Will these mods make for a good game?:

Remove all ads!

1)Install BG2/ToB
2)Install Patch
3)G3 Fixpack Beta
4)G3 Tweaks

I'm just trying to go bug-free here!

TIA

 

It should work bug-free, but asides from cosmetic changes and tweaks (and you do not even like some of them, based on your previous topic), there are no significant enchantments to your game.

Well I have more than 30 mods and I do not have a significant bug now. (knock on the wood) And I finished BG2+ToB twice so far with these mods. (three is close, when I go home for a week! )

Oh, and have Ease of Use too, it has some good components to make your time less painful. (true heroes should not spend time organising and micro-managing their inventory, for instance!)

 

Klorox, you can find a complete list of G3 Fixpack's CORE fixes & tweaks here: http://www.gibberlings3.net/bg2fixpack/docs_core.php

 

And you may want to wait a day or two--beta 4 is being assembled and should be released soon.

 

You'll only find documentation of the fixes there. If your curiosity also lies with the tweakish things then you'll find them separated into optional components documented over yonder.

I would suggest that your selection will make for rather a good game, yes. On the other hand, as Silverstar notes, you probably won't see many radical changes to the content of the game. (Maybe this is what you want.)

If you're grabbing the G3 Tweak Pack, you won't need Ease of Use.

 

The page I linked to contains all changes made by the core component. It includes several publicly debated changes as well. The definition of "fix" can hardly be applied on these. The explicit tweaks can be found on the page linked by SimDing0.

Have fun!

 

At this stage, I'd like to express my admiration for your work, Baronius. It's very noble of you to take the time to go round every thread the Fixpack is mentioned in and remind us that you think an unspecified denomination of the fixes aren't. You are truly someone with our best interests at heart.

 

Let's not bring that here, please. I represent no one's interests (sorry), I tell what I think to be true. I feel that players have right to know what they will install. And I'm not the only one who noticed changes that shouldn't be called fixes and shouldn't be in the core component, which could be a place for real fixes.
If you search back for a similar thread, you will see that I even recommended it to the player if he prefers this style of changes. I even remember a reply, where he said that he definitely likes this kind of additions/changes. In the light of these, I don't think it's any harm to give advice to players in any topic. When I'm online for some time, I usually check all mod-related threads, not just FP-related, in case you haven't noticed it. I'm sorry if it's against your "interests", but I think truth never causes more harm than good.

 

Yeh, it's a good sentiment. But given that:

a) The "truth" of what the mod does is already transparently documented.

and

b) In spite of asserting that your case is already proven and employing phrases such as "we know", you've consistently declined to justify exactly what you think is a tweak when invited to do so here, at G3, or on your own forum.

I can't help thinking there's something sinister at work.

I'm sure I'm wrong, but here comes the appeal again: If you think there's a fix included in the fixpack that shouldn't be, I believe your time would be better spent explaining specifically which one and why not, rather than opening every Fixpack thread you can find and reiterating that we're doing something which is utterly horrible, but the exact nature of which is inexplicably secret. As indeed one of the threads on this very forum illustrates, it gets results.

 

It's not about documenting what the mod does. The Core documentation is very long. I found questionable parts, so did Felinoid. As for my opinion, I've already expressed it on the official Fixpack forum: put the ambigious, subjective "fixes" to a different component.

You exactly do what CamDawg, i.e. that if someone expresses doubts anywhere outside G3, you come with the blurb "you're invited to the Fixpack forum to tell your thoughts there". As I've said above, I've told everything at G3 already, yet you keep coming with the aforementioned blurb. And this "concrete examples" stuff. Felinoid provided some in an SP thread, I also mentioned others somewhere but CamDawg refused all of them. But this is not the main problem. You seem to be the prisoner of these "concrete examples" (or perhaps you just use it to avoid the actual questions), and cannot abstract. The G3 thread, as well as other threads, reflect this a lot. Although I wasn't the only one who tried to explain it to you, you simply refused to interpret the doubts and comments regarding your principles of defining and handling fixes.

Something sinister at work? This is funny. Then why would I provide a 1 GigaByte mirror for Gibberlings3 mods for free and with direct FTP access if I wanted to cause harm to the site? Can you imagine how much bandwidth it can use? *Sigh* nevermind. I can't imagine why you keep looking for a non-existing, bloody competition between mods/sites when there isn't any. Or perhaps you have something entirely different reason, which is unknown to me.

Or you're simply upset that someone dares to criticize it and you've no valid arguments. (Which imples that it's exactly you who worry about your mod's popularity statistics. It's a pointless thing to do IMO.) You made yourselves believe that as the "mainstream", you *know* and *do* what players want -- exactly, always, under any circumstances. Perhaps you could accept feedback of "I wouldn't like this..." type as well, and not just "Please add this as well...". Just an advice.

 

So no, guys, he doesn't have any examples...

 

You fail to understand that it's not about *concrete* cases, no matter how many I can or I can't list. It's a matter of principle.

But alright, you asked for it. Some examples for subjective changes, which aren't strict fixes:

http://forums.blackwyrmlair.net/index.php?s=&showtopic=2052&view=findpost&p=17928
- Consumed Keys. Illogical. Comfortable for players, but not realistic. So why to call it a fix? Why can't it be in a third component (something "between" Core fixes and Optional-but-Cool)?

- Changed Alignments stuff
Many subjective things, obviously. There is a logic in them, but still subjective. One example can be found in the Blucher quote below. Furthermore, e.g. you change alignments on the incorrect assumption of "everyone who attacks the party is evil". And so on. Again, I don't say these shouldn't be in Fixpack. I just say these are not Core fixes.

- Give Triple Multi-Classes Unique HLA Tables
http://www.sorcerers.net/ubb/ultimatebb.php?/topic/10/5739/2.html#000030
Note: The Racial Maximum issue was addressed meanwhile. (BTW as you can see, Felinoid found it, after reading Cam's post which was triggered by me bringing up my doubts at SP, opposing your "interests", and "misrepresenting" fixpack. So I doubt it's always useful if -- after asking to shut up -- you send everyone to Gibberlings3 who intends to form an opinion in a different forum e.g. because he doesn't visit other forums.)

Now quoting Blucher (otherwise a founder of the BG1NPC project):

Now, a very very last attempt. A "missing item" or "broken quest" (due to a trigger, not missing content) can be fixed. It's a strict fix to correct a grammar error in a string. On the other hand, when you do something subjective, it's not a strict fix any longer.
The official Fixpack page says about *Core fixes*:

Reviews are made by humans. And humans can make mistakes, make incorrect assumptions, or interpret things differently than other people (subjectivity). By adding these to the Core component, players can't choose whether they want to install these or not (except if they decide not to install the mod). I read some ridiculous thread on Fixpack forum which tells that Fixpack could have thousands of components if fixes were separated etc. etc. Nonsense. One more component would be enough. Something to add "subjective" changes. If you really want to add such. (Similarly to Blucher, I feel that you are arbitrarily searching for things that can be "fixed" in a certain way. But it's a matter of taste. Many players prefer these cosmetic, usually subjective, changes, so it's okay. I just say that if you make such, put them to a different component.)

If you don't understand it after all this, and still think I've malicious intent to make a bad reputation to this excellent project, well, then I've nothing to say.

[ October 10, 2006, 22:53: Message edited by: Baronius ]

 

I had also repeatedly said (and had also offered concrete examples) that G3's BG2 fixpack's alignment changes are incorrect; they are based on the "oversight" mod's invalid logic. (As long as "Oversight" mod is their base, everything will go wrong in respect to alignments, for sure.)

Let players choose for themselves. All I can say is that G3's BG2 fixpack is not recommended for those who are looking for "pure fixes" for their games. Many of the alleged 'fixes' are actually 'tweaks' (albeit mostly inappropriate ones, specially when alignments are concerned).

 

Baronius, you really made an excellent case for the Fixpack.

Doors consuming keys was somewhere were we listened to concrete feedback, realized we made a mistake, and made changes. Felinoid brought up another concrete example where we got it wrong and it's being changed in the next release. If you provide actionable feedback, we consider it and make changes as appropriate. None of the fixes are hidden and we encourage and listen to feedback. You seem to think you're scoring points because we got something wrong initially, but you're actually bringing up several examples of the methodology working perfectly and as intended.

The alignment changes were written by Kish for Oversight. He's been, by far, the most conservative member of the Fixpack team in terms of including fixes, and warned which bits of Oversight to use and which to avoid. That he's somehow spammed Fixpack with spurious alignment changes is disingenuous and I'm afraid you're going to provide a better argument than 'mostly inappropriate'. Dumping the alignment changes, on balance, is a huge step backward in terms of fixes unless you think Irenicus is CG and otyughs are LG. If a change actually is inappropriate there's no one who wants it out of the Fixpack more than I--we've already made changes within the sphere of alignments and, like anything included, it's open to review. However, as I've mentioned before, 'mostly inappropriate' is not feedback upon which we can act; 'foo.cre shouldn't be changed because X' is.

Giving triple-classes unique HLA tables is in-line with developer intent and is identical to how Baldurdash does it--had you bothered to read the thread. I'm not sure what 'triple-class fix' fubar'd Felinoid's tables but what he's describing is not a part of Fixpack, nor would it ever be.

Blucher's a very biased choice of critic to quote, as he objects to Baldurdash itself as riddled with tweaks. To the surprise of no one, he feels that a project that's much the same as Baldurdash with substantially more fixes is also going too far. Sikret and Baronius are the only ones following Fixpack around chanting 'tweak, tweak, tweak.' It's unfortunate that, rather than participating in one of the very few cross-community mod projects, BW declined the original invitation from almost a year-and-a-half ago, and continues to refuse to participate despite a standing invitation. Five of the six other sites accepted, and the only other declinee is now producing mods that expect Fixpack to be installed. You may find that participating in the process yields better results, as Felinoid, Rabain, and others can attest.

And yes, breaking the Fixpack into multiple components would be horrific. We've already had people object to things which are clearly bugs (such as Irenicus-as-demon in the finale spouting ogre lines) so I have no doubt that once we start making one or two things optional the rest will be requested. I refer anyone to the pinned I *HATE* this fix! thread where we go to great lengths to assist folks removing fixes they don't like.

 

Here are your concrete examples again:
pirsea01
pirsea02
pirsea03

Why on earth these three creatures' alignments should have changed to Lawful Evil? Andyr said that murderous pirates must be evil! How on earth do you know that they are murderous (specially these three ones who were just hidden in SeaBounty tavern)? Just because they have red circles beneath them?! And who has said that only Evil creatures can commit murder or can commit crimes? And why "Lawful"?!

Do you call this sort of changes "Fixes" or a "Tweaks"? If you call them "fixes" we really have nothing more to discuss. And if you agree that these changes are at best "Tweaks", then why do you complain when we say that they are Tweaks?

These are just examples, similar cases are many in the fixpack. Fixing just these three creatures' alignments won't solve the problem. The root of the problem, as I have said before, is the Oversight mod's logic.

PS: Actually, "pirsea02" is the .cre file name for more than one creature. It designates the three lesser pirates in the tavern. But this is a side point.

[ October 11, 2006, 01:18: Message edited by: Sikret ]

 

Let's follow this logically: the three pirates in the Sea's Bounty, that traffic in illegal materials (you know, piracy), hiding from Amnish authorities, that do not have any hesitation to attack anyone entering their area because they've been discovered (presumably because they value their illicit profits over the lives of interlopers), should be true neutral? Uh, no. If you wish to make the case they should be chaotic or neutral evil, go for it.

See how easy this is?

 

Then, you at least seem to admit that making them "lawful" was wrong. You also seem to admit that there are more than one option for their alignments. That much is enough to show that you have tweaked them (and not fixed). Not to mention that none of your conjectures about what they might have done (= crimes) warrant that they should be evil.

 

Actually, I didn't say that. I said either that I would not expect them to be Good, or that I would expect them to be Evil; I don't recall exactly which. But I definitely did not say as you claim.

 

I invited you to make a case on the lawful-chaotic axis, as evil is clearly correct.

You'll need to provide reasons (using reason, not semantics) why they're true neutral and changing them to anything else is a tweak, otherwise you're already conceding it's a bug fix and we're simply debating the best way to fix them.

If willingness to murder someone entering your hideout (without provoking you and under no threat yet) isn't indicative of evil you'll never be satisfied with any alignment changes, ever. Based on their location and the events that occur in the Sea's Bounty (esp. Barg) it's likely they're involved in slave trafficking.

 

LOL, sometimes I wonder if the game-makers put as much thought into the game as some of you guys!