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]

1 - This is a subjective opinion, nothing more. There are changes in bg2fixpack that I personally do not consider to be bugfixes, as well as there are such changes in baldurdash-weidu. Now we have 3 sides - badurdash developers, bg2fixpack developers, and me. Who is right?
2 - as I have said, potential dependencies should not matter for a fixpack. Even if all the mods would use some buggy creature - a fixpack should fix it, because it's a fixpack. Question "is this creature really buggy or not?" is another question, and there is no objective opinion about it.

1. As you can see, in that post I didn't say BD or BD-WeiDU was perfect, either. However, they don't contain so horribly many problematic "fixes", which means they change many many less potential dependencies.
2. It's so *many* potential dependencies caused by changes that are NOT fixes. These may cause serious problems with other mods.


Three points:

(i) Making a difference between crucial, important fixes and totally subjective, ambigious changes IS possible. Don't say there is no sufficiently "objective" answer to most questions related to these changes. "Is a creature buggy or not?". Indeed, if an ordinary Ogre has an Ettercap animation without any context that would justify it, it's a bug. But if that smuggler is Neutral, it's really not an explicit BUG. (This case is also detailed in my long post, I won't repeat myself.) Again, let me emphasize that most of these changes can cause severe problems for other mods. (E.g., G3FP's Alignment Changes may break Improved Anvil's scripts.) Similarly, if a sword has an incorrect inventory icon (BAM) -- e.g. it shows up as an axe, or a corrupted BAM -- it IS a bug. On the other hand, if its description implies that its fiery damage should be a bit higher (so not the stats, rather the "tale" part), a fixpack has NO right to increase its fire damage even by one single point.

(ii) Even SimDing0 admitted above that G3FP also aims at increasing gaming experience. And didn't deny there are "cosmetic" fixes, either. Increased gaming experience and fixed bugs aren't equal: normally, the effects of the latter one is a real subset of the first, but increased gaming exp. can include much much more than just the result of fixed bugs.

(iii) And, come on, why is that "I *hate* this FIX" thread in G3FP forum? The one which talks about how to NEGATE a fix of a fixpack. I understand you're an enthusiastic follower of the project, Gort, but even you can't deny that everyone knows it very well that very subjective changes are also added.

All in all, it's an unfair attitude to expect from modders to use the G3FP, check all of its changes, and negate the undesired effects with -- possibly advanced -- WeiDU code, instead of allowing them to decide what they want to add to their mod (e.g. by offering a serious fixpack and another completive mod with the giant collection of questionable "fixes", changes and other stuff).

It is not immediately clear to me why fixing "cosmetic" issues is objectionable.

First, because they are dangerous. Unfinished Business v15 changes a scriptname, calls if a "fix". It would be the same incorrect if G3FP did it -- it overwrites a potential dependency of other mods WITHOUT actually fixing anything. (The newly assigned script has no original content in the game.)

Second, because they are often subjective. Many modders might not agree with them, and want to make decisions on their own. Cosmetic changes are nice, but do it in a different mod. But not in a fixpack that you advertise to be *the* BG2 Fixpack, the standard fixpack, the one which is crucial to avoid bugs, etc. etc.

Simple question: why aren't the questionable changes in a different mod? Instead, G3FP developers want/offer modders to *negate* the problematic changes (or those which simply BREAK someone's own mod), possibly with weidu knowledge that the modder would normally never need. All this propaganda also discourages possibly talented players to start working on their own mod.

Why do you want to keep all that stuff in ONE mod? Why do you want to DICTATE modders and players what things are changed in their game? (Maybe G3 and PPG mods won't have to apply these changes on their own? Most of them are mods that are planned to be played with each other in a big mod collection, so they only use not too many dependencies separately. This makes BG2 Fixpack optimal to them, but not optimal to other mods of different type. But this was just a very sudden guess. The exact truth is really a mystery to me.)

Baronius, not including things into a fixpack (a fixpack, not the fixpack), because some other mods could use them is not an argument. If mods rely on bugs, the mods should be adjusted, not a fixpack.

Gort, wake up! No offense, but you also seem to be greatly influenced by their propaganda. Let me tell why. (Bold added by me, it wasn't part of quoted text.)

Mods relying on what "bugs", please? -- i.e. bugs that are fixed by the G3FP? That is, so anything "fixed" by the G3 Fixpack is per definition a bug?! So does the work of a modder who believes that a Neutral smuggler isn't a bug rely on bugs?! Does his/her work rely on bugs?! Who decides whether a strongly questionable "fix" of the G3 Fixpack is really a bugfix or not? This is exactly what they try to dictate: "we tell what the exact bugs are, and you must accept it and develop your mods according to that". Ridiculous!