Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Leonardo

Is S.T.E.P lying about mod management?

Recommended Posts

After I read this section I quoted below in this S.T.E.P guide I find it to have misleading information about MO vs Wrye Bash as a mod manager, because most people know that only the use of the bashed patch in Wrye Bash is essential for a modded and stable Skyrim.  Which MO cannot handle without Wrye Bash and despite that S.T.E.P only support MO, so I'm thinking that S.T.E.P is a promotion site for MO nothing else IMO.

 

 


1.C. Install Utilities Applications and utilities that aid in Skyrim mod management.

While mods can be installed manually, it is not recommended. A mod-management utility is HIGHLY RECOMMENDED in order to keep track of a complex setup like STEP. These utilities also make it exponentially simpler to deconstruct a STEP install in order to update to a new STEP version, and to update versions of the mods. This is impossible to do simply or efficiently (or even correctly) otherwise.

There are several utilities that may be used to manage the STEP setup; however, STEP now officially supports only Mod Organizer for reasons stated in the guide introduction. Although Wrye Bash is a mod manager, STEP recommends that it only be used as a helper application to Mod Organizer exclusively for the functionality of the Bashed Patch. The reason for the limited support of Wrye Bash is due to simplicity of this guide. Users who wish to use Wrye Bash can easily use that mod manager to install and maintain STEP. Wrye Bash users can use the Wrye Bash Guide for detailed instructions on setting up that exceedingly excellent modding utility package.

 

WTF!  Wrye Bash is consider to be a helper application to MO and NOT the opposite. :blink:

 

 

 

Of course anyone have the right to express their opinion in which may or may not agrees with me and I need to respect that.  Thanks for reading. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure I'd go so far as to call it lying. That site DOES come across as nothing more than a promotional website for MO though. Given the problems I've seen people post in my threads I can't see the appeal of using MO for much of anything, but people do.

 

For reasons unknown, people have decided that BAIN and NMM are useless, but even if neither one is perfect at what it does, they don't cause the kinds of problems people report in my threads. Mainly because they don't actively encourage the subversion of Skyrim's load order system by letting people load BSAs in a different order from the plugins they belong to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Step site was around for quite awhile before the MO craze started. I'm of the opinion that they have lost sight of what it means to have a "modded and stable Skyrim" a long time ago though :) 

 

I'm not quite sure why you are calling them liars, in the case they're describing Wrye Bash *is* only used as a "helper" app for the bashed patch although they go on saying that you can use WB as the default mod manager if your comfortable with that, its just outside of the scope of the guide they currently have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like I said, I wouldn't go so far as to call them liars. However, I can see why Leo might think that given statements like this:

The reason for the limited support of Wrye Bash is due to simplicity of this guide.

Their guide would be orders of magnitude less complex if they centered it around using Wrye Bash to install and manage the entire setup. MO is inherently more complex because of how it's been made. This isn't really something that can be disputed.

 

As for the guide itself, IMO, I think they lost site of a lot more than just being modded and stable. They have things listed as "fixes" that are objectively no such thing, and that category oddly seems to grow more than it should.

 

I think Garthand's guide is more in line with the idea of getting a nice stable modded game setup going.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Their guide would be orders of magnitude less complex if they centered it around using Wrye Bash to install and manage the entire setup. MO is inherently more complex because of how it's been made. This isn't really something that can be disputed.

This, a hundred times over. Wrye Bash has a disgusting UI, but it's relatively simple to use once you get past it. MO's complexity is the main reason I've been taking so long to update that guide Arthmoor kindly linked.

 

I think the main reason the folks over at S.T.E.P. favor MO is because they're of the "throw in the kitchen sink" modding school. When you have 150 mods in your load order, it probably is nice to be able to boot into a vanilla game by booting outside of MO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

The reason for the limited support of Wrye Bash is due to simplicity of this guide.

What? Why do people keep referring to WB as being hard to use? 

 

I feel like this has become a trend a (long) while ago and now a lot of people say WB is hard to use....just because, and some don't/can't even give a reason as to why.

Heck, when I first used it for Oblivion, I heard so many people mentioning it was hard to use, that I myself had that suspicion which was easily thrown out the window after I read Alt's guides.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What? Why do people keep referring to WB as being hard to use? 

 

I feel like this has become a trend a (long) while ago and now a lot of people say WB is hard to use....just because, and some don't/can't even give a reason as to why.

Heck, when I first used it for Oblivion, I heard so many people mentioning it was hard to use, that I myself had that suspicion which was easily thrown out the window after I read Alt's guides.  

 

The sentence about the simplicity of the guide probably refers to the format of the guide itself. It would be even more convoluted (and more complex to update) if it had two sets of installation instructions, one for WB and one for MO. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What? Why do people keep referring to WB as being hard to use? 

 

I feel like this has become a trend a (long) while ago and now a lot of people say WB is hard to use....just because, and some don't/can't even give a reason as to why.

Heck, when I first used it for Oblivion, I heard so many people mentioning it was hard to use, that I myself had that suspicion which was easily thrown out the window after I read Alt's guides.

I just read this at the officials.

 

Wrye Bash                     (A tool I'm not real comfortable with myself, cause it can be both, extremely powerful, yet, just as extremely complicated. But, I trust STEP)

 

I think you're right about the WB-trend Lorelai and I believe most of it is based on what makes WB so hard to learn for a new player.  Which also include what's new (hyped MO) and what's old (goodbye WB), and MO is new probably too overrated and WB is old with a steep learning curve which is intimidating for all new WB users.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing I find most irritating though is that MO is itself orders of magnitude more difficult to work with than Wrye Bash simply because you're overwhelmed with a billion menus and options for things in addition to the UI overload on the default display.

 

Personally I could never trust a tool whose author dismisses core bugs in the program's primary feature as not worth the time to fix. There's one in particular dealing with the virtual file system that I recall he said he wasn't going to bother fixing even though it can (and obviously did, or it wouldn't have been reported) corrupt files on the system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i use Bash a lot for the bashed patch, the notification about unsorted master files and for a quick look at the load order imprinted into my save files.

for actual mod Management, NMM has always stricked me as the better solution, with it's connection to the Nexus API.

don't know whether MO offers that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i use Bash a lot for the bashed patch, the notification about unsorted master files and for a quick look at the load order imprinted into my save files.

for actual mod Management, NMM has always stricked me as the better solution, with it's connection to the Nexus API.

don't know whether MO offers that.

 

MO does support the Nexus API and the download handlers, but seems to only reliably recognize whether a mod has been updated or not when downloaded through MO (rather than downloaded separately and then installed via MO)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has anyone tried the NMM 0.6 alphas yet? The ones that have their own virtual file system? I've been wary of updating it for fear it might mess something up and render the game unplayable :P I usually only open NMM to check menu options when someone asks for help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i haven't. last i heard, they don't support migrating your existing load order yet. at least they don't support back porting once you want to stop using the beta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another manager with virtual file system? Omg, looks like MO was not enough already, causing so much troubles with TES4LODGen and TES5LODGen because you can not create more than like a few dozens of files in virtualized Data folder without MO crashing. Add "BSA Management" in the mix that prevents reading of BSA archives by lodgen for extra headache bonus.

I just hope that this "virtual bandwagon" crazyness will end before the release of the next game, otherwise we are screwed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I think NMM's "virtual file system" is grounded in a better format. From what I understand it uses symlinks to accomplish what it's doing. So it doesn't need to have a virtual file system module running in the background that can ruin your day with corrupt files.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing I find most irritating though is that MO is itself orders of magnitude more difficult to work with than Wrye Bash simply because you're overwhelmed with a billion menus and options for things in addition to the UI overload on the default display.

 

Personally I could never trust a tool whose author dismisses core bugs in the program's primary feature as not worth the time to fix. There's one in particular dealing with the virtual file system that I recall he said he wasn't going to bother fixing even though it can (and obviously did, or it wouldn't have been reported) corrupt files on the system.

Agreed.  When I first became aware of MO and its features, I knew one major problem that could arise anytime are corrupted game files e.g Skyrim game files (Data folder), mod files (Data folder) and a lot of other important game files too.

 

The only thing that would probably require a total re-installation of both Skyrim and MO are cross-linked files, which is a serious issue for any HDD, HDD-partition and even Windows might be damaged beyond repair due to cross-linked files.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wondered how long it would be before their resident hit squad member picked up on us having a frank discussion: http://forum.step-project.com/topic/7676-why-so-much-mo-hate-semi-rant/

 

I do get that a lot of what blows back from MO is the result of user error. That said, when you hand someone an automatic weapon and fail to instruct them in its proper use, you shouldn't be surprised when they fill your home and car full of holes. There are a lot of features in MO that simply shouldn't exist, not the least of which is the BSA management system that allows for subverting the way Skyrim is supposed to load files.

 

No, I'm not going to point people toward the marketing arm of MO either. I'm going to do what I feel is the right thing and advise them to use Wrye Bash or NMM instead. I don't honestly care if they can't respect that decision either. I don't think it's fair to expect mod authors to continue taking on the support burden that MO is causing.

 

Honestly, I think they just despise anyone who has the courage to stand up and speak the truth they don't want to hear. More and more people are beginning to realize that we're right since they can see for themselves what MO is causing to happen. I've had several people thank me for explaining why Bash and/or NMM are better choices and each and every one of them is better off for it now that their games behave properly and shit gets installed and uninstalled without a huge hassle associated with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing I find most irritating though is that MO is itself orders of magnitude more difficult to work with than Wrye Bash simply because you're overwhelmed with a billion menus and options for things in addition to the UI overload on the default display.

 

Personally I could never trust a tool whose author dismisses core bugs in the program's primary feature as not worth the time to fix. There's one in particular dealing with the virtual file system that I recall he said he wasn't going to bother fixing even though it can (and obviously did, or it wouldn't have been reported) corrupt files on the system.

Hey, I've been looking around and I can't seem to find anything on this. This is a pretty major issue and I've never heard of this before in using MO for over one year. Can you link me to the report? Because if it's that bad I'll probably switch over to the NMM 0.6 Alpha.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That report makes me worried too, which indirectly (directly?) would increase the possibility for any file(s) to be cross-linked anytime in the future if the file system aren't maintained by a disk defrag such as Auslogic's Disk Defrag on regular basis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been working with BAIN since fairly shortly after release, after lots of installs and uninstalls it got kind of wonky for me, displaying missing files/wrong installs. This happened multiple times with Oblivion and once with Skyrim.

 

If you are doing a lot of installs/uninstalls because you are testing mods, a virtual file system is just the most convenient way to go (if it works correctly). For me personally, the user interface of MO is very well designed, I remember perceiving WB and BAIN as not very intuitive the first time I used it. MO also has some convenience features like directly manipulating files in installed mods.

 

If you devote a lot of time to a guide using a tool, it is also convenient to have the user use the same tool. I personally don't think it is overly complicated.

 

Experience with modding TES games has shown me, that even if you read a lot there is always something you can miss. I was not aware of any serious issues with MO until this came up and I haven't read a post on the STEP forums that warns about MO issues. Personally I have perceived the STEP forums to be a friendly and constructive place, why not go over there and voice your concerns?

 

Personally, I cannot tell how serious MO issues are, I haven't run into any yet. Some of the things written here are easily perceived as offensive, I just wish for a more constructive discussion to produce a climate where bugfixing and improving is the main focus. I think everyone would benefit more from that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(Please forgive any spelling errors. I'm terrible with spelling and Firefox's spell check isn't working on these forums right now.)
 
I'd like to reply to a few of the comments in a constuctive way. One thing I haven't seen mentioned is that STEP used to be completely based on WB. It took a lot of testing and allowing MO to mature before we made the switch so we are very aware of both sides of the fence.

 

MO is a very powerful mod manager and is more simple to use for new users. I realize this is a subjective statement and hard to understand for some long-time WB users, but it's what we found out during our testing and switching the Guide over to MO. I assume it's because the intial interface is less intimidating and more intuitive for new users. MO hides a lot of its features within menus/tabs as Arthmoor (or someone) mentioned; however, this seems like a good thing. You don't need access to all those features and tools all the time so MO declutters the interface by moving them to menus/tabs. We you do need a specific feature, it's only two clicks away in most cases. I don't view this as a negitive as many many programs are designed this way that users are already used to using, but rather I see it as a positive since it frees up the main interface for the most used features and information.
 
One of the main advantages of swtiching STEP to MO was a few of its core features. The VFS allowed users to experiment and dive into modding without messing up their Skyrim installation because MO doesn't touch the installtation; leaving it in a vanilla state. I remember when we were exclusively using WB. We recommended users back up their vanilla Skyrim installation, because eventually it will need to be restored. Almost all new modders run into this issue eventually. WB also didn't uninstall some mods cleanly; leaving some files behind. This is the whole reason we have the "uninstalls cleanly" flag on our mod pages on the our wiki. That flag is leftover from WB days when some mods weren't completely removed from the Data folder when uninstalled. MO's VFS emilimiated much of these issues for us.
 
Another great feaure was the "hide" feature. MO allows you to hide individual files for quick and easy conflict resolution. This allows the user to keep the files incase they ever need to revert changes at a later time. I can remember in WB you had to deleted the files for some conflict resolution and then reinstall the mod if you need to undo those changes. The hide feature allowed STEP greater control over the installation of mods without sacrificing the mod installation. If files are needed again, you simply unhide them.
 
Finally, one of the other facts that led us towards MO was development. It's common knowledge that WB's development has significantly slowed and even coming to a halt several times. MO is under constant development and improvement by Tannin. WB has recently had a bit of updating here and there but nothing consistent from what I can tell by looking at its Nexus page.

 

Does this sound like marketing...maybe, but I'm simply explaining some of the reasons why STEP uses MO. It's also true that we host the official MO wiki and suport forums for Tannin; however, this has been a win-win. Tannin gets forums and support that he doesn't need to keep up with; freeing his time up for developement. He aslo get a lot of help on ideas for development. STEP gets a close relationship with the author and developer of MO to help fix any issues we find in MO. This relationship proved most fruitful when the BSA issue came about. There is quite a lengthy thread on the STEP forums from when we and the STEP community banded together to help Tannin resolve the main issues with MO's BSA management.
 

Their guide would be orders of magnitude less complex if they centered it around using Wrye Bash to install and manage the entire setup. MO is inherently more complex because of how it's been made. This isn't really something that can be disputed.
 
As for the guide itself, IMO, I think they lost site of a lot more than just being modded and stable. They have things listed as "fixes" that are objectively no such thing, and that category oddly seems to grow more than it should.

 I think I covered the first paragraph above; however, I'll add one thing. I don't think MO is anymore complex than WB. Both can be used to mod Skyrim and both can be used for STEP. STEP simply can't support both any longer in our instructions. As it was mentioned, this would nearly double the size of the Guide and make maintainance a very unpleasent experience. Remember, we're all in this together in the fact that we're all doing what we're doing during our spare time. We do it because we love modding and love Skyrim. Our teams are only so big as well. Therefore, any streamlining that we can do benefits the user in that more content is delivered in a more timely manner. This I think we can all agree on.  ;)
 

The sentence about the simplicity of the guide probably refers to the format of the guide itself. It would be even more convoluted (and more complex to update) if it had two sets of installation instructions, one for WB and one for MO.

This is correct. The simplicity statement is as I just explained. It's to streamline the Guide and make maintainance easier for us.
 
 

Wondered how long it would be before their resident hit squad member picked up on us having a frank discussion: http://forum.step-project.com/topic/7676-why-so-much-mo-hate-semi-rant/
 
I do get that a lot of what blows back from MO is the result of user error. That said, when you hand someone an automatic weapon and fail to instruct them in its proper use, you shouldn't be surprised when they fill your home and car full of holes. There are a lot of features in MO that simply shouldn't exist, not the least of which is the BSA management system that allows for subverting the way Skyrim is supposed to load files.
 
No, I'm not going to point people toward the marketing arm of MO either. I'm going to do what I feel is the right thing and advise them to use Wrye Bash or NMM instead. I don't honestly care if they can't respect that decision either. I don't think it's fair to expect mod authors to continue taking on the support burden that MO is causing.
 
Honestly, I think they just despise anyone who has the courage to stand up and speak the truth they don't want to hear. More and more people are beginning to realize that we're right since they can see for themselves what MO is causing to happen. I've had several people thank me for explaining why Bash and/or NMM are better choices and each and every one of them is better off for it now that their games behave properly and shit gets installed and uninstalled without a huge hassle associated with it.

 I would say 95% of the issues we handle on the MO Support Forums at STEP is user error. Very little of it is actual bugs and those that have been bugs lately is because users are erroneously using the Beta version of MO and not the stable verison. However, we do instruct users on how to use MO. We host the official MO wiki and keep it up to date: http://wiki.step-project.com/Guide:Mod_Organizer . It's simply because new MO users don't read the manual. The same could be said for WB. If you don't read the manual, you're going to be lost. We link to these Guide from the main STEP Guide for a reason. Users are just lazy and are wanting to get up and running as fast as possible without understanding what they're doing first. In fact, users that do take there time to read all the Guides end up providing feedback similar to what was linked to on the Bethesda forums. These STEP users rarely have any issues because they took their time to learn the whole process and the tools used during that process.
 
However, your concern about BSA management was valid. When Tannin first introduced the feature, it caused havok with the Unofficial Patches and some other mods. However, all that has been worked out for some time now and, to my knowledge, we've not recieved any BSA related issues in a long time.
 
I have honestly, never had any issues that you speak about with MO. Being on Staff for a very long time now and being involved in the entire process, I could confidently say the Staff uses MO far more than most users for testing/modding/experimenting type things...not to mention just playing the game (the same could be said of the UP Team and WB) None of us have any issues with the stable release MO. It's all about knowing the tools that you are working with. If there are issues, they need to be reported to the Bug Tracker and multiple users should help to document the bugs. The better the documentation, the better Tannin can look into it. We strongly recommend MO for STEP because that is what the entire Guide is designed around; however, we don't discourage the use of WB either. We clearly state as much in the Guide:
 
"The reason for the limited support of Wrye Bash is due to simplicity of this guide. Users who wish to use Wrye Bash can easily use that mod manager to install and maintain STEP. Wrye Bash users can use the Wrye Bash Guide for detailed instructions on setting up that exceedingly excellent modding utility package."
 
WB users simply need to know how to adjust some instructions to match what we instruct to do in MO.
 
We don't despise anyone or their opinions. Some users, like the one that posted the thread on our forums about this thread, are fairly outspoken; however, judge not the entire STEP community on only a few individuals. If that user is night, then the STEP Staff is day. The Staff and the majority of the STEP community is very tolerable to all opinions.
 
 

Personally I could never trust a tool whose author dismisses core bugs in the program's primary feature as not worth the time to fix. There's one in particular dealing with the virtual file system that I recall he said he wasn't going to bother fixing even though it can (and obviously did, or it wouldn't have been reported) corrupt files on the system.

 

http://issue.tannin.eu/tbg/modorganizer/issues/829 - Tries to pass it off as an incomplete report, but the reporter seemed to have explained it as best as he could. Throwing the report out as invalid for an issue that serious is something I find highly disturbing.

 This is an example of something not documented very well. If more users knew about the report and were experiening the same things, then they needed to speak up and help resolve the issue. Tannin wasn't able to reproduce the issue, the original reported didn't help to expand on the issue, and no one else helped to document or explain the issue if they too were experiencing (I've had MO open for weeks at a time and have never had this issue). I would have done the same thing that Tannin did; drop the issue. Tannin is only a one man team and he can't do it all. If users want to help him out, helping on the bug reports is a great start and benefits all MO users! Users that just sit around and complain about an issue get little attention unless they're willing to help with the process. This is what happened here. It's no different for STEP and I doubt it's any different for the UP Team. If users don't help with the reports or can't provide the information you need to troubleshoot, then there's not much you can do about it if you're not experiencing it yourself...am I wrong? The great thing about the STEP Support Forums is most users tend to stick around and provide us with all the imformation we request to help them solve their issues. Tannin doesn't get the same support from users on his bug reports. Most just report, complain, and leave instead of helping solve the issue.
 

I have been working with BAIN since fairly shortly after release, after lots of installs and uninstalls it got kind of wonky for me, displaying missing files/wrong installs. This happened multiple times with Oblivion and once with Skyrim.
 
If you are doing a lot of installs/uninstalls because you are testing mods, a virtual file system is just the most convenient way to go (if it works correctly). For me personally, the user interface of MO is very well designed, I remember perceiving WB and BAIN as not very intuitive the first time I used it. MO also has some convenience features like directly manipulating files in installed mods.
 
If you devote a lot of time to a guide using a tool, it is also convenient to have the user use the same tool. I personally don't think it is overly complicated.
 
Experience with modding TES games has shown me, that even if you read a lot there is always something you can miss. I was not aware of any serious issues with MO until this came up and I haven't read a post on the STEP forums that warns about MO issues. Personally I have perceived the STEP forums to be a friendly and constructive place, why not go over there and voice your concerns?
 
Personally, I cannot tell how serious MO issues are, I haven't run into any yet. Some of the things written here are easily perceived as offensive, I just wish for a more constructive discussion to produce a climate where bugfixing and improving is the main focus. I think everyone would benefit more from that.

These first paragraphs is what I was talking about above. With WB, you better be sure you backup because over time, it's going to become "wonky". Mainly with mods not completely uninstalling and issues with conflict resolution where you deleted some files and forgot to reinstalled that mod to get the files back. Maybe this has gotten better with recent updates, I wouldn't know because I no longer use WB so I'm not going to speak on it's current state. I only speak of my experience with it in the past. I think that is the most honest thing to do.

 

The UP Team rarely, if ever, pops onto the STEP forums. I assume for the same reason the STEP Staff rarely pops in over here. Between STEP Guide maintenance and the our own forums to content with...there is little time. I'm guessing it's the same for the UP Team. However, STEP does host the official MO support forums for Tannin so if anyone wants to voice their concerns, we'd love to have hear your opinions. Just keep it civil and constructive: http://forum.step-project.com/forum/62-mod-organizer-support/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I want to reiterate my post above is not a MO vs WB post or any type of bash towards anything posted in this thread. I simply desired to explain why STEP is using MO and address a few of the comments that came up in discussion. All are welcome to their own opinions but I hoped to clearify a few points. :D

 

Off topic: I'm completely jealous of the selection of smilies available on these forums!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wondered how long it would be before their resident hit squad member picked up on us having a frank discussion: http://forum.step-project.com/topic/7676-why-so-much-mo-hate-semi-rant/

 

I do get that a lot of what blows back from MO is the result of user error. That said, when you hand someone an automatic weapon and fail to instruct them in its proper use, you shouldn't be surprised when they fill your home and car full of holes. There are a lot of features in MO that simply shouldn't exist, not the least of which is the BSA management system that allows for subverting the way Skyrim is supposed to load files.

 

No, I'm not going to point people toward the marketing arm of MO either. I'm going to do what I feel is the right thing and advise them to use Wrye Bash or NMM instead. I don't honestly care if they can't respect that decision either. I don't think it's fair to expect mod authors to continue taking on the support burden that MO is causing.

 

Honestly, I think they just despise anyone who has the courage to stand up and speak the truth they don't want to hear. More and more people are beginning to realize that we're right since they can see for themselves what MO is causing to happen. I've had several people thank me for explaining why Bash and/or NMM are better choices and each and every one of them is better off for it now that their games behave properly and shit gets installed and uninstalled without a huge hassle associated with it.

 

http://issue.tannin.eu/tbg/modorganizer/issues/829 - Tries to pass it off as an incomplete report, but the reporter seemed to have explained it as best as he could. Throwing the report out as invalid for an issue that serious is something I find highly disturbing.

 

That report makes me worried too, which indirectly (directly?) would increase the possibility for any file(s) to be cross-linked anytime in the future if the file system aren't maintained by a disk defrag such as Auslogic's Disk Defrag on regular basis.

 

I'm not somebody you hear from much, because I do my own thing, not following any guide such as STEP, the one mentioned above, or others, and yet I don't have any of these problems being mentioned here. So, since I have done full rounds using NMM, and WB, and settling on MO, I find some what's been said approaching hyperbole.

 

Now I can appreciate that you personally don't like MO, Arthmoor, and I've seen first-hand where most of the additional frustration with its unorthodox features comes from, but as of the current release - for Skyrim modding (since that's all I do with it) - all of the issues you mention have been addressed. People just need to learn how to use it as a modding tool properly.

 

BSA management - Can be turned of to completely revert to vanilla behavior. If it's on, a warning is given when the load order of any mods with assets (loose or BSA) containing identical script (by name) does not match the VFS overwrite priority order of those mod's assets. The warning explains the problem and instructs the user as to what changes in the priority order need to be made to match the load order. I know this was an issue before, particularly with the Unofficial Patches, but since now the DLCs are added to the asset priority order, the correct sandwiching of the DLCs between their corresponding Unofficial patches can be done, painlessly. I have checked this in my own load out, and it is working 100% correctly - and I also use a majority Arthmoor's personal mods, without incident, working as intended.

 

File corruption - I was aware of that report, and it's very frustrating that whomever posted it did not come back to add any details. It sound terrible, yes, but the report is completely vague, and even without asking Tannin about it, I can see there was not enough there to do any reliable kind of testing. I will state that personally I've used MO since 2013 without a single file getting corrupted to my knowledge. And I'm in TES5Edit and digging into assets all the time.

 

One of main reasons I use MO is because of how incredibly easy it is for testing. Testing completely different load orders, testing new mods, testing updates, testing load orders to determine what override (compatibility) patching is needed in xEdit, testing different combinations of textures, and so on. I do this all the time to help people with issues with AOS2 for example, and just in general when I think I can help troubleshoot an issue someone is having. So I'm constantly switching to different MO profiles turning mods, textures, and plugins on and off, running third party tools, building automated and manual patches, etc. All of that and no corrupt files. I run a very tight ship on my PC, and nothing gets past me like that.

 

If file corruption is really is an actual confirmed, consistent and repeatable problem in the current release version of MO, I would very much like to know, because I am just not seeing it.

 

"hit squad member" - now yes, I have an account at STEP, and I do post and help out with things, but I am not a mod, and as mentioned, I don't follow the STEP guide. But I am very very sure that he is not a "hit squad member" for STEP. He's his own person, with his own opinion that other may have big problems with as he has clearly pointed out. Anyhow, even as someone who is far from a "staunch" STEP supporter or something of that kin, I think its unfair to portray him as some kind of representative of STEP itself, or the "STEP community" or any of its users, like myself. Because, he is not.

 

zilav's TESxLODGen woes - I can't speak as much to this, but having tried both TES5LODGen and Sheson's more advanced variant, DynDOLOD, I can see that these tools are clearly stretching the limits of the hook .dll that MO uses for building the VFS. I personally haven't experience crashes every time a 3rd party .exe launched from MO creates a dozen files, but I know from what I read that the VFS is sensitive to the type of file write call used by the external .exe. I'm not aware if there was any dialogue with Tannin about these issues, but I do know he's gone into "hiding" for a while to work on updating MO, including an update to the hook .dll as well. So on this one, yes, I can see there's a lot of pain there in supporting it, but then it's Zilav's call as to whether he wants to continue support. I respect that, and as always, if I decide to use those tools, I would know that I'm on my own if I want to get it to work with MO.

 

These opinions are my own, of course, and not those of STEP, and since I am not posting here to represent STEP, I'm not going to speak to the intentions of the statements in their guide.

 

I honestly see all three - NMM, WB, & MO as really great tools, despite their respective shortcomings and varying UI ugliness. But I personally don't see any of them as being difficult to use, at this point. I'm just using MO because it serves my needs and continues to work great, without incident or issue. I could just as well be using WB, or NMM, and so for any mods I have a hand in helping with, I will continue to make sure they can be easily installed using any of these three managers.

 

So, am I just lucky that MO working just fine for me? If it actually was as flawed as has been described here, then no amount of luck would help me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems pretty clear to me that we were right about two things:

 

1. STEP is definitely a marketing arm for MO. Several statements above more or less prove it.

2. Most of you aren't in the trenches getting hammered by MO-induced problems on a daily basis. It happens often enough, and several have posted that they were directed back to authors to fix phantom issues. It's almost enough to just say screw it and shut down the Nexus comment threads so we can all get some peace from it.

 

Bash may have some rough spots, and an unorthodox UI, but the things you guys are claiming about it are patently false. If they were at all true, nobody would be using it at all and it never would have taken hold as the goto tool for Oblivion either.

 

@Octo: Since I know you're reading this - successful troll thread is successful.

 

Also @Octo: Oh, one other thing. I don't have lackeys. Believe me when I tell you, folks here are swift to jump on me when they think it's necessary. You don't often see it because we don't air such dirty laundry in a public area. Or at least not always in one that has a lasting record. Folks here all have their own opinions and will speak freely of them when they see the need. Consider for a moment that if they're not in here jumping to my defense that maybe, just maybe, they agree with what I'm saying and don't see the need to say so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

Support us on Patreon!

×
×
  • Create New...