[Discussion] Should Fixpack de-duplicate unique items?

[DavidW]

I'd like to split the discussion of item duplication into two, since it's getting fairly confused. 

In this thread, we can discuss whether de-duplicating items is a bug at all, and whether it should be included in the main EE fixpack, or made an optional component, or gated by an ini check, or just left out entirely for another mod.

The other thread is for discussion of the details of how to do item deduplication.

[suy]

It feels a bug to me, as the lore of the description of the items is a bit inconsistent if there are several with the same name in some cases. As you said, the fact that there are generic versions of those items is quite telling.

Also, I would prefer that there is a way to not install the component, as I fear it could be an issue with some mod (Item Randomiser is one of my fixed ones, and I don't see how this could be made compatible nicely). But the fact that the bg2-uniqueartifacts exists also shows that there is demand for something that fixes the wrinkle of items being duplicated.

[Graion Dilach]

I'm not happy with how this is going but now that you want to dedicate a whole thread, I'll say out what bothers me the most regarding this topic.

For the record, I consider the imminent committing to the repository instead of keeping it in a separate branch or a fork as a form of power abuse. The feature being merged immediately before anyone was able to share their views combined with the protective tone doesn't sit well with me and I find it very unethical. I can understand that you don't want to imply being dismissive here but I find the whole situation such and this makes me very uncomfortable. Call me cynical but this really doesn't imply there is room for criticism and this gives me trust issues.

I am neutral on this and I can accept it being in/can even participate in fixing other mods if required. The process bothers me and not the actual change.

Edited May 5, 2022 by Graion Dilach

[CamDawg]

12 minutes ago, Graion Dilach said:

For the record, I consider the imminent committing to the repository instead of keeping it in a separate branch or a fork as a form of power abuse. The feature being merged immediately before anyone was able to share their views combined with the protective tone doesn't sit well with me and I find it very unethical. I can understand that you don't want to imply being dismissive here but I find the whole situation such and this makes me very uncomfortable. Call me cynical but this really doesn't imply there is room for criticism and this gives me trust issues.

These are some serious accusations to be throwing around, so I'll try to address them before we get too far.

1. David submitted this originally as a separate component, and I'm the one who merged it into the mainline fixes.
2. David and I have worked directly on the repo in other joint projects in the past, which leads into:
3. Just because someone is using Github, don't assume they're familiar enough with the development process to fork and pull, or the etiquette involved in such. I recently made my own fork only because I thought I was making a lot more work for Luke and argent--the idea that I was somehow 'abusing my privilege' is something that legitimately never occurred to me.
4. David did post about these prior to committing them, which puts him ahead of both Luke and myself, who have both committed fixes and then posted about them for discussion. In my post-commit posts, I've specifically highlighted stuff that I think someone may object to (no one has yet, but I'm always prepared for removal or changes based on feedback); Luke has backed out some of his changes based on feedback.

I'll just wrap this up with a final comment: I invite you, or anyone so inclined, to examine the two decades of my modding history--which includes two fixpacks--and reach your own conclusions as to my inclination and responsiveness to feedback and criticism. I'm perfectly willing to stand on my record and, while I cannot speak for them, I suspect the other contributors are also willing.

[subtledoctor]

On topic: I don't know; it feels kind of similar to lazily re-using a texture here or there. That may negatively affect how players enjoy a game, but I wouldn't call it a "bug."

Here, there is some fluff text which is contradicted by the game files and gameplay. So the fluff text is wrong. Is that a bug? Honestly I'm on the fence.

Further, does this have to be a bright-line rule? Sure it would be nice if the text was accurate, and if the inaccuracy can be corrected easily that would be nice. But in some cases the fix is more difficult, or just more complex, or has more collateral consequences. I think some stark examples of this are Rashad's Talon on the one hand, and the Boots of Speed or Ardulia's Fall on the other hand. The former example is a very simple fix - make one of the scimitars in BG1 into a generic scimitar +2. I don't think this will really have any negative effect on player's gameplay - it will not change anything mechanically, it will not affect any mods, and players will still have access to the unique item. (It will effectively make the unique item less special - the whole point of Rashad's Talon in BG1 was to give you a +2 scimitar, and adding a generic on of those does take away very slightly from what makes Rashad's Talon cool... but then again having two of the unique item also takes away from what makes it cool, so this very slight downside is entirely negated.)

By contrast, proposed fixes for the Boots of Speed or Ardualia's Fall seem like they could have more collateral consequences, and be subject to less consensus about the "right" way to correct them. So the more I think about it... the more I think maybe it would be best to just leave them be? If they are controversial, then maybe apply the lightest touch possible, which is none. They can always be "fixed" by other players in other mods, after all, and those mods can encompass all manner of fixes and there is no need for consensus in that case.

[DavidW]

On a concrete design point; I think it is much more sensible development protocol for this project to code proposed fixes as modular tph files in the master branch, where swapping them in or out is just a matter of an INCLUDE, rather then keeping them as a spiderweb of unresolved pull requests. Ironically, the GitHub branch model requires a much more hierarchical framework than I think Cam is aiming for.

[Awachi]

I don't know who this fix is for. Is someone traumatized because there's more than one of a "unique" item? This isn't a typo, or wonky grammar. It's not the description not correctly describing the function of the item. Is there a cabal of librarians funding this topic? 

[DavidW]

19 minutes ago, Awachi said:

I don't know who this fix is for. Is someone traumatized because there's more than one of a "unique" item? This isn't a typo, or wonky grammar. It's not the description not correctly describing the function of the item. Is there a cabal of librarians funding this topic? 

On the current logic we’re using for FP, fixes don’t need to be ‘for’ anyone. Something counts as a bug if it fits the developer-intent definition (see Cam’s other thread).

Of course it’s open to anyone either to propose a different FP logic, or dispute whether it applies in this case.

[The_Baffled_King]

When I discovered the EEs in 2020, having not played Baldur's Gate for nearly 20 years, among the few things that I very specifically recalled appreciating two decades earlier was the backstories given to unique items. Finding duplicates of these items is weird, and I don't enjoy it. That said, I was not arguing for this fix on the basis of my preference - in the stickied thread "[Discussion] What exactly are we trying to fix?", on page 2, I wrote an 826-word post advocating for EEFP to keep in mind the preferences of a playstyle that is diametrically opposed to my own. If anyone suspects me of being deliberately selfish, please consider what I've just said (but don't reply; don't wanna derail this thread).

I'll be honest that, from page 2 of the original thread for this fix onwards, my interest in the debate has been driven less by the fix itself, and more by what the debate might tell me about how I can expect EEFP to proceed. I have a strong opinion on what makes shared projects - by which I mean any project without an authority figure directing subordinates to work to the authority figure's specifications - proceed smoothly. In the context of EEFP, that opinion is about as unrestrictive an opinion as you might find, save for the fact that it's quite rigid on the benefits of deciding EEFP's design principles at an early stage, and trying not to re-litigate them in relation to every proposed change that lacks unanimous approval.

However, I'm going to pivot away from my opinion about what makes projects proceed smoothly and highlight why it matters to me. With all things in life, before I invest my time in anything, I consider it important to estimate in advance whether that investment of time is likely to be worth my while. Sure, I get side tracked; I procrastinate; I make bad estimates; I make good estimates that just don't work out... but, if I don't have the information to even make an estimate, that's a pretty substantial red flag for me.

Here's how that works with an EEFP that adheres to [design standard], which is hopefully not too controversial: if I spend time racking my memory for issues for EEFP, I need consider only [design standard]. If I think I have an issue that meets [design standard], I can safely spend time making a thread knowing that not many people will argue that [other design standard] applies. If someone starts a thread about an issue because they think it meets [design standard], I'll know that my time spent debating whether said issue really meets [design standard] can be worthwhile. If someone starts a thread about an issue that I think actually meets [other design standard], I know that won't be an issue to invest much time in.

Sometimes, I will be wrong about whether an issue meets [design standard]; sometimes, I will be right, but that won't be the majority view. In the latter case, if I repeatedly disagree with the majority interpretation of [design standard], I get to change my estimate about the value of participating. Even if EEFP adopts a design standard of "majority vote on every issue; no consistency or justification required", though I will think it a bad standard, I will at least know that it's worth posting "+1" or "-1", but nothing more.

At the moment, I have no idea what [design standard] is. Until I do, I'm not going to say anything further about whether any fix should be implemented, including this one.

[The_Baffled_King]

2 hours ago, Awachi said:

I don't know who this fix is for. Is someone traumatized because there's more than one of a "unique" item? This isn't a typo, or wonky grammar. It's not the description not correctly describing the function of the item. Is there a cabal of librarians funding this topic? 

I used to work in a public library service. I'm sure that librarians aren't funding this, as we weren't paid enough to fund anything much. That said, while I hestitate to speak for the entirety of my former profession, I think all would agree that libraries would quickly go to **** if we had to discuss the dewey decimal system every time a book needed shelving.

Edited May 6, 2022 by The_Baffled_King

[subtledoctor]

1 hour ago, The_Baffled_King said:

At the moment, I have no idea what [design standard] is.

I think it us pretty clear that the [design standard] is, “something should be fixed if it is not working as intended.”

I have doubts as to whether (fluff text being inaccurate about an item being unique) meets that standard. But maybe it does? Maybe it’s in s bit of a gray area? Maybe the text itself isn’t a bug, per se, but calls attention to something that is? I think the point of this thread is to hash that out. Case in point:

1 hour ago, The_Baffled_King said:

specifically recalled appreciating two decades earlier was the backstories given to unique items. Finding duplicates of these items is weird, and I don't enjoy it.

Things like Rashad’s Talon or the Ardulia’s Fall quest reward seem to pretty clearly be oversights. Thus, they would seem to meet the standard of something being contrary to developer design intent due to an oversight. 

By contrast, while the description of the Boots of Speed was obviously intentionally written, the devs subsequently put SIX of the things in the game. That also seems pretty damn intentional. Doesn’t seem like an oversight to me! Basically working as intended, even if weird or unenjoyable.* Therefore, doesn’t meet the standard calling for a fix. 

Discuss.

* (Because if “weird and unenjoyable” is the standard, then there’s this one guy in Nashkel whose dialogue keeps stuttering and repeating, I’d like to deem him a bug!)

Edited May 6, 2022 by subtledoctor

[marchitek]

I think right before thread separation one IMHO super important point was made by @Greenhorn and I want refer to it:

Quote

Quote

But they also got licence for remake of Baldur's Gate series under clause that they are not allowed to change content of the original games. Sure, they made some additions to original parts but SoD is the only content which they can call their own ( in addition to some gladiatorial fun) and very likely reason why they didn't forced their concept of generic magical items from SoD on the rest of the game. Do you have a right to make that change? Decide for yourself.  

Beamdog's license clearly does not prevent them from fixing bugs, and we are discussing bugs here. 

I think EEFP should contain only changes that in unlimited time, money, good will etc from BD could make into final patch. This is IMHO clearly "practical" definition of bug here.

To make it more theoretical: I think we cannot assume that "developer intention" was something that in case of unlimited time, money, good will etc wouldn't make into final game. Maybe "developer intention" was to don't add additional item duplicates in content they create, but also their intention was to leave original game content without change. It is possible, right? And if generic items added by BD are ONLY in content they created, it is kind of clear to me that they have no intention to add them to original game content. We cannot claim "developer intention" on something that developers haven't done on purpose.

To finish with example: If BD would add in SoD exact same Hobgoblin that exists in oBG but with one additional script block to improve AI,  should EEFP add this script block to all Hobgoblins in original game content?

For now (if I understand correctly) BD not only didn't remove duplicates in original game content, but also add some on their own (like Scimitar +2, 'Rashad's Talon'). So this make me even more confused about all of this. Maybe EEFP should de-duplicate items but ONLY in content added by BD?

EDIT: Just to clarify. By "fixed by EEFP" I mean core component. I think, adding arguably good ideas of SoD to original game content could be good candidate for "optional but cool". Although I need to agree that having two exact same items in terms of abilities, but with different names and descriptions, can be seen as bug for someone not very into this topic, it's not good game design I would say.

Edited May 6, 2022 by marchitek

[Greenhorn]

2 hours ago, marchitek said:

I think right before thread separation one IMHO super important point was made by @Greenhorn and I want refer to it:

I think EEFP should contain only changes that in unlimited time, money, good will etc from BD could make into final patch. This is IMHO clearly "practical" definition of bug here.

To make it more theoretical: I think we cannot assume that "developer intention" was something that in case of unlimited time, money, good will etc wouldn't make into final game. Maybe "developer intention" was to don't add additional item duplicates in content they create, but also their intention was to leave original game content without change. It is possible, right? And if generic items added by BD are ONLY in content they created, it is kind of clear to me that they have no intention to add them to original game content. We cannot claim "developer intention" on something that developers haven't done on purpose.

To finish with example: If BD would add in SoD exact same Hobgoblin that exists in oBG but with one additional script block to improve AI,  should EEFP add this script block to all Hobgoblins in original game content?

For now (if I understand correctly) BD not only didn't remove duplicates in original game content, but also add some on their own (like Scimitar +2, 'Rashad's Talon'). So this make me even more confused about all of this. Maybe EEFP should de-duplicate items but ONLY in content added by BD?

EDIT: Just to clarify. By "fixed by EEFP" I mean core component. I think, adding arguably good ideas of SoD to original game content could be good candidate for "optional but cool". Although I need to agree that having two exact same items in terms of abilities, but with different names and descriptions, can be seen as bug for someone not very into this topic, it's not good game design I would say.

+1. I would also like to add that [ design standard ] should be common sense. I'm simply not Lawful neutral by nature.  

Edited May 6, 2022 by Greenhorn

[Salk]

My (quick) 2 cents: if we keep the word "unique" in one item description, I believe the Player has a legit expectation to not find any duplicate of such item. 

If that is not the case, the text needs amendment, unless we want to imply that the word "unique" there has a different meaning than "one of a kind". 

I would like for it to be an optional component though.

Edited May 6, 2022 by Salk

[Graion Dilach]

@DavidW Sorry about my prior post. @CamDawg's point 3 hits my nail on the head and I guess I assumed way too much here - I got used to git communication flows too much i guess.