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

[Valiant]

you see, not everyone uses your mods. Should all players who don't use them continue playing with bugs?

No, they shouldn´t, they can install all fixpacks they want and play "fixed" and "cosmetically changed" game, but in that case the whole discussion is pointless I believe. Nobody is forced to use our mods.

[SimDing0]

It is not immediately clear to me why fixing "cosmetic" issues is objectionable. If on one occasion Irenicus inexplicably turns up using an upside-down neon green gnoll avatar, I can quite easily smile and say "oh, that's just cosmetic!" and play on, but it's probably still a bug and personally I'd lean towards doing something about it. The fixpack exists not solely to prevent your house from burning down when you run the game, but more broadly to improve the playing experience (in a way which is faithful to developer intent).

[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!

[SimDing0]

Even SimDing0 admitted above that G3FP also aims at increasing gaming experience.

I think you've missed the context here. I'm saying that the purpose of a fixpack should be to fix ALL bugs, not just those that cause your house to spontaneously combust. There should not be some arbitrary line under which some fixes are considered unimportant. It is enough that we must consider "is Irenicus using an upside-down neon green gnoll avatar a bug?" without having to supplement it with "does anyone care?"

[Baronius]

People often choose such "arbitrary" borderlines in real life as well. While such a "line" doesn't have a strictly determined "position", common sense allows us to make a difference between things. In other words, the line doesn't have an exact position (it "moves within a small range").

As it was said numerous times, this "fixing ALL bugs" mania just urges G3FP developers to extend their "fixpack" with more and more arbitrary changes that aren't fixes.

A bug usually decreases playing experience. However, lots of "fixes" of G3FP aren't bugfixes. They may correct things which may appear illogical to the FP developers (and thus their "fix" increases their playing experience), but for other players, these may decrease -- and not increase -- the playing experience. This is why strongly questionable changes should not be in the same mod as FIXES.

In other words, the problem with the terribly subjective "bugs" is that while someone has an argument why it's a bug, someone else has a counter-argument, why it's not a bug. G3FP follows the philosophy "if there is any argument to call it a bug, let's do so". (On the other hand, no one will question that a spear with a club animation -- or an item that causes a crash -- is a bug.)

Lots of players are misled, because they believe all the propaganda; that "it's *the* standard fixpack which supersedes all previous ones", and it contains "hundreds of new fixes" -- while in the reality, each G3FP release contains critical bugs (everyone can check its forum for evidence). "Hundreds of new fixes", this is my "favourite" -- you FP developers, are trying to force your mod into each player's installation, no matter at what cost. (If there was a minimal level of modesty in your intentions, you and your supporters wouldn't keep harassing Improved Anvil and wouldn't keep spreading malicious information about IA, Tortured Souls and ANY other mod that doesn't play according to your rules.)

The fact that G3FP may break other mods (the accurate reasons were already detailed several times) just makes the whole situation even worse.

If its developers refuse to reorganize this "fixpack", they will have to undertake the consequences in the long run.