". (Very similar could be seen with IA: when it was released, it got a invasion, simply because some modders couldn't accept it's contrary to their concepts and wishes.)

Also, it's easy to notice how often you use "code" in your words. "Widely incompatible code". If you check it, you will see I've never said *code* is incompatible. Generally, I've used "code" not too often. It's because producing code is just a part of the development process, and not the central part. You seem to focus on code, yet it isn't the crucial part of a mod. Overestimating its importance and putting it to the center is also something I don't recommend. While "code" is what determines the technical compatibility eventually (this is a bit simplified, but reflects the point), ensuring technical compatibility and decreasing comp. risks shouldn't only be done on code's level.