10 réponses à ce sujet

[Proleric]

I'd like to propose that a stand-alone module should not be treated as an add-in. 

I've split this topic out from the Toolset Patch Information thread.

I appreciate this will require changes to both the toolset and the client.

At present, a community module appears as DLC in game, and OC saves have to be forced to load if the module is subsequently disabled or removed. That strikes me as an ominous symptom of a more fundamental lack of integrity. 

When it comes to add-ins, the toolset allows us to specify which base module the add-in applies to. I'd feel a lot more comfortable if I knew that was honoured in-game.

I accept that there can be benign add-ins (similar to PRC for Neverwinter Nights) which should have core scope, i.e. affect both the OC and all community modules when activated.

However, the Bioware DLC add-ins should probably only affect the OC? I find it odd that Memory Bands turn up in my custom module - though perhaps there's a case for that. Maybe Bioware can comment on whether DLC quests like Stone Prisoner can impact custom modules?

Certainly, if I make a module e.g. "Crown of Creation", then extend it with an add-in "Crown of Creation 2", my add-in shouldn't affect the OC or any other module.

It might be argued that none of this is necessary, because players can switch DLC on and off. Very few custom modules will ever officially support other people's add-ins, owing to the prohibitive testing required, so our advice is always going to be "switch everything off except this module". However, it now appears that there's going to be a very long list of Bioware extensions and custom modules on the DLC screen, so that's going to be easier said than done.

Equally, anyone who really understands systems integrity might reasonably object to my proposal to allow universal add-ins similar to PRC. I must admit that this is a kludge, simply because we know from past experience that there can be benign community extensions which benefit players. In an ideal world, there would be an agreed protocol to reduce conflict between custom modules and add-ins, but we're not that sophisticated yet.

[ladydesire]

It's my understanding that "AddIn" simply means it appears in the DLC menu; it's how you configure the module with respect to the Bioware content that determines what effect it has on other modules. What I mean is this; if you do not configure it to extend either Core Game Resources or Single Player, it will not affect those modules. Something like the PRC should extend Core Game Resources to affect all modules, including the Single Player module, whereas your campaign shouldn't touch it at all. I think the fact that some Bioware DLC works in your module indicates that it is extending Core Game Resources rather than Single Player.

[Proleric]

ladydesire wrote...

It's my understanding that "AddIn" simply means it appears in the DLC menu; it's how you configure the module with respect to the Bioware content that determines what effect it has on other modules. What I mean is this; if you do not configure it to extend either Core Game Resources or Single Player, it will not affect those modules. Something like the PRC should extend Core Game Resources to affect all modules, including the Single Player module, whereas your campaign shouldn't touch it at all. I think the fact that some Bioware DLC works in your module indicates that it is extending Core Game Resources rather than Single Player.

That's more or less my understanding of how it's meant to work.

My module has Content Module=(None) and Extended Module=(None). I've been very careful to check that all new resources belong to my module. So, unless I've misunderstood, what I've made is a stand-alone module that extends nothing else.

However, my module appears in-game on the DLC screen as well as under Other Campaigns. I believe that's because the option to classify it as a Module rather than an Add-In has been suppressed. So far, this agrees with what you said.

It might not matter, except that when I save the OC, disable my module on the DLC screen, and attempt to load the OC, the client says it's expecting my module as an add-in, giving me an option to force the load. That says to me that the client regards my module as an extension to the OC. I regard any crosstalk of that sort as an integrity bug.

Regarding the Bioware DLC, it would be helpful to know which add-ins extend core and which extend the OC.

[ladydesire]

Proleric1 wrote...

It might not matter, except that when I save the OC, disable my module on the DLC screen, and attempt to load the OC, the client says it's expecting my module as an add-in, giving me an option to force the load. That says to me that the client regards my module as an extension to the OC. I regard any crosstalk of that sort as an integrity bug.

I agree; what I think should be done, if possible is to use the Extend property as the flag for OC compatibility, rather than the AddIn property, since AddIn is what makes the game aware of the existence of DLC of all types.

[

[ITSSEXYTIME]

It's not like forcing the load will hurt anything. If the content is isolated, it will have no effect other than the pop up message.

[ladydesire]

ITSSEXYTIME wrote...

It's not like forcing the load will hurt anything. If the content is isolated, it will have no effect other than the pop up message.

True, but it's annoying when the content really has no effect on the OC and the message might imply otherwise.

[Proleric]

Agreed, toolset 1.01 has fixed the OC integrity problem, by all accounts, so maybe the message is spurious, but it doesn't inspire confidence.

[Ranlas]

I can easily see two cases.



A user can see these messages and think that your campaign is effecting things that it actually isn't. they could then become wary of all community stand-alone modules since they may feel like they all can break all their progress. I certainly wouldn't be entirely comfortable with forcing a load like this. What if it does actually effect something by accident? This is bad for the community because now end-users don't trust that our modules are not horrendously bugged.



On the flip side, if users do get used to it, forcing a load when there isn't any dependency issue devalues the warning, which could lead them to ignore it entirely. This is obviously also bad for the community since releases that actually do effect other resources look exactly like resources that don't, also leading end users to not trust community modules.



It's a bit of a lose-lose situation.

[ITSSEXYTIME]

People just need to be educated on what force-loading does. The in-game message makes it sound like it will break your game if you do it, but in reality for 99% of mods this isn't the case. The only time you run risk of breaking anything major is by loading a saved game that is inside an unloaded module.



It would be nice if Bioware changed it so not everything was considered an Add-In, but it's hardly necessary.

[Proleric]

Hm... players can be advised up to a point, but life is short and imperfect. At the very least, I would have thought the spurious forced load should be fixed, for the reasons Ranlas gave.

[ladydesire]

Proleric1 wrote...

Hm... players can be advised up to a point, but life is short and imperfect. At the very least, I would have thought the spurious forced load should be fixed, for the reasons Ranlas gave.

Exactly; it's not like checking to see if the module being unchecked is actually required would hurt anything.