Devious Devices - Integration 4.3a (2019-09-10)

[mangalo]

I wouldn't say we'd lose far more by dropping DD.  PoP for example adds as much value to the game as DCL (to me) and a lot of mods still use Zaz so if my plan was to use only DD mods, my game would be really more boring.  It's a shame DD isn't the perfect framework to the authors of the "culprit" mods but I don't think trying to get LL against them is a good move for DD nor LL either.

[Laura]

15 hours ago, mangalo said:

I wouldn't say we'd lose far more by dropping DD.  PoP for example adds as much value to the game as DCL (to me) and a lot of mods still use Zaz so if my plan was to use only DD mods, my game would be really more boring.  It's a shame DD isn't the perfect framework to the authors of the "culprit" mods but I don't think trying to get LL against them is a good move for DD nor LL either.

There is nothing wrong with preferring Zaz to DD. They roughly do the same thing, but they're still very different. I also don't think people are against the older mods.

 

I think the DD team doesn't support older versions because it's a lot of work. Maintaining and supporting multiple versions is a nightmare. They're not a big company and they want to use their time to work on new and better things.

 

The mod makers with older versions probably don't want to do (or can't do) the boring busy work required to update their mod to V4+. Making mods and creating new things is fun, but rebuilding a bunch of devices and code isn't fun.

 

But I'm not in the DD team and my mod was made after the release of DD V4, so these are just assumptions.

[Kimy]

58 minutes ago, mangalo said:

I wouldn't say we'd lose far more by dropping DD.  PoP for example adds as much value to the game as DCL (to me) and a lot of mods still use Zaz so if my plan was to use only DD mods, my game would be really more boring.  It's a shame DD isn't the perfect framework to the authors of the "culprit" mods but I don't think trying to get LL against them is a good move for DD nor LL either.

This is not about DD vs ZAP, it's about outdated DD mods. DD couldn't care less about which ZAP mods you have or don't have installed (and vice versa). They might clash when they fight over who gets to use which armor slot to equip restraints in, but that's the nature of BD mods. The discussion at hand is about mods that for various reasons never updated from DD3 to DD4. People keep asking for obsolete versions of the DD framework to keep these obsolete mods running, and the price for that is that they can't use the overwhelming majority of DD mods that DID update.

[mangalo]

I used Zaz as an (maybe bad) example because it was kind of the controversial topic a few months ago but my point is that pointing those authors as bad/lazy/... might have worse results than anything.  Last time this happened we almost lost Captured Dreams.

 

I agree with you that an update to those mods would be the best option but maybe there's a way to discuss this with the authors (Inte in this case).  I suppose there are already have been talks between the DD team and him, can we -as users- help on this ? 

[donttouchmethere]

16 minutes ago, mangalo said:

I used Zaz as an (maybe bad) example because it was kind of the controversial topic a few months ago but my point is that pointing those authors as bad/lazy/... might have worse results than anything.  Last time this happened we almost lost Captured Dreams.

 

I agree with you that an update to those mods would be the best option but maybe there's a way to discuss this with the authors (Inte in this case).  I suppose there are already have been talks between the DD team and him, can we -as users- help on this ? 

SURE!

Make bug reports, lots of them =D

Keep asking^^

Fill the support topics and give friendly Feedback

[Kimy]

20 minutes ago, mangalo said:

I used Zaz as an (maybe bad) example because it was kind of the controversial topic a few months ago but my point is that pointing those authors as bad/lazy/... might have worse results than anything.  Last time this happened we almost lost Captured Dreams.

I never called these modders bad or lazy, so not sure why you're putting such words into my mouth? I have no control over what modders are doing with the DD framework. Whether they use it or don't use it is as much their own decision as is whether or not to update their mods to the newest version of the framework. But from a framework point of view, DD mods that do not support the newest version of the framework are outdated/obsolete, and of course I have to caution people against using such obsolete mods, for all the potential issues that might cause. We will not support or provide older versions of the DD framework to accommodate obsolete mods. Other than it doesn't solve the problem at all (older versions of DD cannot run the vast majority of mods that DID update, so you're just exchanging one problem for another), but that is like asking Microsoft to continue supporting Windows 95 so you can continue running obsolete applications.

[mangalo]

20 minutes ago, Kimy said:

I never called these modders bad or lazy, so not sure why you're putting such words into my mouth? I have no control over what modders are doing with the DD framework. Whether they use it or don't use it is as much their own decision as is whether or not to update their mods to the newest version of the framework. But from a framework point of view, DD mods that do not support the newest version of the framework are outdated/obsolete, and of course I have to caution people against using such obsolete mods, for all the potential issues that might cause. We will not support or provide older versions of the DD framework to accommodate obsolete mods. Other than it doesn't solve the problem at all (older versions of DD cannot run the vast majority of mods that DID update, so you're just exchanging one problem for another), but that is like asking Microsoft to continue supporting Windows 95 so you can continue running obsolete applications.

Again, you missed my point.  I specifically said keeping up to date was a good thing.  What I didn't say though, is that you called them bad/lazy and such.  The whole point I'm trying to make is that trying to do a war to these mods and authors won't result in anything good.  I'm not saying that it's your intent.  However, I felt that this was the new cool topic to discuss as it was brought to the table by DCL 7.4.

 

Calling us to delete those mods or treat them like trash don't make them inherently bad and I -personnaly- feel like there is some hostility between the DD team and Inte like there were between the DD team and Veladarius.  As you said, maybe we have to make a choice between DD4 and using those mods, maybe there is hope to create new options.  But unless we know at what points are things between the DD team and those mod authors, we can't really help but asking you not create a new drama.  I'm not saying that in a sarcastic manner nor trying to upset you, just being honest here.  Do you want users to ask Inte to reconsider ?  As I said, is it a lost hope or can we help ?

 

This is my final post on that matter as it doesn't belong here.

[Kimy]

15 minutes ago, mangalo said:

Again, you missed my point.  I specifically said keeping up to date was a good thing.  What I didn't say though, is that you called them bad/lazy and such.  The whole point I'm trying to make is that trying to do a war to these mods and authors won't result in anything good.  I'm not saying that it's your intent.  However, I felt that this was the new cool topic to discuss as it was brought to the table by DCL 7.4.

 

Calling us to delete those mods or treat them like trash don't make them inherently bad and I -personnaly- feel like there is some hostility between the DD team and Inte like there were between the DD team and Veladarius.  As you said, maybe we have to make a choice between DD4 and using those mods, maybe there is hope to create new options.  But unless we know at what points are things between the DD team and those mod authors, we can't really help but asking you not create a new drama.  I'm not saying that in a sarcastic manner nor trying to upset you, just being honest here.  Do you want users to ask Inte to reconsider ?  As I said, is it a lost hope or can we help ?

I don't know why you apparently feel offended by me offering sound technical advice. Since when has it EVER been a good idea to run outdated software, anywhere in history? Telling users to consider no longer using such software isn't waging war against its makers, its applying logic and reason. That's really all there is to it. It doesn't matter who made that outdated piece of software and what my personal relations are with them. It's a purely technical matter. I advise against using DD3 mods for the same reason I would advise against using Windows 95. End of story.

[Lupine00]

10 hours ago, Kimy said:

That's literally what I have heard. When Walk of Shame released, "Can we change the dress?" was among the first reactions to it. And the one used by WoS is the "boobs-exposed" one, even. oO

Dammit, now you made me think how cool it would be if the townsfolk explicitly abused your breasts during the WoS, adding increasingly nasty piercings.

 

I love that outfit. Please don't change it. The hobble dress in that color/material is awesome too.

[Lupine00]

10 hours ago, mangalo said:

I wouldn't say we'd lose far more by dropping DD.  PoP for example adds as much value to the game as DCL (to me) and a lot of mods still use Zaz so if my plan was to use only DD mods, my game would be really more boring.  It's a shame DD isn't the perfect framework to the authors of the "culprit" mods but I don't think trying to get LL against them is a good move for DD nor LL either.

What?

PoP adds more value than DCL? I'd have said the opposite, but that's pretty subjective I suppose.

But neither PoP nor DCL is a "build your game around it" one of a kind option.

 

There are alternatives to all the components of DCL, and PoP is just standing around waiting to be whipped or raped. There's no gameplay in it at all.

If all you want is to watch that while you're dragged around in bondage, I guess Devious Framework and Hydras Slavegirls might do it.

If you want a prison, then Skyrim Central Prison is a proper prison mod. Or Raven Beak or Devious CIdhna with CME (at a stretch).

 

 

But there is no major conflict between DD and Zaz. You can run PoP in a game with DCL and simply not enable DD in PoP so it just uses Zaz items.

 

I'm currently using ME, which is Zaz-based, using its own devices based off DD Assets, and DD, and there are a few problems but nothing I can't work around.

Zaz based mods are rarely that picky about whether the items gets removed or not. If DD and Zaz get in a fight, I just remove all the Zaz items.

 

 

I believe, at this point, the logical path is not to use Zaz items on the player. Ever. They are a quick and efficient way to dress up NPCs.

 

So if we rephrase my question to, "What Zaz-based mod that restrains the player, and has no practical replacement, and is so good you can't live without it?"

 

ME?

And... What else?

 

 

Of course, in a world where this wasn't blocked by other agendas, we could have DD and Zaz both reference a single shared mini-ESM that has a set of keywords that are universal. The keyword mod would be a shared resource, with clearly defined contents that should never need to change... At least not with the practical life left in Skyrim and FO4.

 

It's probably a safe bet that by the time TES6 appears, the existing assets will look old and low-res, and the existing code will be all but useless. One day, these arguments will be as forgotten as debates over Morrowind mods.

[Inte]

8 hours ago, mangalo said:

Again, you missed my point.  I specifically said keeping up to date was a good thing.  What I didn't say though, is that you called them bad/lazy and such.  The whole point I'm trying to make is that trying to do a war to these mods and authors won't result in anything good.  I'm not saying that it's your intent.  However, I felt that this was the new cool topic to discuss as it was brought to the table by DCL 7.4.

 

Calling us to delete those mods or treat them like trash don't make them inherently bad and I -personnaly- feel like there is some hostility between the DD team and Inte like there were between the DD team and Veladarius.  As you said, maybe we have to make a choice between DD4 and using those mods, maybe there is hope to create new options.  But unless we know at what points are things between the DD team and those mod authors, we can't really help but asking you not create a new drama.  I'm not saying that in a sarcastic manner nor trying to upset you, just being honest here.  Do you want users to ask Inte to reconsider ?  As I said, is it a lost hope or can we help ?

 

This is my final post on that matter as it doesn't belong here.

As far as I know DDe 4.04 works with DDi 4. I am yet to get a report that proves otherwise. Sure prior DDe 4.04 there were some keywords missing that made the armbinder animations not work properly, but that should have been fixed as of DDe 4.04. Not sure what all the discourse is all about. 

But like always, Kimy and lackeys like @Lupine00, jump on the shit throwing wagon without having (or bothering to check/test) all the facts. Typical. 

 

And calling users to delete a particular mod without actually testing it yourself beforehand and supporting your arguments with facts not just twisting them to fit your agenda is on par with Kimy's MO. 

[Kimy]

2 hours ago, Inte said:

As far as I know DDe 4.04 works with DDi 4. I am yet to get a report that proves otherwise. Sure prior DDe 4.04 there were some keywords missing that made the armbinder animations not work properly, but that should have been fixed as of DDe 4.04. Not sure what all the discourse is all about. 

But like always, Kimy and lackeys like @Lupine00, jump on the shit throwing wagon without having (or bothering to check/test) all the facts. Typical. 

 

And calling users to delete a particular mod without actually testing it yourself beforehand and supporting your arguments with facts not just twisting them to fit your agenda is on par with Kimy's MO. 

 

Oh really? I guess what you're saying is that you don't know what your own mod is doing, then:

 

Quote

 

Mod Status

• Not tested with DDi/DDx 4.

 

 

Which is a statement you confirmed just a few weeks ago:

 

 

So what you're saying is that you can't be arsed to test your own stuff against DD4 and then blaming me to take your expert word at face value and agree with you that your mod is not proven to work with DD4?

 

*slow clap"

 

Bottom line: You still mistakenly assume that I care about your mods enough to install and test them, when YOU are telling everyone that they probably don't work with DD4. Thing is that I stopped caring about you or your mods a long while ago. If you declare your stuff compatible with DD4, I will assume it will be, at least until users tell me otherwise. If you continue to declare it untested with recent version of DD4, I will just believe you and continue to advise users to consider your stuff obsolete.

 

Your call, really. And I still don't care.

[DonQuiWho]

Tuppence worth on all this, hopefully in as part of 'The Peace and Goodwill to all People Initiative'   (I had first thought of calling that 'The Peace and Goodwill to all People Stakes' but reckoned I might be in danger of getting impaled ? )

 

 

I rather like PO, and often have it in my load order, up till 3.60, primarily because of the uncertainty it can add to where it might take the game if imprisonment is suddenly sprung on the player, giving another challenge to be worked round.  I'd still like to be able to use it when possible, although I undersdtand why it's no longer included in DCL consequences.  But I have steered clear of DDe for a long time, and had foregone the options that provided in PO, ever since it was very clearly stated that DDe doesn't support DD4+.    If @Inte is now saying DDe has been upgraded to co-exist with DD4, incl 4.2, that would be a welcome change, but if truly so, and tested as working, then the mod description really really does need to be updated

 

As for @Lupine00 comment re zaz and its content, I tend to agree that ZAP can be very pretty, and the proposed new content looks even much better - although I do sometimes have doubts that I shall ever see it in action before I die - but 'pretty' doesn't 'do' anything like the proper game-making, restraint mechanic and allied gameplay challenge that DD offers for your PC, for either worn restraints or furniture.  It's OK when incorporated in mods like those of musje, HSH+AYGAS, where it's primarily the player that is dominant, but until the sub side mechanic is better catered for  - and @Musje seems to be making some quiet progress on that  - ZAP might make for great 'eye candy' but not really do a whole lot for the type of gameplay DD best supports.  So they both have their merits, for what they do best, and I really do hope that they never conflict to the extent that it makes a combined gameplay impossible  

 

\Grandpa slopes off to lick the drool from his beard.....

[Lupine00]

7 hours ago, Inte said:

and lackeys like @Lupine00, jump on the shit throwing wagon

I always wanted to be a lackey.

 

But honestly, it's not like I'm picking sides, the sides pick me.

If you think Kimy likes me or my comments, you must be smoking some crack.

You can't spend a year protesting about DD4, then simply turn around and say "it works now, Lupine is the fake news media enemy of the people!"

 

But if my "shit throwing" happens to result in a better understanding for everyone of the support-level for DD in DDe, I don't think it's all bad.

Because that's clearly an area where there could be more clarity.

 

 

If you frequently treat people who have a problem, or raise an issue as an enemy, and beat them down with snide comments and just general bullying behaviour, don't be surprised when they decide to discuss those bugs in less hostile environments. 

 

 

But really... It's the DDe support forum that were saying DDe doesn't work.

I guess everyone there with a problem is just throwing shit too?

 

I updated to the latest DDe a few days back, and I'm using it, despite it now requiring an ESM (which made me hold off installing it for a while), but as the mod has make a long standing show - literally a performance - of not working properly with DD4, and doesn't claim DD4 compatibility on its front page, and perhaps most tellingly, does not claim to have made any fixes with regard to DD4 compatibility in the change list, how would I have known it was now (allegedly) working? 

 

As I simply avoid it adding heavy bondage items if at all possible, and don't exercise the suspect parts, really, how would I know it's supposed to be fixed?

When the change list doesn't say it, and the front page doesn't say it?

 

 

Below is the chain of recent changes, with at the bottom "Not testing with DD4" which was a euphemism for "has bugs on purpose." There is no unambiguous information that this ever changed. Read for yourselves...

 

Spoiler

 

Mod Status

• Not tested with DDi/DDx 4.
• So far the mod equips and un-equips DDs quite reliably on the PC.
• ... not so much on the NPCs, I cannot seem to find an API to reliably detect worn DD by NPCs. Fixed as of 1.30
• Be careful when equipping devious devices on NPCs - most of them will probably break or prevent you from finishing quests by acting all retarded.
• Should be OK with followers, you can remove DDs from them by asking them to share items with you and just removing the DDs directly from their inventory - just make sure you have the keys first. 

Translations
German -> by @CGi

ChangeLog

Version No. 4.04

• Patched .::. Some missing keywords.
• Added .::. @MaikCG’s Dwemer Mecha (DDC) from here, Dwarven Devious Cuirass. You do not need to have it’s .esp checked. Do not forget to run BodySlide for all items starting with ‘DwarvenDD’. DDe includes the base files from DDC. Should @MaikCG decide to update DDC, override the old DDe files with the new ones from DDC. 
• Added .::. MCM options to control the Mech Suit operation, e.g. no inventory, no sprint, no fight, no activate, etc. 

Version No. 4.03

• Patched .::. Startup issue. 

Version No. 4.02

• Patched .::. Custom outfits not equipping, as mentioned by @leddmirage.
• Patched .::. Equip by keywords event. 
• Changed .::. More SUM code optimization. 

Version No. 4.01

• Patched .::. MCM toggle option not working. 

Version No. 4.00

• Warning .::. Note the new requirement. 
• Patched .::. Some of the code to work with the new requrement. 
• Added .::. Global functions, see API.
• Changed .::. Nothing. 

Version No. 3.51

• Patched .::. Some minor bugs. 
• Added .::. Nothing.
• Changed .::. Nothing. 

Version No. 3.50

• Patched .::. Some functions required by POP. 
• Added .::. Worn outfit saver. 

Have you ever walked by slave Kara or any tightly bound slave and thought to yourself, “... hmm, I wander what kind of devious devices her master locked on her... they look quite restrictive and very secure... I bet she feels quite helpless and very vulnerable... “ well wander no more. With this new DDe feature you can now select the subject of your envy (with the DDe actor select key) and then save whatever devious devices are worn as a custom outfit, so you can try it out for yourself. This should work with any devious devices even those not included in DDe.

• Changed .::. Nothing. 

Version No. 3.47

• Patched .::. An endless loop when trying to remove a previously removed device still in the list of worn items (in the MCM). 
• Patched .::. More functions required by POP. 
• Added .::. Nothing.
• Changed .::. Nothing. 

Version No. 3.46

• Warning .::. Not tested with DDi/DDx 4.00. 
• Patched .::. Existing DD removal off NPCs, as mentioned by @Punga.   
• Added .::. Nothing.
• Changed .::. Nothing. 

 

 

Was secretly fixing it and not telling anyone a sort of weird practical joke?

 

I guess, it's there, if you're psychic, and know that "Patched: some missing keywords" in the latest release, actually means "Patched: fixed missing DD4 keywords - should be fully compatible with DD4.2 now." I guess it wasn't a secret after all?

[Lupine00]

1 hour ago, donkeywho said:

and @Musje seems to be making some quiet progress on that  - ZAP might make for great 'eye candy' but not really do a whole lot for the type of gameplay DD best supports.  So they both have their merits, for what they do best, and I really do hope that they never conflict to the extent that it makes a combined gameplay impossible  

I think it would be sad if Musje spent a whole lot of time re-inventing the wheel, especially at this point in the Skyrim lifecycle.

Wouldn't time be better spent putting those assets in a DD asset pack, and the coding effort pushed towards a solution for the slow DD inventory traversal, or into better ways to integrate the master into the furniture set-ups.

 

In the past, I've asked why there isn't an archetypes system for the DD item scripts, or a cached archetypes system - so it doesn't have to placeatme 50 times if you're holding 50 different devices - but I never got an answer as to whether that had been tried and rejected, or why it wouldn't work.

 

There are many players who like NPC slavery, and are kind of counting on someone to carry PaH forward, and adding player bondage to PaH isn't all that likely to be top of their wish list. Is there an army of modders who want to rush out and make a DD-a-like mod using Zaz? It seems like a solution in search of a problem.

 

The greater part of Zaz works horribly with player as slave, hundreds and hundreds of items have unusable cameras, or drop you into a collision box, or have activation boxes in weird places. That continues because they weren't made for player slavery; they're props you put NPCs in, or decorate your dungeon with. The work required to bring them up to a player-usable level that is actually usable is tremendous.

[DonQuiWho]

42 minutes ago, Lupine00 said:

I think it would be sad if Musje spent a whole lot of time re-inventing the wheel, especially at this point in the Skyrim lifecycle.

Wouldn't time be better spent putting those assets in a DD asset pack, and the coding effort pushed towards a solution for the slow DD inventory traversal, or into better ways to integrate the master into the furniture set-ups.

 

In the past, I've asked why there isn't an archetypes system for the DD item scripts, or a cached archetypes system - so it doesn't have to placeatme 50 times if you're holding 50 different devices - but I never got an answer as to whether that had been tried and rejected, or why it wouldn't work.

 

There are many players who like NPC slavery, and are kind of counting on someone to carry PaH forward, and adding player bondage to PaH isn't all that likely to be top of their wish list. Is there an army of modders who want to rush out and make a DD-a-like mod using Zaz? It seems like a solution in search of a problem.

 

The greater part of Zaz works horribly with player as slave, hundreds and hundreds of items have unusable cameras, or drop you into a collision box, or have activation boxes in weird places. That continues because they weren't made for player slavery; they're props you put NPCs in, or decorate your dungeon with. The work required to bring them up to a player-usable level that is actually usable is tremendous.

I wouldn't disagree with much of that at all.  And it's very sensible.  Some of the original pack assets do seem to be making their way into DD, courtesy of zaz perms.  But, if you haven't already, you need to read the ZAP8+ thread, ignoring the pretty pictures, to see why, although some cam improvements seem likely, much of the rest of what you suggest is very unlikely to happen. ?

 

 

[Lupine00]

1 hour ago, donkeywho said:

much of the rest of what you suggest is very unlikely to happen. ?

Could you clarify what you think is likely and unlikely to happen, as I described a hypothetical scenario with Zaz, then a performance issue with DD and a mitigation for it, then another hypothetical with Zaz, then a suggestion as to why Zaz wasn't well suited to player-bondage.

 

Which bits are the unlikely ones?  And why?

I'm guessing the Zaz forum isn't going to illuminate the DD matter.

 

I spent a while "reading" the Zaz 8 forum recently, but could find nothing concrete other than screenshots of new devices and cheering about new textures.

When there was a post from Musje, it was entirely about add-ons to PaH.

[DonQuiWho]

19 minutes ago, Lupine00 said:

Could you clarify what you think is likely and unlikely to happen, as I described a hypothetical scenario with Zaz, then a performance issue with DD and a mitigation for it, then another hypothetical with Zaz, then a suggestion as to why Zaz wasn't well suited to player-bondage.

 

Which bits are the unlikely ones?  And why?

I'm guessing the Zaz forum isn't going to illuminate the DD matter.

 

I spent a while "reading" the Zaz 8 forum recently, but could find nothing concrete other than screenshots of new devices and cheering about new textures.

When there was a post from Musje, it was entirely about add-ons to PaH.

Sharing assets

[Inte]

8 hours ago, Kimy said:

Oh really? I guess what you're saying is that you don't know what your own mod is doing, then:

Just because something is not tested it does not mean it does not work. Yes, and I stand by that statement.

 

8 hours ago, Kimy said:

So what you're saying is that you can't be arsed to test your own stuff against DD4 and then blaming me to take your expert word at face value and agree with you that your mod is not proven to work with DD4?

That sentence doesn’t make any sense to me. 

 

8 hours ago, Kimy said:

Bottom line: You still mistakenly assume that I care about your mods enough to install and test them,

Then stop shitting all over them because obviously, by your own admission you do not have all the facts. You revere yourself as a leader, and yet you spread discourse based on nothing but fallacies. 
I’ve read in one of your posts that DDe should not even be in the same load order as DDi. Yet, you haven’t even tested DDe to confirm that it breaks DDi so bad that they cannot coexist in the same load order? Honestly Kimy! 

 

8 hours ago, Kimy said:

YOU are telling everyone that they probably don't work with DD4.

Again you are twisting what I am saying to fit your argument. I NEVER said that DDe does not work with DDi. What I said was that DDe is not tested with DDi. Two very different things. 

 

8 hours ago, Kimy said:

Thing is that I stopped caring about you or your mods a long while ago.

Aw, I will try to go on, I know it will be very difficult at first but... I... I... will try to survive. Luckily I never drank any of your Kool-aid. 

 

8 hours ago, Kimy said:

If you continue to declare it untested with recent version of DD4, I will just believe you and continue to advise users to consider your stuff obsolete.

Untested does not mean obsolete. 
So, just advise users of the facts. Tell them that DDe was not tested with DDi by its author. That’s it. Stop telling them that DDe cannot be in the same load order as DDi.

[Inte]

3 hours ago, Lupine00 said:

If you think Kimy likes me or my comments, you must be smoking some crack.

The definition of a lackey is quite the opposite, it seems you’re the one doing all the smoking. 

 

3 hours ago, Lupine00 said:

You can't spend a year protesting about DD4, then simply turn around and say "it works now, Lupine is the fake news media enemy of the people!"

I did not protest against DD4, just its leadership’s unwillingness to address concerns brought up by the very mods DD4 was supposed to framework. 

 

3 hours ago, Lupine00 said:

If you frequently treat people who have a problem, or raise an issue as an enemy, and beat them down with snide comments and just general bullying behaviour, don't be surprised when they decide to discuss those bugs in less hostile environments. 

Have you any examples, or is Kimy’s Kool-aid so strong that you’re also starting to see things that are not there. 

 

3 hours ago, Lupine00 said:

But really... It's the DDe support forum that were saying DDe doesn't work.

I guess everyone there with a problem is just throwing shit too?

Prior to DDe 4.04 that might have been true, but you started your shit throwing campaign after the DDe 4.04's release. I recall something about DDe being ‘...dead in the water...’. I’m all for informing the public as well, but get your facts straight first. 

 

3 hours ago, Lupine00 said:

Below is the chain of recent changes, with at the bottom "Not testing with DD4" which was a euphemism for "has bugs on purpose." There is no unambiguous information that this ever changed. Read for yourselves...

The Kool-aid is strong within you. 
It’s ‘Not tested with DDi 4, which is a euphemism for ‘not tested with DDi 4'. 

 

3 hours ago, Lupine00 said:

I guess, it's there, if you're psychic, and know that "Patched: some missing keywords" in the latest release, actually means "Patched: fixed missing DD4 keywords - should be fully compatible with DD4.2 now." I guess it wasn't a secret after all?

They are not DDi 4 keywords, hence the reason I did not do that. 
Point is, DDe 4.04 will run fine alongside DDi 4 without breaking anything like some fear mongers would have you believe.   

[Kimy]

 

27 minutes ago, Inte said:

 

Again you are twisting what I am saying to fit your argument. I NEVER said that DDe does not work with DDi. What I said was that DDe is not tested with DDi. Two very different things. 

 

Aw, I will try to go on, I know it will be very difficult at first but... I... I... will try to survive. Luckily I never drank any of your Kool-aid. 

 

Untested does not mean obsolete. 
So, just advise users of the facts. Tell them that DDe was not tested with DDi by its author. That’s it. Stop telling them that DDe cannot be in the same load order as DDi.

Fine, I will tell them then that its been declared untested by its own creator, which makes it potentially unstable software that STILL shouldn't be used unless people like installing unproven beta-quality software in their installations. We can split hairs all day long over the exact semantics, but baseline is that by slapping the "untested" label on your stuff you're scaring people away from using it with DD4, which then makes them run to -me- and ask me to provide obsolete versions of DD to run your stuff in. As long as you continue that practice, my advice to users against using your stuff will not change, and I couldn't care less if you like that. It will change the day your declare your stuff fit for use with DD4, and not a moment earlier. And no, it's still not MY obligation to test your stuff. It's yours.

 

That's my last word on the matter. You can do both of us a favor now and GTFO of what's for all practical purposes my support thread.

[Darkwing241]

39 minutes ago, Inte said:

Just because something is not tested it does not mean it does not work. Yes, and I stand by that statement.

 

That sentence doesn’t make any sense to me. 

 

Then stop shitting all over them because obviously, by your own admission you do not have all the facts. You revere yourself as a leader, and yet you spread discourse based on nothing but fallacies. 
I’ve read in one of your posts that DDe should not even be in the same load order as DDi. Yet, you haven’t even tested DDe to confirm that it breaks DDi so bad that they cannot coexist in the same load order? Honestly Kimy! 

 

Again you are twisting what I am saying to fit your argument. I NEVER said that DDe does not work with DDi. What I said was that DDe is not tested with DDi. Two very different things. 

 

Aw, I will try to go on, I know it will be very difficult at first but... I... I... will try to survive. Luckily I never drank any of your Kool-aid. 

 

Untested does not mean obsolete. 
So, just advise users of the facts. Tell them that DDe was not tested with DDi by its author. That’s it. Stop telling them that DDe cannot be in the same load order as DDi.

If you make a mod that makes use of another mods assets, it's your responsibility to keep up to date,  I think everyone is sympathetic to the difficulty of it, but the fact of the matter is the community doesn't function if we don't keep to that system.

[Inte]

7 minutes ago, Kimy said:

You can do both of us a favor now and GTFO of what's for all practical purposes my support thread.

Nice! 

Quality leadership right there. 

[Nohrin]

On 2/13/2019 at 11:15 AM, Nohrin said:

Hey guys. Not sure how often this is brought up (google didn't help me much). I figured out that the Item Hider object is preventing me from using a specific accessory called "Ayame Katana". It is an armor piece that looks like two small katanas my back. They use slot 56. I have changed the item hiders item slot to 61, but it still prevents me from wearing them. I have tried several different itemslots for the item hider, but for some reason it just won't let me use this accessory. Oddly enough I am able to use the accessory, and it will equip, but it won't be shown on my character if I am using any chest piece of armor. Obviously at first I thought it was because my Katanas occupied the same slot as the Item Hider, but I have thoroughly made sure that is not the case. It also appears to prevent other small accessories (like arm bands, and forearm coverings) from showing as well (assuming my chest slot is occupied). 

 

Are there any solutions I take to solve this? 

Going to shamelessly quote myself, because I still haven't solved this. Anyone got some advice?

[Lupine00]

9 hours ago, Inte said:

The definition of a lackey is quite the opposite, it seems you’re the one doing all the smoking. 

ORLY

 

Quite the opposite of what?

 

Dictionary result for lackey

Spoiler

/'laki/  noun
1.

a servant, especially a liveried footman or manservant.
"lackeys were waiting to help them from the carriage"
synonyms:    servant, flunkey, footman, manservant, valet, liveried servant, steward, butler, equerry, retainer, vassal, page, attendant, houseboy, domestic, drudge, factotum;

2.

a brownish European moth of woods and hedgerows, the caterpillars of which live communally in a silken tent on the food tree.

 

So, in Inte-land, a lackey is a known antagonist of their "master", has recently been in several voluble disputes with them, does no work for them, has no obligations to them, and isn't paid by them. Though, despite major differences, may, coincidentally support one or two viewpoints they happen to hold, perhaps with some significant nuances of difference. I know you didn't miss what happened on the DCL forum because you replied to the PoP thread.

 

I think this must be opposite-opposite day?

 

Perhaps Inte believes that lackey means "person who agrees with someone I disagree with on a particular point".

It doesn't mean that. I quoted the definition above, so we can see. 

He's going to say he meant No. 2 now...

 

 

As for the literary gymnastics Inte has to perform to explain away the last year of making DDe part of a very obvious anti-DD4 protest (right down to the big red "not tested" warning) it's amazing to behold.

 

My comment that DDe is dead in the water was not based on its technical problems - which as far as I was aware were minor, and resolvable by concerted effort on the part of the user - but that a mod that sets out not to interoperate with, and exists as a protest against, the very framework on which it depends for its core functionality, makes no sense.

 

It's self-defeating.

It's sawing off the branch its sitting on.

 

And the whole protest seemed to based on an impractical belief that Zaz keywords would come back onto DD items one day, if the screaming just continued long and loud enough.

 

If Zaz hadn't been turned into a bloated behemoth DD wouldn't have been under presssure to remove those keywords.

 

The problem originated with Zaz, and unless those keywords are split from it, or Zaz is otherwise partitioned in some sensible way, the problem persists. It's not DD's fault. Yet all the rage was directed at Kimy because - probably - she is sensitive to criticism, and seeing somebody else get upset provided some kind of satisfaction in lieu of an actual solution, which was really beyond her power to deliver. And also, raging at T.ara? You might as well shake your fist at the wind. Or you can soft-dep Zaz and factor out your keyword checks. Problem solved.

 

 

Or put another way, the biggest problem with DDe isn't the mod, it's the modder. Who instead of working on a compromise deal to get the keywords split out of Zaz (or simply fix the problems and move on), declared a war-of-sulks on DD.

 

And now we're told that DDe wasn't on hunger strike against DD - apparently, never was - and has by some magical reversal of reality, suddenly become the paragon of (still untested) DD4 interoperative goodness, and was - allegedly - supposed to be this all along.

 

This total reversal of position STRETCHES CREDULITY BEYOND ALL F**KING BELIEF.

 

There seems to be a disconnect between the technical edifice that is DDe, and the alleged intent of its creator, that is ... perturbing.

 

It's like one of those faintly annoying Xmas Santa dolls that dances and plays a tune, moving its mouth as if it is singing, but with the added feature of screaming "Santa is a filthy lie! Satan is your God!" Every time it finishes its little song.

 

 

Unlike Kimy, I do care. I care that people don't know whether they can safely use DDe. I care that people are asking for DD3 downloads so they can have a working DDe or PoP (when they don't need DD3, but misinformation has been spread to this effect). I even care that DDe isn't being "the best DDe it can be". I just don't care that much. It's not like it keeps me awake at night, but hey, I'm still bothered.

 

I understand why Inte is mad at me. I'd probably be mad too, but on the other hand, I wouldn't start from where he's at.

 

But don't read too much into my disagreements with him. This is ultimately a minor dispute, on the internet, about some details, in a mod, for a game that nobody will care about ten years from now. I don't hate Inte, but I do think he can be derisive, dismissive, and somewhat bullying - on purpose - and that is certain to trigger some people. Sometimes he's funny, or raises good points. Some of his work is fantastic. It's not all black or white. I'm not trying to construct a reality where Inte is "enemy of the people" or even the worst guy in the room. If you want to meet some real assholes, start reading the NPC slavery and general adult-mods forums.

 

He also should realise that trying to dismiss my comments by implying that they are just some attempt to kiss-up to Kimy isn't going to work. It's not reflected by the evidence, and also happens not to be true. Kimy and I aren't buddies, and are never going to be - and the only things I want from Kimy are things she is going to do (or not do) regardless of whether I want them or not - a new DCL version once in a while, and bug+performance improvements to DD.

 

For example, I don't agree with Kimy's request that he shut up. It feels like censorship, and if Inte is talking nonsense, I think most people will work it out for themselves. Most of what he said was self-defeating. He's not trolling, he's defending himself against issues that were raised. IMHO badly, but we're still wiser in some ways for it. In some ways, I'd like Inte to clarify what his position is now, what he thinks is wrong with DD, and the forum. Maybe then we'd know what the real differences are between him and Kimy, and it wouldn't seem like a clash of personalities is drowning out some fairly minor differences of opinion? Or maybe we'd see the glaring point of contention? Instead it's more like "you know what I'm talking about".

 

I'll happily take Inte's part of an argument if I happen to think he's in the right - and he has made points, counter to Kimy that I agree with, which is why his "lackey" dismissal is absurd. I may well agree with him on other issues in the future, or not. I have no idea what he's going to do or say.