33 replies to this topic

[Demivrgvs]

...the original exchange between Miloch and Demivrgvs was about writing the mod in the first place (as least that's how I understood it).

Actually the "original exchange" was that Miloch every now and then states that overwriting is evil, that I should categorically re-do everything to patch because that's the only way to do, and that if there's any issue than Revisions mod are to be blamed first just because of that.

I'm arguing against the notion that overwriting is somehow necessary or the only way to to it (or the best way to do it).

That's actually what I argued the first time ages ago to Miloch...patching is not necessarily the best way to do it too, at least not for Revisions main components, whereas I do agree in most occasions it really is. In fact thanks to Mike and Ardanis more and more components were, and will be, removed from the main component and added as separate patching ones.

P.S

you are effectively unloading the burden of compatibility on the other mod. Any compatibility-related problems will be the other mod's fault and it will be up to the other mod to accommodate your mod.

This is really untrue, as I'm always around to help players fix issues even when they are not caused by my mods, and when it comes to compatibility we've always done all we could to assure it between as much mods as possible, sometimes even with mods that are really not conceptually compatible with Revisions ones.

We discarded many changes and ideas for compatibility's sake over these years, and during mod design we always strive to assure even new features granted by us can be easily integrated by other mods (e.g. like SR's PnP Glitterdust).

Edited by Demivrgvs, 21 October 2010 - 04:03 PM.

[Wisp]

...the original exchange between Miloch and Demivrgvs was about writing the mod in the first place (as least that's how I understood it).

Actually the "original exchange" was that Miloch every now and then states that overwriting is evil, that I should categorically re-do everything to patch because that's the only way to do, and that if there's any issue than Revisions mod are to be blamed first just because of that.

I guess it's possible there's been more than one misunderstanding.
Dakk asked if patching wasn't conceptually impossible for Item/Spell Revisions. Miloch replied by saying that it isn't and that patching needn't be more work than overwriting "except [overwriting is] what's already been done" (emphasis added). He then went on to talk about how patching can be compatible with mods lower in the stack and I guess it's possible that's what you were really replying to.

I'm arguing against the notion that overwriting is somehow necessary or the only way to to it (or the best way to do it).

That's actually what I argued the first time ages ago to Miloch...patching is not necessarily the best way to do it too, at least not for Revisions main components, whereas I do agree in most occasions it really is.

Since Item/Spell Revisions are to be installed before other mods, I see no compelling objective advantage for overwriting. It needn't make them worse mods but the advantage isn't there. Since there are no mods (or a known set of mods) installed there is no problem with not knowing what to expect or needing to write adaptive patches. The general advantages (of which lucidness is one that hasn't yet been mentioned) of patching are still there, however.

There is also the matter of example and principle. By saying that overwriting is the best way to implement a comprehensive tweak mod, are you not saying that any other mod that wants to do the same should also overwrite, and thereby be technically incompatible (and such a mod needn't be conceptually incompatible) with your mod, or require twice the work to be compatible?

P.S

you are effectively unloading the burden of compatibility on the other mod. Any compatibility-related problems will be the other mod's fault and it will be up to the other mod to accommodate your mod.

This is really untrue, as I'm always around to help players fix issues even when they are not caused by my mods, and when it comes to compatibility we've always done all we could to assure it between as much mods as possible, sometimes even with mods that are really not conceptually compatible with Revisions ones.

We discarded many changes and ideas for compatibility's sake over these years, and during mod design we always strive to assure even new features granted by us can be easily integrated by other mods (e.g. like SR's PnP Glitterdust).

Not implementing wild stuff etc is true for any mod--mod compatibility. Saying that other mods should be the ones to change when there's a conflict with your mod is a different problem. But maybe Mike's efforts to modernise the other mods make up for it.

[Demivrgvs]

I guess it's possible there's been more than one misunderstanding.
Dakk asked if patching wasn't conceptually impossible for Item/Spell Revisions. Miloch replied by saying that it isn't and that patching needn't be more work than overwriting "except [overwriting is] what's already been done" (emphasis added). He then went on to talk about how patching can be compatible with mods lower in the stack and I guess it's possible that's what you were really replying to.

No, at first I wasn't direclty replying to Dakk's post, but only to Miloch's insinuations that Revisions mod were once again causing a mess (whereas it was not related to IR or SR at all). The whole "overwriting vs patching" debate rised well after it, and only because it's an old "war" between us.

Since Item/Spell Revisions are to be installed before other mods, I see no compelling objective advantage for overwriting. ... The general advantages (of which lucidness is one that hasn't yet been mentioned) of patching are still there, however.

Like? Lucidness?

There is also the matter of example and principle. By saying that overwriting is the best way to implement a comprehensive tweak mod, are you not saying that any other mod that wants to do the same should also overwrite, and thereby be technically incompatible (and such a mod needn't be conceptually incompatible) with your mod, or require twice the work to be compatible?

First of all, I never said that, in fact I said tweaks are better handled patching, and we do have tons of patching components within Revisions mods.

Then, if anyone will ever do something similar to IR's main component I'm pretty sure the two mods couldn't co-exist anyway because of their nature.

Saying that other mods should be the ones to change when there's a conflict with your mod is a different problem. But maybe Mike's efforts to modernise the other mods make up for it.

Again...who said that? I said instead that more often than not I changed IR or SR whenever a conflict was found. BUT: I'm not open to that in any case, because I can take more than a step back when it comes to compatibility with mods like SCS, RR, Refinements, etc. but I really cannot care less of mods conceptually incompatible with IR (on this I suppose I and Mike are not the same, he's more open than me, while I can be called a little Sikret if you wish ).

Edited by Demivrgvs, 22 October 2010 - 12:23 PM.

[Wisp]

Since Item/Spell Revisions are to be installed before other mods, I see no compelling objective advantage for overwriting. ... The general advantages (of which lucidness is one that hasn't yet been mentioned) of patching are still there, however.

Like? Lucidness?

By "lucidness" I was referring to the patchy practice of not lugging around extraneous information. Since patchy code only concerns itself with the actual changes it is easy to see what the changes are. With overwriting you have to compare/diff the files and interpret the results to find out what's been changed. This is not an insignificant advantage of patchy code, especially not when you're dealing with large mods. Patchy mods are also smaller, again due to the lack of extraneous information, and because patchy code usually takes up significantly less space than the resulting file. And maybe there's something I'm overlooking that hasn't yet been dismissed.

There is also the matter of example and principle. By saying that overwriting is the best way to implement a comprehensive tweak mod, are you not saying that any other mod that wants to do the same should also overwrite, and thereby be technically incompatible (and such a mod needn't be conceptually incompatible) with your mod, or require twice the work to be compatible?

First of all, I never said that, in fact I said tweaks are better handled patching, and we do have tons of patching components within Revisions mods.

Okay, so re-reading the thread I get the distinct impression you do not consider Item/Spell Revisions tweak mods. Why are the particulars of Item/Spell Revisions enough to catapult the mods into their own category? And how is this sufficiently different from tweak mods that overwriting is now the best option?
I imagine you've had this argument before. I guess what I'm asking for is some expanded reasoning around why Item/Spell Revisions are special and why that makes overwriting best (as the arguments presented in this thread thus far have been baloney, if you'll pardon me saying so).

Saying that other mods should be the ones to change when there's a conflict with your mod is a different problem. But maybe Mike's efforts to modernise the other mods make up for it.

Again...who said that? I said instead that more often than not I changed IR or SR whenever a conflict was found. BUT: I'm not open to that in any case, because I can take more than a step back when it comes to compatibility with mods like SCS, RR, Refinements, etc. but I really cannot care less of mods conceptually incompatible with IR (on this I suppose I and Mike are not the same, he's more open than me, while I can be called a little Sikret if you wish ).

Maybe it was a bit too sharply worded, but I was referring to Mike's altering other mods to fit Item/Spell Revisions. But I don't know what the compatibility problems between Item/Spell Revisions and e.g. DR are so maybe I'm exaggerating the issue (e.g. changing G3 Tweaks to patch descriptions is just plain good), in which case I apologise.

But while we are on the subject, one real compatibility issue is your practice of introducing a completely new item or spell by replacing another. Maybe it's necessary in the case of spells, but it's problematic and unjustifiable in the case of items, where it is trivially easy to remove an item reference or replace it with another item reference. To illustrate the problem, suppose someone wants to alter T'rachie's Plate somehow (while still keeping the item recognisable). If Item Revisions is installed and the mod author is unaware of what Item Revisions does to the file it will fail, since plat17 is now suddenly a completely different item. And did I mention it's a completely unnecessary problem?

Edited by Wisp, 23 October 2010 - 07:44 AM.

[Miloch]

I really cannot care less of mods conceptually incompatible with IR (on this I suppose I and Mike are not the same, he's more open than me, while I can be called a little Sikret if you wish ).

Well, now we've gotten to the root of the problem here. At least you've finally admitted it. But it makes any reasonable discussion about compatibility with such a mod author fruitless. "I don't really care about compatibility except with a few of my favourite mods" isn't really the same as caring about compatibility at all. It's quite the opposite, as the first part of that statement reveals.

[Demivrgvs]

Okay, so re-reading the thread I get the distinct impression you do not consider Item/Spell Revisions tweak mods. Why are the particulars of Item/Spell Revisions enough to catapult the mods into their own category?

Revisions mods do contain tweaks but the main component is actually much more than that imo. I consider tweaks global or unique changes that can be applied on any install and mixed-up. I don't know how to define IR exactly, it do cointains tweaks (global ones in the forms of patching components), but its main component is a huge overhaul and the mod as a whole is more similar to a "semi-conversion" (especially the upcoming V3 where we also revise all stores, item allocations, etc), though the gameplay "feel" it offers should be very similar to vanilla. Being a "semi-conversion" it is intended to play as a sort of stand alone, with only a certain sets of mods in mind, in fact I don't think it suits mega mod installs with too many mods.

Just as an example, here's a short discussion regarding "compatibility" between IR and most other item-related mods. IR should be technically compatible with all of them, but very few of them are conceptually compatile and will work really fine with it.

And how is this sufficiently different from tweak mods that overwriting is now the best option?

Let's assume I can't convince you overwriting within the mian component is "better" and that you can't convince me that patching would work better. The point is I started working of these huge mods something like seven years ago, and back then that was the only way I could handle them all by myself (Mike and Ardanis joined me much later). Now, even if we could spend ages to re-do everything via patching code we cannot find any worth reason to dedicate so much time (and time is a really big issue) on something that doesn't seem to grant benefits, and that may instead add issues to already tested things.

I don't know what the compatibility problems between Item/Spell Revisions and e.g. DR are so maybe I'm exaggerating the issue (e.g. changing G3 Tweaks to patch descriptions is just plain good), in which case I apologise.

DR is partially "incompatible" with any mod which alters/adds/replace divine spells because of its Sphere System, it has nothing to do with how SR is coded. Here's a rather long discussion on that matter.

But while we are on the subject, one real compatibility issue is your practice of introducing a completely new item or spell by replacing another. Maybe it's necessary in the case of spells, but it's problematic and unjustifiable in the case of items, where it is trivially easy to remove an item reference or replace it with another item reference.

For spells it's necessary, for items perhaps it's not, but as I said above IR is not intended to be played with just anything (at least in my mind) and we specifically avoid these issues (e.g. taking into accounts mods like RR, UB, etc). That being said, I don't know any case like the one you're suggesting, but I'd have no problem working on it if it ever arise.

Edited by Demivrgvs, 23 October 2010 - 01:21 PM.

[Demivrgvs]

I really cannot care less of mods conceptually incompatible with IR (on this I suppose I and Mike are not the same, he's more open than me, while I can be called a little Sikret if you wish ).

Well, now we've gotten to the root of the problem here. At least you've finally admitted it. But it makes any reasonable discussion about compatibility with such a mod author fruitless. "I don't really care about compatibility except with a few of my favourite mods" isn't really the same as caring about compatibility at all. It's quite the opposite, as the first part of that statement reveals.

Well, I was mostly joking, but say what you want. Revisions mods are compatible with pretty much everything (actually I don't know any serious incompatibility at all) and will always be despite your claims, even with those mods "I cannot care less of". Not to mention I only speak for myself, not for Mike and Ardanis who have become as important as me for Revisions mods.

[GeN1e]

But while we are on the subject, one real compatibility issue is your practice of introducing a completely new item or spell by replacing another. Maybe it's necessary in the case of spells, but it's problematic and unjustifiable in the case of items, where it is trivially easy to remove an item reference or replace it with another item reference. To illustrate the problem, suppose someone wants to alter T'rachie's Plate somehow (while still keeping the item recognisable). If Item Revisions is installed and the mod author is unaware of what Item Revisions does to the file it will fail, since plat17 is now suddenly a completely different item. And did I mention it's a completely unnecessary problem?

I've already partially answered to it

Speaking of which, if you're *completely* overhauling spells and items, so that in some cases they may even lack resemblance to the originals, then why not just put in *new* spells and items?

Because it wouldn't get us rid of vanilla 'garbage'. The point is to remove the garbage cathegory, not to keep suffering it. A solution could be to replace old item resource with new one, but how is it different from overwriting?

As Demi said, Revisions are a sort of new platform, if you want to call it that. Compatibility issues with mods built for vanilla BG2 do arise, but for the most part they're harmless, and certainly not breaking quests (since no example was given). Seeking compatibility with as many mods as possible is fine, but taking that to extreme and spending hours just to ensure that some low-quality mod - yes, I do permit myself (silently, out of respect for author's efforts) to call something crap if it has bad design, broken balance, inconsistency with vanilla game's setting, or outright breaks the 4th wall - would be a rather unwise time investment. Thus, in the absence of facts confirming that Revisions modsseriously break the megamod install in some way and do not attempt to cooperate if notified, I think it is perfectly reasonable to leave abroad conceptual incompatibility with mods that are conceptually incompatible with vanilla game.

Well, now we've gotten to the root of the problem here. At least you've finally admitted it. But it makes any reasonable discussion about compatibility with such a mod author fruitless. "I don't really care about compatibility except with a few of my favourite mods" isn't really the same as caring about compatibility at all. It's quite the opposite, as the first part of that statement reveals.

Here you're very mistaken. First of all, there's nothing wrong with striving for a small high-quality installation, up to 10 medium mods.
Second, the main issue people have with Sikret is about his attitude towards virtually everyone, not with his mod.
Finally, while Anvil follows it's own design concept (everyone's favorite insane golems), Revisions try their best to stay as close to vanilla game and PnP as possible, and should said PnP features be non-implementable within IE - either find a closer solution or do a replacement. Consider it completing game parts which designers left unfinished.

Not to mention I only speak for myself, not for Mike and Ardanis who have become as important as me for Revisions mods.

I'm with you

[Wisp]

Let's assume I can't convince you overwriting within the mian component is "better" and that you can't convince me that patching would work better.

I guess such an assumption wouldn't be unreasonable. Thank you for clarifying your position.

But while we are on the subject, one real compatibility issue is your practice of introducing a completely new item or spell by replacing another. Maybe it's necessary in the case of spells, but it's problematic and unjustifiable in the case of items, where it is trivially easy to remove an item reference or replace it with another item reference.

For spells it's necessary, for items perhaps it's not, but as I said above IR is not intended to be played with just anything (at least in my mind) and we specifically avoid these issues (e.g. taking into accounts mods like RR, UB, etc). That being said, I don't know any case like the one you're suggesting, but I'd have no problem working on it if it ever arise.

Well, the worst cases are frequently the ones you don't know about. And making pre-emptive efforts toward compatibility isn't such a bad thing.

A solution could be to replace old item resource with new one, but how is it different from overwriting?

As I said, it's different from overwriting because with a new resource there's no chance another mod will subsequently come along and assume that e.g. plat17 is still a cursed armour that is at least a vague likeness of vanilla's Trachie's Plate. Since it's trivially easy to not overwrite the item, it's a completely unnecessary potential conflict.

Edited by Wisp, 23 October 2010 - 02:57 PM.

[Miloch]

As Demi said, Revisions are a sort of new platform, if you want to call it that.

When I see "platform", I think: conversion (partial if not total). Of course, I don't think anyone would consider the "Revisions" mods a new "platform" in the sense that Tutu, BGT, CA, etc. are (and possibly this is one of those rare times Mike would agree, having been working on a total conversion. Or not ).

I have another issue with the whole "getting rid of garbage" proposition. So there are useless, or at any rate "less than useful" items in the game. So what? Aren't there in real life or even any sort of "realistic fantasy" environment? The pioneers of early text-based games (yes I'm talking ancient shizit ) stipulated there should be a certain proportion of non-useful or "flavour" items to useful items. Helps give the world more character and realism, because it's not like if you went wandering around outside in real life, everything you picked up would be a "treasure." Plus, every time someone finds something, there's the mystery of "ooh, what's this do?" Well something good obviously, if you remove "garbage" items.

Well, now we've gotten to the root of the problem here. At least you've finally admitted it. But it makes any reasonable discussion about compatibility with such a mod author fruitless. "I don't really care about compatibility except with a few of my favourite mods" isn't really the same as caring about compatibility at all. It's quite the opposite, as the first part of that statement reveals.

Here you're very mistaken. First of all, there's nothing wrong with striving for a small high-quality installation, up to 10 medium mods.
Second, the main issue people have with Sikret is about his attitude towards virtually everyone, not with his mod.
Finally, while Anvil follows it's own design concept (everyone's favorite insane golems), Revisions try their best to stay as close to vanilla game and PnP as possible, and should said PnP features be non-implementable within IE - either find a closer solution or do a replacement. Consider it completing game parts which designers left unfinished.

I have to object to everything about this, except for the first part:

First of all, there's nothing wrong with striving for a small high-quality installation, up to 10 medium mods.

You're right: there *is* nothing wrong with that, or indeed installing just one mod if someone is so inclined. But there's a big, and I mean *big* corollary to this: you can't reasonably expect everyone else to follow your mod preferences. Indeed, this is contraindicated just by the fact SR/IR endorse themselves in the BWP (at least that seems to be the gist of Mike1072's posts) - at any rate they don't say: install only on a minimally modded 'platform' (or "don't install with any other mods" aka Improved Anvil). As such, they need to be concerned about any sort of compatibility, even theoretical compatibility that might arise by new mods inducted into the BWP.

Second, the main issue people have with Sikret is about his attitude towards virtually everyone, not with his mod.

Heh, well I'm not *really* going to go here (there's a whole topic on G3 on that and apparently on loads of other crap). I'll just say that *I* don't know the guy, nor have I had any real interaction with him. But I suspect most everyone else doesn't know him personally either. So how do they know him? Through his mod, and through his attitude to modding, and reaction thereto. So his "attitude toward everyone" is in fact his attitude to (other people's attitude toward) his mod. Anything "personal" has devolved from that.

Finally, while Anvil follows it's own design concept (everyone's favorite insane golems), Revisions try their best to stay as close to vanilla game and PnP as possible, and should said PnP features be non-implementable within IE - either find a closer solution or do a replacement.

Whilst the latter part of this is acceptable (as it should be), the first part of it is malleable: "PnP" can refer to any one of quite different sets of rules. To most (Rogue Rebalancing and such mods) it means 2nd edition rules, for several reasons not least being the game is based off such rules, as stated on the box. (And if I hear another: "but monks didn't appear until 3rd edition!" argument, I'm gonna get orcish - a lesser argument being 2nd was the last edition published by the original company before selling out to a toy manufacturer, but that's of relatively minor importance.)

Spiel aside though, that 3rd statement of yours is invalid. First part being "as close to vanilla game as possible". What? Demivrgvs already said some things have been altered *far beyond* the originals, to be pretty much completely different (and Wisp's argument as far as that goes is entirely valid). Second part being "as close to PnP as possible." Based on what I mentioned above, this could mean anything. Therefore, if it's not the game's alleged "PnP" conception, there's nothing different from the mod "following its own design concept" - something you offered as a distinction from Anvil. Now there's nothing at all wrong with a mod following its own design concept. But you're offering it as a distinction from other such mods. I'm not saying it's the *same* but it's not altogether different either (and really, don't say I'm wrong - I'm quoting the author - he now says he was "mostly joking" but it's the "mostly" that's the operative word I think ).

[GeN1e]

When I see "platform", I think: conversion (partial if not total). Of course, I don't think anyone would consider the "Revisions" mods a new "platform" in the sense that Tutu, BGT, CA, etc. are (and possibly this is one of those rare times Mike would agree, having been working on a total conversion. Or not ).

Demi did say 'semi-conversion', not a real one.

You're right: there *is* nothing wrong with that, or indeed installing just one mod if someone is so inclined. But there's a big, and I mean *big* corollary to this: you can't reasonably expect everyone else to follow your mod preferences. Indeed, this is contraindicated just by the fact SR/IR endorse themselves in the BWP (at least that seems to be the gist of Mike1072's posts) - at any rate they don't say: install only on a minimally modded 'platform' (or "don't install with any other mods" aka Improved Anvil). As such, they need to be concerned about any sort of compatibility, even theoretical compatibility that might arise by new mods inducted into the BWP.

I think you've already got orcish and thus missed the main point - Revisions are conceptually compatible with selected few and still technically compatible with the rest. They don't break a quest by overwriting prior mod's change to an item.

And if the latter applied tweak (patching one!) doesn't work properly, as it's been the case this time, don't you think that only helps to illuminate the fact of just how effort-consuming it could be to write a proper patching code for the entire Revisions' main component?

there's a whole topic on G3 on that and apparently on loads of other crap

Actually, as of late we're discussing phylosophy of physics there. Come join the conversation

[Demivrgvs]

As Demi said, Revisions are a sort of new platform, if you want to call it that.

When I see "platform", I think: conversion (partial if not total). Of course, I don't think anyone would consider the "Revisions" mods a new "platform" in the sense that Tutu, BGT, CA, etc. are (and possibly this is one of those rare times Mike would agree, having been working on a total conversion. Or not ).

Can you for once not put in my mouth things I didn't say? I obviously never compared Revisions to TuTu or BGT, and unless you're really as dumb as an orc I'm pretty sure you got the point and you're simply enjoying yourself.

I have another issue with the whole "getting rid of garbage" proposition. So there are useless, or at any rate "less than useful" items in the game. So what? ...it's not like if you went wandering around outside in real life, everything you picked up would be a "treasure." Plus, every time someone finds something, there's the mystery of "ooh, what's this do?" Well something good obviously, if you remove "garbage" items.

Forgotten Realms is not real life you know, this is a GAME, and "getting rid of garbage" doesn't mean we have made all items epic "treasure" but that all items have at least some use. Note that we did that without raising the average "power lvl" of items, in fact we have slightly lowered it in most cases.

The "ooh, what's this do?" factor is still there (actually much more than before because IR adds a lot of new effects or variations of existing ones) but instead of following that with "ooh, it's a useless piece of crap that I'll sell as soon as I finish the quest, without using it once in my life", we think most players prefer to go on with something like "ohh, that may come useful!".

Finally, while Anvil follows it's own design concept (everyone's favorite insane golems), Revisions try their best to stay as close to vanilla game and PnP as possible, and should said PnP features be non-implementable within IE - either find a closer solution or do a replacement.

...
Spiel aside though, that 3rd statement of yours is invalid. First part being "as close to vanilla game as possible". What? Demivrgvs already said some things have been altered *far beyond* the originals, to be pretty much completely different (and Wisp's argument as far as that goes is entirely valid). Second part being "as close to PnP as possible." Based on what I mentioned above, this could mean anything. Therefore, if it's not the game's alleged "PnP" conception, there's nothing different from the mod "following its own design concept" - something you offered as a distinction from Anvil. Now there's nothing at all wrong with a mod following its own design concept. But you're offering it as a distinction from other such mods. I'm not saying it's the *same* but it's not altogether different either (and really, don't say I'm wrong - I'm quoting the author - he now says he was "mostly joking" but it's the "mostly" that's the operative word I think ).

Again, I hardly believe you aren't able to understand what we are saying, but I'll assume you didn't.

My first source for lore, backgrounds, concepts and so on is AD&D (for items it's the huge 4 volumes Encyclopedia Magica, but I have access to pretty much every single AD&D book), but yes, when we can't find anything there useful I go looking into 3rd edition sources (what's wrong about that? it's not like it is a completely different thing like 4th edition is) and as a last resort I may invent something, and see if the majority of Revisions players agree on that (I'm a democratic dictator ).

It seems like you ignored all my previous examples, but take Catti-brie's bow. It was a copy of Tansheron in vanilla, while for V3 I made it as per PnP granting it an appropriate description/lore, defensive properties, magic damage and the ability to pierce force-shield like effects (e.g. Mage Armor, Shield, Armor of Faith). See, this is clearly far beyond the original item, but does it break vanilla's feel? Surely not.

When I say "as close to vanilla as possible" I mean you won't find out-of-place items within IR, and that we're not breaking vanilla's "feel". When you state we're not much different from Improved Anvil, where you can find Hackmasters +12 items everywhere, you are simply making clear that you never tried Revisions mod (nor looked into them before judging them) and thus you really don't know what you're talking about.

Edited by Demivrgvs, 24 October 2010 - 06:21 AM.

[Miloch]

As Demi said, Revisions are a sort of new platform, if you want to call it that.

When I see "platform", I think: conversion (partial if not total). Of course, I don't think anyone would consider the "Revisions" mods a new "platform" in the sense that Tutu, BGT, CA, etc. are (and possibly this is one of those rare times Mike would agree, having been working on a total conversion. Or not ).

Can you for once not put in my mouth things I didn't say?

*Who* put words in your mouth? I'd assume you were talking to GeN1e, except for the "orcish" reference, as he's clearly not an orc. Where in *my* quote is your name mentioned or even alluded to? I was responding to the person who made the quote (or misquote as the case may be), so if you want to rant at someone, rant at him.

If that's not clear, here it is stripped down:

As Demi said, Revisions are a sort of new platform

And yes, he amended his quote in his next post (making little difference in my response though: 'semi-conversion' = partial conversion).

And yes, I do tend to ignore your posts when they contain such blather as "hardly believe you aren't able to understand", "you're really as dumb as an orc", etc., etc. There's no need to consider every bit of what's otherwise a philosophical discussion on modding practices a personal attack on your mod, or on you. Nor is there any need to lash out like that. (In fact that sort of behaviour rather resembles someone else's, but I'm going to try to refrain from that "personal attack" territory myself. You were the one who compared yourself to him though, joking or no, so don't point the finger at me .)

If you can be civilised, please explain how your mod is not "following its own design concept". If it is (and I said there's nothing wrong with that, in itself), then you've got no dispute with the latter part of my response.

Forgotten Realms is not real life you know, this is a GAME

You apparently missed the first part of my statement where I was referring to game construction philosophy.

[GeN1e]

When I see "platform", I think: conversion (partial if not total). Of course, I don't think anyone would consider the "Revisions" mods a new "platform" in the sense that Tutu, BGT, CA, etc. are (and possibly this is one of those rare times Mike would agree, having been working on a total conversion. Or not ).

Agree on 'platform' = 'conversion'. But disagree with 'partial' = 'total'. Total is rightfully reserved for Tutu/BGT/CA, whereas partial means it can serve as normal environment as well, except there're some inconsistencies.

I have another issue with the whole "getting rid of garbage" proposition. So there are useless, or at any rate "less than useful" items in the game. So what? Aren't there in real life or even any sort of "realistic fantasy" environment? The pioneers of early text-based games (yes I'm talking ancient shizit ) stipulated there should be a certain proportion of non-useful or "flavour" items to useful items. Helps give the world more character and realism, because it's not like if you went wandering around outside in real life, everything you picked up would be a "treasure." Plus, every time someone finds something, there's the mystery of "ooh, what's this do?" Well something good obviously, if you remove "garbage" items.

Most importantly, you can not implement "ooh, what's this do?" in IE. At best, it will remain unidentified (and often unusable), and when you find a green scroll that looks just like Protection From Undead one and you can't identify it, whereas for other greens your lore is sufficient, then you know damn right there's something creepy about this thing.

As for useless items, let's agree to differ then. I have absolutely firm belief that in a game there should be no useless items/spells/skills/classes/feats/you name it, otherwise many players start picking from only 3-4 useful builds, leaving the rest abroad completely.

If you can be civilised, please explain how your mod is not "following its own design concept". If it is (and I said there's nothing wrong with that, in itself), then you've got no dispute with the latter part of my response.

The concept has been outlined - no useless garbage. And to bring in some better balance and consistency.

When I've mentioned Anvil, I meant it's concept differs too much from staying close to original atmosphere. Sorry if that had caused confusion, I didn't mean it to sound ambiguous.