Making a mod incompatible with other mods

Remove all ads!

So the item is part of a story but the NPC concept itself isn't?

I also find myself confused why everyone seems to be coming up with stat solutions when kuemper's concern was about the NPC's class. I think an NPC piping up and going, "What in the Hells? Where did this priestly robe come from?! I don't worship any deity! What did you do to me!?!" would be friggin' hilarious. Hell, that could even be a hook for the mod, that everyone would want to try out at least once just for the reactions.

Actually, no. SK doesn't edit items.

 

I second Felinoid's comments. An NPC's class is usually a much more important element of the NPC's story than his/her items. I think it's kuemper's right to add scripts to his/her mod to make sure that the NPC's class will not change.

I also second Baronius's remark about the possibility of false bug reports from players who have tampered with a mod and have damaged their own game, but then appeared in forums with false reports as if the mod had all long been buggy. I think that cheaters or players who edit mods should keep the following two points in mind:

(1) If you tamper with a mod with SK or any other editor, it is most likely that you also create bugs in your game, because it is only the mod's main creator who knows every aspect of the mod and the effects/implications of each part on other things. You may edit something without knowing that you have also ruined some other plot or feature of the mod. Hence, if you hack a mod and face a bug, you should not send bug reports to the mod's forum unless you install the mod afresh and play it in its original form without any cheat or modification and observe that the bug is still there.

(2) Players who edit a mod for personal use should not publish or distribute the modified/hacked version of the mod with any other person.

 

That isn't what I said though, is it? The example you gave is better--I still think it's a waste of time (not least because if you're so anti-cheating, why create content that people have to cheat to see?), but at least you work it sensibly into the NPC concept, and so as with the item, it's (a very tenuous) part of the story. Meanwhile, Kuemper is talking about crashing people's games...

Ah, it's about time someone reminded us that it's the author's right to do what they want with their mod. Yes, we know this. We still think it's silly.

 

It only shows that you didn't read what I had written carefully. If the NPC's class is important for a plot, a quest or something to trigger or to continue properly, then the author may want to keep the NPC's class unchanged and it's not silly at all.

 

A monkey with enough training can use NI and SK and even do a little bit of basic scripting. Trying to stop players from tinkering with their own stinking games is not only pointless, but silly.

 

Many players don't know NI at all. Many players don't care to take enough training, even if it's only a little.

It's not about whether it can be hacked or not: it's about the effort. By adding a justified and proper 'protection', it reduces the number of players who can edit it. And thus the probability of false bug reports and incorrect spreading news also decreases.

I suppose you had read what I've written in my first post (such that a mod is a work of the mind etc.), and I suppose you had read what Sikret and myself written above. It was nowhere said that "it's the author's right to do what they want with their mod" or "trying to stop players from tinkering with..."! Conditions were given by both of us. In my first post, I explained what kind of 'protections' are acceptable, and what are not. Later, it was explained how player edits can cause false bug reports/broken plot/etc. An author has right to protect the good name of his mod to a certain extent. But I've written everything in my first post too, so you two know it very well that what you comment above ("author can do anything with his mod" "trying stop players tinkinering...") was suggested by no one generally, i.e. without restrictions or without offering valid arguments. Yet you keep repeating this "It's silly" text all the time (and not just on this forum), often twisting what others have said while generalizing the actual context. Such populist attempts will not make you more popular and/or accepted among players (or I don't know what you're trying to achieve with it).

 

Disclaimer: I'm neither for nor against in this discussion, merely being devil's advocate.

Silly? No. Pointless? Maybe.

The creater of the mod is entitled to put in whatever 'anti-hacking' measures they wish (provided they are well documented). The better the counter-measures implemented, the more resourceful those who wish to circumvent them will become - it's a vicious circle.

It's up to the person installing the mod as to whether they wish to use game editors such as SK to change classes, stats, etc, and then live with the consequences. Ultimately, nothing the mod creator does to try to prevent people changing the contents of the mod will stop the most determined.

 

I'd like to pose a question to anyone who's released a mod with a decent following:

How many bug reports have you gotten that were the fault of another mod? How much time did it take you to figure out what the cause was? I'd like to pose two hypothetical questions. Sim, I hope you don't mind that I use use here.

Hypothetical Situation:
I decide I want to make Goodberries more powerful. The player installs my mod and Sim's Enhanced Goodberries. Now, Sim's gets installed second, meaning my new goodberries are replaced by his. So a player sends me a bugreport complaining that they're too weak. It might take me a little while to find out, but eventually I'll find out that it's really Sim's goodberries that the player is complaining about and not mine.

Possible Solution Number 1: Put a big note in the readme. If anyone complains about my goodberries, I can ask them right away if they installed Sim's. Very easy to sort out.

Possible Solution Number 2: I decide I'm tired of Sim's Goodberries defaming my Goodberrie's good reputation. When I detect that someone has installed Sim's Goodberries over mine, I run a script to replace them with poisoned versions of Sim's goodberries.

Let's say I go with solution2. Now, not only am *I* going to get emails about this, Sim is going to get flaming emails as well. "Your goodberries killed my Solo Ascension Sorcerer and I didn't save! You bastard!"

Is it fair for me to introduce extra problems just because I don't want to deal with a few bug reports or players not playing my perfect version of the Goodberry spell? Arguably, I'll create more false reports and push many of my problems on the rest of the modding community.

 

Your example is too specific, that's the problem.
It's not about weak goodberries and fiery swords with too little flames. In case of more complex mods, such user-made changes can have much worse consequences (such as broken quests, including broken main quest). Many things can be triggers of various events in the game mods. Mods which have big cohesion are sensitive to such edits.
I know at least one modder who wasted no little time until he realised the player cheated (and the player didn't tell it in his reports). I haven't examined kuemper's case in details though, but the question you brought up was general, so I tried to give an answer to it.

If by extra 'problems' you mean making 'cheat-protections', then yes, as long as it's less effort than dealing with the bug reports, it is worth it. To estimate it and make a good a decision -- yes, it's the author's task.

Lots of practical problems are related to optimization and cost-effectiveness.

 

And I don't think that kuemper wants to add any harmful thing to the game or to break anything in any other mod. He/she just wants his/her NPC to leave the party if its class is hacked/changed. This will not cause any extra problems or bug reports for any other mod. It will actually decrease the number of false reports. The analogy given by Artimus was not a proper one. It was actually irrelevant to the subject of discussion as far as I can see.

 

Causing the game to crash can be qualified as "harmful"...

Anyway, is there a simple and effective way to prevent players from changing the class?
Someone mentioned Chloe. She can't be dualled class. That's ingame. But editing with SK is another matter.

 

My experience is that players are usually fairly capable of discerning the source of problems in their games. In the cases where mistakes are made, most modders are familiar with a range of other mods, and it's not difficult for them to say "okay, this is someone else's fault"--many will in fact quite happily sit down and support each other's work.
Of course, this hinges on someone identifying where new content comes from, and it falls down in the case of woefully underdocumented mods or those where the content is some sort of big secret (this is in part why I am ideologically opposed to mods including undocumented content), but aside from that my experience indicates that it's almost never a problem to figure out the source of compatibility issues.

 

I have reported bugs to the makers of mods. Most usually request that you do so.

I play games for fun. If the game isn't fun I don't play it. I first played BG2 in 2000 and still return to it. The main reason I keep going back is that there are so many good mods out there and most mods edit BG2 which is a commercial and copy written game. Should the owners of BG2 sue all the mod makers? Actually they have encouraged modding.

If I were to edit some one's mod and place it on the Internet for others to download that would be wrong but how I play a game in the privacy of my own computer is my business.

I have a great deal of respect for anyone capable of writing a mod. However, the fact that someone has written a mod that he/she feels is perfect and shouldn't be touched I find rather silly. My perfection is not your perfection.

I inherited a painting. The previous owner had artistic ability and was not 100% happy with the painting. She made one small but noticeable change. She was very careful and the change fits in with the rest of the painting and I doubt any one but an expert could tell (after careful examination) that something had been added. When the artist sold the painting it ceased to be his property. I purchased the painting from him and gave it to my friend. When I gave the painting away it ceased to be my property and became the property of the receiver. Moral of this is if a modder 'gives' me a copy of their mod that copy becomes my property and I am free to do with it what I like as long as I do not make commercial use of it or portray an edited mod as the original work of the originator.

Side note: Yes, I do know something about artistic products and rules pertaining to them at least here in the US of A.

I pick the ones that interest me. I seldom use SK but see no reason why I shouldn't. If a maker of a mod puts it out on the Internet as freeware I see no reason why I should not be allowed to edit my copy to fit my play style or pleasure.

I have my favorite Modders and SimDingO is one of them. I not only look for his mods but to see what he recommends or for his comments on a mod.

 

Amen to that!