Jump to content

k4thos's Proposed New Way of Handling EET Mod Compatibility


Should k4thos implement these EET changes as written?  

3 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

In the EET Mod Compatibility thread, k4thos wrote this below text.  I moved it here for visibility and ease of discussion.
 

Quote

 

In V13 I removed support for installing following mods on BG:EE previous to installing EET on BG2:EE due to native versions existing, which means they should be installed after EET:

- Baldur's Gate Mini Quests and Encounters

- Baldur's Gate Romantic Encounters Modification

- Thalantyr - Item Upgrade

- Indira NPC for BG1 Tutu

- Xan's friendship path for BG1

- Coran's BG Extended Friendship Talks for Tutu, BGT, and BGEE

- Ajantis BG1 expansion

- Finch NPC mod for Tutu, BGT and BG:EE

- Gavin NPC mod for Tutu, BGT-WeiDU, BG:EE

- Isra NPC Mod for BG:EE, BGT and TuTu Version

- Neera Banters

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

BG1 NPC Project installation on BG:EE is still supported despite native version also existing, due to install order required by some mods that don't have EET support (2 Garrick mods that seems to be dependant upon BG1NPC). There are also 2 more mods natively supported, mentioned by Endarire: Valerie NPC and BG1 Unfinished Business.

With the current state of things I'm considering introducing following changes:

1. Prepare native patches for the remaining mods myself (now that the list has less than 20 entries it became mangable for me to do so in reasonable time frame, I think) and send them to mod authors. From our conversations I know that at least Lava is interested in adding native support (Verr'Sza NPC, White NPC). cpmvars being used may be harder sell for authors who started modding with EE games, since it adds a bit inconvenience when working with code, but still worth a try.

2. After this removing whole section 1 of compatibility list. If mod doesn't have native support it's considered as not compatible.

3. Removing restriction of what mods can be installed on BG:EE and getting rid of all compatibility patches for those mods (present directly in EET code, mostly NPC transition stuff). Which means any mods will be installable on BG:EE previous to installing EET but this option is not something that is encouraged (or even mentioned anywhere in readme) and is done at player's own risk.

Cons:

- few less mods considered compatible (not all authors will be interested in incorporating native patches and hosting those patches externally is not a good idea due to mod updates making them not compatible over time)

Pros:

- easier installation process and less confusion for players (it's often criticized how hard it is to install everything when you have to think about install order on 2 different games)

- with mods installation on BG:EE not being curated situation like in the case of fan made SoD Russian translation not being supported (EET complaining that mod is not recognized) won't happen anymore

 

 

Edited by Endarire
Posted

At present, I am unsure how I feel about these proposed changes.  For the near-term, our family is sticking with game version 2.5 due to EEex among other things, but in the future, we may eventually update to 2.6.x or later.

I already have this mod list which I want updated to EET - and for spell-heavy mods, also updated to use Olvyn's Spell Tool, but that's tangential.

For the future, if adding mods to the mod list/mod wad before running EET is wise, include that as an official option and mentioned properly in the documentation.

I'm very interested in having reliable, easy ways to convert mods to EE and EET compatibility, especially if such can be easily automated!  I'm a big fan of EET and I would prefer all mods for the Baldur's Gate saga have an EET version, but I know certain mod authors (like Lava) didn't use it due to personal preference and, thus, haven't coded for it.  I also know that certain authors (like Lassal) have heavily used EET and coded all their released mods for it.

Thankee!

Posted
19 minutes ago, Endarire said:

I'm a big fan of EET and I would prefer all mods for the Baldur's Gate saga have an EET version, but I know certain mod authors (like Lava) didn't use it due to personal preference and, thus, haven't coded for it.

For the record, the fact that Lava's preferred way to play BG Saga is to play each game separately, doesn't mean he is opposed to the idea of making his mods EET compatible. It just means that coding EET compatibility is not his priority. But there are folks out there who are more than happy to contribute a necessary chunk of code for him that makes EET compatibility a reality (and it was done in the past).

I don't feel opening such poll makes sense at all. Maintaining EET compatible with each and every patch version is not feasible. The only thing that bothers me is that the core mod is so heavily dependent on EEex. Don't make me wrong, all new capabilities that EEex has brought to the table are fantastic, but it brings a problem that EET development is often hindered for many months because of EEex development (and this is hindered by new patch released by Beamdog). I think that the Core mod should be EEex independent, and all EEex related features should be optional. This would also allow using core EET content by players that use OS currently not supported by EEex (like Mac OS).

I don't know how EEex stuff is implemented in EET exactly, so not sure how feasible this approach might be.

Posted (edited)

I think there is some confusion going on in this topic.

1 hour ago, Cahir said:

 I think that the Core mod should be EEex independent, and all EEex related features should be optional. This would also allow using core EET content by players that use OS currently not supported by EEex (like Mac OS).

I don't know how EEex stuff is implemented in EET exactly, so not sure how feasible this approach might be.

EET is not dependant upon EEex. It has been updated to patch 2.6 while EEex currently stays at 2.5. EEex is only used for the IWD2 portion of unrelased IWD-in-EET mod, which is not part of the EET core itself.

1 hour ago, Endarire said:

For the future, if adding mods to the mod list/mod wad before running EET is wise, include that as an official option and mentioned properly in the documentation.

the goal of proposed change is the exact opposite - dropping official support for installing mods on BG:EE previous to installing EET on BG2:EE (with the option still existing but not endorsed, nor curated in any way with compatibility lists and patches - install whatever you want at your own risk).

For every remaining mod on BG:EE installation list (but only those, less than 20 at the moment) I'm offering mod authors help with creating native EET compatibility ready to be incorporated with mod (without breaking compatibility with other platforms) and offer full technical support myself for those changes until enough people confirm that they are bug free.

Edited by K4thos
Posted
3 hours ago, K4thos said:

EET is not dependant upon EEex. It has been updated to patch 2.6 while EEex currently stays at 2.5. EEex is only used for the IWD2 portion of unrelased IWD-in-EET mod, which is not part of the EET core itself.

Sorry, I was not clear. I meant IWD1. Is it possible to separate IWD1 from IWD2, so that players that cannot or don't want to use EEex could play IWD1 part of IWD-in-EET and skip IWD2 part? 

Posted

To clarify, I didn't intend to imply that certain authors like Lava were against EET compatibility (and Lava has outsourced EET compatibility of some of his mods like Quayle BG2EE), but that, like Cahir said, this was not the mod author's preferred play style.

Posted

Just to confirm: I do not play EET so whenever I feel my mod is more or less ready, I am open to talk about EET compatibility and updating the mod with changes made by someone who can actually apply needed tweaks/changes/fixes and after testing.

I actually sent K4thos a question if he has some time to work with me on EET compatibility for SotSC.

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...