Offtopic Anvil Discussion

[CamDawg]

If PPG or G3 states they don't compete with anyone, then what prevents IA from being added to a new category?

You're welcome to continue taking potshots at me or G3, though, I just wanted to clear up some facts which have escaped your attention. The modlist is not hosted here, and I have the same amount of control over it that you do, which is zero.

 

The one inter-community resource that G3 has for promoting mods, the IE News feed, is open to every site, both to post news to it and incorporate it into their own site a la TeamBG and SHS. You have the access to post in it, and have exercised this ability in the past. That you're voluntarily choosing not to promote IA in it is (I feel safe in this assertion) not due to some fear of competition on my behalf. I'm also pretty sure those weren't my motivations in the IA workroom either, where I helped Sikret improve his code.

[jcompton]

Mr. or Ms. Dizzyorange, wherever you are... I hope you have come to appreciate that the general opinion of Improved Anvil is that it is unsafe to discuss Improved Anvil.

[Baronius]

Since some posts were directed to me or reacted to my words, I'll try to give a (short) reply to most of them.

 

 

CamDawg, cmorgan: no need for this theatre "we have no control over it", "we have no connection/access to it" etc. You just don't care, but you do speak to PPG modlist admins, discuss things etc. And, e.g., I've also seen SimDing0 checking this topic regularly, and he has known about Sikret's request of adding IA to 5 categories for many months. He also said the same "I'm not the maintainer of modlist". And then spreads lies such as now that Sikret wants in "all categories of modlist". Not the maintainer of modlist? No connection with PPG? SimDing0 and others too are in continuos contact with PPG & modlist etc., often in real speech in IRC etc. And icelus, the maintainer also checks this thread, as we can see. To cut a long story short, if the modlist maintainers really wanted it, they would have had added IA to the proper categories long ago. And this raises the question, the only question: who does it hurt if IA is in 5 categories? (Discriminating other mods because they get only one category? I thought there wasn't any competition. *sigh* Nevermind.)

 

From that long post of yours, it's no surprise you have an agenda against Bg2 Fixpack for whatever reason. Anyway, that's not my concern.

That's the big problem, dear temujin! If you don't care about or cannot understand a train of thoughts, don't you think it's a bit shame to write all this? Especially "for whatever reason". The reason is exactly there. If you're a modder, you should at least try to understand what you read -- and as I've written there, I gladly answer questions. If you aren't a modder and thus don't understand it at all, how can you talk about something which you don't know in such a way (and this greatly applies to your blurb about "all other modders can make more components, Sikret could do it too if he wanted"). Yes, "freedom of speech" I know, but I guess all intelligent people agree that remaining neutral is better than making determined statement about something you aren't familiar with (or based on "what you've seen with other modders"). This is the problem. Many people have time to reply in topics such as this, but they don't "have" time to actually examine what they're reacting to.

(On a side note, if you actually had only skimmed through very quickly on that long post of me, you would know that it also talks about much more general matters than G3FP. Otherwise, I wouldn't have linked to it here.)

 

Well that same line of thinking can be applied by ANY author whose mods are divided into several pieces.

For example, this is one of the statements which you made after simply skipping the explanation (the theory part of my long post) that proves why it can NOT be applied to any author. Wonderful! (A very primitive tip, though it's probably in vain: do you think all types of mods can be split to components with the same effort, regardless of the mod's type, size and cohesion?)

 

But guess what? They don't. And they STILL GIVE OPTIONS ANYWAY without asking this silly quesion. If you don't like to spend time modding, why the hell would you even make a mod in the first place and put it up on the internet for others to judge?

As always, I fail to understand what is the problem here. No one said that IA mustn't get negative feedback* -- so judgements are okay. But you're wrong that it's put up for judging. It's put up for playing, for those who want to play it. Your statements remind me of someone who told this to Vlad: "If you don't want players to utilize your mod, don't release it". Giant misbelief! It's put up because the author offers it to those who want to play it. There are no conditions, such as "if you don't want this or that to happen, don't release it".

 

Baronius: I have the impression the only one who loses sleep over these things is yourself.

Didn't know you were aware of my current schedule. Your one-sentence long contributions to topics are really impressive, by the way. (What has become of you? You seem to act like a troll in many topics. "Is it already deleted? I am missing all the fun." etc. No need to react to this. Just ask it from yourself. Please spare me of the text "I'm fine, and I've returned to a friendly & free community from BWL -- which originally looked like a promising seamless site but turned into a dictature" and anything similar.)

 

cmorgan: in this TC case, I also don't know what the problem is. OK, it's your opinion, but I don't see any problems with IA's format. It's played by those who like it, and avoided by those who don't. It installs properly for those who keep the installation instructions. The only people who have problems with it are those who can't accept its incompatibilities for certain reasons (I have guesses), but are lazy to sacrifice the time to actually understand some basics of modding theory (such as dependencies) and compatibility.

 

The only reason to spread a mod over many categories is to appeal to the novice player, who will look and see "wow, that thing changes *all this*? Cool - I had better include this in my install! Plust that, and that, and that..." which again leads to the author having to troubleshoot the mod in a way that the author never intended.

Regardless if it's in more categories or only one, a player should check the readme which lists incompatibilities before installing the mod. If he or she doesn't do so, it will cause problems even if it's only in one category (like now). If the readme is checked, he or she will be aware of the incompatibilities. So the number of categories is totally indifferent in this case.

 

Just to avoid any confusion (e.g. jastey said that it's me who doesn't sleep due to this), I'm not here to "defend" IA or to *convince* anyone to play it, accept it, acknowledge its existence etc. I just clarified a few things for those (possibly new) readers who may be interested to hear my viewpoint as well in this matter. No need to "defend" it, because there aren't "attacks", unless some lies and stupid babbling can be called an "attack". Also no need to *convince* everyone: those who want to play it will play it, others don't have to. The comments such as "after reading these, I'm sure now that I won't play it" do make me laugh. It's like answering "I didn't" to the question of "Which of you won the lottery?".

[CoM_Solaufein]

Am I the only one who doesn't really care?

[Salk]

Don't know, CoM_Solaufein, but I'd guess you're the only one not caring but still posting to voice your opinion.

[jastey]

I don't know which categories Sikret wanted AI to be added, but I am all for Caedwyr's explanation: It can't be called a kit pack, since a kit pack offers kits, not a workover of the whole game. It can't be called a fixpack, because a fixpack doesn't include changes of kits, doesn't add quests etc. It can't be called a tweak pack, since a tweak pack doesn't add quests, and so on. Sorry to stirr this up more, but if these components where offered as separate, then I would support the request to put it in all the categories, but as is the category TC fits best for me, too (although TCs usually are not compatible with other BGII mods at all. Maybe PC would be the right thing: partial convertion.) (I understand Sikret's right to leave it as one install, though, not arguing about that.)

[CamDawg]

no need for this theatre "we have no control over it", "we have no connection/access to it" etc. You just don't care, but you do speak to PPG modlist admins, discuss things etc.

Thank you for proving my point. This is, as I pointed out, the exact level of access that you have. As for not caring you're right: it's an issue of a BW mod on the PPG modlist, and third party involvement in such conflicts always makes things worse.

[berelinde]

Baronius, I don't know why you keep insisting that folks that don't like IA are ignorant, biased, non-modders who don't understand about dependencies or compatibilities.

 

There are several folks on this thread who are well-informed, have played IA, have endeavored to maintain neutrality even in the face of rhetoric, are modders, and who do understand dependencies and compatibility, and they still manage not to like IA.

 

Also, I do not understand the reluctance for IA to be listed as a TC. It's a fixpack, a tweakpack, a tactical mod, an item/store mod, a kit pack, an NPC modification package, a quest pack, and soon to be a banter pack, once Sikret gets done reworking Imoen's dialogues so they don't refer to thievery anymore, all rolled up into one massive component. And there's nothing that says you can't modify a TC. After all, Tutu and BGT are TCs, and they're modifiable. Greatly so, in the case of BGT. Nor does it mean that the game is no longer BG2. BGT allows the player to enjoy BG2, and even to modify it. Total conversion = game is overhauled in a significant manner, and one that includes significant compatibility considerations.

 

But yeah, this is completely talked to death.

[Guest temujin]

"The reason is exactly there."

 

No. That "reason" is nothing but meaningless drivel filled with hate and idiocy. Besides, like I said several times, I don't care about it because this has nothing to do with this topic. I'm trying to stick to my review of IA (isn't that what this thread is about?) You seem to put great effort in dragging the attention off of IA's shortcomings and somehow blame it on fixpack.

 

 

"do you think all types of mods can be split to components with the same effort, regardless of the mod's type, size and cohesion?"

 

Of course not. What kind of silly question is this? It requires a lot of thinking on the modmaker's part. But if the author does somehow manage to accomplish it, that shows they have talent and skill in modmaking. As I said, people download IA mainly to check out it's newly improved AI tactics, tougher enemies, and new encounters. IA has a lot of non-tactics related things in it. The player should be given an option whether they want to install these unrelated things. Period.

[SimDing0]

Also, I do not understand the reluctance for IA to be listed as a TC.

A total conversion is a new game based on the engine, not some arbitrary point at which content changes become "significant".

[DavidW]

"do you think all types of mods can be split to components with the same effort, regardless of the mod's type, size and cohesion?"

 

Of course not. What kind of silly question is this? It requires a lot of thinking on the modmaker's part. But if the author does somehow manage to accomplish it, that shows they have talent and skill in modmaking.

 

Much as I'd like to think writing a modular tactics mod has demonstrated my "talent and skill", let's not get carried away - it's not that hard. At least, it's dead easy to make optional:

 

- any new spell that you're providing for player use (if enemies use it, it's a different matter)

 

- any spell that you're removing

 

- any item that you're adding unless it's directly plugged into the plot (in IA's case, for instance, if there's a quest involving a Judgement Day sword, you can't very well remove the sword)

 

- any existing-game item you're nerfing, randomising or removing

 

- modifications to an NPC, again unless they're plugged into other bits of the plot

 

(Nerfings/modifications of existing spells is a bit of a grey area - they have ramifications for creature AI for spellcasting enemies, so while it can be done, it can easily cause unexpected problems. In my mods I make it an option anyway, but it's a judgment call.)

 

 

That's purely on the technical side - obviously one might have the view that certain combinations (even: all combinations but one) are so bad that players should be protected from them; or that your personal artistic vision forbids most ways of playing. Fine (but of course: fine for others to criticise, too.)

[Guest Guest]

Much as I'd like to think writing a modular tactics mod has demonstrated my "talent and skill", let's not get carried away - it's not that hard. At least, it's dead easy to make optional:

I was trying to play along and give him the benefit of the doubt.

[cmorgan]

DavidW, you are right on the duck - and I laughed hard enough that my coffee will never be the same. If it passes that DNA test, then I had better send it back to the kitchen!!!

 

Also, I do not understand the reluctance for IA to be listed as a TC.

A total conversion is a new game based on the engine, not some arbitrary point at which content changes become "significant".

 

 

Well, that throws my analysis off a bit - I guess I was operating from a working definition of

 

"Total Conversion = Mod which expects primary position."

 

So perhaps PPG folks could come up with a new category.

 

I do know we have several Tutu mods on the SOTMU list which have similar problems, because I want to stuff them into a single category. For example, Ashes of Empire has both kits and weapons usage changes, etc., so in the install order it really could be split up under several categories. But frankly, the install order stuff trumps designation. That is much tougher to deal with on BG2 and BGT.

 

Perhaps our usage for BG1NPC and BGUB; "Comprehensive Mods"?

 

(Folks, this is all discussion - if PPG folks want to act on ideas posted in this thread, cool - unless it distracts from moving TBH out the door. I have cash burning a hole in my wallet... and the original poster didn't go in for all this, just wanted straight opinions and got 'em. Sorry - I did say I was pushing things off topic. Perhaps the whole classification/listing thing should be taken over to PPG? )

[jcompton]

So perhaps PPG folks could come up with a new category.

 

Nobody here realizes just how dangerous it would be, after all this tiresome harangue (and by the way, congratulations to Baronius for seizing the opportunity to deftly deflect much of the criticism about the mod into a categorization debate!) to ask me to sit down and come up with a new category name? Nobody's thought the implications of that through?

 

unless it distracts from moving TBH out the door

 

Well, that's what I mean. I'd have to come up with something so devastatingly scathing and clever that

A. It would take a while to think of, and

B. I'd end up spending days on end just staring at the new category, admiring my own scathing cleverness.

[coaster]

The situation does arise w.r.t. other games - for example, with Oblivion, if you compare "Oscuro's Oblivion Overhaul" which is (largely) non-modular, combining rebalancing of creatures etc with additional content, and Francesco's Items & Creatures, which is extremely modular/customisable but does some similar things to creature AI/rebalancing etc. IA seems to have more parallels with the former, and perhaps "overhaul mod" is a reasonable expression for capturing the sort of thing IA does.

 

Anyway, I'm not sure this thread is actually about this issue, but rather some fairly obvious (to a third party) simmering long-standing disagreements between modders. None of my business though really, I just play the damn things