Common misbeliefs, with examples Options

[Baronius]

Since much information can be read from incompetent sources that can't be considered credible, we've decided to open this thread, where I will occassionally publish examples, with explanations & facts. Other BWL members might also post here in the future. It will function similarly to a "blog", though I don't think it will be updated too often.

Interesting or surprising parts in posts may be marked with bold.

[Baronius]

Misbelief: "Sikret and Baronius criticizes G3 Fixpack (and certain other mods) because those mods follow a different design philosophy than what Baronius and Sikret prefers"

It seems some people believe that we don't recommend certain mods (e.g. G3 Fixpack) because our design philosophy is different. If releasing big amount of unverified, faulty content can be considered as a design philosophy, then yes. Otherwise, no. It is not about "design philosophy", i.e. not about how one approaches and builds things. It is about lack of design and considerations.

Creating a complex building without an architectural plan, just by starting to put bricks on top of each other -- I don't think it's about a "difference" in design philosophy. It is simply not design. It is a matter of lacking architecture, design. I don't think that the fact a house/building has collapsed can be justified by saying that the developers had a "different design philosophy".

There can be more reasons why G3 Fixpack is so badly designed and thus keeps introducing problems (which facts are disguised by various misleading comments of its developers, who blame other things or mods instead of admitting their own weaknesses and negligences). As we know, in order to increase the traffic of the mod's forum and increase the overall popularity of the mod, the developers try to add lots of new additions ("fixes") in a short time, this happened in the past numerous times. This always ended (and ends) in serious bugs in each release. This has two main roots: (1) Lack of skills (2) Lack of time. Either of the two things could help a lot in the situation, I believe (i.e. if at least one of them wasn't lacking). If they allocated more time to verify and test the mod -- even without revising its architecture -- it would result in less bugs. (One of its developers, devSin publicly admitted that they don't test G3 Fixpack, and they expect players to test the mod and to find its bugs.) On the other hand, they couldn't/can't do it because otherwise it would be impossible to release new and new versions and content of G3 Fixpack (in order to increase its popularity), due to the lack of time. It would only be possible with a development framework and only if the developers/contributors had much better skills, and they would know how to manage a scheduled project in a proper way. This can't be expected from hobby modders, and it's OK. On the other hand, allocating time to verify (test) the mod can be expected, at minimum.

Unfortunately, instead of admitting their own weaknesses, G3 Fixpack developers often try to present the mod's *serious* bugs as *natural parts* of any mod, and keep advertising the project as something reliable, safe. They hide under expressions such as "community effort", a "wide variety of contributions from other communities" etc., trying to disguise the mod's serious bugs -- and their own responsibility -- by presenting G3 Fixpack as some sort of "community effort". The fact G3 Fixpack seems to have many contributors from more sites does not guarantee any quality -- most contributors aren't skilled modders, but the biggest problem is that even the developers undertake bigger work than what they are able to cope with. They make a lot of unthoughtful decisions, and on top of it all, they don't test the new content that is based on these decisions. Instead of admitting their own weaknesses and accepting criticism & advice, they are proud -- they hide behind populistic statements, and mislead players by spreading incorrect misbeliefs about mods.

To sum up, the criticism of Sikret and/or myself about certain mods is not about difference in design philosophy. It is about difference between well-made and poor work. Poor work means unverified, untested work (and not designed correctly either), which is -- on top of it all -- often advertised with misleading slogans and misleading information.