UB bug still present in v16, [split by Baronius] Options

[Baronius]

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

[This topic was split from this]

[Baronius]

I think you're misunderstanding what I meant, which could perfectly well be my fault.

I forgot to emphasize that I was interpreting your words in my own way, and found it quite possible that you meant them in a different way. I just pointed out that I think this definition is very narrow-minded and doesn't help to improve or assure the quality of a fixpack:

something is a bug in Fixpack if it contradicts the intent of the Fixpack team

And from that, I derived a definition on my own:

Something is a bug in the game if the Fixpack team thinks that the Fixpack should change it.

Nonetheless, I'm a bit tired of discussing definitions, because it's strongly indifferent.

A fixpack that requires all the mods that are based on it to be specifically designed and optimized for it (and if it's not done, it breaks the mods) is not a fixpack. .

A fixpack which brings a lot of questionable, ambigious and possibly mod-breaking changes to the game is not a fixpack.

A fixpack which brings changes (with subjective, one-sided justifications) that don't correct real problems while they may break third-party mods is not a fixpack.

A fixpack which isn't thoroughly verified & tested before its release (and this is also publicly admitted by one of its developers) is not a fixpack. "Trial and error" is not an acceptable method of quality assurance.

A fixpack which may break several mods that worked with its earlier versions is not a fixpack.

And so on.

These are not related with definitions, these are pure facts.

[DavidW]

I agree that discussing definitions can get tiresome (even for an academic ). The reason I keep being pedantic is just that: whether something is or is not a fixpack depends on the definition of "fix" (I take it that this is not controversial).

It seems to me that this mod we're discussing is a mod which attempts to modify those bits of the game which the authors think, on the balance of probabilities, contradict developer intent, and make them not contradict developer intent. It also seems to me that "fixpack" is a reasonable name for such a mod - although, sure, a mod written on a very different set of principles might also be a candidate for that same name. That's language for you.

Here's a way of seeing the point I'm (however badly) trying to make: Suppose I released "DavidW's developer-intent mod", and I didn't even use the name "fixpack", and my mod did indeed try to change BG2 to be as in accord with developer intent (on the balance of probabilities) as I could manage. And suppose that I advertised this mod reasonably and tested it reasonably (without prejudice as to whether either of those things is true of the actual Fixpack - I'm rather carefully trying to avoid that topic).

It seems to me that according to your philosophy of modding, with which I have a lot of sympathy, if I did release such a mod then:

1) it's entirely up to me whether, if at all, I break it up into components (you've defended the position that it's a mod author's own business whether or not he breaks up his mod).
2) it's entirely up to me to what extent I worry about third-party compatibility (you've defended the position that this is a nice feature but not a requirement).
3) something in my mod which broke another mod wouldn't be a bug just because it broke that other mod. (SCS breaks Improved Anvil and probably vice versa; that doesn't make either of them bugged).
4) You might or might not think it was a sensible mod (you might think that developer intent boiled down to guesswork, for instance), but even if you didn't think it was sensible, you'd defend my right to make it and promote it.


If you agree with me, then your criticism of the fixpack is clarified. It comes down to three issues:

1) is this mod properly tested?
2) is it being legitimately advertised?
3) does it have a sensible name?

I'm trying to avoid discussing 1-2; I'm happy to discuss 3 but obviously it's unavoidably a discussion about semantics and definitions.