Devious Devices - Equip (LE)

[Punga]

Inte did mention that the text in those message boxes is temporary. 

Perhaps we can suggest what they should say, yes? 

[Kimy]

 

 

 

Ok, I rarely call anyone a troll from the get-go, but you obviously have NO clue about what you are talking about, Mr. Second Post Ever. Coopervane got mad at me out of a sudden, when I introduced a CBBE-only model to DCL and accused me of all sorts of things. I never did -anything- to provoke the guy. Feel free to dig up the old threads if you want to.

 

I did, including Skype logs and private messages he saved. I might know more than you think.

 

Did it ever occur to you that he had siblings? A family?

 

 

That or you simply -are- Coopervane. Honestly, I did NOTHING to wrong him/you, I am aware of. If somebody disagrees with me adding a BODY MODEL to my mods, that's quite frankly their own problem.

 

I do not wish to have further discussions about this.

[OneVioletOfMany]

 

 

That or you simply -are- Coopervane. Honestly, I did NOTHING to wrong him/you, I am aware of. If somebody disagrees with me adding a BODY MODEL to my mods, that's quite frankly their own problem.

 

I do not wish to have further discussions about this.

 

It certainly worked out well for you, so I am not supriced that you wish to ignore it.

 

 

Think what you will of me Kimy. I do the same of you.

[D_ManXX2]

I think this thread is derailed enough. please keep it civil. and enjoy the mod.

[Kimy]

 

I will post this message to Inte here too, so the general population can see what's going on:

 

Inte - look, I get your point of view. You explained it to me. I accepted it and still do. Please don't think that I demand you rewriting large portions of POP. I am not. I want to work with you, if you let me. I -did- make this new keyword mainly for YOU, to dramatically reduce the amount of DD items marked as "don't touch me". To the degree that there are barely any left. You can now safely remove more than 95% of all DD items I am aware of. Is it -really- that much asked for that you bring in a check for these last few items and then do just something else. I am sure the law has options to punish somebody other than standard POP scenes. I agree that just letting her go is not satisfactory, but how about the other things I suggested? Adding even more restraints? Taking away a larger portion of her money? Making her do errands? Making her provide "other favours". This circumstance will happen really -rarely- so, because the keyword is supposed to be used sparingly. I can offer to bring in yet another DD keyword to allow modders to mark quest items as "ok for temporary removal as long as they are are put back on after the scene", which might further bring down problematic items.

 

I am sure there is -something- we can work out that doesn't include breaking each other's mods, or giving users unsafe and dangerous options to do just that, no? The one thing from my end that totally not negotiable is removing zad_QuestItem marked items for any reason ever, including disguised as "user choice". To me, that's the same thing as declaring our mods incompatible and I am still determined to do everything in my power to try and protect these items from getting removed by anybody except the mod that equipped them. Everything else we can work on and I am offering my help with it.

 

I wanna be on your side on this, but I don't think your approach is the best one if you want Inte to cooperate.

 

Some DCL quests don't work with POP, so you want POP's main feature-set to be entirely unavailable for the duration of said quests? Why are these quests seemingly taking priority over POP? What if I, as the player, happen to get arrested, and feel like saying "screw this damsel quest, I want to do the prison thing now"? When you look at it from that perspective, is Inte really being that unreasonable for not wanting to do things exactly your way? I don't think so.

 

It seems to me that what's needed here is a form of conflict resolution between DD mods, mediated by DDi, where the player decides which mod takes priority whenever multiple mods are contesting exclusive access to an equip slot. This would require all DD mods with quest-keyword devices to be able to end their quests gracefully if told to by DDi, but I don't think that's an unreasonable demand to make of modders, in the name of player choice and compatibility. At least not as unreasonable as the current suggestion, where it works on a first-come-first-serve basis, and if a mod needs a slot empty then they're shit out of luck.

 

We're here dealing with a problem caused by ONE DD modder who thinks they are above the conventions set by the very framework they are USING to provide their content and can break them whenever they feel like it...and you want me to provide a complete framework for mods gracefully overriding each other's quests on user request? Not only would this be waaaaay more work than Inte providing a simple check before starting his content, and requiring ALL existing mods to update their code, but it would also require EVERY SINGLE DD mod author to agree to whatever standards the framework defines for this. What if ONE other modder decides "Hah, I don't care if the user wants to skip my content, I will not make my mod terminate that quest, regardless of how many triggers DDI sends my way"? They have the same right not to care about framework conventions as Inte, mind you. What then? Back to where we are, right? This idea is not only 10,000 times more complicated than just stepping back and letting running quests do their thing, it's also at least as sensitive to people not respecting the standards as any solution named before, probably more. One uncooperative mod and the entire thing will fall apart again.

 

And already started quests take priority because they are already started. It...makes sense, doesn't it? Do you skip lines in real life too, because you think "first come, first serve" isn't for you and you should take priority because you feel that you are more important than the people already standing there? No? Well, that's what POP/DDe is doing right now. I will be frank for a second: If you don't want to play through the Damsel quest when it started for you, terminate it! Or set its trigger chance to zero. I am already providing means to do that and you can do this at any time. But if the quest is -running- and the user didn't terminate it, I do assume that the user wants to actually play it and not have it overridden by something else, indeed.

 

Inte's problem isn't special at all. ALL modders have to deal with already running quests blocking armor slots and scenes from other mods that conflict with content they might want to start. DCL has it, too. All DD mods do. All SexLab mods, do. Oh, wait, I am pausing my quests when POP is running (check my code if you don't believe me). Think I should pull an Inte and just brute-force terminate POP from now on, when it's in the way of my content? One moment you're in the POP pillory, the next my Bondage Adventure quest ports you to somewhere else! Should we be forced to install just one mod at a time, because nobody can be arsed to give in an inch and play nice with other people's work? Is THAT the vision of cooperation we have here?

 

If the answer to that is yes, it's maybe -me- who should pull their mods and leave.

[Reesewow]

 

Some DCL quests don't work with POP, so you want POP's main feature-set to be entirely unavailable for the duration of said quests? Why are these quests seemingly taking priority over POP? What if I, as the player, happen to get arrested, and feel like saying "screw this damsel quest, I want to do the prison thing now"? When you look at it from that perspective, is Inte really being that unreasonable for not wanting to do things exactly your way? I don't think so.

 

It seems to me that what's needed here is a form of conflict resolution between DD mods, mediated by DDi, where the player decides which mod takes priority whenever multiple mods are contesting exclusive access to an equip slot. This would require all DD mods with quest-keyword devices to be able to end their quests gracefully if told to by DDi, but I don't think that's an unreasonable demand to make of modders, in the name of player choice and compatibility. At least not as unreasonable as the current suggestion, where it works on a first-come-first-serve basis, and if a mod needs a slot empty then they're shit out of luck.

 

 

From the standpoint of a player, they could honestly already do all of the above just by getting annoyed that their Damsel quest was causing POP to be weird, and simply opening the DCUR MCM menu and killing all DCUR quests with the "Free Me" option.  You could probably even do this mid POP event, after realizing that a chastity belt is causing pillory animations to not make any sense or that your character's hands are invisible because they are still wearing an armbinder.  

 

I feel requiring all DD mods to issue a pop-up window when fighting over a slot would either be extremely annoying to a user, or so rare that it makes more sense just to put the onus on the player to make that decision based on the existing MCM menus.

 

At some point there needs to be a reasonable amount of responsibility required by the mod users in cases of multiple mods running at the same time.  As long as mods can avoid failing or causing other mods to fail in such a way that a non-power user would end up with permanently broken quests or inventory items, I think mod users should be able to understand that conflicts may happen when running multiple mods based on the same framework.  The issues that lead to people hitting the support threads looking for help mostly seem to be related to broken scripts or failing quest stages, and unfortunately there is little people can do to help with that other that suggest reloading a save or using a script cleaner.

[WraithSlayer]

 

We're here dealing with a problem caused by ONE DD modder who thinks they are above the conventions set by the very framework they are USING to provide their content and can break them whenever they feel like it...and you want me to provide a complete framework for mods gracefully overriding each other's quests on user request? Not only would this be waaaaay more work than Inte providing a simple check before starting his content, and requiring ALL existing mods to update their code, but it would also require EVERY SINGLE DD mod author to agree to whatever standards the framework defines for this. What if ONE other modder decides "Hah, I don't care if the user wants to skip my content, I will not make my mod terminate that quest, regardless of how many triggers DDI sends my way"? They have the same right not to care about framework conventions as Inte, mind you. What then? Back to where we are, right? This idea is not only 10,000 times more complicated than just stepping back and letting running quests do their thing, it's also at least as sensitive to people not respecting the standards as any solution named before, probably more. One uncooperative mod and the entire thing will fall apart again.

 

Following exactly the same logic you're applying there, any DD mod can abuse the quest keyword you specifically made, in situations they really shouldn't be. As an extreme example (which I definitely don't condone doing ever, for the record), POP could simply equip the player with invisible devices containing the quest keyword, that are permanently taking up the equip slots so no other mods can occupy them, and only remove said devices when jail time starts, putting them right back on once it finishes. Your DCL quests or anything else wouldn't ever be able to start, but hey, tough luck, POP got there first, right? I highly doubt this is the kind of hostile modding environment you want to create for DD, but it's what you're encouraging with a first-come-first-serve policy where the player has no control over what's going on. Inte may be the only one who's negatively affected by it so far, but is that sufficient reason to throw him under the bus?

[Kimy]

 

 

We're here dealing with a problem caused by ONE DD modder who thinks they are above the conventions set by the very framework they are USING to provide their content and can break them whenever they feel like it...and you want me to provide a complete framework for mods gracefully overriding each other's quests on user request? Not only would this be waaaaay more work than Inte providing a simple check before starting his content, and requiring ALL existing mods to update their code, but it would also require EVERY SINGLE DD mod author to agree to whatever standards the framework defines for this. What if ONE other modder decides "Hah, I don't care if the user wants to skip my content, I will not make my mod terminate that quest, regardless of how many triggers DDI sends my way"? They have the same right not to care about framework conventions as Inte, mind you. What then? Back to where we are, right? This idea is not only 10,000 times more complicated than just stepping back and letting running quests do their thing, it's also at least as sensitive to people not respecting the standards as any solution named before, probably more. One uncooperative mod and the entire thing will fall apart again.

 

Following exactly the same logic you're applying there, any DD mod can abuse the quest keyword you specifically made, in situations they really shouldn't be. As an extreme example (which I definitely don't condone doing ever, for the record), POP could simply equip the player with invisible devices containing the quest keyword, that are permanently taking up the equip slots so no other mods can occupy them, and only remove said devices when jail time starts, putting them right back on once it finishes. Your DCL quests or anything else wouldn't ever be able to start, but hey, tough luck, POP got there first, right? I highly doubt this is the kind of hostile modding environment you want to create for DD, but it's what you're encouraging with a first-come-first-serve policy where the player has no control over what's going on. Inte may be the only one who's negatively affected by it so far, but is that sufficient reason to throw him under the bus?

 

 

What can I say? You can abuse everything. The idea of this keyword system was based on mutual cooperation and respect. It's quite obvious that an integral part of that idea is everyone agreeing to using that keyword sparingly and equip these items only while the quest is actually running. Sure, a DD mod could do what you outline. You are right, the system as it is coded now wouldn't stop them. With enough ill will every system will break down. But again, in an environment where people would do such things to each other, I wouldn't want to be a modder anymore. If that answers your question.

 

[Reesewow]

 

 

Following exactly the same logic you're applying there, any DD mod can abuse the quest keyword you specifically made, in situations they really shouldn't be. As an extreme example (which I definitely don't condone doing ever, for the record), POP could simply equip the player with invisible devices containing the quest keyword, that are permanently taking up the equip slots so no other mods can occupy them, and only remove said devices when jail time starts, putting them right back on once it finishes. Your DCL quests or anything else wouldn't ever be able to start, but hey, tough luck, POP got there first, right? I highly doubt this is the kind of hostile modding environment you want to create for DD, but it's what you're encouraging with a first-come-first-serve policy where the player has no control over what's going on. Inte may be the only one who's negatively affected by it so far, but is that sufficient reason to throw him under the bus?

 

 

Wraith, the player already has full control of what's going on, simply by ending the quest via DCUL's MCM menu.  If a mod existed that abused quest tagged items to lock out the other half-dozen or so DD mods I run nicely together currently, I would simply uninstall it as a user.

 

I do agree with the above poster however who mentioned this is the DDe support thread and this is way off topic and non-productive (Inte himself is probably asleep lol).  Probably better for people to communicate via PMs on this stuff if they want a discussion.

[subrina]

 

 

We're here dealing with a problem caused by ONE DD modder who thinks they are above the conventions set by the very framework they are USING to provide their content and can break them whenever they feel like it...and you want me to provide a complete framework for mods gracefully overriding each other's quests on user request? Not only would this be waaaaay more work than Inte providing a simple check before starting his content, and requiring ALL existing mods to update their code, but it would also require EVERY SINGLE DD mod author to agree to whatever standards the framework defines for this. What if ONE other modder decides "Hah, I don't care if the user wants to skip my content, I will not make my mod terminate that quest, regardless of how many triggers DDI sends my way"? They have the same right not to care about framework conventions as Inte, mind you. What then? Back to where we are, right? This idea is not only 10,000 times more complicated than just stepping back and letting running quests do their thing, it's also at least as sensitive to people not respecting the standards as any solution named before, probably more. One uncooperative mod and the entire thing will fall apart again.

 

Following exactly the same logic you're applying there, any DD mod can abuse the quest keyword you specifically made, in situations they really shouldn't be. As an extreme example (which I definitely don't condone doing ever, for the record), POP could simply equip the player with invisible devices containing the quest keyword, that are permanently taking up the equip slots so no other mods can occupy them, and only remove said devices when jail time starts, putting them right back on once it finishes. Your DCL quests or anything else wouldn't ever be able to start, but hey, tough luck, POP got there first, right? I highly doubt this is the kind of hostile modding environment you want to create for DD, but it's what you're encouraging with a first-come-first-serve policy where the player has no control over what's going on. Inte may be the only one who's negatively affected by it so far, but is that sufficient reason to throw him under the bus?

 

 

Sorry, but that is not at ALL, what Kimy suggested.

 

I have read this silly quarrel all through and until now kept my thoughts to myself, but now this is getting ridiculous. The situation you are describing is once again ONE single modder maliciously and intentionally ruining the work of all others. If any modder would ever do such a thing, then they should stop modding for anyone but themselves.

 

So far, I had PO, POP and a bunch of other DD mods running.. .when I had a quest of one mod active, I was either accepting that quest and live my kinky Skyrim life with it, or I was cheating my way out *drumroll* by ways of the mod that hosted the quest and which should be the absolute only way to meddle with the quest... the mod that applies an item should have the means to remove that item again. If it does not host such a possibility, that mod is coded bad or it was intentionally created as a "hardmode" way, which is fine for those that want that.

 

I simply cannot understand, why there are so many people openly advocating one mod getting the power to mess with another mods quest items in any way it pleases... If I had coded any mod, I surely would not want that to happen.

 

And with the abundance of Skyrim mods, it simply is not possible to have everything run without conflict at all times. And the conflicts are resolved by creative modders in a way, that is best for ALL mods... namely the first come, first serve rule.

 

Personally with all this nonsense thrown at Kimy in this thread, I will stop using PO and POP altogether, and enjoy the rest of Devious Skyrim just fine.

 

And @Kimy... No, you surely should not pull your files and leave... please don't.

And in case of a misunderstanding, I do not want Inte to leave either but it seems, that the only compromise that seems visible in this thread is for DDe to allow the force removal of everything.. which in turn means, that every mod potentially effected should mention DDe as "possible conflicting mod".

 

[BruceWayne]

People keep reporting this, so I think it's time to chime in.

 

As far as I understand these are technical and usage etiquette questions, which are discussions modders should be allowed to have. As long as people stay on topic and the argument doesn't turn ad-hominem or insulting there is nothing we will do about it. There were some questionable posts that got reported earlier, but none of us moderators have been available at the time and discussion moved on reasonably well beyond them, so no actions were taken.

 

So going forward, I ask you to please keep the discussion on-topic and civil.

 

Better yet, I'd recommend for you guys to open up a PM with all concerned parties (or a thread in the ccc) to hash out whatever it is that needs to be hashed out, like one of the previous posters suggested. 

 

[WraithSlayer]

 

What can I say? You can abuse everything. The idea of this keyword system was based on mutual cooperation and respect. It's quite obvious that an integral part of that idea is everyone agreeing to using that keyword sparingly and equip these items only while the quest is actually running. Sure, a DD mod could do what you outline. You are right, the system as it is coded now wouldn't stop them. With enough ill will every system will break down. But again, in an environment where people would do such things to each other, I wouldn't want to be a modder anymore. If that answers your question.

 

Yeah, that's a perfectly fair stance, and I definitely wouldn't put up with that kind of bullshit either. My only concern is that this issue isn't going anywhere nice if the involved parties aren't willing to put their personal bias aside and look at it objectively. On a related note, I realize the suggestion I proposed is excessively complex to implement, especially on your side of things, but I do still hope something can be agreed on that leaves both you and Inte happy.

 

In any case, reesewow2 is 100% right: Inte isn't even here right now, and even if he were, it's not really my place to be discussing this in his name, so I'll take my leave now. Cheers!

[El_Duderino]

One aspect seems to be getting overlooked a little so far, probably because the debate started between inte and Kimy. The issue doesn't only happen between DCL and POP, it applies to the DD mod family. The same situation has been reported to arise when you're on a slavery mission from Captured Dreams and get arrested. So the way I see it, some mods simply don't work well together in all situations. Nothing particularly special about that as far as I'm concerned. Sanguine's Debauchery also applies item (certainly the collar) that should not be removed by other mods while the SD enslavement quest is running. SD+, CD, DCL all play nicely together in those situations and don't mess with each other's running quests as far as I can tell from playing with those mods a LOT. It would surely be awesome if an increased cooperation can be achieved between POP/DDe and the other DD quest mods too.
 

I very much hope for an amiable conclusion to this. We need all of the kinky mods!

[Mr. Guyinco-Gnito]

I might be just your average end user, but as an end user with many many mods I have learned that every bit of compatibility helps.

It's not possible to have a 100% compatibility between all mods right of the box, because there is just so many mod combinations. 

I'm also not saying that having a sledgehammer option is bad, but it should be marked and how dangerous it is, in order to make people cautious.

From what im seeing is, that this problem is not much different from cleaning mods (at least from end user perspective). Sure both things are not necessary if you only run your own mod, but if more mods take action issues start occurring, either in form of crashes or broken quests, npcs etc. People have to start troubleshooting instead of being able to enjoy the content that has been created.

I don't want to trash talk anyone, just pointing out that if everyone stays true to lets call it predefined standards, it will help everyone in the long run and maybe mods that would have been completely incompatible can peacefully coexist.

[lopjik]

Why the ever living hell are we even discussing the point of one single individual determining what another individual can or cannot do with thier own work? Seriously? How is this not immediately dismissed as invalid? This is the sort of crap I`d expect from Nexus! Kimy. Inte's work is exactly that, Inte's. In much the same way you refuse to implment/modify your mod in ways others desire but you do not, inte should also be able to no? would be slightly hypocritical otherwise no? I can understand not wanting to problem solve/troubleshoot for dcl/ddi if its at all avoidable, (especially considering more than 9/10 of those problems could be solved if people would refer to the OP or readmes, or even a quick google search.), but attempting to interfere in another modders work when you`ve already been quite clear in the past you do not tolerate/appreciate such interference yourself is just going to make more problems. you are NOT required to problem shoot every single problem that a Modder can run into kimy, your really not lol. I, and many others, appreciate you attempting to, but as large a sample, and as diverse as many of our installs are, its just not feasible, particularly when users are effectively deliberately sabotaging the code. Worth noting, I could go into skyrim now, and really fuck up and dcl quest I wished with command prompts, without any assistance from any Modder.

[Sarge Misfit]

 

 

 

"Since I couldn’t think of anything to put in the message boxes, for now I just filled them with some BS about the save being broken"

 

Great. So, if a player hasn't read the Changelog and gets such a message, what do you think their reaction will be?

 

Well, first they would have to find a damn password in a sea, nay an ocean of code.   

 

And if they can do that, they must know what they are doing and explaining something as mundane as this is a quest item, would be pointless. 

 

 

Picture a player enjoying a game of Skyrim with DDe installed. They've got themselves into a situation where they need to remove an item. They haven't read the Changelog. They get started and suddenly they get a message that their save is broken.

 

It is not a good idea to use a BS message about something that is important or critical at any time.

 

 

 

A player that has not read the changelog wont simply access the function.

 

The BS message warns you exactly of a likely game break if you continue.

It even threatens your cat, hence the BS part (not... but it should, really).

 

I must say though that I don't like the password used not enough â ~ and † in it for my taste.

 

___

 

On the keyword issue: I don't think I could offer anything to it that you guys don't already know, but please don't rip off each others head over it...

 

In general I think the keyword is a necessary evil to make certain things in the frameworks work "smoothly", however if you start using it too leniently a lot of mods will stop working properly, so keep its usage as scarce as possible.

 

 

Ah, thanks. The way the description is worded, I interpreted it to mean that the warning message was bogus, or BS

[Inte]

...

... snip ...  

...

 

If the answer to that is yes, it's maybe -me- who should pull their mods and leave.

Noooo @Kimy, please don't pull your mods and leave. It was a mistake on my part to do that in the first place, let's not start a Nexus trend here, we are better than that.  

 

We can hammer this out.

 

Ok, so you don't want POP to automagically remove DD quest items. Done! POP will not remove any DD quest items henceforth regardless of the MCM options.

I have to filter out some of @xaz's animations especially during the pillory scenario while DD quest items are present. This will take some doing but it can be done. The DDi SL bound animations filter should take care of the rest when players will use the POP animation function instead of the original PO (there is a POP MCM option for that).

 

Now, in exchange I would like to keep the DDe MCM option to remove the quest items MANUALLY only. In other words no mods (including POP) will be able to automagically remove any DD quest items though DDe. This way there is no way a save could get corrupted because of a forgotten MCM option. Instead the player would have to use the DDe MCM menu and intentionally remove the items, more of an emergency type of thing really.

I will keep the password and the warning message boxes in place when this option is activated.

 

 

 

 

[Inte]

 

If it is at all possible to detect wether or not the keywords exists on items before listing them in the MCM, I would rather have two lists in two different MCM window. The first would only list the regular DD items, that can be "safely" removed. The second list would contain nothing but the quests items, but if a quest item is found on the player then the MCM menu would only display this text: "Follow the rabbit...", with an input just bellow. The input being there for the password.

 

And to add a little more humor to the whole thing, put this cuteness just above the password in the code:

                
                            /|      __  
                           / |   ,-~ /  
                          Y :|  //  /    
                          | jj /( .^  
                          >-"~"-v"  
                         /       Y    
                        jo  o    |  
                       ( ~T~     j   
                        >._-' _./   
                       /   "~"  |    
                      Y     _,  |      
                     /| ;-"~ _  l    
                    / l/ ,-"~    \  
                    \//\/      .- \  
                     Y        /    Y*  
                     l       I     ! 
                     ]\      _\    /"\ 
                    (" ~----( ~   Y.  )   
            ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~    

 

To my chagrin the quest items have already been removed from all of DDe, on Veladarius request. 

So the only available items in DDe are "safe" items, I think. 

 

 

That is correct, there are no DD quest items equip able in DDe.

All DDe DDs are 'safe'.  

It's inside that library script, isn't it. I mean if I were a password, that's where I would hide.   

 

Nope!

[bicobus]

 

To my chagrin the quest items have already been removed from all of DDe, on Veladarius request. 

So the only available items in DDe are "safe" items, I think. 

 

 

That is correct, there are no DD quest items equip able in DDe.

All DDe DDs are 'safe'. 

 

 

This is how I feel about this whole situation.

[Inte]

Ha!

[Inte]

So, you're sure it's not complicated to find said Password?

 

Pssst don't tell @Punga!

[Mister X]

 

So, you're sure it's not complicated to find said Password?

 

Pssst don't tell @Punga!

 

 

Why, is it a complicated Password? 

[bicobus]

Speak Friend and enter?

[Kimy]

 

...

... snip ...  

...

 

If the answer to that is yes, it's maybe -me- who should pull their mods and leave.

Noooo @Kimy, please don't pull your mods and leave. It was a mistake on my part to do that in the first place, let's not start a Nexus trend here, we are better than that.  

 

We can hammer this out.

 

Ok, so you don't want POP to automagically remove DD quest items. Done! POP will not remove any DD quest items henceforth regardless of the MCM options.

I have to filter out some of @xaz's animations especially during the pillory scenario while DD quest items are present. This will take some doing but it can be done. The DDi SL bound animations filter should take care of the rest when players will use the POP animation function instead of the original PO (there is a POP MCM option for that).

 

Now, in exchange I would like to keep the DDe MCM option to remove the quest items MANUALLY only. In other words no mods (including POP) will be able to automagically remove any DD quest items though DDe. This way there is no way a save could get corrupted because of a forgotten MCM option. Instead the player would have to use the DDe MCM menu and intentionally remove the items, more of an emergency type of thing really.

I will keep the password and the warning message boxes in place when this option is activated.

 

 

Let's do it right, then. If this function is exclusively used as a debug function that can activated only manually, then let's put it into the framework itself, where it belongs. I will also introduce a framework ModEvent that's getting sent when the user is activating the feature, so content mods can set up a listener and properly terminate their quests on their end. So we'd have a CLEAN solution to that.

 

Yes, I hereby offer to implement that feature in DDI. In return, you remove that feature from DDe.

 

Deal?

 

[Drek71]

Sorry feel like I'm double posting but as this mod is kinda a requisite for PO patches the problem may also stem from here or be related. To begin with I dont get any quest dialog to play with a companion like the description suggests. But the biggest and related problem with PO is I also don't seem to have anyway to save a custom selection in the library, it has categories but theres no interactive buttons or input boxes.