Viconia knows Holy Smite

[DavidW]

Have you guys thought about adding an "optional and not cool" component for things that clearly are bugs but that enough people have got to like over the years that they'll be annoyed to lose them? (Infinite-range paladin Detect Evil also comes to mind here).

 

Obviously those people can, as you say, just not install the Fixpack, but there's a lot to be said for holding on to the idea of a pretty-much-universally-accepted Fixpack that everyone's mods can assume as a starting point.

[Azazello]

Note to self: don't use Fixpack after version 3

You honestly feel that not gaining the benefit of an untold number of additional bug fixes is worth a single NPC having a single spell that really isn't that great anyway?

 

I have a sneaking suspicion you may be alone in this view.

I have a nagging suspicion - a feeling right in the center, between the shoulderblades - that this view is not singular, and will only grow as the fixpack gets more popular.

 

What worries me is that players are gonna get to that point which Guest implied: keep the fixpack, or go back to the "good ole way". Don't overestimate people's attachment to their favorite settings environment. Despite all of the bugs, holes and oversights that fixpack has highlighted about the original game, the old method - either Baldurdash, Dudleyville, or some other fixes - 'just worked'. Maybe not as thoroughly, maybe not as expertly as fixpack, but still doesn't remove the retort.

 

I've been wanting to write what DavidW said for some time. There are aspects of BG that seem to be the original developers' intentions - even when these intentions seem illogical - and aspects that don't fit PnP canon, yet these aspects have been a part of the game for so long, they cannot be summarily dismissed. (Well, they can, and have, but there are repercussions for doing so).

 

In essence, maybe it's time to branch the optional components to a separate mod. Let players submit their wishlist requests; not all have to be accepted, but most should. Let the newbie coders (and the old pros) work on and maintain the options. Sort of a tweakpack for the fixpack.

 

OK, I already hear grumbles and fist-pounding: people are going to ask for every-little-thing, this is gonna get out of control, etc.

 

Maybe. Yet, if something's not done, nagging-shoulderblade tells me that someone is gonna present an alternate fixpack to challenge this one. And we will be back where we started.

 

Even though the fixpack is still beta, not too early to start talking about this.

 

BTW I'm gonna take a stand and say I fully support the G3 BG2 Fixpack. 'Fully', as in politico-speak, 'in and around 90%'.

[NiGHTMARE]

Then my question to such people would be: if you don't care about bug fixes, why are you even using a fixpack in the first place?

[Kish]

I've been wanting to write what DavidW said for some time. There are aspects of BG that seem to be the original developers' intentions - even when these intentions seem illogical - and aspects that don't fit PnP canon, yet these aspects have been a part of the game for so long, they cannot be summarily dismissed.

Note that complying with "P&P canon" is not a goal of the fixpack. If you can offer compelling evidence that something is intended by the developers, I'm reasonably certain CamDawg will maintain it that way regardless of both P&P's stance and that of anyone who says "but it sucks."

 

That said, I think your chances of getting a fixpack which doesn't fix any clear bugs that it's able to fix is negligible. "But I like that bug and it's been a part of the game for a long time"--I don't think that's a logically valid argument, I'm sorry. If people don't use the fixpack because they value their double XP from talking to a statue quickly enough, oh well.

[NiGHTMARE]

The other thing is, if someone is so attached to a particular "feature" they can't live without it, editing the .tp2 to remove the fix is a relatively simple process.

[Chev]

Then my question to such people would be: if you don't care about bug fixes, why are you even using a fixpack in the first place?

Because some mod I want to play says that it is needed.

 

What worries me is that players are gonna get to that point which Guest implied: keep the fixpack, or go back to the "good ole way". Don't overestimate people's attachment to their favorite settings environment.

Already happened Baldurdash-WeiDU 1.6

[NiGHTMARE]

Because some mod I want to play says that it is needed.

 

I don't see why any mod should need the current or past versions of the Fixpack in order to work. A mod author might think his mod requires the Fixpack just because he hasn't tested his mod without it, or he might believe that all players of his mod should be using the Fixpack, but neither of these are the same as the mod actually requiring the Fixpack in order to work. After all, if the original game works just fine without Baldurdash, the Fixpack, or some other patch, why should a mod be any different?

 

Of course, once the revised Scriptable Spells is added to the mod things will be different, but I imagine that will be part of the Super Happy Fun Lucky Modder Pack rather than the main component; meaning people still won't have to install the fixes if they're really that strongly opposed to a change to something which is trivial to everyone else, but absolutely vital to them. (And as I said, they can always just edit the .tp2 and delete or comment out the offending code anyway.)

[SimDing0]

I can't really write much about BD-WeiDU here without Baronius coming and talking about respect for 5 pages, but I would suggest that returning to "the good old days" of Baldurdash including an arbitrary and oft-ridiculed quest under the guise of a fix may not be an optimal path, even if it may coincidentally empower you to use Aerie with a spell designed to be restricted from good characters, or, uh, whatever you're actually complaining about.

[DavidW]

I perhaps ought to flag that I don't personally care either way about this - I'm not enough in love with any particular microdetail of the game that I mind it being removed if it's wrong in some sensibly-defined sense! I just thought I'd mention the possibility in case it was useful.

[CamDawg]

Have you guys thought about adding an "optional and not cool" component for things that clearly are bugs but that enough people have got to like over the years that they'll be annoyed to lose them? (Infinite-range paladin Detect Evil also comes to mind here).

Where possible, we do try to hold to keeping familiarity. An example: when addressing Viconia's missing proficiency stars, it's easier to simply use the ones BD assigned because that's what people have come to expect. (This is despite the fact I think it's silly to assign her a point in flails when she's not strong enough to wield one.)

 

What worries me is that players are gonna get to that point which Guest implied: keep the fixpack, or go back to the "good ole way". Don't overestimate people's attachment to their favorite settings environment. Despite all of the bugs, holes and oversights that fixpack has highlighted about the original game, the old method - either Baldurdash, Dudleyville, or some other fixes - 'just worked'. Maybe not as thoroughly, maybe not as expertly as fixpack, but still doesn't remove the retort.

I've never seen the Fixpack as mandatory. If players are more comfortable with the old BD, please use it--Fixpack isn't some draconian mandate. (Naturally I feel we have a better project than anything else currently available... ) I've made this comment in jest before, but I really think it's true: given the sheer number of fixes made by the Fixpack, I think any given player can find something (and probably many somethings) to which they object.

 

As a modder I've always catered to players; Tweaks basically started as me coding up player requests. In Fixpack, I find that catering to players can no longer be the sole, primary objective. It can not work without so-called authoritative judgment calls of This Is A Bug And Shall Be Fixed Thusly (though we've tried to lessen the impact by encouraging feedback and examination of our methods). I've never been one of those modders who declares "it's my mod, you'll play it the way I want you to" and I'll admit my role in the Fixpack is one in which I'm thoroughly uncomfortable.

 

That said, I think your chances of getting a fixpack which doesn't fix any clear bugs that it's able to fix is negligible. "But I like that bug and it's been a part of the game for a long time"--I don't think that's a logically valid argument, I'm sorry.

More to the point, such a statement would preclude Fixpack from making any changes whatsoever as everything falls into this category. This is the same hole into which "but you can't be 100% sure it's developer intent" falls.

 

I'm not a fan of trying to break Fixpack into hundreds of optional components for a variety of reasons, the most important of which are:

• Simplicity. It doesn't get any simpler than one "if it's a bug, it gets fixed" component.
  
• Expectation. Just like the old BD package, it also gives a stable development platform against which to develop mods. Modders will know what will be present and in what form with Fixpack; they won't have to rely on the player selecting Core Fixes Component #147.
  
• Maintenance. One of the reasons why a modular approach was rejected in the planning stages is that the maintenance costs become exponential. I have first-hand experience with this trying to maintain Tweaks, and while it was never explicitly mentioned when combining G3/Tutu and EoU, reducing maintenance tie was a prime goal of BG2 Tweaks. Breaking up Fixpack into smaller components would suck up a huge amount of time we'd rather devote to new fixes.
  

[CamDawg]

On a related and hopefully less contentious note, Jaheira knows Zone of Sweet Air, which is flagged as Cleric/Paladin. The spell description doesn't specify whether it's meant to be all priests, cleric, or druid (but then, they often don't). While I'm comfortable changing this to an all-priest spell for my own use, for Fixpack purposes it probably ought to be nixed as it doesn't seem to be a special "Harper's Call" style bene.

Note to self: Don't use Fixpack after beta 3.

[Gorilym]

On a related and hopefully less contentious note, Jaheira knows Zone of Sweet Air, which is flagged as Cleric/Paladin. The spell description doesn't specify whether it's meant to be all priests, cleric, or druid (but then, they often don't). While I'm comfortable changing this to an all-priest spell for my own use, for Fixpack purposes it probably ought to be nixed as it doesn't seem to be a special "Harper's Call" style bene.

Note to self: Don't use Fixpack after beta 3.

 

 

Hilarious.

[Ithildur]

On a related and hopefully less contentious note, Jaheira knows Zone of Sweet Air, which is flagged as Cleric/Paladin. The spell description doesn't specify whether it's meant to be all priests, cleric, or druid (but then, they often don't). While I'm comfortable changing this to an all-priest spell for my own use, for Fixpack purposes it probably ought to be nixed as it doesn't seem to be a special "Harper's Call" style bene.

Note to self: Don't use Fixpack after beta 3.

 

 

Hilarious.

 

 

Leave stuff like this for Divine Remix. It's not a bugfix. You guys are getting carried away with the so called BG'Fix'pack

[Ithildur]

I mean, seriously. At this rate you shouldn't call the Fixpack a fixpack, but an enhancement or tweak mod of the original game.

 

At this rate

 

Baldurdash= bugfix/fixpack,

BG2Fixpack=tweak/mod/enhancement

 

The name will not be accurate, time to come up with a different name calling it what it is.

[NiGHTMARE]

How exactly is fixing a bug not a bug fix?