81 replies to this topic

[DavidWallace]

I notice, not for the first time, that BWP is distributing its own fixes for SCS/SCSII without informing me of the bugs, in breach of its own stated policy and despite that fact that I've been active and around for the relevant period. At least one of these "fixes" is badly designed and will do more harm than good.

This is not cool.

I notice for the first time that BWP is not just distributing fixes, but also content modifications disguised as fixes. In particular, the most recent fixpack tweaks the way SCSII warriors use their special abilities. This is in no sense a fix; it's modification of my content presented to the player as if it was a fix.

This is seriously not cool. I have no objections to other people's mods changing content that I've written. I have no objection to people using my code or content in their own mods. I have a serious objection to people modifying my own mod, without the player even knowing this has happened.

In the light of this I am no longer happy with BWP distributing "fixes" to SCS or SCSII. I'll make an exception for genuinely critical fixes (like the distribution of scsii.ini in the most recent fixpack) and for the previously-agreed compatibility change to "skip candlekeep", and I'll make a blanket exception when I'm away from the modding scene (as happens for up to 6 months at a time). Other than that, though, please remove all SCS(II) modifications from the BWP fixpack.

EDIT:

Having wandered around more in the "Fixes for the BWP fixpack" it's reasonably clear to me that the fixpack more or less indiscriminately bundles and includes any hotfix distributed on any site for any mod. Since that means (for instance) that it's not even going to be able to distinguish between critical and non-critical fixes, here's a modified policy:

Please do not distribute any fixes for SCS(II) which are dated earlier than the most recent version (currently the beginning of December 2011)

(There is a specific exception for scs/addtoarea.baf.patch, which is a compatibility modification. You can leave that one in.)

Edited by DavidWallace, 06 January 2012 - 11:20 AM.

[Creepin]

Uh-oh, gotta grab last version of fixpack asap while it's still there.

[William Imm]

Mmm... Well, I guess I'm going to delete those SCS fixes...

[Jarno Mikkola]

...

Erhm, did you notice how the patches are applied ?

It's not just override the .tp2 file and that's it... it's find critical spot in the file saying ~balgha*/%tahar~ and if it fails to find that but finds ~%tahar/balgha*~ the patch "fail" in the BiG World debug and it gets skipped... which means it doesn't get applied to patched versions.

Of course I do not know the specifics of the reasons why the BWP changes the ability usages... as I didn't make any of that.

Edited by Jarno Mikkola, 06 January 2012 - 11:33 AM.

[Fouinto]

Hi,

I am not a modder, so I trust you when you describe the poor/bad situation between BWP Fixpack and your (great !!!) mods.

But, please, you also have to understand that people that make BWP Fixpack do that to help players with no modding capabilities. In particular, They try to decrease bugs (even if they don't succeed each time) introduced by the mixtures of mods.

I don't try to excuse them when they don't forward bugs to you, I just want to be sure that you understand they try to help and they don't try to annoy you.

Anyway, it's your mods !

A player's mind.

[Lollorian]

@Jarno: The files in question are directly overwritten by the BWPFixpack (because they have an .ssl extension )

Just for reference btw, methinks DavidWallace is specifically talking about these changes reported here in the fixpack thread

[DavidWallace]

I don't try to excuse them when they don't forward bugs to you, I just want to be sure that you understand they try to help and they don't try to annoy you.

Yes, I do understand that (I'm not intending to imply malice), and I also appreciate that BWP is simply a collection of all fixes anyone lists - the people who compile BWP aren't pretending to exercise any editorial control.

But for that reason it's all the more important that (i) I get told about them, and (ii) even more importantly, they're removed once they're older than the most recent version of the mod.

[Xicloing]

Mistakes happen. I'm sure Leonardo or Lol thought you were ok with Polytope's HLA fixes (since you posted after him on the G3 topic).

I suppose both will happily support your "modified policy".

[Kaeloree]

I have asked several times for people to report bugs and fixes on the original mod's forum. This is why. Please do not distribute fixes without at least first posting them to the appropriate forum.

[ShadowTek]

I notice, not for the first time, that BWP is distributing its own fixes for SCS/SCSII without informing me of the bugs, in breach of its own stated policy and despite that fact that I've been active and around for the relevant period. At least one of these "fixes" is badly designed and will do more harm than good.

This is not cool.

Agreed, no matter the good intentions.. At least ask.

I have asked several times for people to report bugs and fixes on the original mod's forum. This is why. Please do not distribute fixes without at least first posting them to the appropriate forum.

Solution to problem..

[Lollorian]

I'm sure Leonardo or Lol thought you were ok with Polytope's HLA fixes (since you posted after him on the G3 topic).

Umm omai I had nothing to do with this I swear

As for me, I've always tried to post already reported fixes to that thread And the extremely rare times that I fix stuff on my own, I think I've reported them to all related active mod forums

Also, not pointing fingers but the fault would lie with polytope for advertising those changes as fixes. The posts that followed in that G3 thread included feedback on "how well his fixes worked" so I'm not surprised Fennek picked them up as fixes

Isay this not as some BWP fanboi but as a fervent supporter of macro-modding projects in any game: The BWP peeps can't be expected to test every change made so it relies on feedback - which in this case suggested the files being actual fixes rather than tweaks Understood that the HLA tweaks are surely tweaks but still, polytope didn't mention they were tweaks yes?

[mr fantastic]

People from BWP are trying to be on top of 400 + mods. For me BWP is the best thing that happened since sliced bread seriously
Things like that will happen (and it's not like someone is distributing altered mod from his server) specially when you leave the scene, every now and than for many months, leaving your mod unattended but allowing for third party fixes, and expecting everything to be hunky dory as when you left...
I personally feel some people's attitude on forum sites towards BWP...a bit bizarre to say the least.

I think modders should support it as much as they can as I think BWP helps to really attract new generations, people on to the scene.

Why not PM Leo?? can't be that hard hmm ??

Edited by mr fantastic, 06 January 2012 - 11:35 PM.

[DavidWallace]

The BWP peeps can't be expected to test every change made so it relies on feedback - which in this case suggested the files being actual fixes rather than tweaks Understood that the HLA tweaks are surely tweaks but still, polytope didn't mention they were tweaks yes?

Indeed. I agree that it's unrealistic for BWP to apply quality control to fixes that they pick up. This is all the more reason to stop distributing fixes that are older than the latest version of the mod.

People from BWP are trying to be on top of 400 + mods. For me BWP is the best thing that happened since sliced bread seriously
Things like that will happen (and it's not like someone is distributing altered mod from his server) specially when you leave the scene, every now and than for many months, leaving your mod unattended but allowing for third party fixes, and expecting everything to be hunky dory as when you left...

I have no objection (and have repeatedly said so) to people distributing third-party fixes when I'm away (the fact that I approve of this shouldn't be taken as evidence that I check those fixes in any way). I object to those fixes being silently applied to updated versions of my mod.

I had originally assumed that BWP was applying some central quality-control method to their fixes (hence my original request that they move to "critical-only" fixes. As it's apparent that BWP just gathers up all fixes that get posted, the solution is for them to remove outdated "fixes".

Why not PM Leo?? can't be that hard hmm ??

Writing a forum thread is also not difficult. And BWP is fairly clearly a collaborative project.

 

(edited necromantically to make the quote/unquote match!)

Edited by DavidWallace, 11 September 2013 - 08:36 AM.

[i30817]

So just remove the tweak? Removing the old fixes (from previous versions) will in effect force people who have already downloaded old mod versions to upgrade when they want a new install.

I agree it's good policy (if indeed it was all fixed), but for larger mods it (like for instance Secret of Bonehill) it could be problematic. And it's only a good idea if BWP has a actual mechanism to check versions and report outdated.

And they won't apply (patch) if the binary patcher finds differences anyway.

This specific case just seems a tweak merged as a fix by mistake.

Edited by i30817, 07 January 2012 - 01:48 AM.

[DavidWallace]

So just remove the tweak? Removing the old fixes (from previous versions) will in effect force people who have already downloaded old mod versions to upgrade when they want a new install.

I agree it's good policy (if indeed it was all fixed), but for larger mods it (like for instance Secret of Bonehill) it could be problematic.

SCS is not a "large mod" in that sense. Also, if it's problematic to uninstall and reinstall large mods, it's also problematic to hotfix them, especially as many fixes need to be applied before installation.

And it's only a good idea if BWP has a actual mechanism to check versions and report outdated.

If you are going to distribute fixes to other people's work, having such a mechanism is part of your responsibility. The BWP guide explicitly notes this (p.239): "Once the correction in the original mod is done and the patch is no longer needed, we delete it again from the Fixpack."

And they won't apply (patch) if the binary patcher finds differences anyway.

As was pointed out upthread, this is not reliably true.

[Miloch]

Part of the problem here is that the masterminds behind BWP no longer maintain it on a regular basis (i.e. the German guys at kerzenburg.eu etc.). I have had similar issues where a recent BWP has overwritten a recent update of a mod I've updated with older "fixes." Though the fixes may have been valid at one time, older ones can cause crashes when overwritten over newer versions. But in all cases, the procedure has usually been two-way - i.e. for modders to report to the BWP (if they care about it) when they have significant changes that would affect BWP installation or discontinue previous hotfixes. Conversely, players should always report the the original modders (if they are still around - obviously in this case) any issues with mods in their forums, not just in the generic megamod forums. Don't know how many times I've stressed this, but I felt at one point it did catch on, Though who knows, maybe it caught on with one generation who is long gone and the latest generation of players knows it not. Anyhow, one can't really blame the "BWP" as it is not really a regularly-maintained discrete entity anymore. I suppose it could in theory have some mechanism for checking it doesn't apply patches older than recent versions of mods - in theory such a mechanism would be fairly simple to develop.

[Ithildur]

Seems like this issue has come up again recently. http://www.shsforums...fixpack/page-51

 

Unfortunately this is one of the reasons why I have difficulty trusting BWP, along with actual experience with the project producing as much headaches/errors as it fixes. In my view it's not really worth it for experienced players, though for new players who really want other people to pick out their mods (most of them of subpar quality) and install them for them in one shot it can save a lot of work.

Edited by Ithildur, 19 September 2013 - 08:09 AM.

[Creepin]

Seems like this issue has come up again recently. http://www.shsforums...fixpack/page-51

Yeah, sure: modders fixing vanilla bugs - cool! Modders fixing other modders bugs - yay, gimme two! Modders fixing my bugs - doh, now suddenly it's an "issue". No, it's an "ISSUE" even. Oh, and unspoken horrors of spreading old version too! Blergh

Unfortunately this is one of the reasons why I have difficulty trusting BWP, along with actual experience with the project producing as much headaches/errors as it fixes.

Fortunately, there's other opinions around. I, for one, am as much happy there's people to fix all such "leftowers" in other's mods as I am there's people to work on improving BWP as a whole.

In my view it's not really worth it for experienced players, though for new players who really want other people to pick out their mods (most of them of subpar quality) and install them for them in one shot it can save a lot of work.

It's a common knowledge by now that BWS (and even vanilla BWP) totally allows to select precisely what array of mods each player want to have, up to an ability to pick mod components. Either you're totally clueless about that of decided to blatantly lie.

Oh, and if you consider most of mods being of subpar quality, what did you forget in megamod section in the first place? Megamod is sort of "most of mods" by default.

Edited by Creepin, 19 September 2013 - 09:26 AM.

[The Imp]

(most of them of subpar quality)

Well, let's see your high quality work then !

The problem lies in you, in the fact that you are an asshole and have nothing to show for yourself !

This by the way:

--- rr\lib\rr#afix.tph    Sat Apr 06 01:47:52 2013
+++ C:\BWP Patchstudio\patched files\rr\lib\rr#afix.tph    Thu Jul 11 09:13:10 2013
@@ -164,9 +164,9 @@
 
 APPEND ~kit.ids~ ~0x4000 TRUECLASS~
   UNLESS ~\bTRUECLASS\b~
-APPEND ~kit.ids~ ~0x0000 BARBARIAN~
+APPEND ~kit.ids~ ~0x40000000 BARBARIAN~
   UNLESS ~\bBARBARIAN\b~
-APPEND ~kit.ids~ ~0x0000 WILDMAGE~
+APPEND ~kit.ids~ ~0x80000000 WILDMAGE~
   UNLESS ~\bWILDMAGE\b~

Is still very much required, the rr# ... tph code:

  //REPLACE_TEXTUALLY ~.*\bBARBARIAN\b~              ~0x0000 BARBARIAN~ //Avoid changing the values, what with ToBEx and all (Wisp)
  //REPLACE_TEXTUALLY ~.*\bWILDMAGE\b~               ~0x0000 WILDMAGE~
  BUT_ONLY_IF_IT_CHANGES

APPEND ~kit.ids~ ~0x4000 TRUECLASS~
  UNLESS ~\bTRUECLASS\b~
APPEND ~kit.ids~ ~0x0000 BARBARIAN~
  UNLESS ~\bBARBARIAN\b~
APPEND ~kit.ids~ ~0x0000 WILDMAGE~
  UNLESS ~\bWILDMAGE\b~ 

[Lollorian]

*sigh

 

Anyway, let's not flatter ourselves... to say most of the mods in the BWP are subpar is like saying my socks stink

It's pretty much a fact, but that's the price you pay when you become all inclusive project that leaves the choice of which mods you wanna install up to the user