Devious Devices - Equip (LE)

[jigwigigx]

Very sorry to see what's going on here, what a shame, I am a big fan of both DCL and DDe and I never play without either mod.

[RebelInfernal]

What in the name of all that is good and pure is going on?! This argument is ridiculous! If you'd both rather cooperate, then ​bloody cooperate!​ It's not rocket science to take a pause and say, "actually, this isn't helping, let's talk this out and find a damn solution rather than pull mods, call names and abandon threads pettily". Really, we're all adults here so how about acting like it and not denying the entire community of mods or freaking out like angst-ridden teenagers.

[firebinder]

Perhaps foolishly I'm going to step into this. I am not a modder, but a player who has very much enjoyed many of the mods produced here. I am greatly concerned that the conflict playing out in this forum is seriously damaging the entire community we have here. I would urge all of the participants to step back and consider the broader consequences. No one wins if the community falls apart and people stop posting new mods. To those who have taken mods down I ask that you please put them up again - I and other players do in fact appreciate them. To all of you I ask that you take some time to cool off, and try to come back together with a spirit of cooperation and compromise.

[Punga]

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

OMG! NO NO NO NO! This is not what I wanted! Inte please come back!

 

So the issue at hand is the removal by PLAYERS (through DDe) of quest items. Yes?

The arguments are - Kimy says that it should not be left to the player to remove quest items, Inte says it should - it is their game afterall.

Well I have to tell you that I play POP, DCL and CD together with no problems. POP removes DCL “quest” items (as per my choice) all the time, and puts them back and no one is the wiser and the quests continue and finish as usual. So this is a “non-issue”.

I think it’s an ego issue. (“Youre not going to remove my devices - oh yes I am, it’s my game!” type of thing)

Show me one, just one quest that will break with a temporary quest item removal. I haven’t found one yet.

 

I will be blunt to the both of you kids.

 

Kimy,

The Good;

You do good works here on LL, we all appreciate it. I hope you will continue to do so.

Although I don’t think you can claim to have the mod with the largest or most complex MCM anymore.

Have you even seen one of Inte’s? There are text input options, jsen file naming and saving, tag lists, skill customization, posing by entering a pose name, custom outfit lists, passwords ... yes passwords - that has to be unique, yes? Just to name a few.

 

The Bad;

A good coder does not a good leader make. You should not be the PR person for the DD framework. You should be the lead coder, yes - but leave the PR to someone else. Also, try and work with other moders and don’t just “draw a line in the sand”.

 

The Ugly;

You come out of the gate swinging with threats like ‘blacklisting’ Inte’s mods, really? You say you are all for cooperation and you start with that? Unbelievable! Then you go on to say that Inte should do as you instruct or you’ll start a ‘coding’ war with him/her that you will unequivocally win? Nice! That’s leadership material right there.

 

Inte,

The Good;

Like Kimy, you do very good work so, please come back! And bring your mods with you.

 

The Bad;

Stop being such a drama queen. Pulling your mods, WTF. Since when do you even care what kimy says.

 

The Ugly;

Although I and apparently Bicobus, understood what you meant by that Nazi reference, Kimy took that literary. I think you should analogize to him/her for it.

 

Conclusion;

I hope you two are going to work this out, somehow.

If I could offer a suggestion - If Kimy can prove that temporary removing a quest item will make a save explode, then Inte should consider a message warning box when that item is about to be removed and ask the player to confirm the action.

[Punga]

I just saw the Bumblebee outfit available for download, I need that back. I don't even care about quest items anymore,  I'll continue removing them through console, just bring back DDe. 

I am one of your 3 followers.  

[Kimy]

If I could offer a suggestion - If Kimy can prove that temporary removing a quest item will make a save explode, then Inte should consider a message warning box when that item is about to be removed and ask the player to confirm the action.

 

 

An example from my own mod that will absolutely and totally break if you remove the items, even temporarily, is the Damsel in Distress quest. It fires quest stages upon removal of each item, that a temporary removal would trigger when they shouldn't be triggered. The result is inevitably a broken quest.

 

Mind you that of the hundreds of items in DCL, only about 15 or so carry the quest tag at this time. The vast majority of all DD items out there are NOT quest items and can be removed safely. This dispute is about less than 2-3% of all DD items that Inte refuses to leave alone, even when asked to by the modder creating them (that's what this keyword is meant to do).

 

PS: I don't do PR work. I am the project lead and as such it falls upon me to speak for the DD team. I admittedly got angry at Inte, because we had this discussion before, and I was hoping that the issue got resolved to mutual satisfaction when I spent quite a bit of time coding the exact feature that reduced the items he's not supposed to remove to an absolute minimum. Until he announced his intention to break it anyway, or give users the means to break it, which is the same thing, really.

I get that pulling the "nuclear option" didn't make me very popular, but pretty much all software licences are dependent on the persons using them to respect the terms of use tied to them. "Respect the keywords" is DD's EULA, so to speak. It's quite normal to terminate the licence if somebody grossly violates the terms of use (which is Inte was clearly announcing he'd do) - and that's essentially all I said I'd do, in the hopes it would make him see reason. No, it didn't have the desired effect. I am as sad about that as any of you. But I want to make it totally and absolutely clear that I did NOT ask him to remove his mods. He did that in an obvious attempt to paint me as the villain. Like you, I'd much rather see him back and talk to him about it. It's his choice, though.

 

[Guest Dakota02]

well it was a good mod while it lasted 

 

[El_Duderino]

That all seems to have been a bit unnecessary to me. The whole issue was discussed in great detail not too long ago and I thought all was well then, in the end? In the last version that I checked (so before the recent mess), all my DD mods and POP played nicely together. Even while my char was still locked in a belt, boots, gag, blindfold, and corset, the imprisonment through POP worked okay. So why change a running system?

 

I really don't understand the reasoning behind that "damn the torpedos, remove all DD things no matter what" functionality that seems to have caused all this. There are only so few items in all of Skyrim that even have this keyword, so why not leave it alone? And trust the modders who applied it that they had a good reason to do so? And often DD mods have their own emergency resets/removal features that safely terminate quests and remove devices. Captured Dreams, Cursed Loot, Shout like a Virgin come to mind. So why bother come up with a new nuclear option at all? It doesn't even work as an emergency exit for when the user might not enjoy the associated quests any more, so I don't think that the argument that the user simply should get more power over his game is very helpful. I see myself as an experienced Skyrim mod user, a heavy Tes5edit and console (ab)user too, but there's still so much that can go wrong and completely wreck your savegame (like I did recently when I had had enough of CD's Property Slave and attempted to console my way out of it, leaving a whole mess of broken quests and NPCs behind in the process).

[bicobus]

As a project lead, you should have known that going around and being childish and dictatorial wouldn't work in an open environment. If the different discussions you had with Inte didn't work, you should have created a round table to get everybody input on the situation. But instead you go for the inquisitor route and pull bullshit like "EULA".

 

Well, I'm pissed off so forgive my tone. And I do intent to break that "EULA" as a user and remove all those "quest item" if it an inconvenience to me. And what are you gonna do then, put some piece of codes to keep me from playing the game?

 

This is ludicrous. If it didn't went into your skull yet: you do not control the mods using the framework. Other creator do and if they have a problem, they are old enough to raise it and discuss it without threat and without calling people names - which Inte did incidentally. There is no good or bad side in this whole mess, don't you realize that? We're all losers, including you Kimy. This whole situation paint you as the kind of individual who goes and tells other people what they ought to do with their mod. That was a very, very stupid move from your part.

 

People have to be respectful of each other and of what they do, this is a critical aspect of the modding sphere. Intel give people the ability to screw their games, so what, it their how fucking games. Drop support for the people who comes back whining. There were very simple ways to deal with this whole shitstorm and all the wrong turns were taken. FFS.

[AleyColt]

Sorry but this is too good to ignore

 

 

Well, I'm pissed off so forgive my tone. And I do intent to break that "EULA" as a user and remove all those "quest item" if it an inconvenience to me. And what are you gonna do then, put some piece of codes to keep me from playing the game?

 

Actually Kimy won't put in a piece of code to stop you from playing the game. The mod authors who placed those "quest items" in the game have already done that, it's why they're "quest items"

[Punga]

 

If I could offer a suggestion - If Kimy can prove that temporary removing a quest item will make a save explode, then Inte should consider a message warning box when that item is about to be removed and ask the player to confirm the action.

 

An example from my own mod that will absolutely and totally break if you remove the items, even temporarily, is the Damsel in Distress quest. It fires quest stages upon removal of each item, that a temporary removal would trigger when they shouldn't be triggered. The result is inevitably a broken quest.

 

...

 

That is the one quest I didn't play that all that much. Every time the blind fold is equipped I am out. Funny story though, when I did play it the quest kept getting stuck with the removal of leather restraints (it would say that I found a sharp object which I used to remove the item, but it never did), I fixed it with DDe.

 

Also, the protector belt has that keyword and the current version of DDe cannot remove it, i did through console and I put it back at the end of POP and I saw no negative effects. Master was none the wiser.

 

So it is settled then? If DDe is about to remove a quest device it should pop a message box and ask the player if sure, after explaining the dangers if removed?

[Kimy]

As a project lead, you should have known that going around and being childish and dictatorial wouldn't work in an open environment. If the different discussions you had with Inte didn't work, you should have created a round table to get everybody input on the situation. But instead you go for the inquisitor route and pull bullshit like "EULA".

 

Well, I'm pissed off so forgive my tone. And I do intent to break that "EULA" as a user and remove all those "quest item" if it an inconvenience to me. And what are you gonna do then, put some piece of codes to keep me from playing the game?

 

This is ludicrous. If it didn't went into your skull yet: you do not control the mods using the framework. Other creator do and if they have a problem, they are old enough to raise it and discuss it without threat and without calling people names - which Inte did incidentally. There is no good or bad side in this whole mess, don't you realize that? We're all losers, including you Kimy. This whole situation paint you as the kind of individual who goes and tells other people what they ought to do with their mod. That was a very, very stupid move from your part.

 

People have to be respectful of each other and of what they do, this is a critical aspect of the modding sphere. Intel give people the ability to screw their games, so what, it their how fucking games. Drop support for the people who comes back whining. There were very simple ways to deal with this whole shitstorm and all the wrong turns were taken. FFS.

 

PM sent. Continuing this in Inte's thread makes me uncomfortable.

[Punga]

I just want Inte back. Since he/she has not deleted his/hers LL account, there is hope. 

[El_Duderino]

...

I get that you're pissed off, I'm also sad that inte has decided to pull their mods. I hope this decision will be reverted, because POP in particular is a very cool mod indeed.

 

However some of what you're saying simply isn't true:

 

you should have created a round table to get everybody input on the situation. But instead you go for the inquisitor route and pull bullshit like "EULA".

That's how DD works already. There is an open development thread. There is an open project on Github where all changes can be tracked and checked. People with ideas or new models/scripts/whatever can join and participate. Also, there is a lot of discussion between DD maintainers and DD modders. The current framework and its rules already is the result of a "round table" of sorts.

 

 

This whole situation paint you as the kind of individual who goes and tells other people what they ought to do with their mod. That was a very, very stupid move from your part.

That's a bit of a misrepresentation of what happened. All Kimy requested and insisted on, was that one particular guideline of the framework rules not be circumvented, the removal of items tagged with one specific keyword. By the way a keyword that came into existence as the consensus after a previous discussion over forced removal of devices, right here or in the POP thread, in order to make things easier and clearer for other mod authors.

 

 

Intel give people the ability to screw their games, so what, it their how fucking games. Drop support for the people who comes back whining.

Yes, theoretically it is the users and only the users fault. However, many of those users, and not all of them are as experienced with the inner workings of the game as you are, will unknowingly break stuff and then haunt the support threads of Cursed Loot, Captured Dreams, Shout like a Virgin and who knows what other mods with their "why doesn't it work any more?" help requests. And it'll take up a lot of time, endless logs, trial and error, until the real culprit gets found.

[SkyAddiction]

As a project lead, you should have known that going around and being childish and dictatorial wouldn't work in an open environment. If the different discussions you had with Inte didn't work, you should have created a round table to get everybody input on the situation. But instead you go for the inquisitor route and pull bullshit like "EULA".

 

Well, I'm pissed off so forgive my tone. And I do intent to break that "EULA" as a user and remove all those "quest item" if it an inconvenience to me. And what are you gonna do then, put some piece of codes to keep me from playing the game?

 

This is ludicrous. If it didn't went into your skull yet: you do not control the mods using the framework. Other creator do and if they have a problem, they are old enough to raise it and discuss it without threat and without calling people names - which Inte did incidentally. There is no good or bad side in this whole mess, don't you realize that? We're all losers, including you Kimy. This whole situation paint you as the kind of individual who goes and tells other people what they ought to do with their mod. That was a very, very stupid move from your part.

 

People have to be respectful of each other and of what they do, this is a critical aspect of the modding sphere. Intel give people the ability to screw their games, so what, it their how fucking games. Drop support for the people who comes back whining. There were very simple ways to deal with this whole shitstorm and all the wrong turns were taken. FFS.

 

I hardly ever bother posting, but I think it's kind of important to keep things in perspective here.

 

1. We don't know what was or wasn't exchanged through other forms of communication.

 

2. Taking sides does no one any favors.

 

3. Emotional responses only create further division.

 

4. You're violating your own statements in your last paragraph, bringing it back to point #3. Perhaps everyone should step back and let the authors resolve this rather than further aggravating the situation?

[WraithSlayer]

There are only so few items in all of Skyrim that even have this keyword, so why not leave it alone? And trust the modders who applied it that they had a good reason to do so?

 

It's not that straightforward. Specifically for Prison Overhaul, the mod's just not gonna work very well if the player gets arrested while wearing devious devices flagged as quest items, especially devices that limit what animations can be used or take up essential equip slots used by PO items. Inte only has two choices here: either he removes devices regardless of their keywords, ensuring PO works as intended, or, he has to spend who knows how long redesigning PO so prison time plays out differently when wearing devices.

 

Had I been in Inte's position, I wouldn't compromise my own mod's viability just to cater to an unrelated mod. What I'd offer is to clearly warn the player of the risks prior to removing a quest-keyworded device, so the player can then decide how they want to proceed.

 

 

 

An example from my own mod that will absolutely and totally break if you remove the items, even temporarily, is the Damsel in Distress quest. It fires quest stages upon removal of each item, that a temporary removal would trigger when they shouldn't be triggered. The result is inevitably a broken quest.

 

I have no idea how this quest is supposed to work, but I'm imagining two possibilities here: either the player is able to remove each item using standard DD methods like keys/lockingpicking/magic, in which case, DDe removing them shouldn't really be any different or break anything, as it just shortcuts the task of getting them off... or, device removals are tied to a specific action the player must do, in which case, it sounds really ill-advised to have quest stages firing on device unequip, when you could fire them along with the code that triggers the device removal. Again though, I have no knowledge of how this particular quest works, so forgive me if I'm operating on completely wrong assumptions here, just trying to get a better picture of why this is a problem in the first place.

[Slorm]

It is sad it has come to this though not unexpected.

 

Keywords and other signals are necessary to ensure that mods work smoothly together. One of the most common is the modevent dhlp_suspend (and resume), this signals another mod which may fire that it should wait until the first mod has completed, it then signals the other mod to commence. Without this both mods try to run at the same time causing animation corruption as both streams try to complete at the same time. Usually it doesn't break anything but it can on occasion, depending on the mods involved. To see a fatal example use a mod like Touring Carriages (which does not use modevents) with mods such as DCL or DH and enjoy the eventual ctd when the camera tries to be in two places at once.

 

In this case there are two keywords, one which shows a DD item can be safely removed and another which indicates that removal will in all probability break a game. This is really no different to the modevent in practise and again is a convention so that mod authors can co-operate.

 

I hold both Kimy and Inte in high regard so I will just leave the above explanation which I hope is neutral for those that are perhaps not that au fait with how mods behave with each other and hope this situation gets amicably resolved.

 

[Kimy]

 

There are only so few items in all of Skyrim that even have this keyword, so why not leave it alone? And trust the modders who applied it that they had a good reason to do so?

 

It's not that straightforward. Specifically for Prison Overhaul, the mod's just not gonna work very well if the player gets arrested while wearing devious devices flagged as quest items, especially devices that limit what animations can be used or take up essential equip slots used by PO items. Inte only has two choices here: either he removes devices regardless of their keywords, ensuring PO works as intended, or, he has to spend who knows how long redesigning PO so prison time plays out differently when wearing devices.

 

Had I been in Inte's position, I wouldn't compromise my own mod's viability just to cater to an unrelated mod. What I'd offer is to clearly warn the player of the risks prior to removing a quest-keyworded device, so the player can then decide how they want to proceed.

 

I already suggested a really easy way to handle this, that would require neither Inte redesigning his mod nor breaking other people's stuff. It's...just doing something else if the required slots aren't free. In POP's case, make the character pay a fine, have her please the guard, lock more devices, or simply tell her "Eh, you're punished enough, so I will look the other way for now". Nobody wants Inte or anyone else to redesign their entire mods to be able to play nice with each other, but ONE little check before firing up content is really not much asked for. It was just an idea. Obviously pulling his mods is another way to make sure that nothing will clash anymore.

 

 

 

An example from my own mod that will absolutely and totally break if you remove the items, even temporarily, is the Damsel in Distress quest. It fires quest stages upon removal of each item, that a temporary removal would trigger when they shouldn't be triggered. The result is inevitably a broken quest.

 

I have no idea how this quest is supposed to work, but I'm imagining two possibilities here: either the player is able to remove each item using standard DD methods like keys/lockingpicking/magic, in which case, DDe removing them shouldn't really be any different or break anything, as it just shortcuts the task of getting them off... or, device removals are tied to a specific action the player must do, in which case, it sounds really ill-advised to have quest stages firing on device unequip, when you could fire them along with the code that triggers the device removal. Again though, I have no knowledge of how this particular quest works, so forgive me if I'm operating on completely wrong assumptions here, just trying to get a better picture of why this is a problem in the first place.

 

Trust me, this quest would just break. I wrote it, just take my word for it. Actually it would not only break, but it would break POP on top of it, because it would try to equip OTHER items upon removal of some of them. And whether or not it's a very well designed quest is another question, but I got asked for an example of a quest that would be completely and utterly broken by forced item removal, and that's one.

 

Generally, the framework is providing API functions that fire upon equip or removal of items. And due to DDI's object-oriented design, we cannot make any assumption about what code any individual modder has placed in there, which is why I gave them this keyword to mark "do not touch me" items and tell other modders to leave them alone. I guess for future framework projects it might be a cool idea to build in features that allow controlled temporary item removal and quest pausing requests, but DDI doesn't have such features, and the keyword convention would at least ensure content mods not breaking each other by removing their respective items when it's not safe.

 

 

 

 

[Guest]

I am not even mad anymore I just want Inte back D:

[bicobus]

I don't think Inte will be coming back for a while though, even though Inte left with some humor there was a clear message of "fed up with this". Anyhow, this is just my negative side speaking and it is too soon to be alarmist.

[Guest]

I agree I want Inte back too, I think his point was that demonizing Kimy will just cause a larger rift among the community and I don't entirely agree with what Kimy has said but she has put alot of effort into the framework since Min had handed it over and I can see her frustrations and concerns. I personally think the conversation just became too personal as both modders care deeply about their mods and their vision for those mods.

[CheddarTrauma]

I regularly check if there's updates to mods I use and I find this wreck of an argument...

I can't understand it anymore than I could the Zaz Animation Pack one.

 

Is this all it takes for someone to pull their work?

 

Players are going to remove their devices whether or not the mod author wants them to.

That's the reality. It's going to happen. No one can stop it.

 

It's best for mods to inform and educate a player of the dangers of removing devices rather than futile attempts at blocking it from happening.

 

I've had plenty of times where a device or two was not removed at the end of a quest or NPC dialogue.

DDe is what I used to workaround that problem, knowing full well it wasn't a good solution.

 

Maybe rather than arguing about why something can't be done or shouldn't be done you should all be arguing about how it could be.

[radbomber]

Wait, what's going on? Someone is mad at someone else for their mods messing with each others quest items or something?

[Droppdreadd]

So, looking at the way it all exploded since that punga post, the "mutual understanding" about the keyword handling in the framework was taken more like a cease-fire than a complete agreement?

And touching the subject made it all go up in flames again?

 

(I'm in no way, shape or form want to offend anyone here asking this.)

[DoctaSax]

Removed a few posts that only poured more oil on the fire (or quoted them).

Let's hope that cooler heads prevail.