Devious Devices - Equip (LE)

[bicobus]

The way DDi is dealing with quest items is to give exclusivity of the player to a mod and leave all the other waiting while the player deal with the various predicaments he/she's in. A way to circumvent the exclusivity would be to allow quest items to be removed if the player enter a sandbox, like it happens when POP kicks in. To achieve this, the framework needs to assume that every mod is playing nice with each other and try to detect wether or not there is a conflict.

 

From my knowledge Captured Dream Shop will recognize whatever item is fitted on the player and act accordingly, which is normal due to the long story driven content from CDS. However, POP can play along any story driven content or devices since it can detect whenever the player escape the POP sandbox.

 

Depending on the content of each mod, it can or cannot be fine to remove quest DD items. But that's for each mod to define and respect other mods wishes. It would be nice to have DDi keep track of things, which mod equip an item if that item is linked to a "quest" and in which circumstances that item can be removed. Data that can be polled by third party mods to determine their own behavior.

[Kimy]

 

 

Yes, but I am sure they can be removed temporarily while in jail, then added back. 

I just dislike seeing my PC fucked through a belt.

 

It probably could still be done, but I designed the API code to make it less than convenient for 3rd party DD mods to remove quest items from other DD mods. At least I'd know without any reasonable doubt that a DD mod doing that would do it deliberately and not accidentally. And let's just say that I wouldn't like that much, as it's clearly stated in the framework conventions that such items need to be left alone, no matter what.

 

So don't tempt poor Inte.

 

 

Well, I have to agree with @Punga and maintain my stance about the temporary DD removal. 

 

Also, I still think that it should be up to the player to decide whether to temporarily remove (or not remove) the DD quest items. After all, this is not the Schutzstaffel.

I've introduced that option in the next version of DDe.

 

 

I hope you're not going to do this for items marked with the new zad_Questitem keyword. I really do not. This keyword is meant to be used sparingly and when really needed, but in return it is expected to be respected by DD content mods. We can't maintain a huge family of mods that's compatible with each other, if we're not playing nice with each other. Not breaking each other's quests is not much asked for. To be honest, POP and DDe aren't different from any other DD content mod, and the expectation to play nice with their sister DD mods doesn't exclude them. You explained the reasons why what POP does wouldn't work with some armor slots still occupied by DD items, and I accept these reasons. But this doesn't mean that your stuff gets priority over other DD mods. If your content wants to start and finds that it cannot due to quest-occupied slots, make sure that it doesn't start in the first place. That's what all other DD mods do.

 

I actually brought in the new keyword as a concession to YOU. Because I want mods like POP to be able to work whenever possible, and the old zad_BlockGeneric keyword was used for a lot of items that weren't actually quest related and can be removed quite safely so. So these items you can take off when you feel you need to. Which is MOST of them. The new keyword is meant to tag items that REALLY need to be left alone. There won't be many situations when POP needs to start and can't because one of these items. My advice? Make the guard demand a fine or other payment then and send the character on her way without arresting her. Problem solved.

 

I realize that even the code I have put in place to prevent inappropriate removal of zad_QuestItem tagged devices can be circumvented with enough ill will, but I am really determined to take all necessary steps in my power to make sure this convention remains respected. This may include blacklisting offending mods from the framework -entirely-. So please, let's not go there. I can't keep you from writing code in whatever fashion you see fit, but you can't keep me from doing the same. And as long as your mods need the framework to function, it's a fight you won't win. So can we please resolve this in a constructive manner that's beneficial to the entire DD family?

[Inte]

 

 

 

Yes, but I am sure they can be removed temporarily while in jail, then added back. 

I just dislike seeing my PC fucked through a belt.

 

It probably could still be done, but I designed the API code to make it less than convenient for 3rd party DD mods to remove quest items from other DD mods. At least I'd know without any reasonable doubt that a DD mod doing that would do it deliberately and not accidentally. And let's just say that I wouldn't like that much, as it's clearly stated in the framework conventions that such items need to be left alone, no matter what.

 

So don't tempt poor Inte.

 

 

Well, I have to agree with @Punga and maintain my stance about the temporary DD removal. 

 

Also, I still think that it should be up to the player to decide whether to temporarily remove (or not remove) the DD quest items. After all, this is not the Schutzstaffel.

I've introduced that option in the next version of DDe.

 

 

I hope you're not going to do this for items marked with the new zad_Questitem keyword. I really do not. This keyword is meant to be used sparingly and when really needed, but in return it is expected to be respected by DD content mods. We can't maintain a huge family of mods that's compatible with each other, if we're not playing nice with each other. Not breaking each other's quests is not much asked for. To be honest, POP and DDe aren't different from any other DD content mod, and the expectation to play nice with their sister DD mods doesn't exclude them. You explained the reasons why what POP does wouldn't work with some armor slots still occupied by DD items, and I accept these reasons. But this doesn't mean that your stuff gets priority over other DD mods. If your content wants to start and finds that it cannot due to quest-occupied slots, make sure that it doesn't start in the first place. That's what all other DD mods do.

 

I actually brought in the new keyword as a concession to YOU. Because I want mods like POP to be able to work whenever possible, and the old zad_BlockGeneric keyword was used for a lot of items that weren't actually quest related and can be removed quite safely so. So these items you can take off when you feel you need to. Which is MOST of them. The new keyword is meant to tag items that REALLY need to be left alone. There won't be many situations when POP needs to start and can't because one of these items. My advice? Make the guard demand a fine or other payment then and send the character on her way without arresting her. Problem solved.

 

I realize that even the code I have put in place to prevent inappropriate removal of zad_QuestItem tagged devices can be circumvented with enough ill will, but I am really determined to take all necessary steps in my power to make sure this convention remains respected. This may include blacklisting offending mods from the framework -entirely-. So please, let's not go there. I can't keep you from writing code in whatever fashion you see fit, but you can't keep me from doing the same. And as long as your mods need the framework to function, it's a fight you won't win. So can we please resolve this in a constructive manner that's beneficial to the entire DD family?

 

 

So this is the Schutzstaffel after all! All heil @Kimy! Or else! Wow.

I see why @zaira is refusing to use DDi and/or work with you. It's your way or the highway like it's always been.

 

You know what, screw this and the DD framework you claim to be yours even tho it's not. 

 

I told you before, I leave the decision to remove devices up to the player, POP or DDe do not remove anything without the player's consent.

 

I am done with this shit.   

 

All my 3 followers can play @Kimy's one mod (DCL) from now on.  

[Guest]

Aw man

[bicobus]

 

 

 

Yes, but I am sure they can be removed temporarily while in jail, then added back. 

I just dislike seeing my PC fucked through a belt.

 

It probably could still be done, but I designed the API code to make it less than convenient for 3rd party DD mods to remove quest items from other DD mods. At least I'd know without any reasonable doubt that a DD mod doing that would do it deliberately and not accidentally. And let's just say that I wouldn't like that much, as it's clearly stated in the framework conventions that such items need to be left alone, no matter what.

 

So don't tempt poor Inte.

 

 

Well, I have to agree with @Punga and maintain my stance about the temporary DD removal. 

 

Also, I still think that it should be up to the player to decide whether to temporarily remove (or not remove) the DD quest items. After all, this is not the Schutzstaffel.

I've introduced that option in the next version of DDe.

 

 

I hope you're not going to do this for items marked with the new zad_Questitem keyword. I really do not. This keyword is meant to be used sparingly and when really needed, but in return it is expected to be respected by DD content mods. We can't maintain a huge family of mods that's compatible with each other, if we're not playing nice with each other. Not breaking each other's quests is not much asked for. To be honest, POP and DDe aren't different from any other DD content mod, and the expectation to play nice with their sister DD mods doesn't exclude them. You explained the reasons why what POP does wouldn't work with some armor slots still occupied by DD items, and I accept these reasons. But this doesn't mean that your stuff gets priority over other DD mods. If your content wants to start and finds that it cannot due to quest-occupied slots, make sure that it doesn't start in the first place. That's what all other DD mods do.

 

I actually brought in the new keyword as a concession to YOU. Because I want mods like POP to be able to work whenever possible, and the old zad_BlockGeneric keyword was used for a lot of items that weren't actually quest related and can be removed quite safely so. So these items you can take off when you feel you need to. Which is MOST of them. The new keyword is meant to tag items that REALLY need to be left alone. There won't be many situations when POP needs to start and can't because one of these items. My advice? Make the guard demand a fine or other payment then and send the character on her way without arresting her. Problem solved.

 

I realize that even the code I have put in place to prevent inappropriate removal of zad_QuestItem tagged devices can be circumvented with enough ill will, but I am really determined to take all necessary steps in my power to make sure this convention remains respected. This may include blacklisting offending mods from the framework -entirely-. So please, let's not go there. I can't keep you from writing code in whatever fashion you see fit, but you can't keep me from doing the same. And as long as your mods need the framework to function, it's a fight you won't win. So can we please resolve this in a constructive manner that's beneficial to the entire DD family?

 

 

I usually play with the modder intent in mind and try to keep it as close as possible from what the author want me to experience. But sometimes it doesn't work that way. Sometimes devices don't get removed when they need to be remove, as my experience with captured dream shop advance. And when that happens, and the scene is blocked or my game crashes because some item didn't get removed, DDe is there as a savior because all I have to do is open the MCM menu and remove the offending devices. The irony in this story is the scene got broken because of changes made in DDi.

 

The user experiencing your mod do not really care about your vision. They care about their own experiences. That's actually how I enjoy my skyrim, and that's why I haven't installed DCL in a long time. The temptation is high, mind you, but being locked away from my own enjoyment is a deterrent.

 

You need to realize that most mods out here aren't as polished as we want them to be. They often break and we need tools to be able to troubleshoot the issues or even get past the issues. DDe is that for me, and sometimes a bit to allow me the experience of some playful bondage.

 

If the user needs to work around a framework, then it is no framework at all.

 

[Guest]

I don't think it's fair to say people don't care about modders vision, but when mods break it is useful to be able to escape from everything and keep going than have to abandon the save in some cases

[bicobus]

I don't think it's fair to say people don't care about modders vision, but when mods break it is useful to be able to escape from everything and keep going than have to abandon the save in some cases

 

I didn't meant to say that. I started my message saying that I do care and try to follow modders vision, but if it is detriment to my enjoyment I'll do away with it. If a mod forces me to spend hours to do something I do not want to do, and forbid me to bypass the thing, that will make me mad.

 

However, the main point was that I use DDe as a helper.

[Kimy]

 

 

 

 

Yes, but I am sure they can be removed temporarily while in jail, then added back. 

I just dislike seeing my PC fucked through a belt.

 

It probably could still be done, but I designed the API code to make it less than convenient for 3rd party DD mods to remove quest items from other DD mods. At least I'd know without any reasonable doubt that a DD mod doing that would do it deliberately and not accidentally. And let's just say that I wouldn't like that much, as it's clearly stated in the framework conventions that such items need to be left alone, no matter what.

 

So don't tempt poor Inte.

 

 

Well, I have to agree with @Punga and maintain my stance about the temporary DD removal. 

 

Also, I still think that it should be up to the player to decide whether to temporarily remove (or not remove) the DD quest items. After all, this is not the Schutzstaffel.

I've introduced that option in the next version of DDe.

 

 

I hope you're not going to do this for items marked with the new zad_Questitem keyword. I really do not. This keyword is meant to be used sparingly and when really needed, but in return it is expected to be respected by DD content mods. We can't maintain a huge family of mods that's compatible with each other, if we're not playing nice with each other. Not breaking each other's quests is not much asked for. To be honest, POP and DDe aren't different from any other DD content mod, and the expectation to play nice with their sister DD mods doesn't exclude them. You explained the reasons why what POP does wouldn't work with some armor slots still occupied by DD items, and I accept these reasons. But this doesn't mean that your stuff gets priority over other DD mods. If your content wants to start and finds that it cannot due to quest-occupied slots, make sure that it doesn't start in the first place. That's what all other DD mods do.

 

I actually brought in the new keyword as a concession to YOU. Because I want mods like POP to be able to work whenever possible, and the old zad_BlockGeneric keyword was used for a lot of items that weren't actually quest related and can be removed quite safely so. So these items you can take off when you feel you need to. Which is MOST of them. The new keyword is meant to tag items that REALLY need to be left alone. There won't be many situations when POP needs to start and can't because one of these items. My advice? Make the guard demand a fine or other payment then and send the character on her way without arresting her. Problem solved.

 

I realize that even the code I have put in place to prevent inappropriate removal of zad_QuestItem tagged devices can be circumvented with enough ill will, but I am really determined to take all necessary steps in my power to make sure this convention remains respected. This may include blacklisting offending mods from the framework -entirely-. So please, let's not go there. I can't keep you from writing code in whatever fashion you see fit, but you can't keep me from doing the same. And as long as your mods need the framework to function, it's a fight you won't win. So can we please resolve this in a constructive manner that's beneficial to the entire DD family?

 

 

So this is the Schutzstaffel after all! All heil @Kimy! Or else! Wow.

I see why @zaira is refusing to use DDi and/or work with you. It's your way or the highway like it's always been.

 

You know what, screw this and the DD framework you claim to be yours even tho it's not. 

 

I told you before, I leave the decision to remove devices up to the player, POP or DDe do not remove anything without the player's consent.

 

I am done with this shit.   

 

All my 3 followers can play @Kimy's one mod (DCL) from now on.  

 

 

So you make unilateral decisions not to care about an essential convention everyone else making DD mods seems to accept, and you call ME a "my way or the highway" person? Are you even for real? When I actually added the very features you plan to intentionally break to help YOUR mod to have to deal with less items it's not supposed to remove? Ok!

 

If there would be a CLEAN way to let the player decide when to remove 3rd party quest-relevant items, I'd have implemented that feature on the framework level already, where it would otherwise belong. Baseline is, that there isn't a way I can think of. With DD's object oriented model, you just don't KNOW what mechanics the creator of the items has attached to it, and what consequences it would have to remove them from outside the mod that equipped them. And here is the important part, in all caps, to drive the point really home, because you seem to refuse to understand that: THE PLAYER YOU WANT GIVE THE KILL-SWITCH TO DOESN'T KNOW WHEN IT'S SAFE TO REMOVE A QUEST ITEM, EITHER!!!! This is why each and every single DD mod needs to provide any features that let users decide what to remove and when, instead of some Rambo modder doing that with a sledgehammer for everyone. All larger DD mods I am aware of are providing debug kill-switches that can remove broken and/or unwanted DD items and/or terminate quests. This case isn't about that. It's about one modder who thinks their mod is more important than others.

 

I am not going to respond to you comparing me to Nazi slaughterers. This level of interacting with a fellow human is really below me, and is something I would NOT have expected coming from a person intelligent enough to write complex code. I have no intent to get further insulted by you, so I will leave this thread now and -really- never post here or in your other threads again. But what I said stands: I really, REALLY don't think respecting other modder's quests isn't much asked for. Not -intentionally- breaking them should be common courtesy. For some, it apparently isn't, no matter how hard you try to compromise with them. The baseline still is: Feel free to write whatever code you want. But don't complain about me doing the same, then.

 

PS: Neither Zaira nor you can tell how it is like to work with me. Neither of you ever tried.

[Guest]

I knew this would eventually happen sigh

 

-snip-

 

I take back what Ive said.

 

[happyg7777777]

Hey, seems like the wrong file got uploaded.  The only file in the download section is a .png file, a screenshot of the PC in a bumblebee dress and armbinder.  The actual mod currently isn't available to download. 

 

Hopefully the author will see this and fix it quickly. 

[Guest]

Bottom line I still think its wrong to threaten to blacklist a mod because you see fit.

[bicobus]

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, but I am sure they can be removed temporarily while in jail, then added back. 

I just dislike seeing my PC fucked through a belt.

 

It probably could still be done, but I designed the API code to make it less than convenient for 3rd party DD mods to remove quest items from other DD mods. At least I'd know without any reasonable doubt that a DD mod doing that would do it deliberately and not accidentally. And let's just say that I wouldn't like that much, as it's clearly stated in the framework conventions that such items need to be left alone, no matter what.

 

So don't tempt poor Inte.

 

 

Well, I have to agree with @Punga and maintain my stance about the temporary DD removal. 

 

Also, I still think that it should be up to the player to decide whether to temporarily remove (or not remove) the DD quest items. After all, this is not the Schutzstaffel.

I've introduced that option in the next version of DDe.

 

 

I hope you're not going to do this for items marked with the new zad_Questitem keyword. I really do not. This keyword is meant to be used sparingly and when really needed, but in return it is expected to be respected by DD content mods. We can't maintain a huge family of mods that's compatible with each other, if we're not playing nice with each other. Not breaking each other's quests is not much asked for. To be honest, POP and DDe aren't different from any other DD content mod, and the expectation to play nice with their sister DD mods doesn't exclude them. You explained the reasons why what POP does wouldn't work with some armor slots still occupied by DD items, and I accept these reasons. But this doesn't mean that your stuff gets priority over other DD mods. If your content wants to start and finds that it cannot due to quest-occupied slots, make sure that it doesn't start in the first place. That's what all other DD mods do.

 

I actually brought in the new keyword as a concession to YOU. Because I want mods like POP to be able to work whenever possible, and the old zad_BlockGeneric keyword was used for a lot of items that weren't actually quest related and can be removed quite safely so. So these items you can take off when you feel you need to. Which is MOST of them. The new keyword is meant to tag items that REALLY need to be left alone. There won't be many situations when POP needs to start and can't because one of these items. My advice? Make the guard demand a fine or other payment then and send the character on her way without arresting her. Problem solved.

 

I realize that even the code I have put in place to prevent inappropriate removal of zad_QuestItem tagged devices can be circumvented with enough ill will, but I am really determined to take all necessary steps in my power to make sure this convention remains respected. This may include blacklisting offending mods from the framework -entirely-. So please, let's not go there. I can't keep you from writing code in whatever fashion you see fit, but you can't keep me from doing the same. And as long as your mods need the framework to function, it's a fight you won't win. So can we please resolve this in a constructive manner that's beneficial to the entire DD family?

 

 

So this is the Schutzstaffel after all! All heil @Kimy! Or else! Wow.

I see why @zaira is refusing to use DDi and/or work with you. It's your way or the highway like it's always been.

 

You know what, screw this and the DD framework you claim to be yours even tho it's not. 

 

I told you before, I leave the decision to remove devices up to the player, POP or DDe do not remove anything without the player's consent.

 

I am done with this shit.   

 

All my 3 followers can play @Kimy's one mod (DCL) from now on.  

 

 

So you make unilateral decisions not to care about an essential convention everyone else making DD mods seems to accept, and you call ME a "my way or the highway" person? Are you even for real? When I actually added the very features you plan to intentionally break to help YOUR mod to have to deal with less items it's not supposed to remove? Ok!

 

If there would be a CLEAN way to let the player decide when to remove 3rd party quest-relevant items, I'd have implemented that feature on the framework level already, where it would otherwise belong. Baseline is, that there isn't a way I can think of. With DD's object oriented model, you just don't KNOW what mechanics the creator of the items has attached to it, and what consequences it would have to remove them from outside the mod that equipped them. And here is the important part, in all caps, to drive the point really home, because you seem to refuse to understand that: THE PLAYER YOU WANT GIVE THE KILL-SWITCH TO DOESN'T KNOW WHEN IT'S SAFE TO REMOVE A QUEST ITEM, EITHER!!!! This is why each and every single DD mod needs to provide any features that let users decide what to remove and when, instead of some Rambo modder doing that with a sledgehammer for everyone. All larger DD mods I am aware of are providing debug kill-switches that can remove broken and/or unwanted DD items and/or terminate quests. This case isn't about that. It's about one modder who thinks their mod is more important than others.

 

I am not going to respond to you comparing me to Nazi slaughterers. This level of interacting with a fellow human is really below me, and is something I would NOT have expected coming from a person intelligent enough to write complex code. I have no intent to get further insulted by you, so I will leave this thread now and -really- never post here or in your other threads again. But what I said stands: I really, REALLY don't think respecting other modder's quests isn't much asked for. Not -intentionally- breaking them should be common courtesy. For some, it apparently isn't, no matter how hard you try to compromise with them. The baseline still is: Feel free to write whatever code you want. But don't complain about me doing the same, then.

 

PS: Neither Zaira nor you can tell how it is like to work with me. Neither of you ever tried.

 

 

Inte as a peculiar humor, that is to say that you are unnaccepting of other point of view. That post you made clearly display a refusal to work with other ideals..

 

When you talk about a convention that people "seems" to agree on, that is when the base of your argument crumble. You base your stance on a modder point of view, seeing everything as one unified group of individual giving away a standardized content. The reality is players subscribing to self curated content and not giving a damn about what you, as a modder, think is best. If you cannot cater to the needs of the many, you have no business ruling over a convention that do not exists. You are not an authority.

 

If you truly want a convention, then make the effort to gather modders and users alike to define and ratify the terms. That is only fair.

[Kimy]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, but I am sure they can be removed temporarily while in jail, then added back. 

I just dislike seeing my PC fucked through a belt.

 

It probably could still be done, but I designed the API code to make it less than convenient for 3rd party DD mods to remove quest items from other DD mods. At least I'd know without any reasonable doubt that a DD mod doing that would do it deliberately and not accidentally. And let's just say that I wouldn't like that much, as it's clearly stated in the framework conventions that such items need to be left alone, no matter what.

 

So don't tempt poor Inte.

 

 

Well, I have to agree with @Punga and maintain my stance about the temporary DD removal. 

 

Also, I still think that it should be up to the player to decide whether to temporarily remove (or not remove) the DD quest items. After all, this is not the Schutzstaffel.

I've introduced that option in the next version of DDe.

 

 

I hope you're not going to do this for items marked with the new zad_Questitem keyword. I really do not. This keyword is meant to be used sparingly and when really needed, but in return it is expected to be respected by DD content mods. We can't maintain a huge family of mods that's compatible with each other, if we're not playing nice with each other. Not breaking each other's quests is not much asked for. To be honest, POP and DDe aren't different from any other DD content mod, and the expectation to play nice with their sister DD mods doesn't exclude them. You explained the reasons why what POP does wouldn't work with some armor slots still occupied by DD items, and I accept these reasons. But this doesn't mean that your stuff gets priority over other DD mods. If your content wants to start and finds that it cannot due to quest-occupied slots, make sure that it doesn't start in the first place. That's what all other DD mods do.

 

I actually brought in the new keyword as a concession to YOU. Because I want mods like POP to be able to work whenever possible, and the old zad_BlockGeneric keyword was used for a lot of items that weren't actually quest related and can be removed quite safely so. So these items you can take off when you feel you need to. Which is MOST of them. The new keyword is meant to tag items that REALLY need to be left alone. There won't be many situations when POP needs to start and can't because one of these items. My advice? Make the guard demand a fine or other payment then and send the character on her way without arresting her. Problem solved.

 

I realize that even the code I have put in place to prevent inappropriate removal of zad_QuestItem tagged devices can be circumvented with enough ill will, but I am really determined to take all necessary steps in my power to make sure this convention remains respected. This may include blacklisting offending mods from the framework -entirely-. So please, let's not go there. I can't keep you from writing code in whatever fashion you see fit, but you can't keep me from doing the same. And as long as your mods need the framework to function, it's a fight you won't win. So can we please resolve this in a constructive manner that's beneficial to the entire DD family?

 

 

So this is the Schutzstaffel after all! All heil @Kimy! Or else! Wow.

I see why @zaira is refusing to use DDi and/or work with you. It's your way or the highway like it's always been.

 

You know what, screw this and the DD framework you claim to be yours even tho it's not. 

 

I told you before, I leave the decision to remove devices up to the player, POP or DDe do not remove anything without the player's consent.

 

I am done with this shit.   

 

All my 3 followers can play @Kimy's one mod (DCL) from now on.  

 

 

So you make unilateral decisions not to care about an essential convention everyone else making DD mods seems to accept, and you call ME a "my way or the highway" person? Are you even for real? When I actually added the very features you plan to intentionally break to help YOUR mod to have to deal with less items it's not supposed to remove? Ok!

 

If there would be a CLEAN way to let the player decide when to remove 3rd party quest-relevant items, I'd have implemented that feature on the framework level already, where it would otherwise belong. Baseline is, that there isn't a way I can think of. With DD's object oriented model, you just don't KNOW what mechanics the creator of the items has attached to it, and what consequences it would have to remove them from outside the mod that equipped them. And here is the important part, in all caps, to drive the point really home, because you seem to refuse to understand that: THE PLAYER YOU WANT GIVE THE KILL-SWITCH TO DOESN'T KNOW WHEN IT'S SAFE TO REMOVE A QUEST ITEM, EITHER!!!! This is why each and every single DD mod needs to provide any features that let users decide what to remove and when, instead of some Rambo modder doing that with a sledgehammer for everyone. All larger DD mods I am aware of are providing debug kill-switches that can remove broken and/or unwanted DD items and/or terminate quests. This case isn't about that. It's about one modder who thinks their mod is more important than others.

 

I am not going to respond to you comparing me to Nazi slaughterers. This level of interacting with a fellow human is really below me, and is something I would NOT have expected coming from a person intelligent enough to write complex code. I have no intent to get further insulted by you, so I will leave this thread now and -really- never post here or in your other threads again. But what I said stands: I really, REALLY don't think respecting other modder's quests isn't much asked for. Not -intentionally- breaking them should be common courtesy. For some, it apparently isn't, no matter how hard you try to compromise with them. The baseline still is: Feel free to write whatever code you want. But don't complain about me doing the same, then.

 

PS: Neither Zaira nor you can tell how it is like to work with me. Neither of you ever tried.

 

 

Inte as a peculiar humor, that is to say that you are unnaccepting of other point of view. That post you made clearly display a refusal to work with other ideals..

 

When you talk about a convention that people "seems" to agree on, that is when the base of your argument crumble. You base your stance on a modder point of view, seeing everything as one unified group of individual giving away a standardized content. The reality is players subscribing to self curated content and not giving a damn about what you, as a modder, think is best. If you cannot cater to the needs of the many, you have no business ruling over a convention that do not exists. You are not an authority.

 

If you truly want a convention, then make the effort to gather modders and users alike to define and ratify the terms. That is only fair.

 

 

The problem is (and most users cannot possibly know this), that what Inte is doing is technically infeasible to do in a clean way. The way the framework is set up doesn't allow for that, at least not without the danger of breaking people's games left and right. I do not blame you or anyone else not experienced with the DD framework and its inner workings to know that, and I therefore do not blame you for thinking I am an evil Nazi bitch. I guess I have a talent for maneuvering myself into that position.

 

What I -do- find funny is the double standards that you seem to think that it's ok that Inte writes code in whatever way he deems fit without having to care about the bigger picture, but think it's evil and nasty if I (threaten) to do the same.

 

[bicobus]

I don't think you're evil, mind you. I simply want more freedom than what is actually allowed by the framework. And I don't think there is a broader picture, every author create their own story enclosed to their own creations. By that I mean the framework provides a substrate to help the creator building a story. It is true that removing a device in the middle can break the story, but the contrary is also true! Due to the inherent nature of modding, creators do not have the time to go around testing every bits and parts of their mods and relies a lot on users for bug reports. And as a user if my 20 hours game is screwed because I couldn't remove a stupid item from my toon, well that would made me mad.

 

And I nearly did encounter such a situation with Captured dream shop, DDe wouldn't find or remove the DD item equipped on my toon and I somewhat managed to remove them through the console, allowing me to continue and finish the quest segment. If you remove that ability from me, I'll probably never be able to help other creators finding problems, it would be too infuriating to me to restart hours back or even restart a clean game.

 

DDe only gives a facility for people who really want the ability to remove items, and such removal only happens at the user request! And even though after we have to untick the hardcore button preventing removal, several clicks are needed for that for every game started.

 

Where DDi provide a debug feature to properly remove devices, I wouldn't mind. But it doesn't. And apparently you do not plan to add such a feature yourself.

 

In a way, there is a symbiotic relationship between modders and power users that is one create and the other verify everything works properly (most of the time). Both sides needs tools for the relationship to work.

 

Ins and outs you'll always get people somewhat uneducated as how the mods work and then do something stupid and game breaking, there is no escaping it. But please have confidence in the players and properly explain to them that forcibly removing a device can lead to game breaking issue and if they don't know whatever they are doing, better they don't do anything.

[Kimy]

I don't think you're evil, mind you. I simply want more freedom than what is actually allowed by the framework. And I don't think there is a broader picture, every author create their own story enclosed to their own creations. By that I mean the framework provides a substrate to help the creator building a story. It is true that removing a device in the middle can break the story, but the contrary is also true! Due to the inherent nature of modding, creators do not have the time to go around testing every bits and parts of their mods and relies a lot on users for bug reports. And as a user if my 20 hours game is screwed because I couldn't remove a stupid item from my toon, well that would made me mad.

 

And I nearly did encounter such a situation with Captured dream shop, DDe wouldn't find or remove the DD item equipped on my toon and I somewhat managed to remove them through the console, allowing me to continue and finish the quest segment. If you remove that ability from me, I'll probably never be able to help other creators finding problems, it would be too infuriating to me to restart hours back or even restart a clean game.

 

DDe only gives a facility for people who really want the ability to remove items, and such removal only happens at the user request! And even though after we have to untick the hardcore button preventing removal, several clicks are needed for that for every game started.

 

Where DDi provide a debug feature to properly remove devices, I wouldn't mind. But it doesn't. And apparently you do not plan to add such a feature yourself.

 

In a way, there is a symbiotic relationship between modders and power users that is one create and the other verify everything works properly (most of the time). Both sides needs tools for the relationship to work.

 

Ins and outs you'll always get people somewhat uneducated as how the mods work and then do something stupid and game breaking, there is no escaping it. But please have confidence in the players and properly explain to them that forcibly removing a device can lead to game breaking issue and if they don't know whatever they are doing, better they don't do anything.

 

I can (and will) add a feature to the framework that will allow safe removal of all standard DD items. What I cannot do any more than Inte can, is providing a safe removal function for 3rd party quest items. Even the framework has no clue what consequences removing a device from another mod has, and when it's marked as "Don't Touch This!!!", the author probably had a -reason- to. The very point that doesn't seem to go into Inte's head is that it's technically infeasible to do this in a safe way. The framework isn't supporting it and without breaking compatibility with existing items, I cannot change this at this point. I told him again, and again, and again that there is no way to code this feature in a safe way, but he doesn't care, because he prefers breaking other people's stuff over his own content not being able to progress.

 

I am all for choice. Do I really have to prove this, after having made the maybe largest MCM menu of any Skyrim mod, that lets you configure really anything imaginable and then some? But in this case, there is technical limit we can offer without publishing bad/dangerous code. Inte explained to me that he cannot reasonably leave DD items on the character when she is getting arrested. That's totally sound. I understand that. Which is why I split the framework keywords and created a new one to tag quest items with, to signal other mods to REALLY leave this item alone, and only when they REALLY mean it, so he can remove EVERYTHING ELSE. I eliminated 90% of the problem for him, but even that wasn't good enough. He can't even compromise for the remaining 10% of the way, but apparently I am a Nazi.

 

I generally treat people the same way they treat me. I like to think I default to nice and cooperative, but yes, if you don't care about breaking my content, I will not care about breaking yours. It's the way I operate. With most people it works just nicely. With a select few it doesn't. And you're right I have no authority over anything but my own content. But whether or not Inte likes that, but since Min handed it over to me about a year ago, I -am- maintaining the DD framework these days, so for all practical purposes it -is- my content and my shots to call what code I add or don't add to it.

And for the record, I never said to do -anything- requiring any right Inte doesn't claim for himself - to code their own mod in any way they see fit. I don't get the difference between him intentionally breaking features of other mods and me doing the same. Can't have the cake and eat it. To be honest, I mentioned the "nuclear option" mainly to hold a mirror in front of him, and make him realize what the consequences of "I code my stuff the way I want it, consequences be damned" can mean if others do it, too. For the record, I still would much rather cooperate. In the end, it benefits everyone. Conflict never does. This issue escalated way out of proportion really fast, and it never should have. If Inte wants to talk, he knows where to find me. Otherwise I am done here. This time for real.

[bicobus]

 

I don't think you're evil, mind you. I simply want more freedom than what is actually allowed by the framework. And I don't think there is a broader picture, every author create their own story enclosed to their own creations. By that I mean the framework provides a substrate to help the creator building a story. It is true that removing a device in the middle can break the story, but the contrary is also true! Due to the inherent nature of modding, creators do not have the time to go around testing every bits and parts of their mods and relies a lot on users for bug reports. And as a user if my 20 hours game is screwed because I couldn't remove a stupid item from my toon, well that would made me mad.

 

And I nearly did encounter such a situation with Captured dream shop, DDe wouldn't find or remove the DD item equipped on my toon and I somewhat managed to remove them through the console, allowing me to continue and finish the quest segment. If you remove that ability from me, I'll probably never be able to help other creators finding problems, it would be too infuriating to me to restart hours back or even restart a clean game.

 

DDe only gives a facility for people who really want the ability to remove items, and such removal only happens at the user request! And even though after we have to untick the hardcore button preventing removal, several clicks are needed for that for every game started.

 

Where DDi provide a debug feature to properly remove devices, I wouldn't mind. But it doesn't. And apparently you do not plan to add such a feature yourself.

 

In a way, there is a symbiotic relationship between modders and power users that is one create and the other verify everything works properly (most of the time). Both sides needs tools for the relationship to work.

 

Ins and outs you'll always get people somewhat uneducated as how the mods work and then do something stupid and game breaking, there is no escaping it. But please have confidence in the players and properly explain to them that forcibly removing a device can lead to game breaking issue and if they don't know whatever they are doing, better they don't do anything.

I can (and will) add a feature to the framework that will allow safe removal of all standard DD items. What I cannot do any more than Inte can, is providing a safe removal function for 3rd party quest items. Even the framework has no clue what consequences removing a device from another mod has, and when it's marked as "Don't Touch This!!!", the author probably had a -reason- to. The very point that doesn't seem to go into Inte's head is that it's technically infeasible to do this in a safe way. The framework isn't supporting it and without breaking compatibility with existing items, I cannot change this at this point. I told him again, and again, and again that there is no way to code this feature in a safe way, but he doesn't care, because he prefers breaking other people's stuff over his own content not being able to progress.

 

Alright, we're not talking about intent here but mechanics. We all know it's not possible to remove devices safely, that was never in question. The point is to not lock users in a state without any means of escape, even though that would be cheating or game breaking. You can disclose that DDe can and will - on user input - break other mods and should be used with caution. However I do not support calling Inte stupid for keeping his stance. He said to you that if something breaks a mod, it's the user doing it. Not him, nor POP, nor his scenarios. Inte's been awfully respectful of other creators and needs to be recognized as much.

 

I am all for choice. Do I really have to prove this, after having made the maybe largest MCM menu of any Skyrim mod, that lets you configure really anything imaginable and then some? But in this case, there is technical limit we can offer without publishing bad/dangerous code. Inte explained to me that he cannot reasonably leave DD items on the character when she is getting arrested. That's totally sound. I understand that. Which is why I split the framework keywords and created a new one to tag quest items with, to signal other mods to REALLY leave this item alone, and only when they REALLY mean it, so he can remove EVERYTHING ELSE. I eliminated 90% of the problem for him, but even that wasn't good enough. He can't even compromise for the remaining 10% of the way, but apparently I am a Nazi.

 

So is having the item temporarily removed and associated quest put on standby an issue? Because I like it if I do something bad, I get punished for it. This doesn't seem to be a framework issue but a problem based on the different interactions between mods. If that the case you, nay, we as a community need to come together and define what can be done. Developing something isn't just thinking about solving a problem and then implement a probable fix. Developing something means a lot of talks and dialogues then a tiny fraction of coding.

 

The tag solution is quite elegant, but it stills lock the users away from freedom. Literally, the PC is locked in devious items and the player can't remove them unless finishing whatever quest is linked to them. What if the player has had enough and want to move on? Will you force them to experience all the content or give them a chance to escape? I mean, if iDDe exists at all is because there is a need for it. It wouldn't have a following if it weren't useful.

 

So please open a dialogue instead of sending threats of blacklisting. Inte experience could be quite useful to DDi, don't you think there could be a way to incorporate iDDe into the base framework? Baring the unacceptable removal of quests item on a perfectly stable mod of course*. [*] unless the user consent to finish stuff early.

 

I generally treat people the same way they treat me. I like to think I default to nice and cooperative, but yes, if you don't care about breaking my content, I will not care about breaking yours. It's the way I operate. With most people it works just nicely. With a select few it doesn't. And you're right I have no authority over anything but my own content. But whether or not Inte likes that, but since Min handed it over to me about a year ago, I -am- maintaining the DD framework these days, so for all practical purposes it -is- my content and my shots to call what code I add or don't add to it.

And for the record, I never said to do -anything- requiring any right Inte doesn't claim for himself - to code their own mod in any way they see fit. I don't get the difference between him intentionally breaking features of other mods and me doing the same. Can't have the cake and eat it. To be honest, I mentioned the "nuclear option" mainly to hold a mirror in front of him, and make him realize what the consequences of "I code my stuff the way I want it, consequences be damned" can mean if others do it, too. For the record, I still would much rather cooperate. In the end, it benefits everyone. Conflict never does. This issue escalated way out of proportion really fast, and it never should have. If Inte wants to talk, he knows where to find me. Otherwise I am done here. This time for real.

 

Yeah, I will have to disagree with you on this point. It is the framework users - the creators - to decides what is best to be integrated in the framework. After all, they are your main users. And correct me if I'm wrong, but Inte uses that framework at the same title as every other creator out there. Once again, there is a need for Inte's work and it is valuable to some of us.

 

More so, Inte doesn't break features. This has be pointed to you multiple times over: the user chose to break those mods on their own accord. What is probably lacking is a proper explanation of what is good or bad to do from the point of view of the user. Inte do not go around and purposefully puts pieces of code designed to automatically break other mods, which is what you seem to refer to as "nuclear option". Inte's message was to say he really needs to do it that way, because creating an exception for all the mods out there is not possible. Which is what you want him to do, or simply ignore all the work put into POP and ignore any crime done in skyrim as long as the player wears a quest item.

 

Inte just want to innocently brutalize the PC to teach her a powerful lesson: it's not cool to steal bread.

[Morferous]

 

I am done with this shit.   

 

All my 3 followers can play @Kimy's one mod (DCL) from now on. 

 

I got lost in a Wasteland for while, but never stopped waiting for new updates to your mods, Inte. You have more followers than 3.

 

POP is among my essential mods. I have hard time to imagine playing Skyrim without it. DCL is the second similar mod for me. I don't use half of it's features, but those that I use are what make the game for me with POP.

 

I am sad to see that his argument has appeared again. I will read this whole exchange through again with a thought.

[legraf]

 

More so, Inte doesn't break features. This has be pointed to you multiple times over: the user chose to break those mods on their own accord. What is probably lacking is a proper explanation of what is good or bad to do from the point of view of the user. Inte do not go around and purposefully puts pieces of code designed to automatically break other mods, which is what you seem to refer to as "nuclear option". Inte's message was to say he really needs to do it that way, because creating an exception for all the mods out there is not possible. Which is what you want him to do, or simply ignore all the work put into POP and ignore any crime done in skyrim as long as the player wears a quest item.

 

Inte & Kimy both do excellent work and add a great deal of fun to many users here, so of course it's a shame to see this falling out.

 

But I think you aren't giving Kimy any credit here, bicobus, while exonerating Inte a bit too much.  "the user chose to break those mods" ... yes, they chose to do so, possibly without knowing the consequences because there are no warnings, using a fundamentally dangerous method that Inte provided.  Putting a dangerous tool into people's hands and counting on them to understand its danger is not good practice, and can lead to strangely broken games that send the same users back to the forums explaining their bizarre, impossible-to-diagnose problems and wasting everyone's time.  As much as possible, users should be steered to removing devices "cleanly".  And as to that:

 

As Kimy pointed out, any mod using the Quest tag should also be providing a debug tool to get out of the device & associated quest cleanly.  This is the only way to do so safely, because it's handled by the only modder who knows what weird other changes they may have made... like persistent effects that aren't actually attached to the device.  Even a sandbox setting like POP will not necessarily protect from this: events triggered by (un)equipping the device may change with the context, so the act of removing & reattaching it in the sandbox could leave a script or other effect behind.  Users getting in the habit of using DDe to free themselves from quest items are setting themselves up for disaster.  They should be using the tool provided by the same mod that stuck them in the Quest in the first place.  Meanwhile, DDe remains a useful tool for the vast majority of situations, which don't involve devices with that rare tag.

 

Thanks to Kimy providing the new quest tag, Inte doesn't have to make exceptions for "every mod out there", but only to make one exception to handle items with this standard tag.  That was a reasonable compromise, and will work in almost every situation.  Kimy even suggested a simple way of handling that situation without ignoring the crime: charge some huge fine or provide some other simple alternate punishment when POP snags a character wearing such a quest item.  Yes, of course, that means the fun POP experience doesn't run for that one particular time the player is arrested.  So what?  There will be other arrests, and the player's game isn't broken.  And really, not starting a new scripted event when the player is in the middle of an unknown but possibly time-and-gear-sensitive quest is the standard way of avoiding conflicts.  Denying that is like saying that because the "deviously helpless" flag prevents DCL rape events from firing, that flag shouldn't be respected as it "ignores all the work" put into DCL.  This is entirely backwards.  Respect the tags, accept that sometimes that means a cool event won't occur that day, and look forward to the cool event some other day with your shiny, clean save file.

[bicobus]

Well maybe I over reacted a bit. You're right while saying kimy did a great job with DDi of giving work around existing issues. I mean, it's not like Inte removed his mods from loverlabs (the files have been replaced by a bubble bee hopping around a dead bear). And it's not like kimy went on a creator topic threatening to blacklist his mod at the framework level "or else". I mean, if both of those scenarios were to happen I would probably lose my shit and become oversensitive on the issue at hand.

[Sarasa]

Sorry to interrupt the debat Kimy, but the wrong file have been uploaded (it's a screenshot), could you upload the right one please ?

[Guest]

Sorry to interrupt the debat Kimy, but the wrong file have been uploaded (it's a screenshot), could you upload the right one please ?

 

If you read anything you would understand everything, there is no file because inte pulled it lol

[Sarasa]

Well sorry for not seeing that mentioned, but when i see 2 or more full pages of wall of text i tend to skip them...

[bicobus]

Funny how you suddenly chose to become active after 6 years of lurking.

[Sarasa]

Nothing strange to that, i follow to many forums which mean i try to limit the time i pass on them and I'm also a moderator in two other.

Also what problem/bug could i report, if someone else have already reported it ?

[Numerals]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, but I am sure they can be removed temporarily while in jail, then added back. 

I just dislike seeing my PC fucked through a belt.

 

It probably could still be done, but I designed the API code to make it less than convenient for 3rd party DD mods to remove quest items from other DD mods. At least I'd know without any reasonable doubt that a DD mod doing that would do it deliberately and not accidentally. And let's just say that I wouldn't like that much, as it's clearly stated in the framework conventions that such items need to be left alone, no matter what.

 

So don't tempt poor Inte.

 

 

Well, I have to agree with @Punga and maintain my stance about the temporary DD removal. 

 

Also, I still think that it should be up to the player to decide whether to temporarily remove (or not remove) the DD quest items. After all, this is not the Schutzstaffel.

I've introduced that option in the next version of DDe.

 

 

I hope you're not going to do this for items marked with the new zad_Questitem keyword. I really do not. This keyword is meant to be used sparingly and when really needed, but in return it is expected to be respected by DD content mods. We can't maintain a huge family of mods that's compatible with each other, if we're not playing nice with each other. Not breaking each other's quests is not much asked for. To be honest, POP and DDe aren't different from any other DD content mod, and the expectation to play nice with their sister DD mods doesn't exclude them. You explained the reasons why what POP does wouldn't work with some armor slots still occupied by DD items, and I accept these reasons. But this doesn't mean that your stuff gets priority over other DD mods. If your content wants to start and finds that it cannot due to quest-occupied slots, make sure that it doesn't start in the first place. That's what all other DD mods do.

 

I actually brought in the new keyword as a concession to YOU. Because I want mods like POP to be able to work whenever possible, and the old zad_BlockGeneric keyword was used for a lot of items that weren't actually quest related and can be removed quite safely so. So these items you can take off when you feel you need to. Which is MOST of them. The new keyword is meant to tag items that REALLY need to be left alone. There won't be many situations when POP needs to start and can't because one of these items. My advice? Make the guard demand a fine or other payment then and send the character on her way without arresting her. Problem solved.

 

I realize that even the code I have put in place to prevent inappropriate removal of zad_QuestItem tagged devices can be circumvented with enough ill will, but I am really determined to take all necessary steps in my power to make sure this convention remains respected. This may include blacklisting offending mods from the framework -entirely-. So please, let's not go there. I can't keep you from writing code in whatever fashion you see fit, but you can't keep me from doing the same. And as long as your mods need the framework to function, it's a fight you won't win. So can we please resolve this in a constructive manner that's beneficial to the entire DD family?

 

 

So this is the Schutzstaffel after all! All heil @Kimy! Or else! Wow.

I see why @zaira is refusing to use DDi and/or work with you. It's your way or the highway like it's always been.

 

You know what, screw this and the DD framework you claim to be yours even tho it's not. 

 

I told you before, I leave the decision to remove devices up to the player, POP or DDe do not remove anything without the player's consent.

 

I am done with this shit.   

 

All my 3 followers can play @Kimy's one mod (DCL) from now on.  

 

 

So you make unilateral decisions not to care about an essential convention everyone else making DD mods seems to accept, and you call ME a "my way or the highway" person? Are you even for real? When I actually added the very features you plan to intentionally break to help YOUR mod to have to deal with less items it's not supposed to remove? Ok!

 

If there would be a CLEAN way to let the player decide when to remove 3rd party quest-relevant items, I'd have implemented that feature on the framework level already, where it would otherwise belong. Baseline is, that there isn't a way I can think of. With DD's object oriented model, you just don't KNOW what mechanics the creator of the items has attached to it, and what consequences it would have to remove them from outside the mod that equipped them. And here is the important part, in all caps, to drive the point really home, because you seem to refuse to understand that: THE PLAYER YOU WANT GIVE THE KILL-SWITCH TO DOESN'T KNOW WHEN IT'S SAFE TO REMOVE A QUEST ITEM, EITHER!!!! This is why each and every single DD mod needs to provide any features that let users decide what to remove and when, instead of some Rambo modder doing that with a sledgehammer for everyone. All larger DD mods I am aware of are providing debug kill-switches that can remove broken and/or unwanted DD items and/or terminate quests. This case isn't about that. It's about one modder who thinks their mod is more important than others.

 

I am not going to respond to you comparing me to Nazi slaughterers. This level of interacting with a fellow human is really below me, and is something I would NOT have expected coming from a person intelligent enough to write complex code. I have no intent to get further insulted by you, so I will leave this thread now and -really- never post here or in your other threads again. But what I said stands: I really, REALLY don't think respecting other modder's quests isn't much asked for. Not -intentionally- breaking them should be common courtesy. For some, it apparently isn't, no matter how hard you try to compromise with them. The baseline still is: Feel free to write whatever code you want. But don't complain about me doing the same, then.

 

PS: Neither Zaira nor you can tell how it is like to work with me. Neither of you ever tried.

 

 

Inte as a peculiar humor, that is to say that you are unnaccepting of other point of view. That post you made clearly display a refusal to work with other ideals..

 

When you talk about a convention that people "seems" to agree on, that is when the base of your argument crumble. You base your stance on a modder point of view, seeing everything as one unified group of individual giving away a standardized content. The reality is players subscribing to self curated content and not giving a damn about what you, as a modder, think is best. If you cannot cater to the needs of the many, you have no business ruling over a convention that do not exists. You are not an authority.

 

If you truly want a convention, then make the effort to gather modders and users alike to define and ratify the terms. That is only fair.

 

 

 

The problem is (and most users cannot possibly know this), that what Inte is doing is technically infeasible to do in a clean way. The way the framework is set up doesn't allow for that, at least not without the danger of breaking people's games left and right. I do not blame you or anyone else not experienced with the DD framework and its inner workings to know that, and I therefore do not blame you for thinking I am an evil Nazi bitch. I guess I have a talent for maneuvering myself into that position.

 

What I -do- find funny is the double standards that you seem to think that it's ok that Inte writes code in whatever way he deems fit without having to care about the bigger picture, but think it's evil and nasty if I (threaten) to do the same.

 

 

 

What I really find funny is the whole unnecessary nature of this meltdown.

 

You've mentioned setting up keywords that basically say "please please please please please do not force-remove this item unless you're absolutely, positively sure you know what you're doing", and Inte has an utility mod that puts such decision in the player's hand but without informing them of the potentially-destructive nature of it.

 

The entire thing could be resolved by having DDEquip show a confirm prompt when it detects one or more items it's trying to remove being tagged by this framework keyword you created, telling the player the risk of forcibly removing such item and the potential consequence of their save blowing up in a Big Fiery Ball Visible From Space™, and ask the player to make an informed decision. Or in the case of automated removal like POP integration, tell the player [insert item] is a quest item that's been forcibly removed and will possibly lead to the save blowing up later on, or even have an MCM option to either tell the utility to leave such items alone or to remove them anyway.

 

Instead of all that however, we have this whole massive meltdown here with one side threatening the nuclear option for daring to remove these items, and the other side pulling his mod in protest. This feels a lot more like a communication breakdown than a technical issue to me.