Devious Devices Framework Development/Beta

[CovertDemon]

9 hours ago, Lupine00 said:

It shouldn't matter where FNIS is (on left pane) with respect to mods that generate animations, as you shouldn't be overwriting anything that's in FNIS unless you generated it with FNIS anyway.

 

Be sure to use the file redirection option if using MO, otherwise your base FNIS install gets corrupted when you FNIS (or used to, it may be fixed by now).

Best to use it anyway.

 

It's more likely that you changed the order of the things you moved below FNIS, and that fixed the issue as they were overwriting each other.

MO will tell you what is overwriting so I guess you should know the answer to that.

It turned out that FNIS Behavior XXL was on the bottom of the list, so I had to move it up until it joined up with the regular version of FNIS.

[Kimy]

16 hours ago, Lupine00 said:

Any chance you can expose the "manipulated" variable as a property?

Or getter and setter methods?

I have been asked that before, but this is a feature I actually do NOT want scripters to be able to manipulate. It's meant for players to make sure that the device they are playing with can be safely removed, without needing a key or escaping it. It would defeat the purpose of the feature if some mod could simply remove the "manipulated" flag. If a mod REALLY needs to make sure that a device in a given slot is locked, I'd recommend attempting a generic unequip of that device and replacing it with another.

[TurboNerd]

44 minutes ago, Kimy said:

If a mod REALLY needs to make sure that a device in a given slot is locked, I'd recommend attempting a generic unequip of that device and replacing it with another.

It seems to me that a read-only "Is_Device_Locked" method would preserve the intent of manipulation while allowing the mod to react differently to an unlocked device (without disturbing it).  For example an NPC wouldn't offer to unlock a device that is already unlocked, or might make a comment about "pretending to be tied up".  Magic devices could adjust their buffs depending on how many devices are worn and locked, etc.

[Zaflis]

1 hour ago, Kimy said:

I have been asked that before, but this is a feature I actually do NOT want scripters to be able to manipulate. It's meant for players to make sure that the device they are playing with can be safely removed, without needing a key or escaping it. It would defeat the purpose of the feature if some mod could simply remove the "manipulated" flag. If a mod REALLY needs to make sure that a device in a given slot is locked, I'd recommend attempting a generic unequip of that device and replacing it with another.

The whole problem would mostly be solved if DD had an MCM toggle for the whole manipulation system. The devices could still have the manipulation properties but a global boolean value would tell if the manipulation will actually do anything or even show up as an option in the dialog.

 

I think people who use the feature play the game in a more casual/experimenting way and not for survival experience. For survival it sort of just does more harm than good. I also belong to the camp who wants to immerse into Skyrim and so i never manipulate.

[Lupine00]

6 hours ago, Kimy said:

If a mod REALLY needs to make sure that a device in a given slot is locked, I'd recommend attempting a generic unequip of that device and replacing it with another.

We're going to end up doing that anyway. The PC is going to get locked in a device ... and really, if they want to remove that device they have a ton of options.

 

By making that property an obstacle to developers, it just creates a worse experience for the player.

More delays, more chances for DD to bug-up adding a device, more burden on developers, to deliver asked-for functionality that's purposely being blocked by the API.

 

Instead of the follower going...

 

"You forgot to lock your collar. [click] There. Fixed it for you. Really slave, don't you know you're mine?"

And the device is instantly locked in place by a single property modification.

 

We end up with...

 

"You forgot to lock your collar. [click] There. Fixed it for you. Really slave, don't you know you're mine?"

<wait five seconds>

<device vanishes from the PC>

<wait seven more seconds>

<a new device appears on the PC, maybe not the exact device they started with>

<PC grumbles you put the wrong device on them, and you spoiled their fashion decision>

 

Or worse...

 

"You forgot to lock your collar. [click] There. Fixed it for you. Really slave, don't you know you're mine?"

<wait five seconds>

<device vanishes from the PC>

<wait seven more seconds>

<a new device FAILS to appear on the PC>

<device magically appears an hour later when the PC tries to add some different device in that slot>

 

 

And in practice, it's not just ONE device, it's a delay for EVERY SINGLE SLOT WITH A DEVICE.

The PC ends up waiting about a minute while simply try to lock their devices, or add a full slavery set, or do whatever it is your mod needs to do.

 

I know you have this exact experience in DCL when it starts LBA etc. It takes thirty seconds to put the set ON, and a minute to take it OFF.

 

There is a feature (in the Debug menu) of DF that adds a full set of items. It almost always fails to add one of the items.

I have no idea why. There are non-trivial delays between issuing the operations to DD, but it overloads and chokes anyway.

Add the items individually and wait for success and it's fine. I'm guessing a mutex bug, but that's a by-the-by.

(And this is on a dev-box running no other mods to speak of).

 

 

The key here is that players are asking for these devices to be locked. 

DD mods are all about the player fooling themselves that events are out of their control, and device manipulation undermines that.

 

I have been asked on several occasions for DF to add behaviors where it would lock manipulated devices - despite DF not really needing that at all due to its design of self-enforced bondage. Players are looking for the "out of control" experience.

 

DF has a Debug menu that will remove pretty much any device that the player feels shouldn't be there, including Block Generics, but not Quest items.

Slaverun has a similar option, as does DDE, as do several other mods.

 

So, from my narrow perspective, I don't see the problem is keeping device removal easy. It's already easy.

Except for the rare case where a device becomes bugged, device removal is a non-problem.

 

 

OTOH, denying the functionality is simply forcing mods to take off and re-add devices, which ends up with the PC locked as intended anyway.

If they don't like the mod doing that to them, they can take that up with the mod author, or stop using it...

But probably, they installed the mod with the intention of GETTING that EXACT behavior.

 

 

But even the ability to READ the property would be a leap forward, because then we could skip the pointless removal and re-add step for devices that the player already locked in place.

 

 

Personally, I'm in agreement with @Zaflis that manipulation should not have been added without a feature toggle in the MCM.

It's a convenience feature for players who have no mods that introduce keys. If you have keys in your game, manipulation doesn't make much sense.

If you don't have keys in your game at all, it's really quite useful.

[Kimy]

I am not sure I get the idea of having an additional toggle for the manipulation system. There are exactly two kinds of scenarios:

1.) A player wants to make use of the system, in which case s/he occasionally chooses the "Manipulate" button.

2.) A player doesn't want to make use of the system, in which case s/he never uses said option.

 

I can't see any need to globally disable a feature for a player if they're in control of the feature 100% of the time anyway. Which they are. It's...redundant?

 

About the additional hassle for a scripter. Not sure how to phrase it, but I guess that's sort of intentional? It IS possible to force off a manipulated device and replace with a locked one. That's intended. But it comes at a cost, and it ain't pretty. Again, the feature is meant to give the PLAYER control over the slot. If a mod wants to wrest that control away from them, they should better have a good reason to. In which case, the cost might be acceptable? I honestly don't want DD mods to lock manipulated devices like it wouldn't matter. If that makes any sense?

 

PS: PERSONALLY, I don't even like the manipulate feature all that much. But it was a nod to the audience that wants DD devices to be cosmetic, and I know that they're out there. It allows them to use DD devices for safe selfbondage without any danger of any Tom, Dick and Harry NPC to go "Haha, let me just lock that thing properly!" at them. And that's -largely- what this feature is meant to do. Thing is that people who want the proper DD experience aren't going to ever use it, anyway. The ones that use it...I think should be respected for their choice.

 

I can see a read-only API function to be useful, though. I might add that!

[Zaflis]

1 hour ago, Kimy said:

I can't see any need to globally disable a feature for a player if they're in control of the feature 100% of the time anyway. Which they are. It's...redundant?

Player is in control of Cursed Loot's "Free me!" feature all the time too. Imagine if it was always shown as option in the device dialogs like manipulation is now   Would you say; "You don't have to use it..."? We didn't say the feature should be completely removed, just that so we have a choice to disable it. It's a win-win for all and definitely not redundant.

[Lupine00]

3 hours ago, Kimy said:

Which they are. It's...redundant?

Because other mods can know it's disabled and not constantly remove and replace items trying to lock them, for no reason whatsoever - because if an item is there it will definitely be already locked.

 

Potentially also the reverse... If a player enables the feature, it means they think they need it, and again, mods don't do anything about it.

 

There's even an extreme version where you could actually let mods change this precious piece of game state in certain conditions, and have ON, OFF, and MOD CONTROLLED options for the feature...

 

i.e. mods only bother checking or changing the manipulated state in cases where it's set to MOD CONTROLLED.

In the ON state, the player does not want you to mess with it, and in the OFF state, the player can't even set it themselves.

 

 

But as it is, people say, "It would be cool if the DF could lock the items on me as a punishment" ... or whatever.

 

They see it as an "in character" feature, not as an external game mechanic.

[Lupine00]

4 hours ago, Kimy said:

About the additional hassle for a scripter. Not sure how to phrase it, but I guess that's sort of intentional?

Yes. And that's sad. That you would like to decide what we are allowed to do in our mods.

Thanks mom.

 

 

This overwhelming concern for the fragile sensibilities of players is surprising from an author whose own flagship mod has an MCM lockout enabled by default to ambush new players.

 

 

If I make a mod that annoys players, then they aren't going to use it. It doesn't need the mod police to stop my bad ideas.

I can do a hundred things to make my mod stupid and annoying, and you don't worry about them, but you worry about this one?

Spoiler

 

To name a few...

And I have no specific modders in mind here:

• Auto-starting, to screw up their game start with script overloading.
• Filling the log with hundreds of lines of useless empty property warning spam.
• Shipping out of date FNIS files.
• Not updating API reported version numbers so other mods can't interoperate properly.
• Spinning up thousands of redundant scripts with a badly written cloak.
• Asking the player to find a key that spawns in a place they've ALREADY LOOKED before you ask them to find it.
• Totally ignoring chastity items every time you select a sex animation.
• Making an MCM with four million settings, randomly scattered across twenty-something sub-menus with deceptive names.
• Making a mod that uses multiple MCMs for no good reason.
• Making a leash that yanks the player through collision and out of the world so they fall forever.
• Locking the PC in an nearly empty room and shocking them to death every time they try to leave.
• Requiring specific sex animations but not documenting the requirement ANYWHERE.
• Quest NPCs who teleport about before your very eyes.
• Quest NPCs who fail to show up to their job, leaving the quest stuck.
• Locking you in quest DDs you can't remove and preventing quest progress so the save is foobar. (DF did do this one, but I take no responsibility  )
• Crashing on startup them claiming that it's normal for MCMs not to show up.
• Writing bad soft-deps that create CTDs for players who mix unexpected mod combinations.
• Injecting endless Forms, like Update.ESM belongs to you.
• Writing 0.3 second updates and calling a bunch of C++ from them so the game is slugged to death.

 

I could go on and on.

 

"Creating quest events that inform the PC that a DD item that was previously unlocked is now locked" is not really a top 20 no-no, it's not even in the top one-

hundred. It's more like ... a requested feature that some players would like.

 

It's also something the Dollmaker does! Albeit by removing your manipulated devices and replacing them with nicer - fully locked - versions.

 

I mean, if you're afraid of blame, get mods to pass in their EspName when they call the API, and you can tell the player what mod locked their item when they try to remove it and the locked item popup appears.

 

Then they will know not to blame you  

 

 

And think how much more fun the Dollmaker could have if you enabled it?

You'd barely be through the door before she was tightening your laces and checking your locks.

"Oh, did you come to buy a key? Sadly, I don't sell those. But if you want one, there's something you can do for me..."

"And by the way, you owe me 500 for the new locks. They're extra secure you know?"

[naaitsab]

If you want to "permanently" lock items why not use custom quest items? Then it's clear to the player it's a special thing. I don't see the added benefit of adding an option to fully lock a generic device. One thing I would like to see is a way to swap let's say a generic belt with a quest belt without swapping the rendered model (see it removed -> placed). If that would be possible I think it will best of both worlds.

 

An alternative could be to use mod events on a device removal. Currently it does seem to be throwing errors and not working correctly but after I made some changes to the zadlibs script file it seems to be working as intended

 

[Kimy]

8 hours ago, Lupine00 said:

Because other mods can know it's disabled and not constantly remove and replace items trying to lock them, for no reason whatsoever - because if an item is there it will definitely be already locked.

 

You have a point there! All right, the global button will get implemented!

  

7 hours ago, Lupine00 said:

Yes. And that's sad. That you would like to decide what we are allowed to do in our mods.

Thanks mom.

Ugh, why is it that every single time I say "no" to a feature, I am getting labelled as some form of dictator?  Or getting confronted with the implicit notion that modders have the complete right to do whatever they wish, but I don't have the same right to do whatever I want with the framework?

 

You HAVE to admit that it makes no sense to implement a feature that gives players control over the lock status of a device they voluntarily equip, and then add another function that nullifies the effect of that feature. Might as well do away with that function entirely, then.

 

7 hours ago, Lupine00 said:

This overwhelming concern for the fragile sensibilities of players is surprising from an author whose own flagship mod has an MCM lockout enabled by default to ambush new players.

DCL is hardly aimed at the crowd who'd want devices to be cosmetic only. I don't need to take said audience into account when designing features for DCL, and I in fact, do not.

 

7 hours ago, Lupine00 said:

And think how much more fun the Dollmaker could have if you enabled it?

You'd barely be through the door before she was tightening your laces and checking your locks.

"Oh, did you come to buy a key? Sadly, I don't sell those. But if you want one, there's something you can do for me..."

"And by the way, you owe me 500 for the new locks. They're extra secure you know?"

 

Of course. That would be something she'd do! Then again, as I said above, I don't really expect anyone who installs DCL to make a lot of use of the manipulate device feature, so there would be no point in implementing that feature. Likewise, I am not sure if cosmetic DD users would install DF, for the same reason.

 

In the end, I believe that use-case "locking manipulated generic devices" is fairly esoteric. If your quest involves the player putting herself in bondage, simply provide custom devices with the "Allow Manipulation" flag disabled and check if she locked herself in them before advancing the quest.

[Reesewow]

6 hours ago, Kimy said:

Of course. That would be something she'd do! Then again, as I said above, I don't really expect anyone who installs DCL to make a lot of use of the manipulate device feature, so there would be no point in implementing that feature. Likewise, I am not sure if cosmetic DD users would install DF, for the same reason.

 

In the end, I believe that use-case "locking manipulated generic devices" is fairly esoteric. If your quest involves the player putting herself in bondage, simply provide custom devices with the "Allow Manipulation" flag disabled and check if she locked herself in them before advancing the quest.

Just to offer my 2c as an end-user - there are a few examples of times I'll use the "manipulate device" feature of DD and would appreciate that functionality being exposed to modders to subvert.  I'd consider myself primarily a gameplay user of DDs, as I mostly receive them through mods like Cursed Loot, and generally don't spend too much time playing dressup with them as a stand-alone mod.

 

The primary example is a mod like Devious Followers, where the PC is often required to wear DD's, but the equipping of these items is purely voluntary (albeit with a severe cost associated with not wearing them).  In that scenario, it very much makes sense to manipulate the device to not be locked, for easy removal later when that is allowed.  It also offers a bit of roleplay where the PC isn't stuck in the device, but keeps it on anyway for fear of repercussions.

 

However, DF also offers gradual loss of player agency - at some point it would make sense that the PC's ability to decide if a device is locked or not is at risk.  That *could* be solved by offering custom devices with the manipulation option disabled - but one of the major benefits of the voluntary system is that the entire DD library is available for use to fill the requirement, as long as the item chosen has the correct device tags.  Unless a mod mirrored the DD library with manipulation off versions, I think this freedom to enjoy the cosmetic side of DD while fulfilling a gameplay requirement would likely be compromised by requiring the device be custom.

 

So I think for my gameplay preferences, it would be a nice added feature for a mod to be able to "lock" a manipulated device after the fact - and if I found it annoying, I'd request that mod offer a way to turn off locking manipulated devices, or I'd uninstall it. 

 

Another IMO less ideal option would be for a mod to be able to globally toggle the manipulate option on and off, but I'd prefer that over losing the benefits of the player having the option to equip any item from the DD library.  Again, I'd likely put it on the mod doing the toggling to offer up player choice of it happening.

[Lupine00]

9 hours ago, Kimy said:

In the end, I believe that use-case "locking manipulated generic devices" is fairly esoteric. If your quest involves the player putting herself in bondage, simply provide custom devices with the "Allow Manipulation" flag disabled and check if she locked herself in them before advancing the quest.

You know that requires DF - or most consumer mods - to recreate practically every device in the framework right? A bit of a straw man there. Technically possible. Practically infeasible.

 

It's obvious that the better way is to expose the property, at a minimum of read-only, so modders can at least see if it's set or not.

 

 

 

If replicating every DD were in my scope, I could create replicas of every single DD item, with scripts that use the original DD scripts as parents.

And then I could do whatever I liked with manipulation, such as disable it altogether, or allow locking by property modification. Which would be a ridiculous waste of time to get around one stubborn refusal to expose a property.

 

9 hours ago, Kimy said:

Ugh, why is it that every single time I say "no" to a feature, I am getting labelled as some form of dictator?

Maybe because of the way that you say no. Which basically amounts to "I control the framework, shush and be grateful."

 

 

Since this limitation became apparent - a feature that was put in without much modder consultation, or in so far as there were comments, they were ignored - I still couldn't bring myself to believe that this weird limitation was actually introduced on purpose.

 

The discovery that this was not only a unilateral design decision that impacted dozens of mods in subtle ways they did not anticipate, but...

That it was done with the actual intent to impose one person's vision over the top of every DD modder's work is actually quite a shock to me.

 

 

A lot of people were frantic about the difficulty changes. But the argument could be made that they were superficial MCM changes.

 

This, however, is a total subversion of pre-existing DD functionality.

A change that requires a modder to replicate hundreds of objects to work around or undo it.

 

 

But - apparently - we aren't even allowed to complain about it, because we are mere receivers of what is passed down from on high?

And to point out this was "dictated" is unfair? It's not unfair to you, it's just the facts.

 

 

That is why I have been unhappy with the lack of any real community development of DD, the lack of a real team, the existence of a single-point-of-failure, and oppressive assertion of "rights" as a tool to block any competing vision (besides T.ara, who is basically on another planet).

 

 

So, there are reasons people might say it's dictatorship, because not only do you dictate the terms, but you deny any possibility of an alternative approach by blocking patches or modifications to DD and adopting a technical model that makes doing something like broad-based object customization overwhelmingly time-consuming, and repairing the (long) broken slotting on hoods simply prohibited because it would require "illegal" NIF edits, that it has been *dictated* we may not make, publish or distribute.

 

 

One odd thing is that in your own post above, you effectively point out that you don't even see a real audience for this feature - that DD users do not typically need this protection - and that you think DCL users wouldn't use the feature... Actually, that's a bit muddled. DCL users get their devices applied by the framework, so it avoids ever giving the PC a chance to manipulate them. The entire feature is meaningless and ineffective in the context of DCL, except - for example - when DF users have added devices themselves and the Dollmaker locks them (which she does effectively do).

 

  

9 hours ago, Kimy said:

You HAVE to admit that it makes no sense to implement a feature that gives players control over the lock status of a device they voluntarily equip, and then add another function that nullifies the effect of that feature. Might as well do away with that function entirely, then.

No. No I don't have to. Because I already put forward multiple scenarios where it does makes sense, and how it could be implemented to more clearly give users the intended control. You didn't address those specific scenarios, so as far as I can see, they still stand as valid arguments. Your assertion only holds given excessively narrow pre-conditions and interpretation of intent.

[Kimy]

3 hours ago, Lupine00 said:

You know that requires DF - or most consumer mods - to recreate practically every device in the framework right? A bit of a straw man there. Technically possible. Practically infeasible.

 

Having to replicate ALL DD devices to implement a feature that involves having ONE set of locked devices on a character? Wow! Well yeah, that would suck, right! Except that no imaginable bondage quest or feature would ever require doing such a thing. But ok, I guess you knew that as well as I did, and just threw that at me to get your viewpoint as poor oppressed modder across.

 

I am pretty sure you can make whatever feature work with ONE set of custom devices designed for the job. At least it's what I have been doing for as long as I have developed DCL, which features more quests than most DD mods. But maybe it's just me.

 

Quote

Maybe because of the way that you say no. Which basically amounts to "I control the framework, shush and be grateful."

 

Ok, so

1.) You ask me for a feature

2.) I say "Eh, probably not?" and explain why.

3) You're telling me "You're not going to implement the feature I DEMAND! How DARE you, you DICTATOR!!!!!"

And apparently:

4.) Me objecting to 3.)

constitutes me being rude.

 

Hmm...ok!

 

I guess it gets clearer when considering this little gem here:

 

Quote

That is why I have been unhappy with the lack of any real community development of DD, the lack of a real team, the existence of a single-point-of-failure, and oppressive assertion of "rights" as a tool to block any competing vision.

 

That's the problem, right there. It's called "advanced stage of entitlement". "Community development" to you quite obviously means that I have to ask every single person ever to have worked on a DD mod what they need, read their every wish from their eyes before they even name it, and then implement every feature one could ever ask for.

 

Because I am apparently your and everyone else's slave here. And I must be a slave, because I...don't really get paid for what I am doing. At least when looking at my Patreon, which I believe is one of the lowest-yielding in relation to the contributions provided, on all of LL. You can't seriously make any point that I'd owe anything to anyone here.

 

So, sorry to burst you bubble: I am not anybody's slave. Even when I RP the part once in a while.

 

You took over DF from someone else in the same manner I took over DD from Min about three years ago, or so. DF is now YOUR mod. Nobody can demand you to add or remove any feature from it. It's YOUR call. Conversely, and like it or not, DD is MY mod now. I have exactly ZERO obligation to implement anything I don't want to implement. If you don't like it, do it like me and spend a few years of your life to build your own framework. And then convince the rest of LL to use it!

 

DD is an offer to the LL community. Nothing more, nothing less. Use it, or don't. But let me tell you one thing. NOBODY has any right to tell me what I can or cannot implement in DD. If you want something done, convince me. It's really the only way to get anything implemented.  Demands and accusations will NOT work.

 

Quote

This, however, is a total subversion of pre-existing DD functionality.

 

The feature in question predates you publishing your first line of code on LL. By a fair margin. But it was SOOOOO suprising! Riiiiiiight!

 

Quote

So, there are reasons people might say it's dictatorship, because not only do you dictate the terms, but you deny any possibility of an alternative approach by blocking patches or modifications to DD and adopting a technical model that makes doing something like broad-based object customization overwhelmingly time-consuming, and repairing the (long) broken slotting on hoods simply prohibited because it would require "illegal" NIF edits, that it has been *dictated* we may not make, publish or distribute.

 

 

You can say whatever you want, really. It's a free world. But I tell you what, there is a reason why I was barely visible on LL for the past half year or so. I was and am quite honestly sick of hearing demands and non-constructive criticism seven days a week. You more or less convinced me to go back into hiding again and stop wasting my precious lifetime with reading all this crap here.

[Lupine00]

  

3 hours ago, Kimy said:

constitutes me being rude.

Nobody called you rude.

Or, TBH, a dictator in the Godwin's law sense.

 

There was some light humor at most, which was non-abusive.

 

This isn't an enraged, daggers at dawn argument. At least, I'm not seeing it that way.

 

  

3 hours ago, Kimy said:

Having to replicate ALL DD devices to implement a feature that involves having ONE set of locked devices on a character?

I think you're misrepresenting the situation. For just about any mod, the devices that are manipulated are added by the player, and thus, are not under the mod's control.

 

When DF adds devices to a player, they are already locked. The limited set of devices DF controls intimately are never a problem, and are never manipulated.

 

When the player adds any device they like, it may, or may not, be locked. So, if  you think for a moment about the use cases here, it's your suggestion that is absurd and contrived, and mine represents the usual use pattern. 

 

I cannot think of a single situation where the player is adding devices that were very carefully selected and limited for them.

And while DF does give the player devices to play with, the player can configure what devices those are themselves, and that is a DF feature.

The only way to fix all devices they can choose is thus to ... fix all devices.

 

It should be obvious from this use pattern, that the manipulation feature never impacts devices a mod adds, and DF's scenario is reflected for every other mod I can think of. If players can add any device, then you can't just fix a subset of them.

 

 

3 hours ago, Kimy said:

That's the problem, right there. It's called "advanced stage of entitlement".

No. It's not.

 

It's called "Kimy refuses to accept code submissions and rejects/ghosts offers of help, then claims anyone who complains about anything in DD is acting entitled ... when she made herself the sole gateway to anything getting done there."

 

 

You cannot simultaneously complain about attempts to make you a code-slave while locking everyone else out at a technical and legal level.

Or... I mean you can, but it's hypocrisy.

 

 

The shrill cry that "people who ask for things in DD are entitled" card has been overplayed too many times.

 

The code to do what we want was put forward months, (years?) ago now, when people first realized they had been locked out. 

 

It's not being blocked because it's time-consuming, or because it's hard.

It's being blocked as a matter of exercising unilateral personal control of what was once a more open endeavor.

It is a problem that only exists because you chose to purposely create the issue in the first place.

 

It's an argument that is only taking place because you doubled-down on not compromising over it and making these emotion-packed straw man arguments that literally beg to be refuted.

 

It's a tiny request, for a tiny thing, that (maybe) has more impact on other mods than DD itself, and you're escalating and escalating it to the point where the stakes are higher and higher, when it has always really been about one simple thing: you decided something by yourself, and if I don't like that decision, you imply I'm not even entitled to my opinion about it, and imply that by speaking out against it I am being AWFUL. 

 

The feature itself is almost secondary to this cavil.

 

 

I can't answer your odd enslavement rant, as it's so far off base here, so far from the real problem, that it simply can't be answered. It's more straw men.

 

If you didn't make straw man arguments like that we'd be done already. I'd have given up and shut up, and that would be that, but I cannot bear to let that stuff stand, because it's just not valid. I hesitate to say not true, but it's certainly not true to me.

 

 

This is about something that was done to mess with modders and take control from their mods and give it to the DD framework, allegedly for the benefit of players, that you will not even hear a word against. Something you seem prepared to marshal any argument against, no matter how strangely contrived.

 

There's a very nice feature there, and everyone could be happy about it if you didn't take the stubborn position that people who don't slavishly agree with you are doing you some kind of harm. I don't hate "manipulate devices", it's very helpful.

 

But it seems some of us have dared to interpret the semantics of that feature differently to its intention - as if it were the PC not actually locking the device in the game-world, rather than an external meta-control that pulls the secret levers of The Matrix and makes us suddenly realize there is no spoon.

 

 

Of course, I don't believe that the tiny detail of the larger feature is part of some master-plan, it's just a symptom of your pattern of attacking noisy DD consumers who speak up (I quote again: "advanced stage of entitlement") who it seems should shut up and be grateful that DD was updated, even if you made it so nobody else could update it. When we see that feature differently, we are somehow ... wrong.

 

Am I overreacting? The worst word I've used is "stubborn". Tell me that doesn't apply?

 

Does it, or does it not sound like you begrudge us the work you put into DD?

I can only guess what is in your mind... That only you can carry the terrible burden of DD development, and without you policing it with a firm hand it would be turned to to thick brown slime-mold in a matter of days? That so-publicly loathing every minute you spend on it, you soldier on regardless, enduring our complaints and "demands" carrying the heavy weight like a titan who must bear the world - for our good - even if we don't see it? Of course, I just made that up. You probably don't think that, but it can sometimes feel a bit like you do ... that we can never, ever give you enough praise ... and that any suggestion or request, however small, is an assault on your very soul.

 

 

I can relate in some ways. Realizing that the modular events in DF were such a game-breaker was a nasty discovery when I wanted to get on and do work on SLAX instead. I resented spending time on that. It wasn't what I went in planning to do. That was one thing though. It seems that unless its a shiny new outfit, all of DD has got like that for you.

 

 

 

That feature...

 

Whether it benefits players or not isn't the issue, because if you look back at what was proposed, players that want it forced into one state could still have this feature, and those that don't could disable it entirely, and those that want mods to be able to mess with it could have that too.

 

Everyone could have what they want. Plenty of technical solutions exist.

 

 

I will write the patch for you - if you want it.

But you've already made very clear you do not NEED a patch, because you made it the way it is on purpose and have made an effort to burn down any questioning of that decision.

Still, I will happily do it, because my intent is not to just ask for things and expect to get them for free.

 

Rather than agree that is a benefit, or an improvement, you've come up with a number of arguments that did not convince me.

 

 

Finally, I'm not going to stop mentioning - from time to time - that you have asserted oppressive rights over DD. Rights that are over-reach for a framework mod. If this was your book of personal love poetry, or a library of animations you had made, or some quest adventure, or even some mod that makes people get addicted to wearing keywords in slots, or ... DCL ... I wouldn't question that level of rights-assertion. But DD existed before your work on it, and it is not a stand-alone mod. Other people have got an investment in it, even if they apparently did no work on it, they did work to make use of it. DD is something others depend on for their work, and would not have depended on without some belief in its future and trust that they may be able to be heard when it decides to be the boss and takes control.

 

You cannot culture that trust with aggressive rights declarations. Those are the opposite of trust and they destroy it.

You cannot culture trust by making autocratic decisions and then using a bully-pulpit of a large following to burn down any questioning of it.

And you limit the effort going into the framework by actively discouraging contributions that aren't new art assets.

There's no way I'm going to put time into hunting and fixing DD bugs when I get such hostile responses to even suggesting different patterns or approaches.

 

Sure, DD should be protected. Are you doing us a service by preventing any forking? I don't know, maybe that's a benefit.

 

OTOH, rights that explicitly prevent a mod from replicating an asset to fix a bug, or patching the ESP to fix a bug, are damaging, unless you are really on top of those issues. I just think there is a better way to frame limitations. I personally, dare not place my faith in your magnanimous judgement, as basically I understand I won't be receiving any benefit of the doubt. And yet I remain frustrated that there are some things I can't fix or modify because Kimy says no, even if the intent is far, far from ripping off DD.

 

Maybe those rights assertions were initially intended simply to stop some scumbag copying DD completely, making some trivial addition (sex animations probably) and posting it on their Patreon. But they do more than that. They have a chilling effect on innovation and contribution. The deprecation of the github, whether purely practical or not - and the code could clearly be distinct from the assets - is another thing that is slowly, bit by bit closing up DD even tighter and shutting out others except the special "in crowd". And last time this was questioned, you responded with threats. More chilling behavior.

 

 

Disagreeing with all that is not entitlement, it's disagreement.

There's a big difference, which it would be gracious of you to appreciate.

[Lupine00]

4 hours ago, Kimy said:

You took over DF from someone else in the same manner I took over DD from Min about three years ago, or so. DF is now YOUR mod. Nobody can demand you to add or remove any feature from it. It's YOUR call. Conversely, and like it or not, DD is MY mod now. I have exactly ZERO obligation to implement anything I don't want to implement. If you don't like it, do it like me and spend a few years of your life to build your own framework. And then convince the rest of LL to use it!

You're wrong on this. I don't care a dot about DF. People can fork my work or do whatever they like.

 

If they want to go off and do more at it, and make better stuff so I can sloth around and play more fun Skyrim and get surprise game with followers, they are welcome.

 

Lozeak's own pronouncements of rights to DF mandate that anyone can do as they like with it, and my conclusion is that, like the GPL is a non-dismissable condition. Anything derived from DF is open, forever. I'm fine with that. I don't recall if he said you can't make money from it, but that's not a problem for me, as I have no intention of ever accepting a donation for this stuff that I do for fun, and only occasionally get fed up of  

 

 

As for the previous post. I did plan to delete it entirely, but it has been up too long. It seems kind of sneaky to delete it now.

Suffice to say, I don't want to keep on blowing this little argument up any bigger than it already is.

 

There are just some things I can't leave alone, like worrying at a hangnail.

It's dumb I know.

 

I feel really low, as I threw the kitchen sink at Kimy, even if it was in in defense of being accused of peak entitlement.

 

There are some real issues there, but I should add that she does a lot, and I would be absolutely gutted if I found out she'd decided to stop work on DD, regardless of how she disposed of that glorious estate. DCL is awesome, and when you think of it, DD is this big nuisance that gets in the way of her doing DCL, which she clearly loves.

 

The manipulation is a good feature, but not everyone interpreted its intent as Kimy intended.

Maybe just one or two people. Maybe more?

Had I understood it was not supposed to be an "in character" feature, I would have wondered why there was no MCM control for it long ago.

[DonQuiWho]

3 hours ago, Lupine00 said:

You're wrong on this. I don't care a dot about DF. People can fork my work or do whatever they like.

 

If they want to go off and do more at it, and make better stuff so I can sloth around and play more fun Skyrim and get surprise game with followers, they are welcome.

 

Lozeak's own pronouncements of rights to DF mandate that anyone can do as they like with it, and my conclusion is that, like the GPL is a non-dismissable condition. Anything derived from DF is open, forever. I'm fine with that. I don't recall if he said you can't make money from it, but that's not a problem for me, as I have no intention of ever accepting a donation for this stuff that I do for fun, and only occasionally get fed up of  

 

 

As for the previous post. I did plan to delete it entirely, but it has been up too long. It seems kind of sneaky to delete it now.

Suffice to say, I don't want to keep on blowing this little argument up any bigger than it already is.

 

There are just some things I can't leave alone, like worrying at a hangnail.

It's dumb I know.

 

I feel really low, as I threw the kitchen sink at Kimy, even if it was in in defense of being accused of peak entitlement.

 

There are some real issues there, but I should add that she does a lot, and I would be absolutely gutted if I found out she'd decided to stop work on DD, regardless of how she disposed of that glorious estate. DCL is awesome, and when you think of it, DD is this big nuisance that gets in the way of her doing DCL, which she clearly loves.

 

The manipulation is a good feature, but not everyone interpreted its intent as Kimy intended.

Maybe just one or two people. Maybe more?

Had I understood it was not supposed to be an "in character" feature, I would have wondered why there was no MCM control for it long ago.

@Lupine00 @Kimy

 

I'm not a modder, just a casual gameplayer, an interested bystander, so to speak, watching two passionate people arguing about things that I would not try to understand the exact technicalities of. 

 

But whilst I don't understand the tech, I do understand that houses divided amongst themselves don't do too well

 

So, two observations. if I may

 

1 - @Lupine00 you said/implied that @Kimy doesn't take patches etc.  There's a post from a few days ago on a DD post into which someone listed and copied all the 'buccaneer' patches posted that fix things various things, to which @Kimy replied with a grateful 'thank you' and said she's build them into next version.  So you were wrong.

 

2 - @Kimy So he's saying that he'll write a similar patch that will do what's needed to fix a relatively small issue with big ramifications?  Can't you cut him a bit of slack, and let him have a go?  His stuff elsewhere isn't the work of some, off the wall, cowboy, so the quality isn't likely to be a real issue, is it?  But the impact, if truly ADDITIONAL - and I doubt if anyone is really saying that you shouldn't be the real judge on that  - might be

 

EDIT: 

 

\sighs

 

As it apparently doesn't seem to be entirely clear, the following is meant to be a mildly funny , sideways view of life, not a representation or interpretation of what has preceded, in this, or any similar discussion that I have seen take place over the last 6 or 7 years

 

That that actually needs to be said is depressing ...

 

\smh

 

Think of the things that you could do ......

 

 

 

 

Just not quite like that .....

 

 

 

[naaitsab]

27 minutes ago, donkeywho said:

 

Think of the things that you could do ......

 

Just not quite like that .....

 

Well the issue with these kinds of discussions related to the framework. Which is not the first one, is that people can't seem to accept no for an answer and start throwing all kind of accusations to try and get a point. With a mindset like that the discussion is over before it even begins IMHO. As Kimy said she runs the DD supportshow now, you can like that or not. You can ask for changes or contribute things but don't be a dickhead if you get a no back. Ranting about it will help nothing but make it an embarrassing situation. After a while this will get quite annoying I can imagine, but not responding to a rant might be the best option to stop an endless discussion.

 

I often think that people seem to forget that this is a place where people do this stuf as a hobby. Not a paid profession where you can make demands because you pay for a service.

And if you can't accept a no it might be best to stay clear of DD mods then. No one is forcing you to make a DD mod after all.

[Lupine00]

  

58 minutes ago, naaitsab said:

people can't seem to accept no for an answer and start throwing all kind of accusations to try and get a point

Again. With the mis-representations. Here they come... Here they come... Pile on everyone. I love it when calmer heads tell me to settle down.

 

A hint to the "helpers": you're not helping, you're stirring.

 

 

If you actually read what I wrote, you'd know my issues are not even with the feature, but about the very issue of autocratic control, and the way the argument was escalated, then padded with attacks on things I didn't say, like some piece of political advertising.

 

Make no mistake, I know very well that Kimy is going to do exactly as she likes with the feature, and any attempt to change her mind will likely achieve the opposite.

 

Kimy can have all the control she wants, but she can't have it and claim any of the following:

1) she doesn't have it

2) that she's a victim of entitled players

3) that it's unfair for anyone to speak against it

4) that any arguments against decisions she made are really just personal attacks because her decisions are perfect, just perfect.

 

 

Are the waters calmed now? No. I don't think so. I better leave this thread before I write what I really think about Naaitsab's condescending post. So many barbs, I don't know where to start, so I better not.

 

No. Wait a minute. There one thing there I can't leave, because it's exactly what I said was happening, and he joined in like a champ.

 

58 minutes ago, naaitsab said:

And if you can't accept a no it might be best to stay clear of DD mods then.

What was that you said? "Shut up and be grateful?"

Yep. It was exactly what I predicted, rephrased.

 

Except when I read back how Naaitsab writes it, it's as if I can hear a sorta-silent derogatory term added on the end for extra punch, like he said it under his breath, or did a fake cough then said the word so you could still hear it.

 

Now I'm done.

I might just take his advice. Probably time for me to quit DD mods.

[naaitsab]

1 hour ago, Lupine00 said:

Let's not get into the deeper ramifications of that shall we, and the asset wars between Zap and DD, and the crumbs that are left in between unless you happen to be FactoryClosed, or some other asset creator.

 

There are indeed non-DD paths out there, but if you want to fix a defect in a NIF, you are out of luck.

That's not what I meant by that. You and any other DD modders including myself are creating mods based on a framework voluntarily. Nobody is forcing you or me to make a DD mod. If you can't live with the "rules" of the/a framework(s) or it's maintainer(s) then just don't do that, and mod directly against Skyrim. Not only DD, the same also goes for ZaZ, SkyUI, SL etc etc. So create your own stuff or live with it if you get a no back and/or don't like the way the framework is being maintained. Like I said it's a hobby, treat it that way.

 

 

Edit: After your massive post edit, as it seems to bother you extremely and it ain't gonna change.  I would suggest indeed taking a DD-break. Enjoy the outdoors with a drink and relax. Especially during these Covid times there are far more important things to worry about...

[DonQuiWho]

Don't you just hate it when, however careful you thought you might have been, having made efforts to pour some oil on troubled waters, the next along just want to play with matches?

 

Well, I tried ... ?  

[Kimy]

@Lupine00: I am inclined to accept your word that you had no intention to offend me. Just keep in mind that people have been painting me as some form of heavy-handed oppressor for a while now as soon as they're not getting their will, so the part where it didn't go down with me very well should have been less than surprising.

It is true, my permissions are less liberal than the GPL, although for most people not planning to usurp DD from my hands or compete with me using my own code, the difference should be fairly marginal. Maybe I should mention that DCL hadn't even reached version 2.0 yet when the first person already took my code and published an unsanctioned fork of DCL because they disagreed with me over a feature I wasn't prepared to add to DCL. It was AFTER this incident when I changed my license.

I have published proper GPL software, too. The open-source community is overall much more respectful of somebody's work. Forking projects is seen as last-resort measure, and I can recall only a handful of occasions when projects were forked without the blessing of its maintainers (I guess LibreOffice is the most famous example, and they really had a good reason to).

The modding community is the wild west compared to that. Large portions of it have zero respect for somebody's work. Assets, code and full mods get stolen on a daily basis. Some people even try to sell other people's mods. And I know for a fact that there would be several forks of DD at this point, had I not prevented it from happening. You could almost think some people just wait for the first chance to yank somebody's work away from them, change a few minor things in it and then pretend to themselves and the rest of the world that they wrote the entire thing from scratch. No, sorry, won't happen. I came to the conclusion that the modding community simply cannot be trusted with GPL-style freedoms.

 

The thing that really wound me up was when you wrote that I'd never accept code contributions. That's just rubbish and you know it. Gosh, I can't even remember when I last rejected a code contribution to DD. I couldn't tell for sure if EVER rejected one. Perhaps I did? But I can honestly not remember. I can remember me rejecting a snippet for DCL a few years back, when somebody suggested to change DCL's device selector with the DD tag-based selector. I rejected that because that tag database is waaaaay too simplistic for DCL's needs. That's about it. But yeah, I am clearly an oppressor!

 

Am I shooting down suggestions and ideas? Oh yes, like every other modder, I don't implement ideas just because somebody suggested them. Otherwise DD and DCL would be full of cats and dogs and other multi-legged beings having their way with the player character, for starters. And executions and mutilations, too. Other ideas are just quite frankly not good enough. And some others (like the one you made) sure make sense, but I have still to weigh against other factors. In that particular case it creating a conflict between two use-cases. I tried to pick what I perceive to be the lesser of two evils, and I get the idea you didn't like my decision. This doesn't make me an oppressor though, and I am still not obliged in any way to consult the community at large when I make a decision for my mods. I still implemented DOZENS of suggestions. You should know that, because some of them were yours. *shrug*

[Code Serpent]

2 hours ago, Kimy said:

I can't even remember when I last rejected a code contribution to DD.

On a different note, do you accept code submitted to this thread, or would you prefer us to submit changes through github?

[Kimy]

3 hours ago, Code Serpent said:

On a different note, do you accept code submitted to this thread, or would you prefer us to submit changes through github?

Neither. Just PM me with your idea and the code!

[Code Serpent]

1 hour ago, Kimy said:

Neither. Just PM me with your idea and the code!

Alright, thanks!