Proper testing requires many more things than time, because it requires a different skillset than developing. The skills needed for testing are also much harder to teach and/or learn through use, making skilled testers a rare find. Moreover, ideal testing requires that the tester is a different person than the developer. I read a report somewhere (sorry if I can't provide links or other proofs) that a software company had run an beta test of its new software (anybody could request a copy of the beta by signing up). Over one thousand people signed up, less than 100 of them sent ANY feedback, and 5 of them did 99% of the reporting.
Sikret has been lucky enough to find thetruth and Raven, I have been lucky to find cmorgan, devSin and Taimon, but Cam hasn't been this lucky (or hasn't looked hard enough for the conspiracists). In the absence of that, he took the Unix approach (release early and release often) - which is why there is a separate BETA component in FP (and the fact I completed one and an half runs with the component and found no bugs is proof that either time is not enough to test something if you don't have the proper skills, or the component is flawless).


Well, the UB bug that is denounced in the title this very thread is a compatibility problem with ToD et similia which doesn't cause problems in-game.

Okay, so since I don't really want to get into a long discussion about who said what where (not least because those things never end well) I'll leave it there. Thanks for the discussion: I'm not persuaded, I'm afraid, but I'm clearer on the framework.

As I said, it's a general phenomenon -- it's not about jsut some statements of certain individuals. You surely also know that the best propaganda is a propaganda you don't notice. In other words, the best propaganda is what makes you believe there is no propaganda; it's all implicit and builds on the credulence of players and starter mod developers.


As I've said, it's a question of definition. In that case, I used the "bug" in that meaning, but it doesn't change on anything, it's indifferent. I could as well say "UB is presenting an incompatibility risk by overidding the original game's element when it's not necessary at all", that is, it's bad practice. The reason it became an illustration is that the G3 Fixpack seems to do the same -- but to a great degree, unlike UB.

A potential compatibility problem with all mods that are based on the original game (and well, mods are based on the original game). plainab's code solves it, but as I've descibed in that long post, you can't base your whole mod on hundreds of intelligent code blocks, because a (big or complex) mod -- when working according to the wishes of its author -- assumes too many intact original game elements.

On a side note, if you (possibly also) wanted to express that I contradicted myself, then, well, I didn't:

Which means I didn't use the term "bug" to refer to the incompatibility risks caused by G3 FP. It was used for UB, indeed. But it doesn't matter at all, it doesn't change on anything -- it's a matter of definition.

G3 FP won't break more mods or won't break less mods if we define "bug", "fix" etc. in a different way (unless its developers start to use e.g. my definition of "fix" to build/revise G3 FP, of course).

-------------------------------------------------

@TheBigg: what you said about testing is all true and nice. However, we're talking about IE mod projects. Not about huge and complex software projects. Although IE modding seems to be difficult (and indeed, it isn't easy for beginners, especially because it's a hobby for most mod developers and they lack preliminary skills in certain fields), it can't be compared to the real software projects that are being commercially developed. Although it's very beneficial, there is no need for very skilled "real" software testers in order to find the obvious and a few less obvious bugs in an Infinity Engine mod. A few people who dedicate some time and play the game carefully (and make typical tests according to the developers' specifications) are often enough to find many obvious bugs.

(However, as I've emphasized earlier -- but perhaps not in this topic --, proper testing would be just one crucial thing for the G3 fixpack; categorizing "fixes" and revising the mod would be another must. Furthermore, before applying a new "fix", it should be examined compatibility-wise.)

But just to clarify I've understood correctly: you wouldn't feel that categorizing "fixes" and revising the mod would be another must if you didn't think (rightly or wrongly) that it's being advertised in a misleading way as a must-install for everyone's computer. If it was being advertised appropriately your only concern would be a lack of testing (given your view that it's up to mod authors how much to worry about compatibility).

Sure, an IE mod isn't Microsoft Windows. However, I'd bet that the most complex works are, complexity-wise, on par or over with, say, creating a new map (or weapon) for an FPS. However, if professionals studios fail at it despite a nine years development cycle (and Valve is usually known for its rigorous testing practices), I'm open to accepting that bugs leak in amateurs' work. Yes, I'm aware that IA is hailed as bug-free - which, to my mind, means that (excluding accusations of foul play) its authors are either extremely lucky or have superhuman skills.

A player's perspective - I am not even going to pretend any knowledge about modding.

If I want to play Improved Anvil I install Baldurdash, since that is what is recommended. If I want to play SCSII, I install G3 Fixpack. If there are problems with particular mod components reported on forums (eg in UB the rather problematic Minsc & Boo quest), I don't install them. If I've experienced problems with particular components in the past (eg Improved Yaga-Shura in Ascension) I don't install them unless and until they are fixed.

Surely the key is for players to behave intelligently and read:

-the readme of the mod, particularly the section on compatibility
-the relevant game forum, which may have hotfixes etc for any particular issues and any particular outstanding bugs.

A huge number of the problems experienced by players that I've seen on a number of forums seem to be due to neglecting these two fairly basic steps. I think the debate should be more about how you could educate players to actually read the damn literature, learn from their experiences and solve problems which are often of their own making. It's all very well telling people that they should use Baldurdash with Improved Anvil, but without a bit of wider awareness of which mods play nicely with each other, they then go and do something idiotic like install the Darkest Day on top of it.

Yes, if it's installed with certain other mods. But the IA isn't so perfect either in the same respect. The TDD etc.

Don't know about the IA, but it's compulsory for all the former BP megamod related mods, as one of the fixes is needed for the Worldmap mod which is needed for the BP megamods, yes, it's a mess...

Of course you Baronius are right that the G3BG2Fixpack's core fixes component needs overhaul, to separate the components as well as the modern WeiDU can, while still reserving the ultra compatibility with the Big World Project with the one button push... For this there the question must be ala: Would you like to 1) to install all components(ala BP megamod), 2) to install all components(ala XYZ megamod)... A) to ask for each component, N) for no, and Q) for quit.

For this to be realistically done, does anybody have:
1) The time and knowledge to code this. (or)
2) More precise documentation of the fix resources than the .tp2 and this, ps. I could see the blue headlines on the link to be the base for the different components.
3) A willing group tester.(this should be easy)
4) Additional components.

If this has been your impression, then I must have phrased ambigiously. I'm not a native speaker (English is the third language I've learnt), so it's possible.

(1) Categorizing changes (or "fixes", using their definition), moving the "non-strict" fix categories (or in my interpretation: non-fix categories) to another mod, and starting to properly test the mods involved is a must, regardless how they advertise it, regardless whether they have a propaganda or not, etc.

(2) The fact it's advertised as a must-to-install (or more precisely, advertised in a way that most players will feel it to be essential) and as a must-to-use (for developers) just worsens the whole situation; on top of it all, they abuse the resulting popularity to convince players that the points of those who critcizie G3 FP are senseless.

Due to (2), players consider it a must (they are convinced -- more precisely misled -- that it must be used for ALL mods), and install it for all mods they have, even if many of those mods aren't prepared for it, or their readme doesn't recommend it. Because they all believe "it's probably good and needed, if it's advertised everywhere; it can't do any bad if I install this instead of Baldurdash" or similar things.

So I would be less harsh and explicit if it was only about (1) (more precisely, the lack of it) -- of course, I would still not recommend the mod for the well-known obvious technical ("professional") reasons. On the other hand, since (2) is present too, I can't just disregard it -- it affects players who play BWL's mods, and it affects mod developers who would like to create new mods.

Furthermore, I wouldn't be half as loud as now if it was about a "usual" mod. But it's supposed to be a fixpack, and a fixpack should NOT force all mod developers to add Fixpack-specific code to their mod in order to prevent the fixpack from breaking or corrupting their mod. The other choice for a mod developer is not supporting fixpack, which as two consequences. Due to (2), players will believe it's a bad and not modern mod ("if it doesn't support the new Fixpack which supersedes Baldurdash, then something must be wrong with it...") and will ignore it, or if they don't, then the other consequence "helps": some sympathizers of the G3 FP will bad-mouth his or her work (this is what happened with Improved Anvil V1, certain mod developers started to spread lies about it on other forums).


Improved Anvil is a mod which adds content (similarly to Grey Clan and other similar mods). G3 Fixpack is supposed to be a fixpack. A fixpack is supposed to correct the problems of the original game and to make the original game better while offering a compatibility-friendly ground for mods that are based on it.

Let me tell an example.

Mod A gives a main villain one (or two) equipped items (e.g. two new swords) which the villain will use during an important battle (and thus replaces the original equipped items).

Mod B gives the same villain one (or two) equipped items (e.g. two new swords) which the villain will use during an important battle (and thus replaces the original equipped items).

Mod C is a special mod: a fixpack. It gives one (or two) equipped items (e.g. two new swords) which the villain will use during an important battle (and thus replaces the original equipped items). The reasoning: the new items seem to be more suitable, because e.g. according to the D&D manual, that type of creature/race can't use the item type that the villain was wielding in the game.

Mod D adds a check to one of its scripts, whether any party members possess the items (taken from the gear of the slain main villain). It is required for its plot to advance. (The script checks the inventories for the original game versions of these items, not the items added by Mod A, B or the fixpack.)

------------------------------

Mod A and Mod B are obviously incompatible with each other, and with the fixpack too. However, this isn't an issue. Installing Mod A or Mod B after the fixpack will override the fixpack's changes. There is no problem here.

Obviously Mod D is also broken by Mod A, B and the fixpack (Mod C). Because the script of Mod D will never find those items in the inventory of party members (as they're replaced by Mod A, B or C). However, while Mod A and Mod B aren't meant to be standard parts of every installation or base mods for other third-party mods, it's an acceptable incompatibility. On the other hand, the fixpack (Mod C) should NOT replace those items, because it's a FIXPACK and unless the original versions of those equipped items broke the game or a part of the game (or caused some "unambigiously undesired effect"), it should NOT overwrite them just because there is some sort of subjective reasoning. (On a side note, can anyone tell a counter-argument against the example reasoning I've provided, i.e. the D&D rule mismatch? Please do so )

So these types of "fixes" (changes) which have some sort of reasonable but subjective justification BUT introduce potential dependency violations are not real fixes (= in my interpretation: they are not fixes).

A "usual" mod can introduce incompatibility risks because there is no other way to install new content (new content often affects existing interrelations and interfaces), but if a fixpack does it (and NOT just for 2-3 files or game elements), it's another question because a fixpack is used by ALL mods as a base mod.

Just imagine that the new mods are houses to be built, and the fixpack is the soil layer. If the soil layer can easily collapse, it WILL collapse for some houses, and break them. On the other hand, when a mod is installed on top of another, the previous mod (which is far not as big as a fixpack) will only introduce some holes. If the hole is big enough and a mod element (e.g. a person living in the house) steps into it, it breaks a part of the mod -- but this won't endanger other houses. "Usual" incompatibility between mods, perhaps even it's unsolvable (for example, a villain can only wield two weapons, not four...). If the holes cannot be filled up, the house can be built on another place (= the mod will never be installed together with the other mod that caused the incompatibility). On the other hand, there is no way to fill up a giant volume of collapsing soil layer...

As for the documentation and generally about incompatibility, it is WeiDU which has severe disadvantages here. I know how to efficiently build and implement a much better system than WeiDU (with long-desired and completely user-friendly features), but so far no one has asked me about this matter, so I assume there is no interest or intention.

This from a person who actively participates in the topic (at G3) dedicated to slandering/ridiculing some BWL members. Let's see... twenty-three pages AFTER it's been split from the original topic... Reiteration to the point of monotony anyone?

it appears he never posted there (unless I'm checking the wrong thread).

Under the name Proteus_Za or something like that. He just posted that he posted here, so unless he's fabricating the entire story, he's just using a different name here.

Shows how much attention I have for details (and thus why I can't test the FP even if I wished to)

I could just sign under this statement.

I wonder if anyone posting there is actually being serious. Surely they act like bad-mannered kids who think throwing rot apples at oldmen is a sort of good game, but barely anything else. Besides, if you take that "slandering/ridiculing" seriously would mean that you actually listen to it and consider it. But that's not the point, correct? Why would adult people feel offended by petty mockering is beyond my comprehension.

And about blackmailing. I could have missed something, but are you being sincere here? I for one never felt like I was being persuaded or something. Of course there is a possibility that I'm just way too intelligent and have great insight compared to all of little people gathered here (due to the recent event I'd like to clarify - it's meant to be an irony, a way to reduce stress). But I rather to think that modern people aren't that stupid to fall to such cheap "propaganda".

What you said about bad-mannered kids hits right on. My post was merely pointing out that he is participating in something that is essentially the same as what he was "opposing". I do think that some few are serious in ridiculing, but really, since it's done in the G3 thread, all it does is lower the reputation of the forum that permits such nonsense to go on. That is why I chose to come to BWL in the first place. I checked out the forums and I found several of them to be severely lacking in certain areas (in fact, a link in either G3 or PPG is what brought me here ).

Actually it's not the individual that bothers me (I've dealt with tons of that type online already in countless numbers) but rather the fact that these days those types are becoming more and more prolific. The anonymity of the internet doesn't help matters either. Basically, any type of manners are going *Fwwtttt* down the drain. But that's another topic.

The anonymity of the internet and the lack of need to take responsibility makes certain people believe they're amazingly important and clever in everything.

They believe they can comment anything and their comment is amazingly important and precious.

Normally, you don't try to be clever in topics or fields where you aren't experienced or skilled. Sure, you are free to comment in such cases too, but you aren't considered important and credible. On the other hand, on the internet, many people seem to believe that since they can comment anything, this makes them (and their comments) very important and clever.

It usually reflects a weak character, a weak personality who needs constant reassuring from other people. For example, Ancalagon_UK/proteus_za simply copied a part of Sikret's reply and pasted it to his post at G3, and commented it there. In other words, he brought it to a "friendly" ground where he can get support, because he needs the constant reassuring. A strong personality doesn't need such things. Doesn't need to flee and retreat to his nest to prepare for a new attack.

However, trolls and gnolls (e.g. that pal at G3 with the laughing Muttley avatar, forgot his exact nick, he used to be an IA player) are a special subcategory. They need constant attention and need to feel important, because in the reality, they can't be important anywhere. On the other hand, in the internet, they can get attention and feel themselves to be important.

But this would also be another topic.

I was as serious as possible about blackmailing. I would be grateful if you clarify this (should you have the time naturally) - do you seriously mean that an ordinary person is supposed to buy that?

Completely out of topicBlue laughing face? I thought it originated from Ghost in the Shell series (2002 or 2003 year). Was I wrong?

I suspect it's also about different forum policies, actually. For various reasons (which are perfectly reasonable; it's your site), threads reasonably often get closed down here - like that discussion you and I were having a while ago - whereas G3 doesn't delete posts. I'd probably have done something similar with my earlier argument (or at least kept a local copy to repost if necessary) if I'd remembered that your policies are different from what I'm used to - otherwise it can be awfully irritated when something you've thought carefully about and think worth saying gets lost.

None of that is any comment on the actual content of the thread you're discussing, of course.

First of all, only those threads get removed which (1): initial poster or the majority of posters doesn't obey the Terms of Use, or (2): are beset by trolls OR we believe there is a high chance it will tempt trolls (this follows from the ToU too though) and we can't guarantee enough moderator attention to it. We believed that the thread 'Baronius believes modding has become a "business"' might tempt trolls so the best was to take any public access to it -- however, this thread is still here, it has been up for a long time, because we don't see much risk for the time being that it might tempt trolls: we approach the same points and question here in a different way (I also try to be less harsh), so trolls won't find any pretext to come here. So we discuss the same points basically here too, but without the risk of being disturbed by trolls.

As far as your question is concerned: OK let's assume someone doesn't know what I've written above, and for some reason fears that his/her post would be deleted, so he/she copies it somewhere. This indeed doesn't have to be a weak personality, just someone who hasn't yet understood our policy (and there is no problem with that). On the other hand, when he/she copies the REPLY of a BWL mod developer (more precisely, a distinguished developer) from here, PASTES it on a different forum AND gives there a DIFFERENT reply to it there than here, it's not about being afraid of deleting one's post. It's taking someone else's words to a different place where he can get enough "support" from trolls and others who can't come here. Simple.


@Ardanis:

(As for the avatar of the buddy: no, IIRC the dog is not blue, but I may be wrong.)

For that certain matter, the word 'coercion' or 'manipulation' might be more suitable. I'm not a native speaker, so in this certain case, I might not have used the best word. On the other hand, generally, the example of e.g. Improved Anvil V1, or Vlad's mods might clarify what I meant:
- Improved Anvil V1 uses different methods than what the G3 folks would prefer (and which might make Improved Anvil compatible with their mods at the cost of changing Improved Anvil's several basic concepts)
- They come and keep bothering Sikret even when he repeatedly says that he wouldn't use their methods
- Certain G3 FP developers and certain other mod developers too start to spread false information or explicit lies about Improved Anvil on forums to convince (mislead) players not to try it ever
- The propaganda was relatively effective: even players who came (and still come) here often seem to have heard amazingly impossible things and lies about Improved Anvil

Same with Vlad's mods. He decided not to devote time to ensure compatibility with other mods and support the (bug-creating) G3 Fixpack, because he is a human too with an own life, and the mods are big. What's the result? Certain users are spreading lies about his mods.

Lies and manipulative, subtle statements.

And no, I don't want to get into a debate of the definition of a "lie" and "manipulative" -- I'm sure I'm using it in correct meaning. When someone says "Improved Anvil is built to deliberately break other mods" it's a lie. When a certain infamous user says "Sikret said Improved Anvil is the only bug-free mod" (and is shameless enough to say that it was an acceptable exaggeration), or when says "Sikret wanted his mod to be in ALL categories of the PPG Infinity Engine modlist", it's very manipulative (and practically a lie, see my next sentence). While the truth is, it was stated that Improved Anvil is the only *big* bug-free mod, the only big mod without serious bugs (one could argue about what a 'big' mod is, but this is not the point: it's a lie spreading that it was said "it's the only bugfree" mod). Similarly, according to our viewpoint (= mods could be added to more categories), Sikret found 5 categories from the 12 where Improved Anvil would fit. Five categories from 12 is less than 50%, and not "all" (i.e. 100&). It's manipulation and attempt to discredit the BWL modders who made the original statements.

Now from the point this becomes predictible (i.e. that you know that if you don't use what they ask you to use, then they will try to discredit you and your work in the eyes of people), it is quasi-blackmail: "If you don't follow the technical methods and guidelines we ask you to follow, you can expect us to spread lies about your work and to make a bad reputation for you. Up to you.". Of course, sometimes it's done by their third-party symphatizers, but even when they notice such things, they don't say: "No, that's incorrect. I believe ..., but not what he/she says". But instead, they rather prefer their point is supported even with lies by others. On a side note, If I read somewhere someone telling "SCS2 was created to steal players from Improved Anvil" or "DavidW states that Improved Anvil is a badly designed mod", I would be the first to clarify that those are pure lies.

On a side note, if this propaganda and behaviour wasn't so general, I might also be closer to willing to believe how DavidW interpreted that post in the "I hate this fix" thread (and generally, the whole thread). But now, based on the other experience, I still believe it's manipulative and quasi coercion, to make every mod developer learn how to edit out the fixes of the G3FP, and generally, to learn how to support G3FP. Not a recommendation: a manipulation. But it's needless to say more about this: even if that thread is completely different than what I see in it, what about the 20+ other examples (including those I listed above) about the manipulative statements and lies that are spread?

And the silent manipulation is very effective indeed. It's much more convincing than any harsh and loud arguments, no matter how valid and appropriate those harsh and loud arguments are. Much more convincing because players and mod developers get "convinced" (misled) implicitly, silently. One could ask why we don't do the same, i.e. trying to be more subtle and silent (because it's more effective). Well, that's simply not we. When we tell something, we do it in a straight way (like now), but then we won't start to make silent propaganda by using subtle statements, "accidently" dropped remarks, or by letting our supporters to spread lies even when we do know about the lies etc. That's not ethic and honest. That doesn't help the community to improve.

As I've said, the manipulation is effective -- let's just see the current situation. I'm sure many readers believe:

"The harsh and loud statements of Baronius do much harm to the community, and harm a real community effort, G3 Fixpack; on the other hand, the G3 FP developers he criticizes just try to do their best to help players and mod developers, they do everything for the benefit of the community".

Yeah, perhaps they believe that G3 FP is some giant benefit for the community, but the facts that they manipulate players and mod developers AND are convinced in the 100% superiority of their methods definitely do NOT benefit the community.

One might also believe: "How can Baronius talk about the benefit of community when these posts of him will split the community even more, instead?" You can believe me, dear reader, misleading players and mod developers, and silently brainwashing players that "our methods are the superior and those who don't use them are against 'community efforts' and 'cooperation'" does SPLIT the community much much more than any harsh statement.

Sounds like a conspiracy theory? No, there is no explicit conspiracy, but the whole thing happens implicitly, in a distributed way. And they're content with this.

The expression which e.g. G3 FP developers love to use ("community effort") is humbug in this case. It's part of the (implicitly happening) propaganda. They have never allowed the "community" to actively participate. "Everyone is invited to the G3 FP to post" and similar jokes. Yeah, you're invited to say what you want, but if they disagree you because your suggestion is against their favoured ideas, your suggestions go to the recycle bin. UNLESS they don't have to, because the discussion of such undesired suggestions was already infected by their support trolls.

Indeed, the support trolls. It's enough to see the thread where Wounded Lion suggested more thorough tests. They let some troll to write provoking and topic-disturbing statements. To distract the discussion from its focus. How is it possible that such trolls never write in threads where the discussion is about an issue SUPPORTED by the G3 FP developers?

The support trolls. It's enough to see the "offtopic Anvil discussion" or whatever thread at G3. If they really wanted exclusively the benefit of the community (and not just their own interests and popularity), they wouldn't allow a thread where mod developers and their work are ridiculed by some uneducated people who have nothing better to do and by those who have inferiority complex and can feel themselves important in this anonym virtual world.

Forum policy, regarding freedom? Humbug. "Freedom" for trolls to attack the topic of a benevolent mod developer (e.g. Wounded Lion) or "freedom" of Wounded Lion (and others) to share their thoughts without being distracted and bad-mouthed? Which is more beneficial to a community that is trying TO BUILD MODS:

(1) giving freedom to trolls to distract and invade MOD developers

or

(2) giving freedom to MOD developers to share their thoughts without being distracted and invaded by trolls?

A decision is always made. Freedom to everyone means anarchy. And indeed, the decision is made by them:

Double standard: if the MOD developer disagrees them in something, doesn't follow their methods in his or her mods, or suggests something they don't want to achknowledge/accept -- then it is policy (1).

For their favoured suggestions, favoured mods and their project's mod developers, the policy is (2) .


To cut a long story short: if they purely wanted to benefit the community (even if this harms the popularity of their favoured mods), they would give EQUAL chance to all mod developers, and wouldn't try to dictate their own (technical and non-technical) methods to the community at any cost. As long as this isn't done, their expression "community effort" is a humbug.

And again, the emberassing question: e.g. why wasn't G3 Fixpack revised and split to more mods (despite the fact that those who currently install ALL parts of it would be able to do the same even after the revision/split)? (Wouldn't it benefit the community?) Perhaps because it would need its developers to spend many hours (which now they use to "find" new "bugs" to be fixed) to verify & categorize the fixes and properly test the mod? Indeed, it would need work that is:
(1) nearly not as much fun as trying to find things to be "fixed" and "improved" -- testing and examining code is often boring and tireing
(2) revising the fixes instead of adding new ones wouldn't increase the popularity of the mod (and thus the website's visitor count), because players won't see NEW content; there would be no possibility to advertise 'hundreds of NEW fixes' and 'brand-new mod release'. Yeah, 'IMPROVED fixes' doesn't sound half as tempting as 'NEW fixes'.

They believe their concepts and methods are superior, they convinced lots of players and modders about this, AND they want to keep this situation at any cost.
For example, you DavidW might not understand my point here, because I think you aren't someone who believes your own methods to be superior to others'. Believe me or not, those certain G3 FP (and not just G3 FP) developers do think their methods are superior and perfect. And they are content with the fact they can abuse their reputation to manipulate the community.

Having at least made an attempt to read your enormous post that essentially boils down to your belief that there is some sort of mass mental-conditioning conspiracy going on among (it seems) every modder that isn't on your "side", designed to herd the poor, brainless sheep that are "the players" towards certain mods and away from others in what amounts to nothing more than one big, unimportant popularity contest...

...I can't help but wonder if you've actually considered the humbling but perhaps more realistic possibility that maybe the people here are just being silly and need to make better mods.

They indeed consider it a big popularity contest, exactly. Mods that aren't compatible with theirs endanger this popularity, because players might prefer those mods to theirs. That is why it was required (and still required) to spread false information about mods such as Improved Anvil, to mislead players. There is no other reason.

On the other hand, we've never cared if many players or not many players play our mods or not. We don't care if people choose Improved Anvil or SCS2, if people choose BG1 Unfinished Business or Grey Clan Episode One, if people choose Tortured Souls or One-Day NPC mods. Show me one post where we discouraged players from using a mod without listing technical facts to prove our recommendation or advice. For us, it isn't a popularity contest. It's another matter that we do criticize those who make a popularity contest from it, start spreading lies about our mods and try to manipulate mod developers to use their own methods, and try to manipulate players as well.

For example, their propaganda perfectly worked on you:


Better mods? What is a 'better' mod? Isn't it a question of taste? Indeed, a mod which tends to break other mods even when installed according to readme instructions can be considered as something which could be made 'better', but this is purely a technical approach. (If we examine BWL mods from a technical approach, I don't think they are more buggy than any other usual non-BWL mod; in fact, some of our mods are known as especially bug-free).

So since you're talking about 'silly people who need to make better mods', you've already become brainwashed by them; you learnt their popularity-centric approach where e.g. a "WeiDU-based mod is a better mod" and "a mod which supports G3 FP is a better mod than a mod that doesn't", instead of what the common sense would say: "A good mod for me is what I enjoy playing".

You're lying. If you actually didn't care then none of this would matter. You wouldn't care that people were "spreading lies" and discouraging people from playing your mods. After all, that would only result in fewer people playing your mods, which you claim not to care about.

Therefore, you obviously do care on some level. You want people to download and play your mods just like anyone else.


See, this is exactly what I'm talking about. Everyone who doesn't support you is either a spreader of "propaganda" or a poor, innocent victim of it who cannot think for themselves. You automatically leap to the conclusion that I've simply been "brainwashed" into a mindless proponent of WeiDU and the Gibberlings 3 Fixpack and whatnot, even though I made no mention of those whatsoever. Do me a favour and don't insult my intelligence the next time you talk to me.

First of all, there is such a thing as a "better" mod. It's not a matter of taste. A mod that I enjoy playing is just a mod that I enjoy playing, not necessarily a good mod. If I created, for example, an NPC that interrupted play every five seconds to say "I am an NPC", had no other dialogue, was useless in combat and forced you to accept him into your party if he caught sight of you, that would be a bad mod. It doesn't matter if someone out there happens to enjoy it; I've still done a terrible job that is in dire need of improvement.

Secondly, I did not accuse any of the mods here of being bad. Indeed, I've never played any of them, so I wouldn't know. What I was saying, if you'd care to stop crying "PROPAGANDA!" for a moment to listen, was that before you start coming up with wild theories to place the blame on the shoulders of everyone else, perhaps you should take a look at yourselves and realise that the opposing "side" may have a point.

Sometimes it's your own fault that nobody likes you.

Two different things.

As everyone else, I believe we do have the right to reject lies that are related to our work.

As anyone else, I believe I have right to detail my viewpoint if I believe that certain groups cause much harm to the IE modding community.

This is about principles, not popularity.


Since we have no commercial interest in this (I wonder if the developers of G3 FP have), it doesn't matter how many players play the mods. Sure, each mod developer is glad to read compliments and feedback on his or her forum or in his email inbox, but that doesn't mean there should be a competition.

And I still believe you're strongly influenced by their propaganda -- sorry if it's a problem for you, but your words reflect that many of your statements aren't based on your own judgement, research or knowledge. For example, how can you guess what is realistic regarding BWL mods if you've never played them. How can you asume that "nobody likes us"...? Just because there is a thread at G3 where some bored people (and those who need attention to feel important) tell some bad things? You aren't really familiar with the discussion at all. It's not about whether anyone 'likes us' or not (On a side note, though it doesn't belong to the subject of this topic, I believe several BWL mods are liked by several players -- so again, you're just repeating what you read on other forums, I suppose.)

These threads are just hatcheries for trolls. Give it up Baronius. ;-)

Still you can believe in better tomorows...

Thanks Jab, I'm not trying to convince G3 FP developers any more, but hopefully it will have a similar effect as my old long post at the Improved Anvil (it will open the eyes of more readers).

However, you're right that it's a hatchery for trolls -- fortunately, they can't come here (at least, the risk is small).

Yeah, all we can do is to believe in better tomorrows, but fortunately, it's not such a big issue. BWL still provides a place for those who reject propaganda and arrogance in the community, and I'm content with this. Of course, it's still an issue to a certain extent, but fortunately my posts always seem to have a positive effect on the long run, as far as I've experienced. The time I spend with it isn't completely fruitless Improved Anvil is the best example for how BWL can keep together to protect original ideas from those who want to force others to give up their ideas just to follow "mainstream" methods and compatibility.

But it takes fire and acid to kill them. So...

@Jab: I hope that's some fine Czech beer in your post... because if it is, then I definitely want to drink it.

I believe that you are simply spreading lies to denounce Gibberlings 3 because one of the moderators stole your wife and you're bitter about it.

Look! I can make baseless accusations too!


I beg your pardon?

Again, I never made any attacks whatsoever on the quality of the mods here. All I said was that perhaps they just aren't very good and maybe that's why they have a poor reputation and generally don't seem to be popular, rather than it being because G3 are secretly the Illuminati and are running some insidious scheme to condition people into thinking that they aren't very good, and I suggested that you should consider that possibility before you accuse everyone else of being at fault.

The fact that you just assume that anyone who disagrees with you is a propaganda victim (rather than someone who, I don't know, has reached their own conclusions and has a genuine reason to argue against what you say) reeks of arrogance, and the fact that you then accuse other people of arrogance makes you a hypocrite into the bargain. If you're so damned humble then how come you refuse to consider the possibility that you're the one in the wrong?



I was speaking metaphorically. Let's be honest, though; even if I hadn't been, it doesn't take a genius to realise that you aren't exactly well-liked in the community, (if you were then why would people be spreading all these "lies" you keep talking about?) and I'm not just talking about some thread over at G3.



I believe that you are missing the point.

Baronius: I must say, that I don't consider other modding sites as centers of propaganda and arrogance. It's always about people.

Sometimes good persons have different opinions on something (for example "what is really bug, that needs to be repaired") based on their preferences etc.

And of course it's Czech beer. ;-)

True. Sometimes one unintentionally generalizes in his or her speech (in his or her wording), but I tried not to make that mistake. I always used the word "certain developers" (because that is what I believe: it's definitely not all G3 modders), and not "the G3 site', "all G3 developers" and similar. It's another matter that a site's most important members can be the same as those who act in such an unacceptable way, of course.

Okay, so two quick points:

1) I think it would be silly for anyone to suggest that this site doesn't host good mods (and I hope no-one is making that suggestion). Grey Clan and Tower of Deception are, by common consent, excellent. Improved Anvil has a huge fan base who regard it as having transformed their BG2 experience. NEJ and TS I hear less of, but many people swear by them. Personally I've never played any of them - ToD and TGC are my kind of mod and I'll doubtless play them soon; the others, less so - but I think the evidence from player reports is pretty conclusive. Personally, I participate in these debates partly out of intellectual interest but largely because I think the people concerned have earned the right to be taken seriously. That in turn is largely because they've produced stable, serious, professional mods. Kudos.

2) Since (for my sins) I'm currently involved in moderating G3, I feel some need to respond to comments on it. I do think that those who think there's a double standard are (innocently) mistaken. There isn't, as it happens, a "SCS sucks" thread, but if there was, no-one would close it down. There are, I think, a couple of "fixpack sucks" threads from a while back; there's been at least one "G3 sucks" thread that I can think of, I hope that it's the case that things get dealt with even-handedly and with a very light touch. Example: I split that IA thread because I thought the random anti-BWL vitriol had no place on a thread in "mod discussion" which purportedly was about what people think about IA. The split thread now lives in G3's "random discussion" section, where people are welcome to say what they like within (very broadly construed) reason. The original thread contains some pretty harsh criticism about IA, but hopefully it's still on topic.

No, even if you install it alone, it will add lots of bugs to your game.

The so called BG2 fixpack has two types of bugs:

1- Plain bugs, which will affect your game even if you install it alone.
2- Hidden bugs, which will come to surface and show themselves only in presence of some other mods (and no, they are not simple compatibility issues; they are bugs in FP).

Also, what you quoted was only the last part of a paragraph. The missing part is this:



Which says the same thing Baronius wrote in his reply to your post.

So I'm wondering what would make something a "hidden bug" and not an incompatibility issue. The kind of example that comes to mind is a .CRE file whose Effect index has been set to zero but which doesn't itself have any effects, so that anything which tries to add effects will corrupt the file (Baldurdash does this to TOMEGOL4, as I've recently discovered in debugging SCSII). I can see the case for calling that a bug even though it has no in-game effect (play with just Baldurdash installed and you'll notice nothing).

Is that what you mean by a "hidden bug" (in which case I'm surprised that there are many such in Fixpack, but I'm happy to be corrected), or do you mean something else?

Yes, this is a good example of a hidden bug (as an important note, it's the WeiDu version of Baldurdash which touches Tomegol4 -- not the original Baldurdash -- and I don't know what exactly it does with that file; Vlad should know the answer).

There are other sorts of such hidden bugs as well.

Bg2 fixpack has such bugs, but I hope you don't expect me to point them out here, because I'm not going to play the role of yet another free tester for those who don't test their own mods.

EDIT: Using the term "Free" in 'free tester', I was not talking about money (as it should be already clear for those who don't want to intentionally misinterpret my words). Some people release mods by putting a bunch of codes into it without giving the least attention to testing and without giving any value to the players' time. Then they sit back waiting for the players' bug reports (expecting players to do what the mod's developers and their testing team should have done before releasing it). My point was that I was not going to fall in that trap by giving them the exact information they needed to fix the bugs in their mods. If they want to release a bugfree mod, they should work hard to acheive the goal (that's exactly what we do in developing IA. I don't say "what I do", I say "what we do". I have my own testing team for IA and I give them the biggest credit for IA's quality at every opportunity). Releasing high quality mods requires investing time and effort on it.

Well, it's not my problem how the mod is or isn't tested, but you (and Baronius) have been admirably strong on the importance, when criticising others' mods, of providing concrete evidence rather than just making comments, so yes, I guess I would like to see some examples. I don't think I've seen any mentioned in previous discussions of this kind (the reason I got involved in the previous discussion of hidden bugs on SP was that I thought that for those examples, "incompatibilities" was a better name than "hidden bugs"; those examples aren't bugs in the sense you and I are using it in these posts.)

PS Are there "non-free" testers - can we pay people to test our mods? I'd seriously consider it:)

As I've emphasized earlier, it's a matter of definition. If a fixpack breaks another mod (and all mods that have the same common dependency) with a change that doesn't correct a serious problem or "unambigiously undesired effect" in the game, then such a change shouldn't be applied by a fixpack. No matter how we call it.

I feel a double standard here.

As we've discussed, DavidW, the developers of G3FP seem to use a different definition for bug than myself (and others at BWL).

Their definition allows the neutral alignment of a smuggler leader to be a bug, because they have some sort of subjective reasoning why it should be evil.
Their definition allows the phenomenon that certain keys remain in the inventory of the party members (instead of disappearing) to be a bug.

For some interesting reason, when the G3FP's change breaks mods, it's called "plain incompatibility" or "incompatibility".

So here we are: something which breaks or corrupts new content added by mods isn't a bug, but a smuggler's alignment who can be neutral for a million reasons is a game bug. This is where their silent propaganda led: they now managed to make (almost) everyone believe and use their incredibly ridiculous definitions and descriptions -- definitions which classify simple game settings as BUGS but don't classify fixpack's mod-breaking and dangerous changes as BUGS.
Wonderful!

Well, to be fair, it's my terminology to call it "incompatibility", not theirs.

I think it's consistent with their definition, though. Their definition says (as I've phrased it elsewhere; I'm not quoting): something is a bug if, on balance of probabilities, it contradicts developer intent.

By that same definition, something is a bug in Fixpack if it contradicts the intent of the Fixpack team. And the Fixpack team probably didn't have any intentions one way or the other towards other mods.

(In fact, on your theory of their motivations, their intentions are probably to break other mods, so it would be a deliberate albeit nasty feature - not that I really buy that theory!)

But actually my point to Sikret was rather narrower: I'm interested if there are bugs in Fixpack under a much narrower definition. Call it the TOMEGOL definition - the BD-weidu bug in TOMEGOL is (I think, correct me if I'm wrong) a bug even under your quite narrow definition, as it violates the filestructure conventions. I took Sikret to be saying that there are such bugs in BG2-fixpack. I haven't come across any (and I write mods with a fixpack base and which fairly widely mess with file structure, so I'd expect to have), so I was after evidence (or clarification that I'd misinterpreted).

Incidentally (and off-topic), thanks for the civil tone in which this conversation is happening (to me at any rate!). I'm not especially interested in conflict; I'm interested in clarity and civilized debate, and I'm getting them.

EDIT: correct me if I'm wrong, but under your definition of a bug, something in fixpack wouldn't be a bug just because it broke another mod: something more would be needed.

BTW, this indeed might have something to do with how one defines what is a bug.
For me it's (mostly) incorrect variable setting which would prevent action from triggering and thus destroying some quest. For Sikret (as I percieve it) it includes an enemy spawning too early (that's what there are checks for items in inventory and respective variable settings, right?), while for me it's nothing but minor inconsistency. And so on.

You don't need to thank anything, but I'm glad to see you feel it in that way. If someone (from those who seem to disagree with us) should be considered as a more credible discussion partner, then it's definitely you. For obvious reasons. Of course, everyone deserves civil tone, except trolls (who don't get any tone, they get Crom Faeyr at BWL).

Their intent is to spread the BG2 Fixpack, and collect as many happy players for it as possible; and meanwhile, to teach as much WeiDU skills as possible, which also brings traffic for their site, and spreads the use of WeiDU.

This is all nice, but meanwhile they forget the real goal of a fixpack (= to fix real bugs and offer a compatibility-friendly ground for mods that are based on it), instead they add lots of things they call "fixes" so they can advertise it to be big, continously-improving etc., necessary mod. Same with WeiDU: they forget the fact modding is about ideas (and learning as much knowledge as required to realize one's ideas), and not learning as much knowledge as required to support their G3 Fixpack (and possibly to negate the changes of the G3 FP which break one's mod).

I haven't defined bug, I only defined a fix (= real fix). I will try to give a simplified description. Obviously, let's disregard the "obvious" bugs (= corrupt file, faulty implementation of a fix). On the other hand, a change ("fix", but not fix) which affects a potential dependency (e.g. monopolizes a supposedly "popular" game interface of mods) without a valid justification is basically a bug (see my definition of fix for what a valid justification is: e.g. a broken or "unambigiously undesired" element can be enough justification). This has been one of my major points all the time: if a change of a fixpack corrects an actually faulty or broken element, interface monopolizing is acceptable; otherwise it isn't. This is because there aren't many real game bugs to be fixed, and this means there won't be many monopolized interfaces => this means there will be very few broken mods. But I've devoted a complete post to explain this, as you also surely remember, so I won't repeat it.

I know I've quoted it already, but I like it so much:
This probably hits the nail on the head, and is in perfect harmony with what I've been saying all the time: they believe their methods are superior and thus they have right to decide what is considered to a bug in their work and what isn't. TheBigg pointed out a few posts earlier, that it's never good if a developer is a tester as well for the same project (More accurately, the tester team is "external" in the reality, they are obviously not those who develop the project -- but this is off-topic). Well, the case is the same here: they develop the fixpack and they are also those who define what is the bug in it. We all know that it's never good if the same person criticizes (or proofreads, examines, etc.) a certain work as the one who has created it. Unfortunately, the G3FP developers believe their methods to be superior and perfect, and do not allow others to make suggestions. They even don't consider others suggestions.

Let me create another definition then, based on your latest one:
Something is a bug in the game if the Fixpack team thinks that the Fixpack should change it.

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

My point is that the FP is operating with this definition of bug:

Something is a bug ("thing needing fixing", if you like) in software X if it contradicts the intent of the designer(s) of software X.

And actually I think that's fairly defensible. If someone asks me whether such-and-such thing they've encountered in SCS is a bug, the reply is normally either "oops, yes, I'll fix it", or "no, it's intended to work that way". I'd have thought the same is true for most people's mods. It might be, of course, that once they know that (say) my giving Mulahey a Summon Fallen Deva spell is intentional, they decide that that's a really stupid feature (rightly so in this case!), but that doesn't make it a bug.

Now of course, the problem for the FP developers is that they want to know what the bugs are in vanilla BG2, which requires them to make inferences about what the developers want. Occasionally they've been able to do that by actually asking them (I think they corresponded with David Gaider a couple of times), but mostly they're having to resort to various deductions and evidence-gathering (my "balance of probabilities" from earlier in the debate).

(Incidentally, I'm using "designer/developer intent" in a relatively narrow way. In a sense, the "intent" of the BG2 designers was to create a bestselling game and make lots of money; the intent of Sword Coast Stratagems is to entertain me by seeing what can be done within the confines of the engine; on your theory, the intent of the BG2 fixpack designers is to spread the fixpack, collect happy players, and advertise WEIDU (I'm not necessarily buying that theory, of course ).

But in a narrower sense, my intent in writing such-and-such bit of code for SCS is that mages should cast these spells in these circumstances; the intent of the designers of the fixpack in writing code to change someone's alignment is to change it, etc. )

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:

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


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.

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.

For Sikret and me, it doesn't. There is no need for definitions, just common sense. For us, a fixpack is what solves problems, and not creates them. Note that I didn't use the words 'fix' and 'bug'. I used the word 'problem'. In this case, a problem for a player is -- for example -- what has a negative impact on gaming experience. For a mod developer, it's a nuisance to be deal with, something which requires plus effort and time; effort and time that isn't devoted for his or her own mod's internal improvement, but rather for something that is triggered externally, by the silliness of someone else.

(SMALLER PROBLEM) The G3 BG2 Fixpack changes things that are liked by certain players while disliked by others. It has a negative impact on the experience of those who dislike it.

(BIGGER PROBLEM)
The G3 BG2 Fixpack changes things that can break third-party mods.
(1) It has a negative impact on the experience the players who encounter the problems and broken content in the third-party mods.
(2) It causes a nuisance and burden for third-party mod developers, because they are forced to touch their (possibly well-made) mod and modify their own work to fix the problems of an external mod (the G3 Fixpack).

'Developer intent' or not, 'balance of probabilities' or not, definitions or not -- common sense is the best advisor, and it says: a fixpack should not introduce PROBLEMS for players and mod developers. No matter how we define fix, bug, developer intent or whatever. Problems are problems. Nuisances are nuisances. Negative effects are negative effects.

Generally, in my dictionary, something which causes negative effects for players and modders can't be a fixpack.

As someone wrote in a Gibberlings3 forum topic:



It hits the nail on the head.

Your below statement is a nice but rather theoretical, formal definition:


Yes, but it disregards the external conditions, expectation of the "world" that surrounds this statement.

An army can also have a definition (I don't want to define it, let's imagine something reasonable for it, e.g. "an armed organization which ...., controlled by the ... " etc. ).

Your statement quoted above is almost like this:
"whether something is or is not an army depends on the definition of "army""

If we want, we can define an army as a "group of mounted warriors with bows". It's another question that such an army won't really protect a country nowadays from anything. Is it an army? By definition, yes. Practically, it isn't!

So there are qualitative measures as well, not just static definitions which think in absolute things.

It's senseless to keep focusing on definitions so much, because definitions themselves don't help at all. We could use completely different definitions to build up Physics -- everything would be consistent and OK, but completely different. It's another matter that things would be hard to handle etc., because of the impractical definitions.

I can define 'hero' as "Any person with nickname Baronius". It won't make me a hero.

So I think saying that the creators of fixpack have a consistent definition with their work does NOT justify it that their work causes problems and nuisances. It's a poor justification, just like the earlier one (i.e. that "how Baronius defines 'subjective' then", asked by certain G3FP developers), which was easily solved by my post where I presented that it's not that hard to categorize fixes (the fuzzy membership functions example, etc.).

To cut a long story short, common sense says that a fixpack -- regardless of its definitions -- shouldn't cause PROBLEMS. We say that a fix should never cause problems -- a fix should SOLVE problems, instead.

This is true. However, may I bring up something that has been noticed within the vanilla and expansion games of BG? I am sure we are all familiar with Oublek in Nashkell and the bounty rewards he can give, specifically the bounty for the emeralds gained from Prism. Now in this case there is a problem that needs solved. A problem that can cause more problems. To be exact there is an action which works but is broken in that it does not do exactly as intended. TakePartyItem(S:resref) takes all items of the specified item from the party's inventory not just one. This is a problem in that Oublek needs to take two, but will take one or more of the given item. This is what has led to the Oublek Bounty Reward Exploit Fix of Baldurdash. However, that fix only works for ToTSC and even that in a limited fashion.
Where does actually solving it cause more problems? Due to the lack of specific actions to take only two items and that the triggers are lacking in the vanilla game to find only two of an item, to truly correct it the items would need to be replaced with a known unique item (i.e. a mod added item). This in turn could cause issues with a mod added later that for some reason has another bounty hunter come and steal them from the party. You can see that a fix that works and solves the problem in a way that works around and with the limits of the game engine based on an unmodded game, can indeed cause problems with an added mod.
Should we forgo the fix because of the possibility of a future conflict? No, I don't think we should. I do think that since such a situation could cause a foreseeable problem, that it be well described in what is wrong, why it is believed to be wrong, and the steps taken to correct such action.

To make it shorter because my explanations can be mud:
1) It's a fix to place a variable to keep the state from repeating.
2) It's still a problem that since it uses a fairly common gem item that the player might have more than two and lose the extras because of the hardcoded limitations of the game engine or an exploit in that the player could leave one behind, get the reward and sell the other for more gold.
3) #2 can be fixed but it requires using at least one unique item (a copy of the original but with a new resref) so that there will be no question, within the confines of the game, how many of the given item there are.
4) #3 then creates the potential for a 'bug' with another mod (I would say incompatibility here) that for some reason has someone interact with the party based on them having the game original items.

This sorta ties into that one example you, Baronius, gave earlier about giving the two swords to a creature. However, unlike that one where it was merely a subjective reason based on D&D or what have you. This issue is entirely based on the game engine and our current understanding of how it works. So this may very well be an example of an issue where changing the items a creature has can not correct a problem but work around a game engine limitation. This would then as I understand it be totally doable as a fix to solve a situation that can not be solved short of porting the game to a newer engine ala BGT/TUTU. Any mods out there that may already do something with these existing items, should be communicated with and determine if they have a better solution to the issue. If not, then it would be their choice to modify to become compatible or they can change the files back so that the remainder of the fixes could be used in games containing their mod.

As an aside, I started out with the bad habit of making the code, making sure it would install with no errors, but never did much real testing with it. Some of the partners want to get all the code together and then test (sort of like the BG2Fixpack I suppose) but I'm glad that's not happening. I've got someone who has not just volunteered but is actually installing each bit of code and testing it in game. Boy has he found problems, the theories to fix may be sound but sometimes as in the above situation game mechanics don't allow it. I'm also finding that it is much better to keep each specific issue as it's own component. 1) It's easier to locate within a tp2 file 2) It's easier to see exactly what files you adjust. 3) If you're there doing one issue and you're testing it properly, you can usually find if there are other problems besides the "reported" one. At this point in time, when the BG1Fixpack does come out, be prepared for individual components that will 1) work on the unmodded game without too much deviation from the expected 2) have been at least tested with as many existing mods as possible 3) any known conflicts would be listed along with the steps being taken to correct. I don't foresee making too many changes that aren't specifically a fix of broken code or the addition of variables to make sure certain things don't take place.
Isn't it a issue that when you were going to be struck by a lightening bolt from that mad wizard Ramazith you ran all the way up the stairs only to find Ramazith there attacking you? Maybe not so much, but after you kill him and go back downstairs, he's standing right there where he was when you dodged his attack. Now that just ruins the immersion and the belief of the game. It's one thing if a person shows up a little early, but if the guy is dead that's just ridiculous.

I would be more than willing to discuss issues with the bg1 fixpack in a more public place other than the 'private by invitation only' workroom at G3. When we started back in 2006/2007, Cam just gave us access to the 'old' workroom from the previous fixpack attempt that more or less fell onto Unfinished Business to include any non-baldurdash fixes as they saw fit. We've just been there making our slow, silent and steady progress. Seems though that there are a few people who are interested, there are new modders/players who want to help, Cam usually gives them access after a one of us 'moderators' requests. Most share problems they run across with the unmodded game, a few actually help with thoughts on fixing certain issues, and a couple actually test things out (some of it I can't, don't have access to ToTSC). I just wander how many more people would be interested in seeing a fixpack for BG1. A fixpack that does what Baldurdash and Dudleyville do together in one location plus maybe a few more things (I wouldn't say hundreds more, unless you count all the little errors DLTCEP throws at you because the LastTalkedToBy didn't have the '()' at the end. Didn't break the game, doesn't break the game to change, and can't break any future mods by changing, but if left unchanged makes DLTCEP spout a bunch of unnecessary errors.

Earlier you said something along the lines that you knew how to build a better program than weidu to create and distribute mods, but that no one has asked you. This was the first that I've ever heard that you have such knowledge (not saying you don't I've just not read or heard it anywhere until now). If you could make a better program than weidu to create mods that wouldn't overwrite the entire file for just a simple change like increasing/decreasing weight to match the description, why haven't you? If there were something better available, I'm sure many would use it, especially if it didn't require a good grasp of programming to understand. I'm self taught when it comes to weidu (self taught as in, ask questions and look at other code). I think it's pretty poor of a program's developer to say 'the best way to learn how to use it is to look at how others have used it'. True, seeing the work of others can be enlightening. But if you can't understand what is being described in the help documents that come with the program, how are you going to understand what others do with it? If I hadn't even had the slightest understanding of computer programming (self taught basic back in the late 80's when I was in junior high), I would never have attempted doing any kind of mods. This is because weidu assumes a certain level of programming knowledge within it's documentation a level that can be hard to obtain for someone just starting out with nothing but the basic know how to turn on the computer and start their favorite RPG.

Okay, I'm done.
ab

To avoid getting enmeshed in a philosophy-of-language debate (which I recognise I started ), can I just ask if you agree with my points 1-4 about my hypothetical "DavidW's developer-intent mod"?

EDIT:

Off-topic: we probably couldn't, actually, unless you mean relatively minor shifts of definition. There's a certain literature on this in philosophy of science if you're interested. (My PhD was in physics, before I moved to philosophy; most of my research interests are in philosophy of physics.)

The docs can be improved, and the tutorials can be written or amended - one of the things I'd like to do if I had the required skills is to largely rewrite them. Unfortunately, people that are good at programming, I.E. talking clearly with computers, aren't necessarily good at talking clearly with human beings. Additionally, a program developer is ill-suited to write detailed documentations about it, since he might be 'innately' aware of quirks within the program that newbies will have troubles figuring out on their own (and no, not only WeiDU has harmful quirks).
However, it isn't just me and Weimer being lazy and not wanting to write detailed documentations. The best way to learn a program is to read beginner tutorials, read other people's code, experiment with their code, and write your own similar code (repeating the cycle in this order two or three times). This is what programming books (or courses) do: explain a concept, give examples, make you do simple exercises on given code, make you write your own code.
The docs are meant as a reference for already skilled people, not as a beginner's read.

1) Like what? If we are talking about the key items that disappear when they are used in locked doors etc, it's a fix, as it was meant to be that way...
If we are talking about the alignment fixes, they effect the game balance(cause of spells) and there has been much discussion on the difference of alignments. But at least, they should be some what consistent on 'party of thieves', so...
2) ----

Unfortunately there are a few bugs outstanding in the current Fixpack (and which are apparent to the player, not just to modders whose mods have been affected by a particular fix). Assassin poison was buggered in the last version (although I think one of Nythrun's hotfixes might have solved this) and the Improved Mace of Disruption now results in undead saving vs. polymorph (with no modifier IIRC). Neither are game breaking, but they are there - the latter was particularly annoying as the IMoD became all but useless as a weapon in my last game.

TBH I wonder whether the "suck it and see" approach to Fixpack works better when it is updated more often (which doesn't seem to be the case currently).

Very likely: look at Linux ("release early, and release often").

Neither! We are talking about serious and critical bugs in a mod which claims to be a fixpack. I can't imagine how one can be playing the game with the BG2 fixpack without noticing any of those plain bugs in practice. If some day they want to gather a testing team, you can't be a member of it for sure.

See my edit to this post for the reason I'm not going to give exact information about those bugs.

You know, regardless of what your reasons are, it's pretty damaging to your credibility to complain about "serious and critical" bugs and then refuse to point out what they are when pressed on the matter.

If nothing else, all it takes is for someone to do the exact opposite to counter you. Watch.

There are no critical bugs in the fixpack. No, I'm not going to take the time to prove my statement. There just aren't any. Trust me.

Now what gives your claim more weight than mine at this point?