Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

In Concord, there's an open building at the corner nearest the Museum of Freedom. (Architecture\Buildings\SmallTown\Bld03CornerBrickACom01Open01.nif)

 

In that building, there are stairs. I noticed last night that you don't hear footstep sounds when you walk on them, so they don't have a material set. 

 

The mesh for that building would need to be fixed, but I don't think NifSkope can edit material assignments.

 

Also, the collision geometry for Architecture\Buildings\SmallTown\Bld03FreeSidingARes01RR01.nif prevents the player from going to the top floor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I can view bugs without being logged in, it seems that comments on bugs cannot be seen unless you are logged in. Kind of strange and not the most useful for anyone browsing the site but not logged in.

The email notification gives two links that I was trying to look at, without being logged in, and not seeing the comments that were left:

http://www.afkmods.com/index.php?/tracdown/issue/19576-glass-reflections-incorrect-for-location/

http://www.afkmods.com/index.php?/findComment/trac-issues/19576-47891

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's incredibly annoying to know. Not sure if we'll be able to fix that either. The code for this thing is a giant mess and making simple changes is insanely hard. This wouldn't likely be a simple change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As long as we're saying things about TracDown, I don't like it because of these issues.

  • When you click TracDown, the page defaults to showing Unconfirmed issues, but there are no issues.
  • When you go to Overview, the page shows no issues under Latest Actions or Latest Issues. The graph also displays the message: "Error generating graph."
  • Those two pages should act as dashboards for all project issues (e.g., without a category selected, the Unconfirmed page should show all unconfirmed issues belonging to the selected project.)
  • When you click one of the green category links, you can see the issues belonging to that category, but the green category links are gone.
  • When you click one of the green category links, the page defaults to Unconfirmed issues, rather than Overview.
  • You cannot edit issues you created.
  • You do not receive e-mail notifications when new comments are added to your issues.
  • When viewing an issue, the scrolling Issue Timeline box is overlapped by the issue body box. (z-index or position bug)
  • There's no apparent way to search issues belonging to specific projects by issue property (e.g., severity, category, version.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Loadscreen PerkLoneWanderer: "Prefer to go it alone? With the Lone Wanderer perk, you'll take less damage and be able to carry more equipment when you adventure without a companion or dog." -> "Prefer to go it alone? With the Lone Wanderer perk, you'll take less damage and be able to carry more equipment when you adventure without a companion." (Bug #20118)

 

You fixed the wrong thing. The Lone Wanderer perk should not work alongside Dogmeat, hence the message "without a companion or dog."

 

Yes, originally, you were able to have a humanoid companion and Dogmeat, but this was changed in what looks like 2014 and this history has no bearing on the Lone Wanderer perk.

 

Plus, it should be obvious to anyone what "lone" means.

 

edit: Added issue to TracDown.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Iirc there was some developer stating on twitter or something, that it is working as intended; plus, lone wanderer with dog is a common post-apoc trope.

 

You'll have to provide a link.

 

Otherwise, we have a load screen message that explicitly excludes Dogmeat, and it doesn't get any clearer than a written description of how the perk should work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You'll have to provide a link.

 

Otherwise, we have a load screen message that explicitly excludes Dogmeat, and it doesn't get any clearer than a written description of how the perk should work.

We also have a perk that was specifically written to allow Dogmeat to count. Perks take considerably more effort to write than a load screen description of the same thing. Therefore the logical conclusion based on the evidence in the CK is that the load screen is wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We also have a perk that was specifically written to allow Dogmeat to count. Perks take considerably more effort to write than a load screen description of the same thing. Therefore the logical conclusion based on the evidence in the CK is that the load screen is wrong.

 

A written description of how that perk should work in English (and several other languages) is far more valuable as empirical evidence than your subjective interpretation of how that perk should work based on its poor implementation.

 

We also have several other perks that were poorly implemented. Should fixes to those perks be reverted, too, because that's how they were implemented?

 

C'mon, now. As long as we're going down this road, perhaps there shouldn't even be a Unofficial Fallout 4 Patch if how things were implemented by Bethesda is to be interpreted as the way things should be? USLEEP can go, too. After all, games take considerably more effort to develop as a whole than any particular piece of content, so who are you to change things? Mod-added scrap recipes are supposed to prevent scrappable objects from being selected and moved, the workshop system is supposed to tank performance and eventually break down as settlements grow, and weapons dropped by actors on death are supposed to never be cleaned up. Your logic leads down that slippery slope.

 

Point being is that you've made a "fix" that is entirely subjective, contrary to clear direction in no uncertain terms provided by the load screen message, and opted to not fix an exploit based purely on personal preference, which goes against the scope of the entire Unofficial Patch Project.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Non-logical counterargument means you already know your position to be wrong.

 

You already know that translations into other languages are handled by an entirely different set of people and possibly is even done automatically. You are arguing for correctness based on what amounts to a copy/paste error. This isn't a case of obviously mistaken implementation since they had to go out of their way to specifically exclude Dogmeat from counting.

 

My personal preference has nothing to do with this if you must know. I don't even use Dogmeat as a companion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A written description of how that perk should work in English (and several other languages) is far more valuable as empirical evidence than your subjective interpretation of how that perk should work based on its poor implementation.

 

We also have several other perks that were poorly implemented. Should fixes to those perks be reverted, too, because that's how they were implemented?

 

C'mon, now. As long as we're going down this road, perhaps there shouldn't even be a Unofficial Fallout 4 Patch if how things were implemented by Bethesda is to be interpreted as the way things should be? USLEEP can go, too. After all, games take considerably more effort to develop as a whole than any particular piece of content, so who are you to change things? Mod-added scrap recipes are supposed to prevent scrappable objects from being selected and moved, the workshop system is supposed to tank performance and eventually break down as settlements grow, and weapons dropped by actors on death are supposed to never be cleaned up. Your logic leads down that slippery slope.

 

Point being is that you've made a "fix" that is entirely subjective, contrary to clear direction in no uncertain terms provided by the load screen message, and opted to not fix an exploit based purely on personal preference, which goes against the scope of the entire Unofficial Patch Project.

 

calm down. Have you looked at the perk implementation? While i haven't, i have no problem envisioning the perk implementing a check vs follower count, but with a very specific exclusion for dogmeat. There are tons of way to do stuff like that in the ck, and if Arthmoors says, it very much looks like someome went out of their way to make sure to exclude dogmeat, i see no reason to think it is otherwise. Specifically, i see not how the implementation could at any point be more prone to oversight, than a loading screen written in a split second. Get yourself some modding knowledge, look the perk up in the CK, and maybe formulate some compelling arguments based on that. Angry ramblings will get you nowhere

Link to comment
Share on other sites

calm down. Have you looked at the perk implementation? While i haven't, i have no problem envisioning the perk implementing a check vs follower count, but with a very specific exclusion for dogmeat. There are tons of way to do stuff like that in the ck, and if Arthmoors says, it very much looks like someome went out of their way to make sure to exclude dogmeat, i see no reason to think it is otherwise. Specifically, i see not how the implementation could at any point be more prone to oversight, than a loading screen written in a split second. Get yourself some modding knowledge, look the perk up in the CK, and maybe formulate some compelling arguments based on that. Angry ramblings will get you nowhere

 

Except that's not what Arthmoor is talking about. Arthmoor believes that neglecting to exclude Dogmeat is intended.

 

Get myself some modding knowledge? I hate to say this, but do you know who I am? LOL

 

edit: Also, not angry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Non-logical counterargument means you already know your position to be wrong.

The slippery slope argument was your logic taken to its extreme.

 

You are arguing for correctness based on what amounts to a copy/paste error.

No, I'm arguing that a message written in English clearly saying that the perk only works without "a companion or dog" takes priority over the implementation.

You're imagining a copy/paste error based on your subjective evaluation of the quality of the implementation. That is personal preference.

 

(I'm not talking about your personal preference for Dogmeat. I know you don't use him, and I don't use any companions! They steal my XP...)

 

This isn't a case of obviously mistaken implementation since they had to go out of their way to specifically exclude Dogmeat from counting.

No, this is wrong. Dogmeat was implemented separately because, originally, you could have a single humanoid companion and Dogmeat simultaneously.

Dogmeat was not implemented separately so that he could be excluded from the Lone Wanderer perk's restrictions.

Dogmeat was also not "specifically" excluded from the perk.

 

Images speak louder than words, so here:

 

Missing condition: PlayerHasActiveDogmeatCompanion

wVOIj2Z.png

 

 

"...when you adventure without a companion or dog"

 

c9mK2L7.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, if your short history of dogmeat's implementation is correct, that still leaves some interpretation as to why he wasn't added to the companions and remains a separate entry with own global value. I don't think the loading screen text carries too much weight, that perk chart image next to it though...

The lone wanderer in fo3 was depicted with dogmeat in promotional images, this one here leaves the dog out. That's at least an argument worth considering.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, if your short history of dogmeat's implementation is correct, that still leaves some interpretation as to why he wasn't added to the companions and remains a separate entry with own global value. I don't think the loading screen text carries too much weight, that perk chart image next to it though...

The lone wanderer in fo3 was depicted with dogmeat in promotional images, this one here leaves the dog out. That's at least an argument worth considering.

 

In FollowersScript.psc starting at line 735, they explain why there are separate global variables.

;************** NOTE ABOUT COMPANION AND DOGMEAT FUNCTIONS ******************
;Originally there were two slots for companion types, you could have both Dogmeat and a single human companion.
;That is why there are two aliases and two seperate functions.
;Now we are only letting you have either dogmeat or a single human companions.
;Rather than risk breaking everything by trying to unifying everything into a single alias/function call
;I am going to just put hooks in SetCompanion and SetDogmeatCompanion to auto dismiss the other

At some point in development, they decided that you should only ever have one companion at a time, but in order to not break things, they didn't merge the Dogmeat-specific code back into the companion code, hence the comment that starts with "rather than risk breaking everything." The Lone Wanderer perk was likely implemented before they split Dogmeat off and before they wanted to merge him back in.

 

That's how the team at Bethesda works. For example, the Activate() function when called on a stack of items dropped by the player will only return one item of the stack to the player's inventory but discard the rest. That's a known bug with the Activate() function. SmkViper said that if he ever fixes that function, he would implement a separate ActivateEx() function so as to not break anything that already uses Activate().

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The slippery slope argument was your logic taken to its extreme.

Nah, that was YOUR logic projected onto mine, not my logic.

YOUR logic is daft at all levels because your argument taken to the logical extreme would literally mean don't bother with a patch at all.

If this kind of dickheadedness is what we're going to face for every single tiny little decision based on available evidence that we have, you may get your wish and you can then deal with all the other teams who will happily start including cut content and blatantly obvious preference tweaks into their "patches". Even YUP makes concessions to things that aren't supported by the vanilla game, which IMO goes against the mandate of any unofficial patch.

Or, you could just not use it if ONE GOD DAMNED TYPO FIX is setting you off this badly. Seriously starting to think people were right and the Fallout community is just too toxic to deal with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In all fairness, there were debates over some pretty ridiculous things during uskp development.

The discussion whether a perk should apply to a companion irrespective of his amount of legs seems more usefull than discussion over whether all npcs should have beds or one companion should start with heavy or light armor. Not to mention discussion over every fixed exploit.

Nah, I don't see any special issue with fo community.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nah, that was YOUR logic projected onto mine, not my logic.

YOUR logic is daft at all levels because your argument taken to the logical extreme would literally mean don't bother with a patch at all.

If this kind of dickheadedness is what we're going to face for every single tiny little decision based on available evidence that we have, you may get your wish and you can then deal with all the other teams who will happily start including cut content and blatantly obvious preference tweaks into their "patches". Even YUP makes concessions to things that aren't supported by the vanilla game, which IMO goes against the mandate of any unofficial patch.

Or, you could just not use it if ONE GOD DAMNED TYPO FIX is setting you off this badly. Seriously starting to think people were right and the Fallout community is just too toxic to deal with.

 

Sorry, I'll rephrase:

  1. You said that the perk as implemented was correct and the written message was not, but this is an assumption based on what?
  2. You are prioritizing the implementation of the perk over a written explanation of how the perk works, and revising that explanation to fit the implementation.
  3. If the implementation takes precedence, then what can be patched? Nothing, except text, can be patched if the implementation is always correct, yes?
  4. We know the implementation can be faulty, however, so we cannot assume the implementation is always correct, especially when we have the written word that says the implementation is not.
  5. You should defer to the written word where available when there is doubt about the implementation.
  6. There is doubt about the implementation.
  7. Per the load screen text, a missing condition should be added to the perk and the revision of the load screen text should be reverted.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It looks to me like they were originally going with the Fallout NV system where Humanoids were considered companions, and robots/animals were considered critters and had their own separate variables and were treated as separate. They decided to change it back to the Fallout 3 system where it was only one companion period.

 

So what are the formid's for the perk and description? Generally higher formid's were implemented later and take precedence. This is a logical assumption.

 

Calling an entire community toxic based on a couple of discussions is a bit of a stretch don't you think? I've heard the same sentiment from the Fallout community about the Skyrim community on a number of occasions, that doesn't make it true.

 

Look, we just question everything, and don't take anyone's word for anything including yours. Why? Because everyone is wrong sometimes, even the devs. Additionally because some changes *are* subjective like you've just noted about YUP or any other bug fix mod. Furthermore if you think something is wrong in YUP then please share what they are so they can be reexamined either privately with me (I'll pass them along) or sandbox6, or in the mod's thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what are the formid's for the perk and description? Generally higher formid's were implemented later and take precedence. This is a logical assumption.

 

The load screen has the higher Form ID.

  • LoneWanderer01 [PERK:001D246B]
  • LoneWanderer02 [PERK:001D246D]
  • LoneWanderer03 [PERK:001D246E]
  • PerkLoneWanderer [LSCR:002489CB]

I don't think that's necessarily the best way to resolve conflicts because, for example, in this case:

  • The load screen text describes how the perk should work.
  • The reason why there are two global variables, two aliases, and two separate functions for handling human and dog companions was because that was a change made early in development in Papyrus to support having one human companion and one dog companion. Later, they decided to change this, but left the code in because it was too much work to merge without breaking anything. But scripts don't have Form IDs.

For all other records where there is text, the text should definitely be taken into account, not just the Form IDs. 

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
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...