Mod Compatibility List for EET

[subtledoctor]

Just to be crystal clear, at no point did I "request something already inside BWS." I didn't request anything. Someone suggested a blanket rule of prioritizing other mods over IR, and I recommended against doing that because IR is a very popular mod. That's all.

 

The idea that anyone can just fork BWS and offer their own version is a bit specious. I mean, I couldn't even test such a fork to make sure it works. And TBH it sounds a little bit like you are suggesting people should STFU and fork the project instead of offering suggestions or constructive criticism. Surely people can discuss the tool's workings like adults...? I mean after all, it is a collaborative, open-source project, as you pointed out.

 

As for the UUID thing, that's a whole other conversation. I am sympathetic to your viewpoint there - I think, from a technical standpoint, you are right. BUT I also think it would be a shame not to go forward with creating a good tool for that reason. DESIGNATED is not perfect but it's probably good enough 99% of the time, and most mods rarely or never change their DESIGNATED numbers. And if they did and it messed things up in your post-BWS tool, it would become apparent and discussed on forums and the issue could be fixed.

 

But again, very much talking in the abstract now.

[Jarno Mikkola]

And TBH it sounds a little bit like you are suggesting people should STFU and fork the project instead of offering suggestions or constructive criticism. Surely people can discuss the tool's workings like adults...? I mean after all, it is a collaborative, open-source project, as you pointed out.

Yeah, the thing you forget is that the original can be downgrated and a fork can be promoted to be the main fork, if it works better than the original. That's how co-operation works man. And because you are on a different OS, means that you might want to STFU, as you know nothing about this.

Edited April 8, 2018 by Jarno Mikkola

[jastey]

Remain civil, everyone, please.

[Roxanne]

So, which is the better way ahead?

1) Wait for the *New BWS* that Alien has kind of officially announced in the previous posts

 

OR

 

2) Fork a copy of *Old BWS* to Github (instead of Bitbucket, which modders rarely use) and then

• strip it off the outdated game selections
• remove abandoned mods and those only usable by unsupported games
• remove pre-selections and recommendations
• remove the term *preferred* from conflict resolution proposals

The result would be a kind of BWS-EE (those are the games still supported) that primarily works by the mod selection screen and manual compilation/conflict resolution. Users need to invest a bit more time into composing their game selection but have all freedom of choice (yes, they already have that now but often do not recognize it as they are afraid to ignore warnings). Automated download, extraction, patching,and installation of mods remain the benefits of using the tool.

De facto, this is already what current BWS does, only it is not obvious to the average users because fancy menu options, buttons, pulldown menus etc suggest functionality that has already become meaningless. The stripped down version would only make more transparent to the user what is REALLY provided and what not.

While writing it down, I gave myself the answer already. An "honest" BWS has little chance of acceptance because users will complain about the *missing* parts even if those are just illusions because they no longer work.

 

Conclusion?

Do manual installs until the *New BWS* is released. Or use your own fork like I will use mine.

[Ser Elryk]

@Roxanne

 

Just for clarification: what would that mean for people who exclusively use the EE versions, but are dependent on BWS (due to lack of tech savvy)? Will it still work as normal until the release of the "New BWS"?

[Roxanne]

@Roxanne

 

Just for clarification: what would that mean for people who exclusively use the EE versions, but are dependent on BWS (due to lack of tech savvy)? Will it still work as normal until the release of the "New BWS"?

No panic. This is just a discussion in what can/should be done.

And even if...BWS is a community tool and will not disappear.

[AL|EN]

The idea that anyone can just fork BWS and offer their own version is a bit specious. I mean, I couldn't even test such a fork to make sure it works. And TBH it sounds a little bit like you are suggesting people should STFU and fork the project instead of offering suggestions or constructive criticism. Surely people can discuss the tool's workings like adults...? I mean after all, it is a collaborative, open-source project, as you pointed out.

You rise a concern that BWS conflicts cold be biased by someone with administrator rights. I give you an exact example how anyone can avoid such situation if he thinks that you concerns are true. What I'm saying is that is impossible to have 'bad actor' as admin of the BWS because of it's open source. Then, you take my explanation as 'STFU and fork the project instead of offering suggestions or constructive criticism'? Seriusly?

 

As for the UUID thing, that's a whole other conversation. I am sympathetic to your viewpoint there - I think, from a technical standpoint, you are right. BUT I also think it would be a shame not to go forward with creating a good tool for that reason. DESIGNATED is not perfect but it's probably good enough 99% of the time, and most mods rarely or never change their DESIGNATED numbers. And if they did and it messed things up in your post-BWS tool, it would become apparent and discussed on forums and the issue could be fixed.

 

It's every easy to say something like above as a person who is not aware how much work you need to put into it and as someone who have no intention spending his time to do it. From my experience it works for 80% cases. Each time when it doesn't, it breaks exported/saved mod list/selections and conflict definitions. And guess what?Players will blame you/you tool! Then you will move guilt to the modders. I've did it enough times to say that it's not a solution which is worth serious investment. If you think otherwise, feel free to do it.

 

But again, very much talking in the abstract now.

We are talking about abstract because currently there are no fundamentals for new BWS. Those aren't in my hands. Modders can help but I wonder, how many of you would support something only for the purpose of the BWS/other external system. Wana try and see for yourself?

 

So, which is the better way ahead?

1) Wait for the *New BWS* that Alien has kind of officially announced in the previous posts

 

OR

 

2) Fork a copy of *Old BWS* to Github (instead of Bitbucket, which modders rarely use) and then

...

While writing it down, I gave myself the answer already. An "honest" BWS has little chance of acceptance because users will complain about the *missing* parts even if those are just illusions because they no longer work.

 

 

I never announce anything. The only thing which I've mentioned across various discussions that the reason why next BWS can't be created is that it lacks strong fundamentals.

 

If the old 'classic BWS' will still have BG2/BGT/other old games while new BWS-EE won't, the complain about the *missing* parts won't happen because you can redirect it to the 'Classic BWS'. I already said that I have nothing against such move if it can bring more quality/less work time.

Edited April 9, 2018 by ALIENQuake

[subtledoctor]

We are talking about abstract because currently there are no fundamentals for new BWS. Those aren't in my hands. Modders can help but I wonder, how many of you would support something only for the purpose of the BWS/other external system. Wana try and see for yourself?

If it's cross-platform, I'll be happy to pitch in. If I can't use it, then I probably won't.

Edited April 9, 2018 by subtledoctor

[AL|EN]

 

We are talking about abstract because currently there are no fundamentals for new BWS. Those aren't in my hands. Modders can help but I wonder, how many of you would support something only for the purpose of the BWS/other external system. Wana try and see for yourself?

If it's cross-platform, I'll be happy to pitch in. If I can't use it, then I problem won't.

 

Just to be crystal clear: I'm talking about putting single file with 6 lines of text into mod repository. No coding required. The data can be used via old BWS, next BWS and any external tool/system. You decision seems to be dependent only at the fact that the OS which you have choose, doesn't have tools which can make use of this data. Don't you think that decision should depend only on the usefulness of the solution for the players/community maintainers? So the majority of the players will benefit from it?

 

And no one is stoping anyone from creating a tool for OSX which will use 'MOD DATA'. You could even adapt you OS-X-Weidu-Launcher to make use of it. But you have to give something first to the potential developers. I'm sure that you don't expect that people will spend a year or more to develop a new tool only to hear 'nah, not goona support it'.

 

So I ask again: will you provide fundamentals for new tools across you mods?

Edited April 9, 2018 by ALIENQuake

[subtledoctor]

I meant pitching in to help out in the creation of an actual next-gen BWS. If people create a Windows-only modding tool in 2018, then I won't bother much with it. Near Infinity and Weidu have been cross-platform for like 15 years now! But if a team is working on a cross-platform project, then I would help as I am able.

 

As far as adding something to my mods: write up some code in a .tpa file, make it something I can drop into my mod's /lib folder and INCLUDE in the .tp2, and make sure it doesn't have any effect other than in the presence of your conflict-recognition function... sure, I have no problem with that.

 

But you'll never get every mod to do that, if only because not every mod still has someone to do it. So what would the plan be? If you've devised a system that only works with 100% opt-in, then it will never work.

Edited April 9, 2018 by subtledoctor

[AL|EN]

I'm glad to hear that minimum support won't be a problem, it's even simpler than you think. Don't worry about other mods. The data for those can be added via Fixpack etc. The system is not 100% opt-in but the main goal of it is to give back the control of mod metadata into modders hands and free community maintainers from modders work. I will send you one small PR and then we can see what it might bring. The Rome wasn't build after one day.

Edited April 9, 2018 by ALIENQuake

[Kaliesto]

I admit I feel pretty useless as I know next to nothing when it comes to programming, but I always appreciated this community for trying to build something that will last for years to come. Also wanted to thank the modder recently for addressing the changes in the Recommended Setting, I was confused at first why mostly everything was unchecked, but as long it doesn't affect the modding itself then all is fine really.

 

Btw I noticed wasn't able to reach lava for comment if Southern Edge was coming to EET compatibility at some point, I don't think I ever saw that listed on BWS, if anyone can reach him later I appreciate it! I just love his work and dedication to make a fun mod really.

[Jarno Mikkola]

Btw I noticed wasn't able to reach lava for comment if Southern Edge was coming to EET compatibility at some point, I don't think I ever saw that listed on BWS, if anyone can reach him later I appreciate it! I just love his work and dedication to make a fun mod really.

Looking at the included code, it already is. As it has...

ACTION_IF (GAME_IS ~bg2ee eet~) BEGIN

as a part of the install.tph, which is included into the SouthernEdge.tp2 ... at least in the current version, which is .... v2.10.zip .

 

Ouh, and not to mention ... but Lava said this there:

 

The mod now works on BG2EE, BG2 and EET

The BWS is not obliged to include it. And you have to go and look a darn hard to verify that it's not included like said in the other thread, aka even if the BWS doesn't recommend a mod, doesn't mean it's not ... nor does it actually tell you anymore that the state of the mod, as today, NONE of the content mods are/should be recommended anymore, as it happens to be that that's an old definition which has no longer a use. Unlike it did in the ancient days.

Edited April 12, 2018 by Jarno Mikkola

[Roxanne]

I admit I feel pretty useless as I know next to nothing when it comes to programming, but I always appreciated this community for trying to build something that will last for years to come. Also wanted to thank the modder recently for addressing the changes in the Recommended Setting, I was confused at first why mostly everything was unchecked, but as long it doesn't affect the modding itself then all is fine really.

 

As long as the BWS still aims to support classic and EE games, we have the problem that some things valid for the old game will appear in EE/EET as well even if they are no longer really applicable. The recommended/tactical etc settings are one thing, compilations and conflicts are another example. Changes here will ripple back into *classic* game support or vice versa.

Since there is no programmer involved anymore with BWS, we reached some dead end here. The only real solution (you can see hints to this in some recent posts in this topic from last week) is the fork the EE-BWS away from the *classic* BWS.

This would allow to streamline e.g. EET-BWS support and make it more flexible and transparent while maintaining good support for the average user.

One example would be a pre-selection for something like SCS. You decide to include SCS into your mod selection and then the tool gives you a basic choice of components that has been tested for an EET setup. You will be save to use this but free to add like more tactical challenges etc to it.

 

Current BWS solution is surely a half baked attempt to serve as many requests as possible at the price of doing nothing to full satisfaction. Concentrating on fewer essential things but doing those right would be an option.

 

Whether such a streamlined *EE-BWS.* will see the light of day is another question, currently the feasibility is evaluated.

"Time for more experiments".

[Kaliesto]

I like that idea! Basically anybody can provide their own BWS-EET Template based on their own player experience and there is many modders and players that have already thoroughly tested this game! Is this correct if I'm understanding correctly? Actually I think I tried to throw that idea around back on SHS Forums, but I think no one really took me seriously on that idea few years ago. Not only will this save headaches of player disappointment by finding out their selection of mods broke their game at some point, but also relieve the stress of accidentally selecting bad mods.

 

I would know, back before EET was a thing..my classic game broke due to one or two big mods somewhere in the mix in BG1. Fast forward to EET when the bugs were still being squashed, I unfortunately got corrupted movie selection with random texts thus realizing my BG1-SoD-BG2 didn't actually install successfully. I was thinking at the time SoD was not fully compatible yet with certain mods even with the Mod-Merge tool, hopefully I can avoid it or it was fixed long time ago.

 

If I'm not mistaken you experimented with a lot mods didn't you? I'm kind of curious to know what BWS selection you made since you managed to avoid most bugs.

 

 

Also I suppose for regular users at this point, they will have to manually put the mod like Southern Edge into the specific folder before running BWS to be installed with EET?

Edited April 12, 2018 by Kaliesto