Jump to content

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Today
  2. Yesterday
  3. Thank you! That worked like a champ!
  4. @Mr. Dave Grab the latest WIP version (from the second post in this thread), should be fixed in that one.
  5. Last week
  6. Howdy, I was just prompted by WB to post in this thread due to a crash. Here's what it said: Traceback (most recent call last): File "bash\bash.pyo", line 188, in main File "bash\bash.pyo", line 372, in _main File "bash\basher\__init__.pyo", line 4050, in Init File "bash\basher\__init__.pyo", line 4087, in InitData File "bash\bosh\__init__.pyo", line 1936, in refresh File "bash\bosh\__init__.pyo", line 1683, in _modinfos_cache_wrapper File "bash\bosh\__init__.pyo", line 1791, in refreshLoadOrder File "bash\load_order.pyo", line 303, in refresh_lo File "bash\load_order.pyo", line 253, in _update_cache File "bash\games.pyo", line 228, in get_load_order File "bash\games.pyo", line 247, in _cached_or_fetch File "bash\games.pyo", line 685, in _fetch_load_order KeyError: bolt.Path(u'HOBMona.esp') The mod in question is a follower mod that is set to hidden. I tried opening and saving it in the CK to no avail.
  7. 2.6 Public release Its not v3 yet (which will coincide with the release of the new DLC bringing the Split race back), but its coming along nicely. Edit: V3 is going to be delayed .. https://forum.egosoft.com/viewtopic.php?f=146&t=419476 "We also need to inform you that the previously announced expansion X4: Split Vendetta and the associated big 3.0 update for X4: Foundations won’t, unfortunately, hit their original targeted release timeframe of Q4 2019. We're now targeting a new release date within the first quarter of 2020 for both the X4: Split Vendetta expansion and the 3.0 update. Once we get a little closer, we will be able to announce a more specific date. We're very sorry about this delay and would particularly like to apologise to all owners of the X4: Foundations Collector's Edition, which includes the two future expansions. During the development of the X4: Split Vendetta expansion and the 3.0 update, a number of things have emerged that we really want to see implemented, optimised and fixed in time for the next big step forward for X4: Foundations in order to meet our own expectations as well as yours. We simply need a bit more time to do so."
  8. Hey, I recently downloaded and istalled this mod and I find it very interesting. I always wanted something about Elsweyr and the Khajiit. And I especially like the different Khajjit types like the Kathey-raht. But there are some minor problems: There are some places that are locked and I need the key. I pickpocketed many individuals and tresspasted into their houses and buildings but I couldn't find anything. For example, how can I enter the abandned mages guild in Dune, or some other building near the city? Also what happens with the two princes of Dune and the Hidden City of Rimmen?
  9. Yes, Ivy and the other boss NPCs do respawn indefinitely. We didn't change anything in the most recent update (2.0.9). It may be some time before we're able to solve the issue due to the complexity of the quest system in the game.
  10. I am now the sole active author for Scrap Everything. I was invited as a co-author by the original author (shadowslasher410), and she recently decided to take a break from modding and explicitly given me full control. That doesn't mean that a lot of people don't still want to use Spring Cleaning, mainly because it is not as encompassing as SE is. So the 10-15 hours spent learning about the precombined system enough to make my Spring Cleaning patch, beyond the fact that it is largely related to me being invited as co-author for SE, is helping the many people who like that mod. I wasn't looking for control or to change things, I was looking to make a mod I enjoyed work again, when updates to the game broke it. To build off your earlier analogy, my Spring Cleaning patch isn't spraying graffiti over a mural, it is finding the little pieces that have fallen to the ground due to erosion from the weather and securing them back in place so the mural can still be appreciated today, as the artist intended, even though the person who made it moved to a different state and isn't maintaining it. And I didn't really want to make a new version from the ground up, because one of the things I am worst at is balancing, so having someone else determine the recipe yields was perfect. Even with the updates I have made to Scrap Everything (several hundred objects added for the DLC to Scrap Everything's lists), I based scrap yields on similar objects for lists Shadow had made. And the biggest argument for patches in general: I have made a number of discoveries about the precombined/previs system that have enabled me to help quite a number of people. Without the time I spent making the patch for Spring Cleaning, I never would have learned anything about the system. The experience of figuring out what I needed to for that patch drove me to spend 50-60 hours figuring out how to make non-replacer facepaints/tattoos before the CK came out*. One of the things that I think is the best about the Bethesda, Gamebryo/Creation Engine modding community is that most people share knowledge pretty readily, and we build on the knowledge of others to achieve truly great mods that would never have been possible otherwise. So many mod authors I have talked to got their start by making tweaks to other mods (for personal use or release as a patch). Without the ability to open another persons mod to see how they accomplished a change they implemented, the TES/Fallout modding scenes would be a fraction of what they are today. Patches are a gateway to full, original modding. Fix-patches should be offered to the mod author first, I agree, but compatability patches, balance patches, and ones that just change a certain feature are not things a mod author should be expected to host. Yes, there are some assholes who actively and purposefully insult the original mod author, by they are by far in the minority, and should not be used as an excuse. *I finished less than a month before the CK was released, and honestly at that point it was largely a determination to figure out how to get it to work. It was largely wasted effort, since the CK makes it easy, but it did allow me to figure a few things out about the system/organization of face tints that helped with converting my facepaint collection (all facepaints in the collection were put in only after explicit confirmation that it was allowed in a pm to the author in question, since I have no artistic skill I didn't make my own) to work with expired's tint injection system (which allows multiple mods to add facepaints).
  11. Did you ever consider just building a new version of the mod from the ground up? The mod your're currently parenting does the same thing as another abandoned mod called Scrap Scarp. Then you'd have complete control and you'd avoid the potential necessity to change your esp into a delta-patch in the future.
  12. The idea of mod-authors as providors is fine, I think the point that a lot of people are making and which is getting lost in the sound and fury is that modders shouldn't be forced to feel like they are providing a service. Modders are hobbyists, they make the mods for fun and release them to share their enjoyment of their work. Admittedly, some modders also do it for the Internet Points, and the DP system has added a financial element which hasn't helped detoxify the conversation. You're obviously right that people will much around mods, and this isn't a new thing. Looking back a few years ago it wasn't uncommon to see new people post screen-caps of stuff they'd done to others' mods; that's part of the hobbyist mentality. The thing that's really changed in the last few years is that users or neophyte modders have started to demand the right to share their work without any regard to the original author. You see this most on reddit but similar sentiments were being voiced on xEdit by certain people, notably Netvre and I consider that so be, well, just a bad thing.
  13. I'm afraid you've got the wrong end of the stick entirely, possibly something has got lost in translation. My point is entirely the opposite, in the case of both the delta-patch and the replacer you still need the other files, so the delta-patch does not "protect" the original mod any more than a replacer esp - this is my point about the "effect". Well time*frustration=emotional investment. That's the point. This is especially the case in my work when the majority of the time is spent working on meshes, but it's also true with complex quest scripts and things like that. There's also all the planning and (again, in my case) research that goes into the work. Generally speaking the patcher isn't going to be doing much of this at all because he's "fixing" the mod. In principle a delta patch is a ethically neutral - the key point here is that it can be used to circumvent the EULA and Netrve has been clear he wants to encourage this behaviour. On the topic of big mod-lists and high esp counts - well that's a whole different issue. It's worth noting that this used to be something remedied by properly authored compilation that synthesised different mods together. Looking back to Oblivion we had OOO, Fran's, and MMM, and later FCOM (EXPLODE!) that were all actually compilations, not mods authoried by a single person. These big overhaul modss did the rounds, got their permissions/used free resources, and built a solid foundation for your game that worked out of the box. I am singularly unconvinced that mod-lists are better. On a purely technical level none of this is wrong but the question still arises "Why not get permission?" A lot of retired modders are still "around" even if not visibly active. It's the mindset I have a real issue with here - the one that sees mods as essentially the property of the community rather than the author. I'd respond to this by pointing out that any mod I ever released myself (there aren't many at all) always allowed the mesh resources to be freely used so long as credit was given. The thing is, allowing use is different to changing the original mod - isn't it? Generally the EULA varies depending on the purpose of the mod - most large mods allow compatibility patches, most "cornerstone" mods like the USSEP allow parenting and re-use of assets. I'd argue that the circumvention of the EULA and the violation of the modder's wishes is simply unethical. You acknowledge the emotional harm, so how can it be ethical to inflict emotional harm? You must know what happens to modders who are repeatedly emotionally abused by users and lack adaquate community support. They break and leave. Best case the community is deprived of their skills, worst case they take their mods with them. I've known many modders over the years who have chucked in the towel after a particularly nasty user or bellow modder really tore into them. Some of them remain active incognito - some of them are hiding in secret bunkers, some eventually come back. Emotional harm is very serious - especially if your family think your modding hobby is just a silly little thing you do in the evenings. After almost two decades I've seen more burnouts, blowouts and meltdowns than I care to remember. So, emotional harm is nothing to be sniffed at - modders are people. You say that you don't want modders to take their mods down, yet this is already happening with modders moving off NExus to avoid the API and Wabbajck. I think if the patcher makes a patch without contacting the original author or makes the patch as a way to convince themselves they don't need permission then that's ultimately Bad Faith. I accept that the intention is to make a working guide for other people, but the result is still tainted in my view. I actually never said I wanted everybody to ask before making an esp patch - I actually think that's usually pointless. There are exceptions - the "Gate Crasher" plugin was designed specifically to violate Arthmoor's artistic vision and invalidate the work of the person who made those meshes. In general, though, I have no problem with compatibility patches. Delta-patches are different though because they damage the original mod, which is particularly problematic if that mod for some reason becomes unavailable and the user doesn't have a backup.
  14. He didn't respond, and his permissions/description didn't say anything for or against allowing of patches, so I figured a non-replacer patch was fine. I am done with this discussion, at this point no new points are being made. You are just fundamentally disagreeing that my points have any validity, and I think that most of your arguments are grossly exaggerated examples that aren't truly comparable.
  15. So what did he say? If the practical result is the same as uploading a new esp we should treat it as though the patcher is uploading a new esp, or a new nif file, or a new texture. The only differnce is that you still require the original file, but in practical terms this only matters if the mod only contains one file. Most mods substantial enough for people to patch tend to be more than just an esp. Again this comes down to a question of "legitimate", doesn't it? Got back far enough and Morrowind is the same game as SSE, basically. There are left beind assets from each previous game in the next, indicating they're all built from the same esm file.SEE is just Morrowind after 15 years of continuous iteration and development. So, is it legitimate to convert from Morrowind to SSE or would that be egregious? Oblivion to SEE? If you contact a modder who's still ogging in to Necxus and ask to port their mod and they say no or ignore you should you port it anyway? I'm not quite sure what you point is here but if you're arguing that others should be allowed to edit my files even when I ask them not to I would respond by what right? If I produce a mural (legally) and someone decides to improve it with artful (biut illegal) graffiti that's illegal and a basic violation of my right to self-expression. I was involved in that debate and Netvre made is very clear he doesn't consider the opinion of the original modder to be of any value, or rather in his "utilitarian" outlook the modder is just one person and the users are many - so the modder's opinion does not matter. This is basically communism. If Netvre wants to think that way that's fine but he's not entitled to use his skills as a programmer to enforce his ideology.
  16. just to confirm I have cleared this out around 5 times before the latest update, updated to the latest in bethesda mods menu and 9 times after, Ivey has re spawned every time
  17. I think to some extent with these tools and with others, the differences in opinion come down to a difference in philosophy regarding modders, mod authors and users. My view is certainly user-centric, I will admit, and focuses on mod authors as providers. For files I upload on the Nexus, I believe I have a responsibility to ensure that users get adequate support and can enjoy the best possible experience with my mod. I also acknowledge that I have a job and other life responsibilities to meet and won't always have the time to improve each mod, and so I maintain an open EULA so that users can take matters into their own hands to further the work of the mod with regards to vision and compatibility. But I do acknowledge that this is just one way to look at it, and many authors prefer to present their work as is and for users to enjoy it in the way they intended. I can certainly appreciate that too and why they might like this to be the case, since they may have spent hours curating it to their liking. But to me, with mods that are readily editable with modding tools, it is inevitable that people are going to root around in your mod anyway - delta patch or not!
  18. And to you! It is good and healthy to have such discussions around emerging technology in the community so thank you for getting back to me I didn't realise quite how long this post got, so I do apologise for lack of brevity. Now I'm not sure if I've got the right end of the stick in the quote above - are you saying that a replacer ESP requires original meshes and textures whereas an equivalent delta patch does not? If so, the delta patch does in fact require the original mod regardless of what it edits. Say for example we are applying a single delta patch to the ESP of a mod with meshes and textures. It will need any and all resources that it does not change (e.g. textures, meshes), since the patch has nothing to do with them, and also the source ESP to apply the delta patch to. In another example, if we have a delta patch for each file in the mod (one for the ESP, one for each .DDS and .NIF), then the delta patch still requires all the original files as sources to act upon. Either way, unless the tool is being used fraudulently, the patch always requires the original mod to function. OK - so I can agree that the time investment is likely to be less for the patcher, that is true. But I think the importance of any time investment is only important if it is somehow compromised or negated by the actions of patcher. I don't think breaking the EULA alone compromises their time investment since the mod is still available, and is highly unlikely to suffer from any reduced traffic or alternate perception. It is true that a delta patch can be used as a loophole around an EULA, but if the primary advantage was only to circumvent the EULA then we would see delta patching used for no-modification EULAs and ESPs for modification-tolerant EULAs. Instead we see delta patching used for both, because the format is better suited for automation and widespread deployment in modding guides and modlists, since it reduces ESP count and could potentially reduce the need for ESP merging. The disadvantage is that without an inverse delta patch, the process is one way. However, for cases where delta patches are useful and are most effective (e.g. modding guides, modlist installers), this does not matter as the user is following instructions to the effect of the guide author/modlist editor anyway. It is still my view that delta patches will primarily be used for compatibility and performance enhancement, within the environment of modding guides and modlist installers. This is currently how I deploy delta patches in my installer and is advantageous both for the patcher and the user, and makes no difference for the author. For example, I recently used Ordenator on my Oblivion modlist to compress textures and generate mipmaps for mods in the list, which has resulted in better framerates all around. With a delta patch, these changes can be collated automatically and applied to each mod with ease. The same changes are not possible with an ESP since the textures themselves are changed. I am able to include these changes in the list, users see a boost in performance, and there is no notable harm inflicted on the author. I would argue that the in the majority of cases, original modders work does not stand to be violated. I don't think the user is entitled to a compatibility patch, but putting myself in the shoes of a mod author that is maintaining a mod for community usage, I can't see a reason to restrict efforts to achieve compatibility or further innovation by placing a strict no modification EULA in effect. It can't be enforced, since mods are not closed source - people will just download my mod anyway and pick it apart locally to get it working with their setup or to impose their own vision on it. I also argue that from a wider perspective, the benefits of delta patching far outweigh the cons. Widespread usage of delta patching has and will continue to revolutionise guided installations, since their use effectively negates many hours of manual editing that users might have to go through to get a stable setup. Most mod authors allow for modification of their files. For the minority that uphold the no modification EULAs, their EULAs are indeed circumvented but with very little harm to them - no monetary loss, possibly even a net gain in reputation through increased traffic. In my eyes, the only perceivable harm is emotional, yet they must know that people are circumventing their EULAs anyway, just on a local machine, in xEdit, and not with a delta patch. And to me, if they do not want this to happen, the only way they can truly enforce this is by taking their mods down - which of course is not desired. So I think I've expressed my views on this above, but just to re-iterate - with or without the EULA, ESP patches are not designed to be used at scale in guided setups. This is where the delta patch is truly beneficial. Delta patches are useful because they can do more than ESP patches (notably they can patch any kind of file, and do not inflate the ESP count), and require less technical expertise to produce - patchers can make the changes manually using existing skills that they have using xEdit, Ordenator, Wrye Bash, and then run a utility to generate delta patches for everything that they have changed. Thus I don't think the patcher is always acting in bad faith, if at all in most cases - delta patches are just the most comprehensive package with the easiest creation mechanism, so naturally they are favoured over cumbersome alternatives. I will however state that my views might differ from that of you with regards to what users should have to seek permission for, which might explain how we see things differently. I don't think a person should ever have to ask a mod author for permission to generate a compatibility patch. It might be a courtesy, yes, but it should never be a requirement, since that hinders efforts to bring the mod wider appeal and is especially problematic for older games where mod authors have moved on and are not contactable. By extension, I don't think delta patches for compatibility (as I use them for) should require permission.
  19. Yes, I did try and contact him. With default settings, you can "add a friend" by someone else adding you as theirs. Most people I am "friends" with on Nexusmods were added that way, and I didn't feel a need to block/unfriend them. I think I have only added one person myself, but my activity feed would tell you that I added 15. If you ignore the added friends, the most recent activity from Nverjos was comments on Spring Cleaning, from a month before I made my patch. He has visited the site since then (based on the last active date, which is today), but hasn't so much as made a single comment on a single mod, and hasn't endorsed anything either. I disagree, that is probably the core of our disagreement on the issue of binary patching, and since neither of us is likely to change our views on that core subject we will never agree on whether or not Netrve's tool is "immoral". I laid out several pretty clearly. If you don't agree that porting a mod from LE to SSE while still requiring a mod user to download the LE mod, or fixing a broken script on an abandoned mod, are legitimate uses, then we will have to agree to disagree. Pretty sure downloading pirated content is still illegal, it just can't result in as big a fine as uploading (i.e. "distributing") pirated content. And I disagree that that is what Netrve is trying to achieve. Some people, like Arthmoor and I am assuming you, don't want an edited version of their plugin to exist at all, unless the mod user has made the edits themselves (manually, not using an automated tool). A lot of people just don't want their work being distributed without their permission. If we are talking about the Nexusmods permissions option "Give permission for users to modify my file; including releasing bug fixes or improving on the features my file adds to the game, and upload it as a separate file?", then is does not provide any info as to why a given option was chosen. Netrve brought up the legality a lot because Arthmoor was specifically saying it wasn't legal. I read the entire discussion, in the various channels, from the moment Netrve mentioned his planned tool. You may have read it as an intentional circumvention of mod author desires, but it seemed to me like it was always intended to allow fixes (where needed*), without harming the mod author's copyright, by making sure the patches only include the changes required, and nothing else. *As he explained, it would be intended more for things that can't be fixed in a mastered plugin (like form version, TESSnip corrupted plugin, deleted REFRs), including any fixes that are not in a plugin (scripts, bad mesh, changing the slot a mesh uses so that two mods using the same slot are compatible, etc...). 99% of plugin-based patches would have no reason to use his tool, and most likely would be published as mastered plugin patches. There were never any tools for it, so it not being done in general is meaningless. Yes there is software that could allow it to be done, but that is not something the average mod use would even know about, let alone be comfortable using. Before Netrve mentioned making a standalone tool, the only mention of binary patching was in regards to WJ, with the primary intention seeming to be allowing mod pack authors to make direct edits (maybe for games without ESL support, but primarily for laziness on the part of modpack makers from how it seemed to be presented). Modpack makers are primarily making edits to create a stable build with a large number of mods, which aren't things you would contact a mod author about anyway (unelss you are the kind of mod user who think it is the duty of a mod author to make a compatibility patch for every mod in existence). The discussion of binary patching was so intrinsically linked to the discussion on modpacks in general that you can barely take any useful feedback on who people would view the idea of a standalone tool. If there was other discussion unrelated to WJ that you are talking about, please link it, because I hadn't heard even the mention of binary patching before WJ brought it up. And yes, you can usually deal with an issue by layering plugins. But I think that is why you are unlikely to see this tool used by that many mod authors**. You seem to think that the availability of this tool will result in a fundamental shift in how people make patches, with 99% of patchers rushing to use this tool (which is more likely to fail should a mod update than a regular patch, and requires more work by the mod user, even if it is just opening the tool and clicking a button), but I just don't see it. **by which I mean people uploading things to Nexusmods or similar sites, as opposed to people who download mods but have never uploaded anything
  20. Good question - there may be a few xEdit scripts but in general, no. What seems to have changed, though, is that people are seeing binary delta-patching as a way to avoid doing things like contacting mod-authors or, you know, taking any regard for modders' wishes. It's interesting, really, historically delta-patching hasn't really been a thing in Beth games becausae you can just layer plugins on top of each other and that's better than delta-patching because you don't risk damaging the original file.
  21. Well, again, I don't think there's any instance where morality isn't applicable. A delta-patcher could also be accused of being callous and uncaring of others' feelings. Everything we do has a moral dimension. In this instance the delta-patch is like a set of new pages, you unbind the book, replace the pages and re-bind the book. Regardless of the intent the effect is that it is no longer the published manuscript - it is a new book. It's not meant to be equivalent, but analogous - for reason I have now twice explained. Not all harm is equal In your example have you tried to contact the original author? A quick check of Nverjos' author page shows he added a new friend in February 2018 and was also active in 2017, he released his original mod in 2016, the year you originally released the patch on Nexus Given that the original author was still active you had the opportunity to contact them and offer to take over the mod, rather than releasing your own patch. If you didn't try to contact the original author then your argument is invalid. You assumed non-consent, and by so-assuming you probably guarantee never getting consent. So, actually, this is a perfect example of a patcher going off on one instead of doing what they should have done - collaborate with the original author. That's the way to make better mods - not delta-patches. You would be surprised the number of modders who remain active and respond to PM's despite being retired - like me. It's a matter of what the patch contains and what the result is. The result is important, the method isn't really. I'm sorry, but I still don't see a legitimate need for this tool. This point, at least, has some meet to it. xEdit does a lot of things, it isn't intended that you will use it to patch files to get around a modder's expressed wishes. Netrve has explicitely said they have created the delta-patch system because it is "safe" by which they mean "legal" where modifying the base plugin is not. Are you aware that Bittorrent clients, and the protocol itself, used to have a 0% upload setting? That was removed quite some time ago to remove the legal loophole of "oh I'm only downloading pirated content, not uploading." So, yes, you can use a torrent client for illegal purposes, but it's not possible to use one to avoid doing something illegal. This is the opposite of what Netrve is trying to achieve.
  22. You misunderstood my point. I don't think that morality is involved here at all. You can be rude without being immoral, and I think that (with the exception of someone misusing the tool in a way that results in the delta patch containing the entirety of the plugin like Arthomoor's proposed situation), the worst a delta patcher could be accused of is rudeness, and that rudeness is usually subject to interpretation. Maybe I wasn't as clear as I meant to be, but while requiring you download the original mod is one of the main arguments against replacers, the other is how much of the original author's content you have in your released file. A replacer is like spellchecking someone's published book and providing it to other people. A delta patch is like a an automated script that book to correct the misspellings that will do absolutely nothing if the person getting the script doesn't have the original work. The delta patch only contains the words that word changed and the locations in the book that those words exist at. One could argue that the delta patch actually has less of the original work than a normal mastered plugin would. If you (for instance) released a delta patch for Scrap Everything that reduced the component reward from scrapping (a semi-common request). The delta patch would have the location in the file that those values exist, and the new values. A mastered plugin would have the entire COBJ records copied over with the values changed. To use my book analogy, rather than just having the edited words it would have the surrounding paragraph as well. It is not "an extreme example", it is a false equivalence. As a counterpoint: Spring Cleaning for FO4. As it stands, it is completely broken. This is because Bethesda's precombined disabling system is a janky mess that can be broken by you looking at it funny. I made a patch (non-replacer) that makes it work again. My patch was a result of two things: me spending the time to figure out why the ITMs Nverjos had resulted in precombineds and previs being disabled, which was only possible due to improvements to the xEdit definitions that made it easy to identify precombined REFRs, and changes Bethesda made to the game engine that meant worldspace edits in .esp files didn't cause the cell reset bug (previously the bug could only be avoided by making your mod a .esm). Nverjos stopped modding before either change that enabled me to develop my patch occured, but without my patch Spring Cleaning would be basically unusable these days. Instead it has gotten tens of thousands of new downloads (at minimum) since I made my patch. If Bethesda made a fundamental change to some of the records that meant that overrides weren't enough and I had to make a replacer or Spring Cleaning would crash, then delta patches would be the only way to fix that. It would be completely unusable, through no fault of Nverjos. There have been significant enough changes to furniture records in FO4 that I had to delete and recopy some of the furniture records in Scrap Everything that we added names/keywords to fix some bugs that were occurring. And I brought up the analogy to telling them it is broken for mods. If a mod author has abandoned a mod before realizing it is broken, the comments section functions the same as telling your friend the bike is broken. If you give it to them and don't realize it is broken, because it worked fine the last time you used it, you are not knowingly do anything wrong. As others have explained, it is a matter of what the patch contains, not what the result is. If a patch contains only the changes and the locations that those changes should be applied, then it is completely different from a replacer plugin, or a "delta patch" that is applied to a blank .txt file and contains literally the entire contents of the plugin. You seem to think the only thing that matters is the result (in this case, an edited plugin rather than a plugin with a mastered patch), and that the method used to achieve that result doesn't matter at all. If you are arguing that, instead of a blank text file, you create the delta patch using an unrelated mod as the source and your edited version of the mod in question as the target, and use that to make a delta patch that doesn't require the original plugin while ending with the edited plugin, you are being deliberately obtuse. That would be just as much a misuse of the tool as the first would, and would be even more obvious if the required "source" file doesn't come in the download. If that is not what you mean then I apologize and would like clarification. Let me ask you this, of both Arthmoor and Sigurð Stormhand: what would your stance be if someone uploaded an xEdit delta patch (which would be generated the same way, by comparing two different versions of the same plugin), and gave "install instructions" of installing the delta patch like a normal mod, loading it in xEdit with the master (as would be required, since the plugin is made a master when you generate a delta patch), then using (deep) copy as override with overwrite to copy the entire contents of the .esu delta patch into the original mod plugin. The result would be the same as using Netrve's binary patcher. The method would only differ when it comes to the program used. I can misuse xEdit's delta patch functionality in the same way you were suggesting. If I make a blank plugin, use it as the source for the delta patch and point to the edited mod plugin as the "updated" plugin, my .esu delta patch would contain the entire mod. If I then uploaded it, it would be taken down for the same reason a normal replacer would be: because that is basically what it is. Does that mean that you think Elminster is supporting mod mod piracy by creating the delta patch functionality just because someone can misuse it? Or for a more extreme example if you only care about legality: programs like Bittorrent are probably used for piracy more than they are used legitimately. The makers of those programs are not legally forced to remove them from their site, because there are legitimate uses for peer-to-peer file transfer software. The fact that those programs are widely misused doesn't make the program itself illegal. Where things differ is, the makers of a lot of those torrenting programs intend them to be used for piracy as the primary use, and thus the making and distribution of those programs could be considered immoral. Netrve is not intending for people to misuse his planned program to make patches that don't require the original file (plugin, mesh, texture, etc...), the intended use is to actually generate the patch using the original and edited versions of the file. If you think he should make it so people can't use it in that manner, then give suggestions for how to prevent those misuses. I am not a programmer, but I imagine it would be possible to make the patch making software calculate how much of the file was changed (byte for byte), and not allow a patch to be made if more than x% of the file is different. Whether x would be 50%, 15%, or 1% would need to be determined, but that would prevent you from making a binary patch that doesn't require the original file.
  23. I don't recall Darkwater was part of the MQ in Skyrim. Or what kind of a MQ are you referring to? @ArthmoorI guess you don't have much left to update for your village mods. The reason I mention this is simple, because I want to use as many of your village mods in my next playthrough. But with further mod updates I would probably wait until most of your village mods is the final version.
  24. Do you remember that guy at the old BSF who released a Non-Oblivion Portal mod (later closed by the mods and the link removed IIRC) that was basically a mod of your Skyrim Open Cities without the Oblivion portals? I think that would be the same as what you said.
  25. Version 2.0.7 Added a grinding wheel to the blacksmith's shop area.
  26. Simply put, everything we do should be moral and ethical - that's my position in life. As I noted above, not all replacer esps remove the necessity of the original mod - if the mod has a BSE then you still need the original more, so I'm afraid your criticism is misplaced. As an extreme example that not all harms are equal and harm done to a few can outweigh harm done to many? Yes. The argument has been made that many users outweigh one modder, I simply used an extreme example to highlight why this is not necessarily the case. Again, I addressed this above - Netve has specifically said he is writing his tool to circumvent the rules around altering mods - because he doesn't think modders are entitled to have those rules followed. The purpose of the patch itself is of less importance than the intention to violate the modders wishes in a way you can get away with. I maintain this is unethical behaviour. If you want to patch something make a patch esp. Again, you can contact the original modder and offer them a fix - if the modder has left the community and their wish is that their mods should not be altered that is ultimately their prerogative. It's direclty analogous to respecting the wishes of the dead - something which is literally the case for some modders - especially some who worked on Oblivion. Case in point, Hana, Arthmoor and I recently did some work where we needed a transparent snow texture. The best snow texture out there for Oblivion, and the one most commonly used, was made by Qarl, but as Qarl passed away some years ago we could not ask his permission to modify it - even though we almost certainly could have got away with doing so. Instead, we used the 4K upscale of the original vanilla texture which was released free to use and modify. Whether basic human decency obliges you to give your friend a working bike or not would depend on whether you warned them it was broken before you gave it to them. If you did not warn them then I'd argue you're obliged to either fix it or at the very least take it back if they don't want it any more.
  27. Firstly, thank you for taking up the opposing case - I honestly appreciate someone to have this debate with. This point is only relevant if the mod is solely an ESP, many mods will also include textures, meshes, animations etc. that are needed to make a mod work. In that circumstance you still need the original mod to make the replacer esp work and in that circumstance the delta-patch achieves the same as the replacer. I don't want to down-play the amount of work the patcher does, but I do want to emphasise that it's proportionally less than amount of work the original modder does - and so the investment is less. I think this scales with the complexity of the mod, which is to say the amount of time the patcher spends goes up as he works with more complex mods that modders invested more time in. It's important to emphasise here that the reason to use a delta-patch rather than a replacer or a patch esp is to circumvent the author's EULA. Under any circumstances a patch esp or replacer would be preferable - unless you don't have permission for such. You note that the purpose of a delta-patch is to "improve" the experience for the user, but this is at the cost of violating the original modder's work. My argument is that the user's perceived benefit is significantly less than the potential harm to the modder. Any claim of harm to the user implies that they are entitled to have two mods not designed to work together in their load order and are harmed by not being able to have this. To be honest I see this as an unjustified sense of entitlement because the user exerts no real effort to procure the mods, as opposed to the modder who makes them and is entiled to recognition for their work. Also, I'd like to point out that delta-patches are not a priori immoral or unethical (that's a better term, so I'm going to use it from now on), rather they are unethical because their purpose is to circumvent the EULA - i.e. the wishes of the original modder. Whilst financial harm is the most common type of harm cited in court cases there are other types of harm, such as harm to reputation or emotional/psychological harm. Further, the fact that you cannot demonstrate harm doesn't actually invalidate copyright - it simply means you can't assert it against someone. Also, it's worth pointing out that the purpose of copyright law is to protect the moral right which someone has to their original work. In this case I would argue the law is derived from moral reasoning, rather than the law being necessary to justify that reasoning. I'd also point out that your argument hinges on delta-patches being used for compatibility, but in most cases authors will allow patches for compatibility and therefore I think it is more likely that this will be used, as I said, to impose a different artistic vision on the mod. Further, I would note that I am not, and have not, argued that mods derivative of other mods are unethical or immoral. Others may argue this position but I am not - I am arguing that circumventing an author's EULA as a means to go against their express wishes is unethical. The accusation of Bad Faith arises not from the intention of the patcher towards the user but from the intention of the patcher towards the modder, and also his assumed refusal to engage the modder in constructive discourse (asking to make a patch or replacer). Most modders will allow esp overide patches and they are preferable to binary patches because they do not effect the original files. Indeed, one of the reasons we have not had binary patches in Bethesda games before now is that they are simply not necessary. I maintain that violation of the original author's wishes is unethical and finding a way around their EULA or statement of copyright which is enforced by the Nexus and other service providers is unethical. Your argument assumes that delta-patching will be used purely for the purposes of compatibility but this is merely an assumption. You also apparently assume that the mod author would not allow patching for compatibility, or that the patcher is under no obligation to ask.
  1. Load more activity

Support us on Patreon!

  • Create New...