[spoilers] [closed] EET Fixpack not needed

[Roxanne]

I think it's a perfectly fine idea, as a mod. It just seems out of place for something included in EET proper. (As was implied in an earlier post, I think.)

 

Unless k4thos wants to do that kind of editorializing, in which case, it's his project so I would defer to hus preferences. This is just my 2 cents on tbe matter.

 

 

If the mod was called Roxanne's EET Tweaks and Fixes and I wouldn't argue. But the name is EET Fixpack giving it an official touch and therefore I'd expect a more bugfixing-based and less opinion-based approach concerning the content.

This in a way applies to all the fixes.

 

The ToB chapter change one comes directly out of the Sandrah mod where I discovered the problem and then I added it to to Amber when a similar problem appeared with testing her. Some time later, jastey discovered the same problem with one of her mods, so she added something in her mod.

So the idea was that it may happen also on other occasions and it would be a nice idea to make this a global patch instead of needing it done in every mod that uses chapter references in ToB. And if some modder is unaware of it, then there may be a failure in his mod...

 

Same for the Black Pit one. I found it while developing the Black Pit access from BG1 mini-quest and repaired it there. Later I found a similar report from someone playing the standalone campaign in EET and it worked after he used my fix. Again I thought it would be a good idea to share it.

 

I know of four mods that make references in one way or other to Mae'Var as having delivered the protagonist to Irenicus. Those mods may add the reference to the transition scene to achieve continuity. Again the idea was rather to share it than to do it in four (or even more) places.

 

You have convinced me that such a central effort is not needed. All the issues can be solved by those who think they need it.

As there are no issues left afterwards, the fixpack idea can be trashed.

I will close this topic.

[jastey]

Again I thought it would be a good idea to share it.

It is. But making a "Fixpack" - that gets applied automatically by BWS for the installation of EET as you did here - sets different measures as to what should be included. It makes it a community project where different people can, and should, contribute.

Different people means different opinions. Different opinions leads to discussions.

 

Have a look at what Ardanis wrote here about the abduction scene in SoD, calling the hooded figures "faceless goons" in his design doc. Also, there are players (at least one) who imagines the thieves abducting the PC to be rogue Shadow Thieves under Bodhi's influence, which makes just as much sense.

Using Mae'Var here is your and mine opinion. Including it into a Mod that is "included by BWS or EET-Setup tool installations" and therefore "automatically applied" is forcing this opinion onto other players, no matter how good and useful the other fixes in the mod are.

 

This mod is supposed to be a centralized fixpack of which players and modders would benefit both. If you don't share the opinion that agreeing on the content of such a mod should be a community effort but want to decide the content on your own then your mod does not fulfill these criteria and needs to be made optional.

[Roxanne]

 

rogue Shadow Thieves under Bodhi's influence,

Bodhi either turns them into vampires (all those nameless fledgling vampires in her service) or gives some to Irenicus for his *experiments*. Offering them a better occupation in her service, as it is promised in those letters you find on dead shadow thieves that resist her offer, is a lie by which she allures them. At the moment they agree to join her, they are no longer shadow thieves.

 

Anyway, the discussion has become useless, because after deleting or moving into mods that need them all those *fixes* that have been identified so far, nothing is left for an "EET-Fixpack". At least at this moment, it is obviously not needed.

 

I will propose those candidates that are not yet proposed to K4thos EET github and see what happens.

 

This is good news because it shows how solid a product EET really is.

Edited April 27, 2018 by Roxanne

[CamDawg]

I believe the objection is not to the content, execution, or concept; it's a semantics objection to the term 'fixes' or 'fixpack'. You're welcome to browse back to the old, old, old posts in the BG2 Fixpack forum to see why G3 in particular might have sensitivity on the issue.

 

Personally, I get an eye twitch whenever I see a mod list something as a fix and the documentation is inevitably some variant of "I didn't like how this worked".

[Roxanne]

I believe the objection is not to the content, execution, or concept; it's a semantics objection to the term 'fixes' or 'fixpack'. You're welcome to browse back to the old, old, old posts in the BG2 Fixpack forum to see why G3 in particular might have sensitivity on the issue.

 

Personally, I get an eye twitch whenever I see a mod list something as a fix and the documentation is inevitably some variant of "I didn't like how this worked".

I am aware of those semantics and I would have been happy to come up with a better name, but since there is no more content now for the *whatever-the-name*, these are academic considerations.

 

I am not happy about what was done with e.g. BWFixpack - but with EET we have the situation that a) for each fix there is a corresponding PR in the EET github and b) K4thos may or may not pick those issues up some day.

 

But for the moment, there is no further action expected.

[K4thos]

Interesting discussion. In relation to pull request #14, I have to agree with jastey when it comes to Mae'var line. Introducing new lore and story elements is outside scope of EET. A person installing it without other mods should have the same experience story wise as someone playing vanilla EE games.

 

While restoring the SoD end game battle, described by JuliusBorisov in this topic, may seem like a contradiction to what I've just said, the fact that the whole battle is pretty much a visualization of the movie, already fully scripted by Beamdog devs, voice acted by professional actors (love those Minsc lines during it) and according to Andrew Foley has been removed right before game release, I think makes it acceptable to be enabled by default in EET. It adds to the experience without introducing anything new when it comes to story (without it we would have 2 movies, one after another, which would feel a bit off, imo).

 

Some other concerns:

- the proposed line would be the only dialogue during the whole cutscene and battle that is not fully voiced,

- what if Beamdog decides to release some new BG2:EE content that references those events and makes the ambush canonically organized by different group of thieves? In such case EET would be at fault of introducing story element that contradicts (now) official story,

- there is ongoing Shadow Thieves recruitment process during BG2 done by Bodhi, so that group could as well be controlled by her and I think it would make as much sense,

- if we're adopting BGT chain of events why stop there? BGT cutscene actually showcases death of Dynaheir if I remember correctly.

 

So for this particular case I think it's better to leave this adjustment to other mods.

 

edit: I've changed the topic title to warn about spoilers.

Edited July 21, 2018 by K4thos

[jastey]

Introducing new lore and story elements is outside scope of EET. A person installing it without other mods should have the same experience story wise as someone playing vanilla EE games.

Unfortunately, be it unintentional or not, Roxanne worked a lot with her alt accounts at BeamDog Forums on the impression that "EET = lots of new content aka Sandrah Saga". There are players who were / are confused about the scope of what EET does and who think it changes + adds new content.

[K4thos]

jastey, I'm aware about the recent controversy. I'm glad that there are no repercussions on G3 because I find Roxanne's contributions irreplaceable (e.g. EET compatibility list updates, help for other users when it comes to large installations, feedback, interesting discussions, BWS maintaining). While the scope of EET itself is very limited one of the goals is to encourage modders to release work that takes advantage of what it has to offer. I think the confusion is actually my fault considering there is no official EET topic on Beamdog forums.

Edited July 21, 2018 by K4thos

[jastey]

I didn't post this to draw your attention to the R. "controversy" but to a misconception of some players at BeamDog Forums about what EET does and/or not does which aches me every time I see it mentioned because I do not know how active you were at those forums especially the last weeks. By no means I am expecting you to spend time with an EET thread at BeamDog's but rather see you invest your time into EET itself but if you do open such a thread it might well be you'll need to stress what I quoted above a bit more thoroughly than expected.

[jastey]

Because this thread turned into a discussion about whether adding a line that specifies Mae'Var to be the one abducting the PC is a fix or a tweak: Roxanne now added this line to a supposedly neutral mod: "SoD Banter Restoration".

 

Since it didn't work as a "fix", now it's supposed to be a "restoration", as it seems. In my view, it's neither, and I stated as such in the mod's thread at SHS.