Devious Devices Framework Development/Beta

[Kimy]

8 hours ago, infernus said:

You know Kimy, maybe you should consider removing the difficulty slider and all devices from Integration and Expansion. Or you could keep the devices in but don't give them any functions, they would be purely cosmetic so authors can see what they have to work with. Basically make them unusable by any mod.

 

Why do this? Having devices from the framework available for use in mods and an all-encompassing difficulty slider for basic devices seems to be the root of the problem people are having with DD4. It should be completely up to mods to control the difficulty of devices and not the framework. I believe you've said something along these lines before or recently. Technically mods do control the difficulty of their own devices but many DD-based mods still use the basic devices from the framework and all of those are controlled by single slider outside of the mods control.

 

Not going to name any names but the new escape system gets complained about often, either from authors or users. Requests about additions or changes to the difficulty slider get brought up again and again in this very thread and elsewhere. It may not have been a problem with earlier versions of the framework because escape options were either simple or extremely limited, it appears to be a problem now when DD4 added many new escape functions but doesn't allow for complete customization of said functions.

 

Of course this would break every DD-based mod that uses the basic devices so authors would be forced to make their own custom devices to fill the spot of basic devices if needed by the mod. You don't have to remove the new escape functions created for DD4, just make them accessible via script so authors can create a difficulty slider or sliders for devices in their own mod's MCM. This way users can tailor the difficulty of each mod to their liking, it should also give authors more control over the devices in their mods.

 

Wild idea but it would probably stop the complaints towards DD4's difficulty slider. With devices and the slider removed from the framework author's could create their own basic devices and a slider(s) to allow users to customize the difficulty to their liking.

 

It is indeed so that - from a software design point of view, the standard device library technically could be argued not to belong in a framework. The standard items have content mod character and ideally would be shipped in a separate mod together with their default settings, and not the framework. But you gave the answer yourself - moving them out at this point would mean breaking every single DD mod out there using them. The workload for authors to update their mods would be disastrous and wouldn't remotely compare to the minor changes DD4 inflicted. And really - all that just because some people are unable to comprehend basic principles of software design and can't mentally distinguish between the framework part and the content mod part, even when they are combined in the same ESM, and accept that the settings for the standard devices should not and can not affect settings made by content mod for THEIR items?

 

And even if I WOULD go ahead and do this - the same bunch of hopeless people would still bitch all day long about how there is only one difficulty slider in that library content mod, despite that's standard design in game development. The complaints will never stop, because the reality is that a large portion of people are complete unable to adapt to any change and will fight it teeth and claws, no matter if the change is good, or warranted.

Had there always been just that one slider, I swear that nobody EVER would have complained about it. They bitch because I changed the system, not because the new system is bad. The same bunch of people accepts the same design in close to 100% of all video games out there, that have exactly one difficulty slider, affecting all sorts of relevant settings in a game.

There is -technically- no reason why the difficulty slider for the standard items couldn't be broken up into 10,000 individual controls - the question is just...why? Just because "it's always been that way"? Because all that really does is adding a lot of complexity without much gain, and I feel no need to do that just because of people's complete lack of ability to adapt to (slightly) new things. I am sorry, I don't accommodate narrow-minded.

 

Honestly, all I do when people tell me how much I have ruined their fun with DD because they can no longer adjust the key break chance from 25% to 10% without changing the other parameters at the same time, is laughing at them. Seriously, people need to think one moment about how ridiculous this is. It's honestly the same thing as asking the developers of FarCry for a user control to replace a some boss's M16 with a Glock, and telling people not being able to do so would ruin their fun with the entire game. If that sounds stupid, it's because it is. But it's literally the level of what people are complaining about here. And I can't take these people for serious anymore. I explained to them time and again that the all-in-one slider is overall more powerful than the combined controls I removed. People can make devices near-cosmetic or super harsh and everything in between. For these who want 100% cosmetic devices, I even made the "Manipulate Locks" feature available for ALL devices now, not just armbinders and yokes, as prior to DD4. DD4 accommodates versatile playstyles better than ever. But no, you cannot individually set the key break chance anymore, without affecting lockpick chances at the same time. Apparently that's enough reason for some dumbtards here to run to Min behind my back and try to get him to allow them forking DD, despite that's both an utter asshole move on their part and no longer Min's decision to make.

 

I am quite frankly sick of these people, and how they continue to make a mountain out of a molehill. If they don't like DD anymore, even for stupid reasons like this one, here is pro-tip: Uninstall it. And STFU.

[Anooon]

I think you're being a bit unkind. People want detailed controls because there's more factors at work than simply the overall difficulty of escaping devices. Like 'how annoying is this mechanism'.

 

The thing people want to change isn't 'how overall difficult is it to escape devices', it's 'this mechanic is annoying/dumb/a giant pain in the ass and I don't like it', or alternatively 'I really like being stranded with jammed locks/whatever'. It's not about difficulty, it's about different kinds of content.

 

Like turning on or off Point Victories in Civilisations, or Permadeath mode or whatever, to borrow your game analogy.

[DIDBPHoarder]

I know that my comment doesn't mean much, but I'll just hop in and say thank you for these amazing updates. Has been enjoying them a lot lately. As for the concerns about different preferences between users, I think that, at the end of the day, we (the user) will just have to get used to the changes, or stop playing. If the user can't get used to the changes, why not just learn to mod it to your own preferences. It's a matter of "can't please everyone". Just my two cents. Again, just a shout out for the team for this amazing updates. Thank you guys! 

 

[Kimy]

1 hour ago, Anooon said:

I think you're being a bit unkind. People want detailed controls because there's more factors at work than simply the overall difficulty of escaping devices. Like 'how annoying is this mechanism'.

 

The thing people want to change isn't 'how overall difficult is it to escape devices', it's 'this mechanic is annoying/dumb/a giant pain in the ass and I don't like it', or alternatively 'I really like being stranded with jammed locks/whatever'. It's not about difficulty, it's about different kinds of content.

 

Like turning on or off Point Victories in Civilisations, or Permadeath mode or whatever, to borrow your game analogy.

Look, the problem I have with these people is because of the utterly nonconstructive way they communicate their issues they might have with the changes. They don't make constructive suggestions about what exact features might perhaps deserve an individual control, or which device default settings might need a balance pass. No. About 100% of all comments I saw were completely made of destructive bitching and whining, about how much the change sucks, or how evil I am, and how little fun they now have with DD, or how they are uninstalling Skyrim over it (seriously, some people said that, can you believe how stupid people can be?). As I said above, some assholes even tried to pit Min against me over this, and basically usurp DD out of my hands.

 

I have never said the system cannot be tweaked. I have a very long track record of listening to users and implementing suggestions. But if people chose to be destructive and nasty and flat-out stupid, instead of trying to work with the new system and suggest concrete improvements other than "It sucks, roll it back!", then no, I won't take them for serious. As for the default settings, heck we even asked for feedback specifically on that. We barely got any. All there was, was bitching and whining, and most of it came from the same dozen people.

[DexesTTP]

I know this is very controversial, and an extra opinion won't help. But I guess this one is worth giving since I can't recall seeing it.

 

A possible way to make the options "less annoying" as some people seem to find would be to have a simple checkbox or yes/no option to disable all of these :

 - key break

 - lock jamming

 - shield timer

 - Unlock cooldown

 

Now, I know this would affect all devices not rewriting the equip layer and would prevent modders from using these features if it is disabled, but it would provide a simple, one-click way to grant people's wishes - and the people checking that wouldn't want the modded items to have these features either.

 

Alternatively, hardcoding these to be disabled is a 1-min job (not counting the CK start time), so it could be an idea for a mod : replace the zadEquip script by a version with all the formulas set to 0 (or times 0). I don't know if you'd be fine with a patch mod that includes the edited version of zadEquipScript, @Kimy, but I guess it would be a suitable alternative. If that's OK with you, I could just publish it then.

 

(edit : forgot the CK won't compile scripts on this computer, so I can't make the patch myself, but I'll happily guide somebody if they want to make it)

[VirginMarie]

Instead of asking for difficulty slider changes here, people could start by asking the individual content authors. We've been given the means to customize the devices easily.

 

For example if there's a device used in a mod, would you not start by asking on it's support thread, for a change or provide a potential idea that's in context with the quest or how its being used there?

 

imo DD does not need to be changed back to having multiple difficultly sliders.

[Kimy]

1 hour ago, DexesTTP said:

I know this is very controversial, and an extra opinion won't help. But I guess this one is worth giving since I can't recall seeing it.

 

A possible way to make the options "less annoying" as some people seem to find would be to have a simple checkbox or yes/no option to disable all of these :

 - key break

 - lock jamming

 - shield timer

 - Unlock cooldown

 

Now, I know this would affect all devices not rewriting the equip layer and would prevent modders from using these features if it is disabled, but it would provide a simple, one-click way to grant people's wishes - and the people checking that wouldn't want the modded items to have these features either.

 

Alternatively, hardcoding these to be disabled is a 1-min job (not counting the CK start time), so it could be an idea for a mod : replace the zadEquip script by a version with all the formulas set to 0 (or times 0). I don't know if you'd be fine with a patch mod that includes the edited version of zadEquipScript, @Kimy, but I guess it would be a suitable alternative. If that's OK with you, I could just publish it then.

 

(edit : forgot the CK won't compile scripts on this computer, so I can't make the patch myself, but I'll happily guide somebody if they want to make it)

Such a patch cannot be published. We don't allow 3rd party mods to ship modified DD files.

 

The shield timer is actually one of my most favorite examples of why I believe most of these whiners never actually tried playing with the new system. On the easiest setting of the difficulty slider, the shield timer of most DD standard devices translates to...one minute of real game time. That's...one, ONE minute you have to actually wear the device before you can unlock it. And people whine. And whine. And whine. Apparently that one minute is SOOOOO annoying!

 

And then they wonder why I laugh at them.

[bicobus]

11 minutes ago, VirginMarie said:

Instead of asking for difficulty slider changes here, people could start by asking the individual content authors. We've been given the means to customize the devices easily.

 

For example if there's a device used in a mod, would you not start by asking on it's support thread, for a change or provide a potential idea that's in context with the quest or how its being used there?

 

imo DD does not need to be changed back to having multiple difficultly sliders.

I don't believe multiple difficulty sliders is the solution either. The inherent problem relies on how the default mechanics works, which is based on a random chance to affect the player. If the player don't play with a content mod like DCL/CDS/SlaV, then the bottom line falls back to the framework and it's 20% chance of key breaking, lock jamming and whatnow. It isn't about difficulty, but rather about what kind of mechanic fits with the set of mods that are installed.

 

What I would expect from the framework would be a range of lock mechanisms available for mods to chose from and implement in their own devices, so not to limit it to a key/jam/cut/struggle/quest thing.

 

By making the default devices not locked by default might give an incentive to the various mod authors to actually create their own devices and chose the right mechanic to use. Well there are multiple ways to go about it.

 

My experience with the default behavior was rubbish, my character got equipped with some devices through deviously enslaved and kidnapped, and I quickly realized the requirement to remove those items would be to spend a lot of time hoping for the RNG gods to smile. A weighted random chance isn't a difficulty, by the way, it's an element of gameplay that should be used with parsimony. In the condition my character found herself the DD framework took over content (escape mechanism) where the mod stopped, and that is bad. By this I mean the content mod did not define how the player is supposed to remove those items, nor did it care. Probably assuming another content mod would take over that task. It's a hole in the gameplay, it should be pointed at, and it's not easy to fix.

[Reesewow]

6 minutes ago, bicobus said:

By this I mean the content mod did not define how the player is supposed to remove those items, nor did it care. Probably assuming another content mod would take over that task. It's a hole in the gameplay, it should be pointed at, and it's not easy to fix.

IMO this raises a good point, I think one of the biggest sore spots for some people is that a lot of the older DD mods almost completely depended on the framework for content and gameplay, by which I mean they would stick default devices on the player and not offer much else. 

 

With the update to DD the "default" behavior of all these generic devices has changed to be more involved and for some people to a detriment of their enjoyment.  This wouldn't be a problem if most mods used customized values for their devices, but since so many of the legacy mods simply slap generic DD items on the player the update has of course affected their gameplay heavily.  As these mods are unlikely to get updated, whatever the default device settings are will be how these mods play.

 

My suggestions would actually be to do away with the difficulty slider entirely.... but to also strip "generic" devices of any of the extra functionality by default.  In other words, all generic devices would simply be functional props - the older mods would still use them, but they would have a 100% chance of success for keyed removal, say a flat 50% chance to be struggled out of and none of the other features (shield lock/key break/struggle timeout ect).  The expectation would be that all good content mods going forward would not want to use these prop devices and would define difficulty and features based on the mod-creator's vision.  While this would nerf device difficulty on some of these older mods, a player is already in full control of device "difficulty" (example: if you want challenge from your generic armbinder, don't stand still and spam struggle - give yourself the goal of making it to town first).

 

If a player just wants cool devices to play around with, equip on NPCs ect, they can totally use the generic items.... but they should not expect any escape gameplay elements from them.  Obviously this will not satisfy those that want generic devices to have a very specific set of options, but it will be an incentive for modders to test out the new framework options and find what they like, then offer these custom items in their mods.  That IMO is where all the discussions of device difficulty should be.... squarely in the realm of the mods using the framework.  I think the only way to accomplish this is to simply not offer any challenge on the generic devices at all... they instead would be better suited as a showcase of the art/animation assets for actual modders to use.

[Code Serpent]

Ok, here's my pitch for a compromise: Add optional global variable properties for the devices.

 

This would be a relatively simple edit for the base device script, adding the actual properties, and a few if statements:

if(GlobalVariable is Filled)

   Use GlobalVariable value

else

   Use default float property value

endIf

 

These properties could be left completely blank in the framework plugin, so only the script file would need to be edited and recompiled. However, a third party mod could edit those devices added by the framework and expansion, fill those globalvariable properties, and make an MCM to edit those values as they wish. This mod would be completely optional, and the framework wouldn't have to deal with the increased customization.

 

Additional third party mods could choose to use these globals dependent on what type of mod it is. So, Cursed Loot probably wouldn't use this on the devices it adds, as they are mostly quest devices that aren't removable under normal circumstances, while a mod like Devious Extras probably would, as that simply adds a lot of basic devices to be used by other mods through the frameworks functions.

 

This also allows the option to change device properties by material. So all the padded steel restraints could use one set of global variables, the leather restraints could use another, and the restrictive devices yet another. So, if someone was willing, this could add even more customization than there was before. All of this from editing one script file, if I understand the script inheritance properly.

[chaimhewast]

56 minutes ago, bicobus said:

What I would expect from the framework would be a range of lock mechanisms available for mods to chose from and implement in their own devices, so not to limit it to a key/jam/cut/struggle/quest thing.

 

Such as? If there's a locking mechanism that a modder wants that doesn't already exist, they can extend zadequipscript to add it - that's how DCL had devices that required multiple keys before it was a feature of the framework.

[kplh]

About the difficulty slider: one thing you have to remember is that only people who are unhappy with it are complaining about it, people who are fine with it won't bother posting, therefore there is no easy way to tell what percentage of people like/hate the feature...

[Kimy]

3 hours ago, bicobus said:

I don't believe multiple difficulty sliders is the solution either. The inherent problem relies on how the default mechanics works, which is based on a random chance to affect the player. If the player don't play with a content mod like DCL/CDS/SlaV, then the bottom line falls back to the framework and it's 20% chance of key breaking, lock jamming and whatnow. It isn't about difficulty, but rather about what kind of mechanic fits with the set of mods that are installed.

 

What I would expect from the framework would be a range of lock mechanisms available for mods to chose from and implement in their own devices, so not to limit it to a key/jam/cut/struggle/quest thing.

 

By making the default devices not locked by default might give an incentive to the various mod authors to actually create their own devices and chose the right mechanic to use. Well there are multiple ways to go about it.

 

My experience with the default behavior was rubbish, my character got equipped with some devices through deviously enslaved and kidnapped, and I quickly realized the requirement to remove those items would be to spend a lot of time hoping for the RNG gods to smile. A weighted random chance isn't a difficulty, by the way, it's an element of gameplay that should be used with parsimony. In the condition my character found herself the DD framework took over content (escape mechanism) where the mod stopped, and that is bad. By this I mean the content mod did not define how the player is supposed to remove those items, nor did it care. Probably assuming another content mod would take over that task. It's a hole in the gameplay, it should be pointed at, and it's not easy to fix.

Can you elaborate on what you mean with "range" of lock mechanisms? As in what mechanisms other than the current RNG based one you would like to see?

 

Btw. Your point about content mods equipping items and then not caring about removing them is valid. There are quite a number of DD content mods out there that just happily equip stuff on you without caring once how you're supposed to get out again. Yes, in that situation, the DD default behavior takes over, and prevents people from getting stuck. That's not DD's fault, though. It's bad design on these content mods' end. DD can not and does not want to tell how content mods are implemented. It's THEIR responsibility and their obligation. If a content mod throws items on you and doesn't offer you a reasonable way to escape them, I'd really suggest uninstalling that mod.

 

And again, as a general remark not aimed at the poster I quoted, if people think certain default settings are bad/frustrating/annoying, by all means, SAY so. But please eloborate -why- you think they are annoying/unfun etc. "That feature sucks" still isn't helpful feedback. I need to know WHY people think it's bad, otherwise I can't improve it in a meaningful fashion.

[Code Serpent]

1 hour ago, kplh said:

About the difficulty slider: one thing you have to remember is that only people who are unhappy with it are complaining about it, people who are fine with it won't bother posting, therefore there is no easy way to tell what percentage of people like/hate the feature...

Poll?

[Kimy]

2 hours ago, IronDusk33 said:

Poll?

Forum polls also just give additional voice to the already loudest people. Most people don't even read forums.

[bicobus]

5 hours ago, Kimy said:

Can you elaborate on what you mean with "range" of lock mechanisms? As in what mechanisms other than the current RNG based one you would like to see?

It actually depends on the type of game play the creator wants to go with, right? Does all the devices have an actual lock? Can they be cut? Which mechanism would fit the narrative?

 

Skyrim's mechanic to unlock a door is simple: pick the lock or have the key. To pick the lock the player is invited to solve a mini-game which provide positive feedback, a sense of progression as the player improves his/her skills and understanding of the mechanism. Thus, we have a purpose for the lock mini game. Those mechanics are universal too, there is one way to pick locks and one way only. You can pickpocket keys to invade NPC homes, which add further to the player's own story which is a direct result of the design if this mechanic. There is no real reason for doors to be locked, other than to provide a narrative tool for the players to build upon.

 

That being said, DD's fallback mechanic is of player non-involvement. A salivating idea would be to create our own mini games to get out of those devices, maybe not as "intricate" as the one given by skyrim (which requires some UI hack). But again, the mechanic needs to be a slave to the narrative otherwise it becomes relatively pointless.

 

Some example of ways to remove a device, and have the player take an active part in the process:

• Through struggle: the player use the directional arrows to "loosen" the bindings, which a chance for those bindings to tighten.
• Through cutting: the fabric is soft and can wear easily, but it is very noticeable so the actual action should be done covertly.
• Via a key, through a lock: if you have a key, then you can unlock the thing. End of story. Should you find that key.
• Is the player has enough freedom to remove the devices? A way to detect the level of freedom could be nice. Mods can use that data to have the player find other "ways" to remove stuff, by asking around.

Basically methods to help the content creators to construct a story without worrying too much about the technical side. Pieces of game design or script examples, for instance consider encouraging mod authors to put a key somewhere in the area if they fit some vanilla devices on the player. Could this be somewhat automated? Then why not have it in the framework?

 

I've worked a bit with databases, and it quickly became a pain to send SQL queries, retrieve the data, parse and sort the data every single time. So instead, and any decent coder would do the same, I wrote a small library to do everything automatically for me. Instead of calling several functions and sorting the result each time I did a request, I would simply call one function that would return me an array with data indexed on a specific key. I identified a weak point in my workflow and fixed it. I think the framework should do the same in this case. There is an obvious hole in the way mods manages the removal of devices, and that can be mitigated by providing viable options to mod authors.

 

If all a mod author as to do is use an argument in a method so that a key is placed in the current cell (or something similar, this is a dumb example), then that author can do just that instead of not thinking about the consequences. There is obviously an issue of synergy and balance to address, and that can be done through feedback with content creators. After all they are the people who create mods and stories, so what kind of mechanisms can they think about?

 

PS: I'm not fond of randomness for the sake of randomness. I wrote this on the premise that, by default, there won't be a key breaking or lock jamming. I think it can be useful for mods like DCL, in parts because of how DCL is designed. But it doesn't serve any purpose on its own, especially if the keys themselves aren't seeded into the world. (Why does a key break if I can't find any?)

 

[Solatium]

8 hours ago, Kimy said:

Such a patch cannot be published. We don't allow 3rd party mods to ship modified DD files.

 

The shield timer is actually one of my most favorite examples of why I believe most of these whiners never actually tried playing with the new system. On the easiest setting of the difficulty slider, the shield timer of most DD standard devices translates to...one minute of real game time. That's...one, ONE minute you have to actually wear the device before you can unlock it. And people whine. And whine. And whine. Apparently that one minute is SOOOOO annoying!

 

And then they wonder why I laugh at them.

I'm sorry, but when I've used DD with the lowest difficulty it hasn't been "one minute before you can unlock it", it's been "one minute before you can try to unlock it again". You can have a key for your device, and by the time you've unlocked it, 5 minutes have gone by because of one random unlock failure after another. It's not "one minute" that's more annoying, it's several - and if your key breaks, it's drastically longer. And the issue gets compounded with every device that's been equipped. I really wouldn't be posting here if it was just one minute.

[Mirabo]

9 hours ago, Kimy said:

The shield timer is actually one of my most favorite examples of why I believe most of these whiners never actually tried playing with the new system. On the easiest setting of the difficulty slider, the shield timer of most DD standard devices translates to...one minute of real game time. That's...one, ONE minute you have to actually wear the device before you can unlock it. 

 

Wait what? Shield Timers (as in: The lock is shielded and cant be accessed right now?) are still a thing in DDv4? I never had a lockshield, no matter what difficulty setting I chose.

Did I miss a setting or messed up an install somewhere?

[SkyAddiction]

I think the argument surrounding DD4 difficulty settings is a bit overblown. On the easiest setting, getting out of devices is trivial when in possession of a key. I suspect there are a fair number of users who haven't, before this release, had to take the time to fine-tune the MCMs of their mod builds. DD was, after all, pretty much the same for several years. I strongly suspect what's happening here is precisely the product of what @bicobus and @Reesewow have already stated: modders leaned very heavily on the framework and built specifically for it. Now that the framework is moving forward (and it is  moving forward given the obvious benefits the DD4 changes bring), it's the content mods that are putting pressure on the players.

 

I also don't think there exists any real fix for this other than time. Some mods are abandoned. Some only receive updates once or twice a year. Regardless, I highly doubt, given the nature of modding itself, that there's going to be anything like a concerted effort to adapt older or less frequently maintained mods to the framework. People like Inte, DeepBlueFrog, Veladarius, and many others who actively maintain their mods will, but it's eventually going to be up to new talent to reinvent the wheel or take over older projects to advance compatibility and take advantage of the new features of DD4.

 

tl/dr: It's the same old story - frameworks evolve, beloved creations become casualties, and new talent emerges to take over and rebuild. That's how modding works, has always worked, and will always work. Attacking the DD team is as unjustified as it is unfair; things change and evolve, and it's not their fault for trying to build a better system.

[Mr. Guyinco-Gnito]

1 hour ago, SkyAddiction said:

I think the argument surrounding DD4 difficulty settings is a bit overblown. On the easiest setting, getting out of devices is trivial when in possession of a key. I suspect there are a fair number of users who haven't, before this release, had to take the time to fine-tune the MCMs of their mod builds. DD was, after all, pretty much the same for several years. I strongly suspect what's happening here is precisely the product of what @bicobus and @Reesewow have already stated: modders leaned very heavily on the framework and built specifically for it. Now that the framework is moving forward (and it is  moving forward given the obvious benefits the DD4 changes bring), it's the content mods that are putting pressure on the players.

 

I also don't think there exists any real fix for this other than time. Some mods are abandoned. Some only receive updates once or twice a year. Regardless, I highly doubt, given the nature of modding itself, that there's going to be anything like a concerted effort to adapt older or less frequently maintained mods to the framework. People like Inte, DeepBlueFrog, Veladarius, and many others who actively maintain their mods will, but it's eventually going to be up to new talent to reinvent the wheel or take over older projects to advance compatibility and take advantage of the new features of DD4.

 

tl/dr: It's the same old story - frameworks evolve, beloved creations become casualties, and new talent emerges to take over and rebuild. That's how modding works, has always worked, and will always work. Attacking the DD team is as unjustified as it is unfair; things change and evolve, and it's not their fault for trying to build a better system.

true.

progress always needed a bit of sacrifice to make things better. learning new things/killing old habits, resources/restructuring, losing backwards compatibility etc.

but its not like that mods that are no longer supported cant be used anymore. with mod organizer its so easy to switch profiles that contain old versions of mods, in case there are people who still stick to nexus manager.

and if a mod author decides to take care of an older mod, its a win situation because then he can profit from a newer better working system.

the only people who are losing out are the one who fail to adapt and cant see past the obvious.

[SkyAddiction]

13 minutes ago, bondagemod said:

true.

progress always needed a bit of sacrifice to make things better. learning new things/killing old habits, resources/restructuring, losing backwards compatibility etc.

but its not like that mods that are no longer supported cant be used anymore. with mod organizer its so easy to switch profiles that contain old versions of mods, in case there are people who still stick to nexus manager.

and if a mod author decides to take care of an older mod, its a win situation because then he can profit from a newer better working system.

the only people who are losing out are the one who fail to adapt and cant see past the obvious.

 

While it's easy to dismiss people who use older mods, I do understand their position. If their favored mods never update, there exists the possibility they never will. All the more problematic if they didn't retain copies of DD2/3. Modding is never assured, and I suspect that's where much of the tension exists.

 

One of the things I did over the past year was to abandon older mods that don't update at all or update very irregularly. It required quite a bit of time to re-customize my mods to get them to work the way I'd like, but in the end it was worth it. DD4 broke that, but none of my installed mods are on the "inactive" list, so I'm probably good going forward; can't say the same for a Submissive Lola user.

 

I get why people are upset, but they need to keep perspective. Submissive Lola will likely be replaced by Devious Followers, and the same will apply to other DD mods. It's a function of time and "market" void. Eventually someone will make a mod if the demand is large enough, if only because one of the number waiting users gets tired of waiting and learns to do it his or herself.

[galgat]

5 hours ago, SkyAddiction said:

 

While it's easy to dismiss people who use older mods, I do understand their position. If their favored mods never update, there exists the possibility they never will. All the more problematic if they didn't retain copies of DD2/3. Modding is never assured, and I suspect that's where much of the tension exists.

 

One of the things I did over the past year was to abandon older mods that don't update at all or update very irregularly. It required quite a bit of time to re-customize my mods to get them to work the way I'd like, but in the end it was worth it. DD4 broke that, but none of my installed mods are on the "inactive" list, so I'm probably good going forward; can't say the same for a Submissive Lola user.

 

I get why people are upset, but they need to keep perspective. Submissive Lola will likely be replaced by Devious Followers, and the same will apply to other DD mods. It's a function of time and "market" void. Eventually someone will make a mod if the demand is large enough, if only because one of the number waiting users gets tired of waiting and learns to do it his or herself.

 

 

1.    I Personally have quite a few of DDI older versions, and as I use MO.  It is no problem for Me keeping some profiles with DDI3.whatever, and one or two profiles with DDI4.what ever on them.

 

2. However new people will never be able to properly play any of the older mods that DDI4 has messed up, or made buggered to play. Because DDI policy has always been to never leave any older version up for the Public to download.

 

3. I Personally...as in ME, Myself, and I Liked having the ability to turn off

 - key break

 - lock jamming

 - shield timer

 - Unlock cooldown

 

as it was done in Previous versions.  I really Miss that.   I am sure I am the only one, but I just wanted to say I miss that ability.

 

4. I Personally find the new Interface to put on, and unlock, rather cumbersome to use, Do I manipulate the locks, if I don't for me, it seems to be very troublesome to ever get them back off, as for Me.

  I have the MCM setting on the Easiest setting, and I get broken key's, wait 2 hours, and jammed locks without exaggeration at least 50% of the time.  It just makes the game, discouraging to play For ME.

 

   I know you have your reasons for taking away the Player ability to make there own Personal fantasy, and you want to be sure we all play just the way you want, and that the player should not have any choice in the matter, But I would really like to have more control over my Modded game.

 

    I use mods to Hopefully create my Own  personal fantasy, as in I pick, and choose clothing I like to wear, I pick and choose the Body I like best, I love mods that give me lots of Option's for setting, not only my Personal difficulty setting, but also the things I like, and dislike, as in ( I don't want this so Thank you Mod maker for allowing me to turn this off. )

 

5.   I just really wish you would reconsider changing DDI back to more of a player fantasy  Resource.

 

I know is Kimy Choice, I have to live with it, I just wanted to express My Personal thoughts on the matter.

 

  It just seems to Me more like a Mod now, and not a Resource, as it forces so many thing on the player, and allows FOR ME, seems like very little Control.

[Kimy]

2 hours ago, galgat said:

4. I Personally find the new Interface to put on, and unlock, rather cumbersome to use,

 

Do people generally feel bothered by the extra dialog asking players if they want to manipulate the lock? If yes, I could add a MCM toggle for -that- (e.g. never display that dialogue). It's probably a matter of how you play, but I would have assumed that people usually don't lock themselves in devices all that often and that 95% of the time the device gets equipped on you "against your will" (e.g. by script).

[Kimy]

Ok, the features people generally seem to be less fond of are the unlock cooldown and the key break mechanics. I am open to suggestions how to make these features more interesting/less annoying, if people got any ideas.

[worik]

36 minutes ago, Kimy said:

Do people generally feel bothered by the extra dialog asking players if they want to manipulate the lock?

No, not at all. In fact I feel it's funny. (*mumbles something about being attracted to locks, lockpicks and similar*)

 

Edit:

Key-break ideas: better skill level = less breaking? e.g. smithing or lockpicking or both. But that's probably a bit too much influenced by my playstyle

Key-break ideas: how about fixing broken keys? But we're leaving framework-territory here and enter content-terrain

• key merchant, key-repair-lady
• fixing keys at the grindstone/forge/workbench
• asking a smith
• magic

 

Edit-edit
So instead of scaling the framework up and up, how about an optional content esp "DD utility content.esp" and put such "story" stuff like I suggested in there?