Devious Devices - Equip (LE)

[redmond]

Not sure I'll actually need the password but it was fun finding it. Also you have plenty of supporters but I think most of us are silent supporters.

[zaira]

Short question - why not using the Papyrus way of handling quest items (Fill into alias that is flagged as quest item)? That would work even for vanilla quests. Duplicating all items just to have a set with a proprietary keyword sounds not so elegant to me.

[Kimy]

Short question - why not using the Papyrus way of handling quest items (Fill into alias that is flagged as quest item)? That would work even for vanilla quests. Duplicating all items just to have a set with a proprietary keyword sounds not so elegant to me.

 

These items aren't technically duplicated, as the point of these items usually is to give them custom properties and assign them custom behavior/code. In DD lingo, they might share the Rendered Device (not necessarily, though), but the InventoryDevice is usually unique. If they would be identical to standard framework items except for the keyword, you'd be correct. That's not the case, though.

[Punga]

I had to reboot my computer because I couldn't believe what I saw on my screen. 

 

Inte's back. 

Thank you for comming back, and you brought presents!

Downloading now.

[Punga]

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

[Punga]

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

 

Where in the hell is it?

Code is like Chinese to me.

But no, don't tell me - I will find this damn thing, if it's the last thing I do. 

 

Can it be inside one of those 'while, endwhile' things?

[Punga]

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

[Punga]

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

[Sarge Misfit]

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

[Numerals]

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

 

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

 

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

 

And yet under the thin veil of "I want to work with you", your demands are exactly the same as before:

• Complete denial to DDEquip removing zad_Questitem marked items (NEW: ... no matter how well-informed the user is)
• Threat of coding war if Inte does not comply

 

This attitude isn't helping anyone: You, Inte, or mod users like me and many others who were affected by this drama.

[Kimy]

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

And yet under the thin veil of "I want to work with you", your demands are exactly the same as before:

• Complete denial to DDEquip removing zad_Questitem marked items (NEW: ... no matter how well-informed the user is)
• Threat of coding war if Inte does not comply

 

This attitude isn't helping anyone: You, Inte, or mod users like me and many others who were affected by this drama.

 

 

Compromise includes BOTH sides to move, not only one. But I'd rather discuss this with Inte and not someone who clearly has sided with one party anyway.

 

[Numerals]

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

And yet under the thin veil of "I want to work with you", your demands are exactly the same as before:

• Complete denial to DDEquip removing zad_Questitem marked items (NEW: ... no matter how well-informed the user is)
• Threat of coding war if Inte does not comply

 

This attitude isn't helping anyone: You, Inte, or mod users like me and many others who were affected by this drama.

 

 

Compromise includes BOTH sides to move, not only one. But I'd rather discuss this with Inte and not someone who clearly has sided with one party anyway.

 

 

 

> "Sided with one party"

 

Right, even though I find the entire incident ridiculous, find pulling mods as a protest an over-the-top reaction, agreeing that DDEquip removing potentially-save breaking quest items without properly informing its users is bad, and suggested clear warnings on DDEquip's part to make sure users know the risks involved before letting DDEquip pull the trigger.

 

But hey, you're free to believe that, because I think that statement has just turned into a self-fulfilling prophecy, and I can no longer even try to comment on this from a neutral standpoint without automatically antagonizing you.

[sigtrinature]

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

___

 

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

 

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

[Kimy]

 

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

And yet under the thin veil of "I want to work with you", your demands are exactly the same as before:

• Complete denial to DDEquip removing zad_Questitem marked items (NEW: ... no matter how well-informed the user is)
• Threat of coding war if Inte does not comply

 

This attitude isn't helping anyone: You, Inte, or mod users like me and many others who were affected by this drama.

 

 

Compromise includes BOTH sides to move, not only one. But I'd rather discuss this with Inte and not someone who clearly has sided with one party anyway.

 

 

 

> "Sided with one party"

 

Right, even though I find the entire incident ridiculous, find pulling mods as a protest an over-the-top reaction, agreeing that DDEquip removing potentially-save breaking quest items without properly informing its users is bad, and suggested clear warnings on DDEquip's part to make sure users know the risks involved before letting DDEquip pull the trigger.

 

But hey, you're free to believe that, because I think that statement has just turned into a self-fulfilling prophecy.

 

 

I don't get why you are trying to pick a fight with me instead of waiting and seeing if Inte and I can agree on something. This is not constructive at all, at this point. I am not sure how often I need to emphasize that I am willing to work with him on a solution that's acceptable for BOTH sides. In the end, he wants his mod to work without rewriting large portions of it, and I want to preserve the integrity of the DD framework and its conventions for all OTHER mods. And yes, I believe there is room for agreement there.

[Code Serpent]

Well, I'm really glad that Kimy and Inte are on talking terms again. You two are both incredible modders, and even better people. I sincerely believe that you two can figure this out without reducing the amount of kinkiness in Skyrim.

[OneVioletOfMany]

 

Compromise includes BOTH sides to move, not only one. But I'd rather discuss this with Inte and not someone who clearly has sided with one party anyway.

 

You did not seem very willing to compromise with Coopervane. Remember him?

[Punga]

Kimy, I don't even care about those damned quest items anymore, I'm just glad Inte is back. Try not to pitchfork him/her away again. OK? Please.

[Kimy]

 

 

Compromise includes BOTH sides to move, not only one. But I'd rather discuss this with Inte and not someone who clearly has sided with one party anyway.

 

You did not seem very willing to compromise with Coopervane. Remember him?

 

 

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

Kimy, I don't even care about those damned quest items anymore, I'm just glad Inte is back. Try not to pitchfork him/her away again. OK?

 

I didn't make him pull his mods in the first place, nor could I. When people do that, it's their own decision.

[Punga]

Who is Copperwane?

 

Wait, I think Inte mentioned him/her in the OP. 

 

I'll go investigate.

[Punga]

WTF!!!

Has anyone seen Coopervane's page? Is that a suicide note?

OMG!

I have to go read it again.

[OneVioletOfMany]

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

[Punga]

Get the fuck out of here!

That is a suicide note!   

 

 

[bicobus]

BTW kimy, this is exactly why I suggested a "round table". You take relevant parties, from both the modders and users communities and talk about this specific problem under a tame environment. A roundtable isn't a democratic process, it is a council where people discuss and the actions taken are from specific people (in this case you and inte). It has the advantage to cut off unwanted involvement. The idea being to get the most information and stances possible in a respectable amount of time and without rants.

[Punga]

Does anybody know what Coopervane is talking about in that suicide note? Is it depression?

 

edit

Nvm, I understand now. Bicobus set me right. 

 

[WraithSlayer]

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

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

 

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

 

Agreed. If the idea of DDe is to put the player in full control of equipped devices, then it seems counterintuitive to display misleading messages, or hide the option behind a password buried in a Papyrus script. All you're doing is confusing the player, and making it an inconvenience for those who already understand the risks, but still need the quest device removal for whatever reason. It's much better to just explain the issue clearly and simply to the player; if they then go ahead and ignore the warning, breaking mods in the process, then that's just their own fault.