132 replies to this topic

[Roxanne]

This is pretty much putting the cart before the horse.

 

Finding bugs and fixes for bugs and posting them or even contibuting them to Fixpack or BWS is foremost done to support other players.

It is quite frustrating to run into a known bug in a large game installation just to find that there are people out there who knew about it and could have prevented your situation but did nothing - afraid to step on a modder's toes.

Modders interested in feedback can set up a forum topic and publish that with their mod. Or take a look now and then to some key topics here or on G3.

I just took a look at 20 mods I have in my EET install. In the tp2's AUTHOR field there was 1 case where there was a usable address - well, at least it told me the mod was hosted on gibberlings3, which was more than the other 19 said. In one other case I found a contact in the readme (The site was dead). Is that the reason why so many bug reports end up in BWS or EET topics? Because players know these as topics where they may at least find a response to their problems:

 

I have found and reported hundreds of bugs or issues in the many mods I played and have shared the solutions I found and tested with the player's community - so they have the same chance to enjoy their game. Modders are free to pick up these proposals and incorporate them in their mods or disregard them or find their own solutions. Of course I will give them a notice in the rare cases where there is an actively maintained thread for the respective mod. But I will not go hunting for dead mailboxes or virus infected websites to deliver my messages.

 

For me, *common courtesy* goes from the modders to the players by giving them an appropriate means to report issues and request support, Where this is not provided, I feel free to feed my findings into Fixpack to help other players.

 

(Yes, there are some few mods and modders that provide active support - those are pretty visible and they are rare exceptions from the problem discussed here. Some even use github or similar, so the repairs and fixes are available in no time.)

Edited by Roxanne, 07 November 2017 - 02:54 PM.

[CamDawg]

A couple of points now that we have our own thread:
 
Without the context of the original thread, my first post here is very dickish, Though I was trying to be funny, in retrospect it's still dickish even with context. I own that, and I apologize.
 
Second, my criticisms were specific to BWP because it's in the unique situation where it's not just a source of bug reports, but makes modifications directly to other mods (both actively maintained and otherwise). I don't find the current topic title to be accurate to the issue at hand, nor do I think it is (as currently phrased) a particularly interesting topic.
 
BWP is popular with players, and deservedly so. On the flipside I think it's fairly telling that few modders come to its defense. BWP is dealing with the same communication issues it was at least five years ago. I meant what I said upthread: BWP could be a great asset for modders, but its poor communication--an issue endemic to the project from its inception--continues to hinder that.

 

I consider such communication a basic courtesy and obligation--consensus disagrees, and more to the point, so does the current maintainer. I have filed my issue, and the current author won't act: I'll stop whinging about it.

 

 

[The Imp]

Second, my criticisms were specific to BWP because it's in the unique situation where it's not just a source of bug reports, but makes modifications directly to other mods (both actively maintained and otherwise). I don't find the current topic title to be accurate to the issue at hand, nor do I think it is (as currently phrased) a particularly interesting topic.

Well, if you would bother to notice, you would see that in fact the BWP, and thus also the BWS MODIFIES the VERSION flag in most mods, and I have even seen it adding one that wasn't there.
Now, that was taken into use after DavidW thread, at least in it's full fledged form, in the BWFixpack, it might not be in the Lollorian's other 'fixpack', but that's due to the fact that all those mods were way old even then, so old that the Biffing command had to be changed. And the mods of those that have been updated from then have been notified and fixed.

So the actual courtesy has been shown, you just have to notice it in the weidu.log file. Which is what your first reaction should be to ask, if you can't find it.
By the by, just because you disagree with the way one uses an English word, doesn't make yours ultimately correct, even if you are a "Native English" speaker... cause there's actually no such thing, basically. And as such, using the definition you get from the internet might be the best one. Reading the old forum posts just reaffirms this point.
 

Without the context of the original thread, my first post here

Ahh, well, I can finally say that I saw the reference after searching the clip from the tube and finding the actual reference. The 30 second bit from the film...

Edited by The Imp, 08 November 2017 - 12:27 AM.

[Roxanne]

The title of this topic is a loaded question. It should be changed.

 

Nobody doubts that if you find a bug in a mod, you go to the author and report it - unless you decide to keep it private.(Which many plavers, including myself, may decide to do after having read this discussion).

 

Can you give this a more neutral title? *Bug reporting for non maintained mods* or something like that?

[Creepin]

I don't find the current topic title to be accurate to the issue at hand, nor do I think it is (as currently phrased) a particularly interesting topic.

The title of this topic is a loaded question. It should be changed.
 Nobody doubts that if you find a bug in a mod, you go to the author and report it - unless you decide to keep it private.(Which many plavers, including myself, may decide to do after having read this discussion).
 Can you give this a more neutral title? *Bug reporting for non maintained mods* or something like that?

While I have no objection to changing topic title (I admit it was named hastily and without any deep thought on that), I believe *Bug reporting for non maintained mods* would halve the scope of discussion and invalidate many posts within. Unless there will be other options suggested I'll rename it to *Bug reporting practices discussion* in 6 hours from now.

Edited by Creepin, 08 November 2017 - 02:23 AM.

[The Imp]

Näh, just tell the truth and name the topic; "Hang on brothers/sisters, this will be a *** show! As the Imp will spam all over the forums." ... *several curse words redacted*

IMProgress reports... NEJ etc( -> Vlad's Compilation ).
The Imp has spammed at: BG2Fixpack, aTweaks, BG1NPCsinSoA, Nephele, tb#quest... the choice was not a random, as the Imp is build from mechanical parts of a random sizes.

... Ajantis BG2 mod should be know, as there's a quite lot of patches here, to v14, last from 3 months ago. Or not. The Imp doesn't give ***, nor will try to spam at a German site.

Edited by The Imp, 08 November 2017 - 05:13 AM.

[CamDawg]

I don't find the current topic title to be accurate to the issue at hand, nor do I think it is (as currently phrased) a particularly interesting topic.

The title of this topic is a loaded question. It should be changed.
 Nobody doubts that if you find a bug in a mod, you go to the author and report it - unless you decide to keep it private.(Which many plavers, including myself, may decide to do after having read this discussion).
 Can you give this a more neutral title? *Bug reporting for non maintained mods* or something like that?

While I have no objection to changing topic title (I admit it was named hastily and without any deep thought on that), I believe *Bug reporting for non maintained mods* would halve the scope of discussion and invalidate many posts within. Unless there will be other options suggested I'll rename it to *Bug reporting practices discussion* in 6 hours from now.
 

 

My objection is that, as currently phrased., it's an uninteresting question, similar to "should I eat healthier foods?" or "should I exercise more often?". The answer is an easy yes... but I'm probably still going to spend my day eating junk food and coding.

For me, it's whether you should try and reach out to an author before you start distributing modifications to their work, which is a more subtle issue. One of the places that author's wishes are pretty well respected is that no one mirrors mods without permission; I thought (incorrectly, as the thread shows) that it would be a logical step from that to my assertion here, tempered in the knowledge that it's going to be a generally thankless task. 

 

I am very happy to see a grip of new posts from Jarno across several forums. That you're attempting such a large thankless task--especially one that you disagree with its validity--is very admirable, and I have a great deal of respect for you. Thank you!

[Creepin]

My objection is that, as currently phrased., it's an uninteresting question, similar to "should I eat healthier foods?" or "should I exercise more often?". The answer is an easy yes...

Huh? My answer would be "hell no!" on both, so... On more serious note, I've changed topic name. Since no one offered alternative, live with it now

 

Update: funny twist, eh? I mean, if mod authors doesn't care about BWFixpack is it fair to ask BWFixpack contributors to care about mod authors?

Edited by Creepin, 08 November 2017 - 07:30 AM.

[Roxanne]

Until this discussion started,, my understanding about BWFixpack has been (similar to BWS) that it is a *community project...a set of tools and patches that fix/update/support mods for all Infinity Engine games* and that "you are welcome to fork this (github) repository and contribute to it*. Quotes from the readme.

 

This was understood as a central point to exchange knowledge/problems/solutions for a game with several hundred mods and a *community* that is spread about a number of websites.

 

Such an attempt to keep the game alive and enjoyable depends on people taaking care and contributing to it. There is no obligation for anyone to do anything - it is just as simple as "if you do not do it, nobody else will.*

 

Half of the BWS has silently passed away with nobody taking care of it anymore.

 

Now we have a discussion that intends to hammer the final nails into the BWF coffin. (and terminating BWS in its wake...)

 

To be honest, I do not need fixpack. I do not even need BWS. I have a large base of mods, fixes and tools I can run on any of my big modded installs to have a *nearly* perfect game. Others have probably similar private *fixpacks*. Close our doors and get happy in isolation. Laugh about those silly players looking for help with their issues. We know but we do not tell you, haha. Why care...

[The Imp]

Update: funny twist, eh? I mean, if mod authors doesn't care about BWFixpack is it fair to ask BWFixpack contributors to care about mod authors?

It's fair to ask. But ultimately, it's also fair for them to not necessarily to do it. Which is kinda the reason why I did it.
And I intend to keep on slowly posting on this, G3 and a few other forums on what the BW(S) Fixpack has done. I can't actually find the source access point for the BW(P) Fixpack, which is not the same thing, even if they technically have the same name, but the userbase is completely different. One being the BWP user while the other being the BWS users.

[CamDawg]

My objection is that, as currently phrased., it's an uninteresting question, similar to "should I eat healthier foods?" or "should I exercise more often?". The answer is an easy yes...

Huh? My answer would be "hell no!" on both, so... On more serious note, I've changed topic name. Since no one offered alternative, live with it now

 

Update: funny twist, eh? I mean, if mod authors doesn't care about BWFixpack is it fair to ask BWFixpack contributors to care about mod authors?

 

 

Until this discussion started,, my understanding about BWFixpack has been (similar to BWS) that it is a *community project...a set of tools and patches that fix/update/support mods for all Infinity Engine games* and that "you are welcome to fork this (github) repository and contribute to it*. Quotes from the readme.

 

This was understood as a central point to exchange knowledge/problems/solutions for a game with several hundred mods and a *community* that is spread about a number of websites.

 

Such an attempt to keep the game alive and enjoyable depends on people taaking care and contributing to it. There is no obligation for anyone to do anything - it is just as simple as "if you do not do it, nobody else will.*

 

Half of the BWS has silently passed away with nobody taking care of it anymore.

 

Now we have a discussion that intends to hammer the final nails into the BWF coffin. (and terminating BWS in its wake...)

 

To be honest, I do not need fixpack. I do not even need BWS. I have a large base of mods, fixes and tools I can run on any of my big modded installs to have a *nearly* perfect game. Others have probably similar private *fixpacks*. Close our doors and get happy in isolation. Laugh about those silly players looking for help with their issues. We know but we do not tell you, haha. Why care...

 

These both touch upon what I'm trying to get at. BWP should have been a community project but it never achieved buy-in from modders. The primary reason for that is that most modders, when they had interactions with BWP at all, usually took the form of a player asking them why some well-known and already-fixed bug in their mod wasn't addressed in the latest release, because said bug (and fix) were never communicated to the author. That BWP also ran its own, unauthorized mod mirror didn't help endear it to authors, either. (On the latter, at least, the mirror was quickly removed and has never been restored, to BWP's credit.)

 

This isn't some theoretical lament. I ran a large project that needed multi-community modder support, and I can attest that its often thankless work, but an entirely necessary step for success. BG2FP spent months before we even wrote a line of code talking with authors behind the scenes and listening to suggestions to achieve that buy-in, and then spent just as much time afterwards helping to warn about or mitigate changes that would cause issues in other mods. When we inevitably broke something anyway, we upset authors, yes--but we continued to have support because we were communicative, open, and responsive, and had built up a lot of goodwill because of it.

 

As for BWS' future, it was already going away. Wisp has been working--with Alien's help--on a new project, Zeitgeist, that aims to do what BWS does but better. Look for any of the Zeitgeist topics on the WeiDU forum if you're interested; a lot of it is Alien trying to shape Zeitgeist with lessons learned from BWS. There will likely still be a need for a post-install compatibility Fixpack, and maybe it, too, can improve where previous iterations have struggled.

[CamDawg]

As for BWS' future, it was already going away. Wisp has been working--with Alien's help--on a new project, Zeitgeist, that aims to do what BWS does but better. Look for any of the Zeitgeist topics on the WeiDU forum if you're interested; a lot of it is Alien trying to shape Zeitgeist with lessons learned from BWS. There will likely still be a need for a post-install compatibility Fixpack, and maybe it, too, can improve where previous iterations have struggled.

 
You can't be serious.
 
In case you are, it's because you take as granted what you wish for Zeitgeist to be instead what's been communicated by wisp. Zeitgeist goal is to replace weidu console with GUI, nothing more. And definitely not copy BWS features.
 
Two implications:
1. People are fooled by themselves that Zeitgeist will be BWS-replacement and they will wait forever until end of time
2. People who can actually make decisions regarding some crucial community-matter have wishful thinking that Zeitgeist will solve all problems ( "let's wait and see")
 
And I have even worse news for you: current;y, none of the my proposed improvements have actual chance of being implemented into weidu ( yes, weidu is the root source of problems and limitations ) which mean, no matter how good Zeitgeist will be and how many extra hours of community work will be putted into it, I don't see any significant improvement over what we have to deal today.

Then I've fundamentally misunderstood Zeitgeist. I accept your rebuke, and apologize for perpetuating my poor knowledge of Zeitgeist's aims and goals.

Edited by CamDawg, 08 November 2017 - 10:12 AM.

[The Imp]

ALIEN, let CamDawg dream man, maybe some day you'll wake up in his dream and to your shock, all the work that has been put in it, are the correct tools to destroy world and make new ones. Or not, what's it off your back. Wait and see.

And I have even worse news for you: current;y, none of the my proposed improvements have actual chance of being implemented into weidu ( yes, weidu is the root source of problems and limitations ) which mean, no matter how good Zeitgeist will be and how many extra hours of community work will be putted into it, I don't see any significant improvement over what we have to deal today.

You are saying this because you haven't seen the end product, I am on the same boat, I have not seen a thing either. But the SCS and BGT-weidu were real. No mirrors. While a lot of projects were not.
And no, I am not saying that CamDawg has seen a thing yet either.
While the GU part is true, there's a lot more it can have if it's build not on weidu, but beside it, as starting from the ground, you aren't tied to the old conventions of file size, dictated by the original failure that binds the weidu to the 16 Mb's file size. Not that I know a thing about more on that front.

I ran a large project that needed multi-community modder support, and I can attest that its often thankless work, but an entirely necessary step for success. BG2FP spent months before we even wrote a line of code talking with authors behind the scenes and listening to suggestions to achieve that buy-in, and then spent just as much time afterwards helping to warn about or mitigate changes that would cause issues in other mods. When we inevitably broke something anyway, we upset authors, yes--but we continued to have support because we were communicative, open, and responsive, and had built up a lot of goodwill because of it.

Hmm, good will, or coding conventions that made the addicts addicted. I remember seeing say Cmorgan & Nythrun building skyscrapers of code ... just for fun.
While not having the tools you have todays, while they still wanted to make mods that would be possible.

[Roxanne]

Here is a proposal for an intermediate result from this discussion (some action to be taken after all):

- some modders have actively participated in above discussion, so we can assume they are aware of the issue

- they have expressed to be displeased with the way their mods have been *hijacked* and mistreated with external fixes

- since those fixes are distributed through BWFixpack (as such being automatically installed by users of BWS), these attempts to improve mods have to be removed.

 

This applies to

- BG2Fixpack

- Ajantis BG2

- arestorationp

 

Not clear (since only represented by cited posts)

- strategems

Anyway, without the fixpack additions to strategems, the SCS for BG2EE and EET would become unusable after all.

 

Did I miss any other applicable mod?

 

 

 

Yes, we are at the same boat, it's slowly takes water.

So throw some dead weight over board...

Edited by Roxanne, 08 November 2017 - 12:52 PM.

[Creepin]

- they have expressed to be displeased ... these attempts to improve mods have to be removed.

Holy shit, you serious? Let's force hundreds of players to play bugged versions (even though bugs were not only found but also fixed) because 3 modders were "displeased"? I know that old beaten drum of copyright bla bla, respect yada yada, but I believe this is extreme case of the need of the many far outweighing the ego of the few. Let me remind you that Fixpack, at least partially, was originally created exactly to let people play bug free mods when authors voluntarily ignores or denies bugs discovered and fixes made. You're killing 50% of Fixpack value here, I say it's treason.

Edited by Creepin, 08 November 2017 - 01:17 PM.

[Roxanne]

- they have expressed to be displeased ... these attempts to improve mods have to be removed.

Holy shit, you serious? Let's force hundreds of players to play bugged versions (even though bugs were not only found but also fixed) because 3 modders were "displeased"? I know that old beaten drum of copyright bla bla, respect yada yada, but I believe this is extreme case of the need of the many far outweighing the ego of the few. Let me remind you that Fixpack, at least partially, was originally created exactly to let people play bug free mods when authors voluntarily ignores or denies bugs discovered and fixes made. You're killing 50% of Fixpack value here, I say it's treason.

Actually it is the very opposite. The BWS and fixpack - as stated already - are community efforts. If three super egos are claiming that their pride is more important than hundreds of players enjoying the game, so what? Drown the whole boat or just let them have their way? Nobody is forced to have their mods being part of this. People have all the time to discuss these pros and cons here but not the minute to put a simple little fix that is already delivered to the door into their mod - absurd?

It takes work and effort and dedication to keep those community achievements alive. There is no gain to waste that energy on those who do not want to be part of it.

[Mirandel]

The work and dedication that goes into BWP aside - it really is courtesy in IE modding that noone just changes someone elses mod(s). Adding fixes is exactly that, so no, you don't just do that and leave it to the modder to find out via strange bug reports that his/her mod was altered code wise or with a new language version. I am surprised we have to discuss about this.

I do understand that it might get forgotten if you are handling a lot of mods that aren't supported any more and I also understand that the frustration after trying to contact modders for years with no effort to not do it the next time, I also understand that it all takes time that can be so easily skipped by just integrating the fix into the fixpack - but don't be surprised if it hits an active modder then who complains about not being contacted, and rightfully so - my2c.

 

Just to be clear:  I am talking about actively maintained mods.

 

Ok, can you please repeat it for someone who is not a real modder? Because situation as I (user) see it looks really weird: there are mods - some on active maintenance, some are forgotten by authors yet still popular. Mods are standalone thing and not even authors expect any kind of synergy and cooperation between them. Yet, there is BWS - a tool which is supposed to help sort out elements of code in a way, that several mods actually could work together. Sometimes, the thing that prevents mod to be installed together with others is a bug in that particular mod, in that case BWS applies some fix in order to make it work with other mods.

 

You are saying, that mass-installment with such fix is a violation of modders rights and should not be permitted?!   

 

Jastey, I know perfectly well that you personally are always available and do everything to improve your mods. I'm just trying to understand that "legal" (as funny as it sounds mod-related) concern here. Fix does not change mod, does not remove any feature, does not add anything - it's installation thing, totally exterior, for user's - and authors! - convenience, and only for those who want to see more than 1 mod in their game. Why is it a bad thing?!  

Edited by Mirandel, 08 November 2017 - 02:41 PM.