Jump to content

[RELz/WIPz] Unofficial Fallout 4 Patch [UFO4P]


Arthmoor

Recommended Posts

It's just an extra reference when things become in question.

 

In YUP the perk description has always been used afaik, unless it was just glaringly wrong by not doing at all what it says or the wording was ambiguous.

 

The icon, as pointed out, also doesn't have dogmeat in it like the classic Lone Wanderer picture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So then what do you do when one load screen directly contradicts 3 perk description screens?

 

 

 

Who needs friends, anyway? When adventuring without a companion, you take 15% less damage and carry weight increases by 50.

 

When adventuring without a companion, you take 30% less damage and increases carry weight by 100.

 

When adventuring without a companion, you do 25% more damage.

 

Seems simple enough to me - no mention of dogs in the perk descriptions (and we didn't edit them, so...) means that the implementation we got seems in line with what the person who wrote the 3 perk levels intended.

 

As far as the script comment you referenced, it indicates possible intent to move on that, but they never did. They had absolutely no reason not to because it wasn't a post-release patch that did that. They could therefore have fully implemented things however they liked. So what you have left is a halfbreed state of what things were supposed to look like. At that point in things, intent can no longer be inferred from script comments. One is left to go with implementation plus the direct description attached to the implementation. The load screen guy just didn't get the memo that the work hadn't been done.

 

The problem is, in most other cases where intent can't be determined, we'd just leave it alone, but in this case that means one of two things: an inaccurate load screen or 3 wrongly implemented perks. So with that in mind we have to go with the "non-invasiveness rule" we tend to follow on this project. The smaller edit is thus considered the right edit.

 

We hate situations like this. It ALWAYS leads to one side or the other becoming VERY angry with us for making the changes we make. You simply proved the rule correct: Can't satisfy everyone. I guarantee you that the majority will view fixing the perks as the wrong solution to the bug and the shitstorm that would arise from pursuing that solution instead of fixing one load screen will be large indeed. I don't want to deal with either one, but I certainly don't want to deal with the masses rising up to condemn the patch based on changing the perk implementations. You HAVE to know we'd be accused of making balance changes to the game in that case.

 

Case in point: The bloat+duplication fix. That basically makes two instances now where what we believe was right was met with a hostile response from the minority.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So then what do you do when one load screen directly contradicts 3 perk description screens?

 

They don't contradict. Dogmeat is a companion.

If you retained the removal of the "or dog" clause from the load screen text but added the missing conditions, still nothing would contradict.

By not adding the missing conditions, we now have a perk whose description and load screen indicates that the perk only works "without a companion" while still working with a companion (i.e., Dogmeat.)

If you look around the web, search Twitter, etc., you'll find tons of questions about why Lone Wanderer works with Dogmeat. It is unexpected, given the definition of "lone," the perk image, the perk description, the load screen text, the fact that Dogmeat is a companion, and the fact that dogs are commonly called companions around the world. You'll find just as many messages indicating it is an exploit. And you'll also see that the perk was fixed by many patches before the UFO4P was even a plugin.

 

You HAVE to know we'd be accused of making balance changes to the game in that case.

Excuse me, but you've made a ton of balance changes to Skyrim by sealing off exploits. This isn't any different, except we have textual evidence of how the perk should work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Excuse me, but you've made a ton of balance changes to Skyrim by sealing off exploits. This isn't any different, except we have textual evidence of how the perk should work.

No. We've been ACCUSED of that, but it's not true in the slightest. Bethesda acknowledges exploits as bugs. Fixing them is within scope for the project.

It has not been established that Dogmeat is an exploit.

I suspect we will never know without someone prodding a developer into finally explaining whether they intended for this to remain as is or if they truly believe Dogmeat should also be covered by this. Maybe you'll have better luck getting a response, because they seem to have gone radio silent about far more important things lately.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. We've been ACCUSED of that, but it's not true in the slightest. Bethesda acknowledges exploits as bugs. Fixing them is within scope for the project.

It has not been established that Dogmeat is an exploit.

 

Lone Wanderer is intended to work only without a companion, meaning that the perk, which provides huge bonuses for adventuring alone, was designed to work without a companion.

By allowing players to take advantage of the benefits of the Lone Wanderer perk and a companion, you are giving a pass to an exploit.

 

I suspect we will never know without someone prodding a developer into finally explaining whether they intended for this to remain as is or if they truly believe Dogmeat should also be covered by this. Maybe you'll have better luck getting a response, because they seem to have gone radio silent about far more important things lately.

You shouldn't need a developer to issue an official proclamation when there is a preponderance of evidence in favor of adding the missing conditions to the Lone Wanderer perk.

 

E16iPSG.png

 

 

:wallbash:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When there is, let me know. At the moment it's all inconclusive. Which is the part you're not getting.

 

Look, ya'll rag on us when we do things you think are subjective and overly aggressive, then come down on us like a ton of bricks for playing the safe angle on something that WILL be controversial no matter what. We obviously can't win, so without some kind of official confirmation that this is wrong, we're not changing it. You can blame yourself and others for this. You want a patch that doesn't stray from the mission, now you have it. This is what comes of that. Speculative changes to things get left aside.

 

If in fact what you really want is a patch that behaves like Mission Mojave or the one that preceded it, by all means, speak up. I'm sure plenty of stuff nobody likes could be "fixed" if that's what people actually want. Cause that's precisely the logic you're using here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You want a patch that doesn't stray from the mission, now you have it. This is what comes of that. Speculative changes to things get left aside.

 

Except this isn't speculative!

  • "Lone" means solitary, alone, etc.
  • The perk image shows the Vaultboy without any companions walking into the sunset.
  • The perk description says the perk works only "without a companion," not "without a companion, except Dogmeat."
  • Your revised perk load screen text says "without a companion." The original load screen text clarified that "without a companion" includes Dogmeat.
  • The FollowersScript.psc comment explains the reason why there are two global variables for human companions and Dogmeat, and that reason has nothing to do with Bethesda intending Dogmeat to be excluded from the Lone Wanderer perk's restrictions. The comment also says that Dogmeat is a companion like all others, and the game treats Dogmeat as a companion.

There is no reason whatsoever for the Lone Wanderer perk to exclude a single companion from its restrictions!

 

This is not speculative. This is extremely conclusive and empirical evidence that comes with a written instruction manual that requires no interpretation. "Without a companion or dog" is pretty clear!

 

Anyway, tired of going around and around with you about this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why not just ask Bethesda devs or even tweet Pete Hines and be done with it? Unlike Skyrim, devs are more opened for questions this time and amount of their responses on official forum is more than I've even seen.

I assume, he assumes, we assumed... this arguing is going nowhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except this isn't speculative!

  • "Lone" means solitary, alone, etc.
  • The perk image shows the Vaultboy without any companions walking into the sunset.
  • The perk description says the perk works only "without a companion," not "without a companion, except Dogmeat."
  • Your revised perk load screen text says "without a companion." The original load screen text clarified that "without a companion" includes Dogmeat.
  • The FollowersScript.psc comment explains the reason why there are two global variables for human companions and Dogmeat, and that reason has nothing to do with Bethesda intending Dogmeat to be excluded from the Lone Wanderer perk's restrictions. The comment also says that Dogmeat is a companion like all others, and the game treats Dogmeat as a companion.
There is no reason whatsoever for the Lone Wanderer perk to exclude a single companion from its restrictions!

 

This is not speculative. This is extremely conclusive and empirical evidence that comes with a written instruction manual that requires no interpretation. "Without a companion or dog" is pretty clear!

 

As I said before, and will say again, you have NO empirical evidence of anything. You have the guy who did the load screen (which includes the art image) and then you have the explicit text of THREE perk descriptions that immediately contradict the wording of said load screen. Plus you have the deliberate exclusion of him in the perks themselves.

To me, the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the load screen being inaccurate and nothing short of a developer response is going to change that. A script comment signals they may have PLANNED to fix it, but since they did nothing whatsoever to follow through on it, well, there you go. A statement of intent is not intent.

 

They could also patch this officially and take the issue out of our hands entirely if they want. They've had 7 months to do so and have chosen not to. I think that too speaks volumes.

 

Anyway, tired of going around and around with you about this.

So why didn't you just do this to start with? You could have spared yourself the hassle of arguing a losing case.

Also, I will amuse myself for a day or two knowing you put that up and promptly got told exactly what I've been saying all along. Then I'm sure I'll forget about it, and so will most other people.

@Zilav: Don't expect this period of openness to last. They're already not acknowledging repeat attempts to get comments on issues that are far more important than Dogmeat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dogmeat is a companion of "special" kind. The guys from Bethesda just needed to make it through "additional" companion slot to make available travelling with humanoid and dog both. That'd remove any questions. :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is not speculative. This is extremely conclusive and empirical evidence that comes with a written instruction manual that requires no interpretation. "Without a companion or dog" is pretty clear!

 

Anyway, tired of going around and around with you about this.

 

LOL. Kbye.  And please, never argue for anything to be included in an unofficial patch ever again unless you change everything about your approach.

 

If it were actually conclusive and empirical then I'd be convinced, yet I'm not.  What I see is a heavy confirmation bias, and if I cared I could make a "conclusive and empirical" argument for it to remain as it is.  Your own "evidence" states very plainly that dogmeat is NOT a companion, or it would not say "companion OR dogmeat", so whoever wrote that text (probably not even the perk designer!) didn't even consider dogmeat a companion.  If dogmeat were considered a companion then "companion OR dogmeat" is either redundant or misleading, because the "or" logically excludes dogmeat from being a companion and the statement would be pointless.  Example:  "I don't like humans or fireundubh."

 

So, since even the load screen (your only actual evidence) demonstrates dogmeat is not a companion, and literally everywhere else the perk is designed to only apply to companions we have zero way of concluding their true intent.  You'd have to prove the person who wrote the LSCR text also wrote the perk text and the scripts otherwise it can easily be chalked up to miscommunication.  "Empirical and conclusive" would preclude that scenario. 

 

What I do know is that the change would be unequivocally and highly controversial and as such really should have never been considered for debate, much less inclusion.  At least I don't want to deal with the fallout from such a change.  Not sure about Arth.  :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyway, tired of going around and around with you about this.

I applaud your initiative to put that out there. This will be a good learning experience i think. Though i'm pretty certain it will not help you with your tiredness of discussing this issue in circles, it is a good opportunity to, as they say, walk a mile in someone elses shoes. ;)

Btw: Is this how the modding implementation works: Separate entries for xb1 and PC? Why's that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it still safe to use the Unofficial Fallout 4 Patch 1.0.2 after the release of Far Harbor (i.e. safe to use it together with all DLCs)?

 

I asked this before after the release of the previous DLCs but just wanted to make sure again now that Far Harbor is out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Btw: Is this how the modding implementation works: Separate entries for xb1 and PC? Why's that?

Yes, it is. They require archives in different formats on each platform. It's a mild hassle but nothing more.

 

Is it still safe to use the Unofficial Fallout 4 Patch 1.0.2 after the release of Far Harbor (i.e. safe to use it together with all DLCs)?

 

I asked this before after the release of the previous DLCs but just wanted to make sure again now that Far Harbor is out.

Yes. I played through the entire DLC (well, most of it) with UFO4P active and had no trouble.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your own "evidence" states very plainly that dogmeat is NOT a companion

Actually, it does say Dogmeat is a companion.

 

FollowersScript.psc says that at one point in development, Dogmeat and human companions implemented separately, but they decided that for the playable version of the game, the player should only ever have one companion.

Line 743: There is only ever one companion at a time

When Dogmeat is your active companion, you can't have any other companion. Do you even play Fallout 4? Dogmeat is a companion.

 

 

If dogmeat were considered a companion then "companion OR dogmeat" is either redundant or misleading, because the "or" logically excludes dogmeat from being a companion and the statement would be pointless.

You're thinking like a programmer, not a writer. The word "or" is used "to link alternatives" and "to introduce a synonym or explanation of a preceding word or phrase."

 

 

 

What I do know is that the change would be unequivocally and highly controversial and as such really should have never been considered for debate, much less inclusion.  At least I don't want to deal with the fallout from such a change.  Not sure about Arth.   :)

 

Some modders choose the path of least resistance because they're concerned with what's popular.

 

 

 

I applaud your initiative to put that out there. This will be a good learning experience i think. Though i'm pretty certain it will not help you with your tiredness of discussing this issue in circles, it is a good opportunity to, as they say, walk a mile in someone elses shoes. ;)

 

Learning experience? I'm not new to this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some modders choose the path of least resistance because they're concerned with what's popular.

Or, as in this case, because it's the right decision. Fix a typo. Simple, easy, non-invasive, and corrects the only ACTUAL problem.

The fact that it won't generate controversy is a bonus, not the goal. If we were concerned about popularity then we'd have quickly reversed the save bloat bug to allow that to run unchecked so that the weapon duplication bug could thrive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, it is. They require archives in different formats on each platform. It's a mild hassle but nothing more.

 

Yes. I played through the entire DLC (well, most of it) with UFO4P active and had no trouble.

Great, thanks a lot!

Does this mean that there will be only one unofficial patch going forward or are there still plans for individual DLC patches? I know you mentioned that a unified patch is the goal and if the current approach is working fine, why add DLC patches at all?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or, as in this case, because it's the right decision. Fix a typo. Simple, easy, non-invasive, and corrects the only ACTUAL problem.

 

You know I don't agree, so why bring it up again? I put the patch on Bethesda.net. That's enough for me. Let the matter rest, yeah? Or should I say that GitHub is awesome every chance I get?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Actually, it does say Dogmeat is a companion.

 

If Dogmeat is a companion it is special one as he grants you no companion perks like all the other followers do. 
 
Maybe the developers recognized this by allowing the lone wanderer perk even with Dogmeat at your side?
 
Speculation, I know. 
 
I wish Bethesda would finally address the much more pressing issues that Arthmoor mentioned so you guys could invest your talent in the UFO4P instead of Dogmeat debates. 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great, thanks a lot!

Does this mean that there will be only one unofficial patch going forward or are there still plans for individual DLC patches? I know you mentioned that a unified patch is the goal and if the current approach is working fine, why add DLC patches at all?

A unified patch is probably coming sooner than some folks would like due to issues that have cropped up. They're not especially bad, but one big influencing factor would be the number of uploads necessary to maintain support for the console platforms.

 

The DLCs have bugs that need to be addressed too, and Bethesda's past history on DLC patching is non-existent. The one they did for Wasteland Workshop has, so far, been a one-off anomaly for them.

 

You know I don't agree, so why bring it up again? I put the patch on Bethesda.net. That's enough for me. Let the matter rest, yeah? Or should I say that GitHub is awesome every chance I get?

Maybe because you haven't dropped it yet? Just cause you're arguing with Jon now doesn't mean you aren't still arguing with the team's decision.

 

Perhaps practice what you preach and stop bringing it up yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe because you haven't dropped it yet? Just cause you're arguing with Jon now doesn't mean you aren't still arguing with the team's decision.

 

Perhaps practice what you preach and stop bringing it up yourself.

 

But I didn't bring it up again. Jon did. And I had to respond to Jon because that was the first time he has ever responded to me about anything.

 

Also, GitHub is awesome, and Simple Bug Fixes (4K endorsements, 65K+ downloads) also fixes the Lone Wanderer perk in the same way my patch does, so I'm not alone in my disagreement with the team's decision.

 

I'll try to get a dev response.

 

FYI: The lead designer and lead writer of Fallout 4 are the same person, so when you say "the load screen guy," you're either talking about the lead designer or someone who reports to him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Learning experience? I'm not new to this.

you sound like someone, who is pretty new to the kind of modding, that attracts random, recurring, and never stopping complaints from people on the internet. :P What else do you think i was talking about? Your ability to make mods that are sound, useful and bug free? Have a cookie :bigcookie: (you know i'm just teasing at this point, right? :D)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Endorsement and download counts on a package deal mod don't indicate support or opposition to one particular fix. You should know better than to argue that kind of logic.

 

Besides, there's this little fact you conveniently left out:

Version 1.1

Lone Wanderer no longer works with Dogmeat. Put this in a separate ESP file so I wouldn't ruin anyone's character build.

That seems like a tacit admission on their part that it wasn't actually a bug fix but something that would BREAK things. Which means you have no statistical way to know who is actually using this part of the mod. You therefore have nothing here that helps your case.

 

When I say "the load screen guy" I mean the grunt who did the actual work. Unless you seriously think the team leads are doing all of this stuff directly, that argument is a red herring. Bethesda, like any other studio, puts this work into the hands of their employees. We also know their internal communication between groups is horrible at best. So it's still quite possible that something like this got through without anyone batting an eye.

 

As far as a dev response, it's going to need to be crystal clear and in public so it can be easily referenced.

Link to comment
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
×
×
  • Create New...