COMM | Why DLC Mods aren't always the Solution

[giftfish]

Mar 18, 2017 3:44:34 GMT bullobrien said:

I would still probably be digging through reams of forum posts trying to figure out how to write the files necessary otherwise, so count me as a fan.

Reams of posts aren't necessary. It's all in the same thread on the old forum. The tools have been updated, but the process is exactly the same.

Mar 18, 2017 3:44:34 GMT bullobrien said:

My DLCs use modified pcc file names so they will not conflict and I choose high mount number purposefully so I won't be close by to some other major content mod which may actually want to use a number in the 3000-4000 range. I thought I was effectively "getting out of the way" since it does not really matter where it loads. If that is an incorrect way of thinking I would be happy to be corrected and understand why.

Using unique PCC names is good, as you never have to worry about file conflicts. You do still need to worry about asset conflicts, however, at least if you are not renaming them.

Mounting high for any mesh mod is unnecessary. It is not "getting out of the way". Content mods don't need to mount between 3K-4K. What your seeing are content modders showing respect for each other and not choosing a crazy high mount integer unnecessarily. BioWare DLC mounds stop at 3300, which is when the content mods start. We tend to go a bit higher and try to leave some room between a new mod and one we need to override, but we don't jump up by an integer of 1000 just because we can. Part of this was due to the fact that we weren't sure at first if there was some sort of cap on what number could be chosen, so we were conservative. I'm not sure if we know if there is actually a cap or not. If anyone has done some testing on this, please chime in. Like I said in my OP, don't assume there are an unlimited number of slots present. There definitely are not.

Best advice is to use what Kinko said. Mount below BW DLC -- when possible -- as this will ensure any content mods that needs to override your content can. When not possible (when you need to mod meshes inside DLC files), then keep your mount as low as possible. You DO have more latitude when file names are unique, but keep in mind that conditionals, TLK, coalesced, and startup always interact across DLC mods. There is never latitude for these files, which is why it's best to stick to Kinko's advice, regardless of the situation.

Mar 18, 2017 3:44:34 GMT bullobrien said:

Also the same tool that allows for the one click creation also allows mods mount priority to be changed by one click if need be to correct for conflicts so that seems helpful right? or not right?

Your explanation about this is minimal, but it gives the impression of two things:


1. That any user can load up any DLC mod and change the mount priority. If this is the case, this is a very bad idea. Modders choose specific mount priorities for a reason. Users should not ever modify these values themselves. By "fixing" one conflict the user may end up creating another and borking the mod entirely.

In addition, when any modder troubleshoots issues, they expect that the mount has not changed. Users changing this number adds a complication that most modders will not anticipate. This is especially for the case with content mods where not all changes to the game are visible, but the mod is constantly there in the background, doing it's thing.

One of the biggest mistakes by both users and novice modders alike is that they assume if they can't see evidence of a conflict that everything "must be fine". The only time this is actually true is when it is a texture/mesh mod. Content mods are another story, entirely. The simple fact is that whenever two DLC mods contain the same-named files or the same IDs across coalesced/TLK/CND/startup content, they conflict in their entirety for that content. Compatibility can only be achieved by a patch. If you make a decision to mount one mod over the other, then you are actively breaking one of the mods. If this is a purely visual thing involving meshes and textures (for both mods), then there are no serious implications to this. However, if you actively break a content mod, you run a very real risk of introducing bugs into your PT.  Sidebar: And let me tell anyone who reads this thread, I most certainly will not help you troubleshoot an issue caused by you changing the mount priority of any of my mods. I expect most other mod authors will feel the same way.

To be clear bullo, everything in that response above is not directed at you, it a part of the larger conversation we're having in this thread.


2. That one modder might be changing the mount priority of another mod and distribute it as part of their "patch". This is something that can only be done with the other modder's consent, and most modders are unlikely to be okay with you changing their mod's priority. Mount priority is at the core of DLC mod functionality, and having one mod change it will affect how it interacts with any other mods that happen to be installed.

---

So no, neither one of those are good ideas. This is another example of the fact that sometimes you DON'T want to make certain things easy for the end user and novice modder. Sometimes you specifically want to keep things more difficult b/c they require a certain level of understanding. Once that level of understanding has been achieved, then they will know how to change those things on their own, and they'll understand when it is and isn't okay. This is a concept not unlike satisfying course prerequisites. Roadblocks can be a good thing. You know, like when they prevent you from driving off a cliff

[bullobrien]

When I used the search tools on the old forums it just directs me to the new forum without returning any results. So if you were not a member of that community before it closed and were not familiar with the important posts then it is not as easy to find as all that. Really not the point because the tool for one click creation is there now and that bag is open and the cat is out.

I really don't mind putting the mount priority where ever you all think it needs to be but when I looked at the compatibility page it said that bioware had 0-3250 covered and 3300 was Dark Horse comics. This meant to me that those were all taken so when I saw that Kinko said to use mount priorities less than 3000 this was confusing. IF all those numbers between 1-3000 are actually available rather than being used then I would be happy to use them.

Just like the one click DLC package creation the one click mount priority change is already available in ME3 ModManager so that can is open and worms are everywhere. I don't know why people would use it unless they were making their own mods but it is there.

[giftfish]

Mar 18, 2017 17:44:26 GMT bullobrien said:

When I used the search tools on the old forums it just directs me to the new forum without returning any results. So if you were not a member of that community before it closed and were not familiar with the important posts then it is not as easy to find as all that. Really not the point because the tool for one click creation is there now and that bag is open and the cat is out.

I really don't mind putting the mount priority where ever you all think it needs to be but when I looked at the compatibility page it said that bioware had 0-3250 covered and 3300 was Dark Horse comics. This meant to me that those were all taken so when I saw that Kinko said to use mount priorities less than 3000 this was confusing. IF all those numbers between 1-3000 are actually available rather than being used then I would be happy to use them.

Just like the one click DLC package creation the one click mount priority change is already available in ME3 ModManager so that can is open and worms are everywhere. I don't know why people would use it unless they were making their own mods but it is there.

The fact that the bag is open and the cat is out is indeed why we're having this conversation. Because DLC mod creation has become easy, and now we're starting to have problems. It's to the community's benefit that all users and modders stay informed the best they can. If it were in my control, some of these cats would be put back in the bag. However, it is not. Therefore communication and education are the only way forward.

FYI: me3explorer.freeforums.org/adding-dlc-t1330.html. This will be on the wiki soon. The equivalent for ME2 is already there.

From Ashes is the lowest level DLC, if I remember right, since it was released on day 1. As long as a DLC mod is mounted below FA (and doesn't need to modify BW DLC), that should be okay. I'm not familiar with the mounts of the MP DLC, though, so it would likely be good to double check those.

[mgamerz]

I have a couple of things I'd like to point out about Mod Manager here (since it's being discussed) - and I'm not here to argue about stuff.

1. Kinkojiro contacted me about a week ago talking about issues being discussed in this thread. I have since updated Starter Kit generator in Mod Manager to make it only able to generate DLCs that have a mount of 4800 or lower. Starter kit also links to my telemetry page, which also links to your wiki, and describes what things can occur if they don't pick the right stuff.

2. The mount editor that is referenced earlier in this thread is only for imported Mod Manager mods. It does not edit mount files (unless the user manually opens the mount file with it) of mods that are installed in the game. I have had some users ask about editing it and I have always discouraged mount files unless they really know what they're doing. I will move this tool in the next update to the Mod Development menu rather than the tools menu, as that's really where it belongs in my program.

3. Mod Manager has a conflict detector that can be used to see what files in Custom DLCs are overriding others. The diagnostics logs that are generated have this in their report by default.

4. MP DLC never loads in SP (and vice versa), and if you add a MP DLC it pretty much busts matchmaking (including private). So you should never have to worry about MP DLC if you're doing stuff in SP. The mounts for MP are located in chronological order along with bioware's SP DLC, so as long as you avoid the 1800 (testpatch) - 3300 (genesis 2) bioware range you will never run into issues.

Starter kit was originally created so Mod Manager could generate compatibility packs for use with my UI mods, since they have to edit a bunch of files due to how UIs are designed in this game. I did this in response to multiple users and developers having compatibility headaches with those mods.

Since Mod Manager talk isn't allowed on this forum, that's all I have to say about the program. If you have concerns or issues with the functionality of its tools in the scene, you can contact me - kinkojiro stated his concerns, and I limited starter kit. We're all in the same modding scene, we just have different ways of doing things.

[ottemis]

Thanks for the input mgamerz, it's appreciated.

[giftfish]

Mar 19, 2017 3:24:07 GMT mgamerz said:

Since Mod Manager talk isn't allowed on this forum, that's all I have to say about the program. If you have concerns or issues with the functionality of its tools in the scene, you can contact me - kinkojiro stated his concerns, and I limited starter kit. We're all in the same modding scene, we just have different ways of doing things.

Thanks for sharing information on the changes you've made to Mod Manager as a result of this discussion.

Talk of any other tool on this forum is always allowed in so much that the reference is necessary to the discussion at hand. Whether it's Wenchy, Texmod, MEM, TankMaster's old tools, Mod Manager, or any other modding tool for ME3. The point has always been and continues to be that these are the ME3Explorer forums. There should not be dedicated threads for development, technical support, or general discussion for any other tools, as they lie outside ME3Explorer's purview.

[neph]

Mar 8, 2017 1:04:40 GMT giftfish said:

Mar 7, 2017 23:19:11 GMT kinkojiro said:

Also another thought. It is the responsibility of the highest mounted mod to ensure compatibility with other mods.

I actually disagree with this a little bit. To me, chronology matters. If a new mod is released, I don't think an author with an existing mod should be forced to do work to accommodate the new mod -- mounted higher or not. I think the new mod author should take the initiative, if they want to be compatible. Ask if they can make a compatibility patch that mounts appropriately, etc.

Ultimately, though, it's every author's individual right to not maintain compatibility. That's something that, personally, I want to ensure is clear to folks. This entire thread is about reducing incompatibilities at the community-level, but when they do occur, it's the author's decision as to which mods they want to create compatibility for.

I am on your page, giftfish, here. Being the NKOTB, I always assumed that when I FINALLY release this bleeping-bleepity-bleeped mod, it's totally on my shoulders to go around and individually poke the people whose mods I wish to be compatible with and say 'Ah, hi, you don't really know me, I'm not around much, but I was hoping you'd let me make our mods compatible' because - that's on me. Like, I'd hope that some people would WANT to be compatible. And I really can't imagine having it NOT work with say - Back/Off - mainly because I've been playing with B/O for so long now that I think my brain would break a bit if I had to stop but also because it's a romance mod. It just seems to make sense to me. So, when it was done, you'd probably be the first person I'd come to and say 'giftfish, can I please, please, pretty please with Thane on top make these compatible?' And if you said no, I might cry a bit, but I'd respect that because dude - your choice, and then I'd move on. But if you said yes, then it's totally on ME to make it actually work (not that I won't ask you a million questions, because you know me, I have to, but maybe by then I'll be better). So, yes. I digressed.

Point being, I am in agreement that the newer mod needs to be responsible for compatibility, but the older mods, of effing course, have the right to say no.

[rubydorje]

Hello there Everyone,

The last comment was left several month ago, perhaps it’s all been concluded already. However, since giftfish recently directed me to this forum, l’d like to add my idea here, even though I don’t know much, simply based on some experiences I have, this is how I see this issue:

Bioware’s mount priority number goes up to 3300 and the highest custom dlc on the DLC Mod Compatibility Resource page is 9992-9995... Thus, there could be about 6700 number slots in-between.
If all the modders of those great mods were to change the mount priority number of their mods, have them set apart just by 5, then let’s say the highest were up to 3415 only... this would allow the possibility for about 1300 custom dlc mods.

Incompatibility of custom dlc mods is an issue on the gamers’ own system. Mod users tend to prefer them anyway and would be happy to be able to change the mount priority numbers themselves with a toolset that is easy to use in order to resolve those incompatibilities.

Also it’s not very likely all the mods were to be in use at the same time even if most of them were custom dlc mods.
Custom dlc mods required by the need of users more than by mod creators just to make them that way.

Of course there is also need for such discussion, guidelines and encouragement, but all possibilities can take place at the same time.
I’m sorry, but this was simply my 10¢ worth of view that meant to be productive.

[neph]

If I recall correctly, the reason that mod creators choose large swaths of numbers is not because they’re being greedy, it’s an attempt to make sure we have enough “slots” for the assets we are using. It’s been a bit since I was able to sit down and mod, but changing one conversation, only partially, I had to use something like twenty five different files. So we NEED those slots.

[giftfish]

Nov 19, 2017 1:06:27 GMT rubydorje said:

Incompatibility of custom dlc mods is an issue on the gamers’ own system. Mod users tend to prefer them anyway and would be happy to be able to change the mount priority numbers themselves with a toolset that is easy to use in order to resolve those incompatibilities.

Users should NEVER change mount priority on their own. Ever.

Mod authors set their mod's DLC priority at a specific number for a reason. They know which mods their mod needs to override and which it needs to underride. They also release patches with the understanding that this relationship will not change.

Altering this relationship via editing the mount integer is an almost guaranteed way to break the mod. If a user breaks a mod purposefully, then they better not waste the mod author's time asking for help. I sure as heck won't help them.

Nov 19, 2017 1:06:27 GMT rubydorje said:

Also it’s not very likely all the mods were to be in use at the same time even if most of them were custom dlc mods.

No, but mod authors can't assume which other mods will be present and which won't. Which is why no two mods should use the same series of integers. This is the only way to ensure compatibility at the level of the DLC mod.

Nov 19, 2017 1:06:27 GMT rubydorje said:

Custom dlc mods required by the need of users more than by mod creators just to make them that way.

This is false.

Some mods must be distributed as DLC mods. It's the only way to add new files to the game and to avoid overwriting core game file. The information in this thread makes very clear which edits must be implemented in this manner.

[Deleted]

Hello.
I'm late to the party, but let me offer some thoughts from a mostly user perspective. Other people already said most of these, but I feel a clear explanation has some value. So here they are, in order of importance.

First, installing .mod and .tpf mods is a pain in the ass. Setting up the Explorer to even be able to mod literally takes hours, and if you made an error and didn't made backups (which most people don't) you have to repeat the whole process (after Origin repaired your game).

Second, old .mod mods might not install on newer Explorers. Once I had to carve out textures from a .mod file with a hex editor because it just wouldn't install properly.

Third, the Explorer is just not really user friendly* or foolproof**. Even with a good tutorial it can be quite scary. And if you browse through the comments of texture/mesh mods on the nexus is very easy to find people who had some difficulty installing .mod and .tpf mods.

Fourth, and this is only applies to mods that add stuff to Shepard's wardrobe and maybe weapon rack. People want them all, okey maybe not all, but all that they like. And without DLC mods there is only 3 slots for FemShep and 4 for BroShep, well if you don't want to everybody to wear the N7 T-shirt with the yoga pants.

So, in conclusion, the DLC format might not be necessary for a texture or mesh mod, but way more convenient for the end user, and if you want people to use your mod that's something to consider.


And here some technical reasons why I think it's not that big of a problem.

One, there are 64535 mount slots (1000-65535) , that's more than the modable files's number in the game, DLCs included. Unfortunately some of that range only accessible to very specific mods, but still more 60000 slots are available for anybody. In comparison the nexus, as of writing, has less than 600 files to download, and not all of them are mods.

Two, texture and mesh mods only use one tlk-ID and no conditional-, codex- and whatever-IDs. That means almost 0 chance of conflict on that front.

Three, texture and mesh mods typically use BioG and BioH PCCs, which are, as the OP stated, usually untouched by content mods. And if content mods do change those files, they are probably changing the same assets anyway, so no matter the format there will be conflict.


*This is only one thing really, but it's a major one. As of version 3.0 the main tool selection window is unresizable and there is no scrollbar and the PgUp, PgDwn and direction keys are not working either. That means that people who can't or won't use the mouse wheel are can't use the Explorer.

**These issues are mostly stem form the fact that the Explorer are made by modders (people who know what they are doing) to modders (people who know what they are doing), but the end user not necessarily knows what they are doing. One example: while both the Texplorer and the TPF Tool has PCC-level control it's very easy to overlook. In both tools when you click on the texture that you want to replace/install it's going to list it's properties in the right side panel , and only when you click on the PCC tab yo can select to which PCCs yo want to alter. That means if a simple end user wants to install, for example, the aforementioned T-shirt, yoga pants mod, which is replaces the alliance combat fatigue outfit and distributed via a .mod file for the mesh and a .tpf file for the textures, they can end up with the situation that Shepard got the T-shirt yoga pants mesh with the T-shirt yoga pants textures, and everybody else got the original mesh with the T-shirt yoga pants textures. Which is bad, or funny.

[giftfish]

You're overlooking the most important point of the OP:

Ease of use in the short term should not trump what's best for the community over the long term.

Making and using mods for Mass Effect is not easy. Nothing says that it *should* be easy. Modding Mass Effect is not like modding other games, simply due to the fact that we have no official toolset. If we did, many of these issues would be non-existent.


To address your complaints:

Jan 5, 2018 10:08:04 GMT @zandertenoki said:

Hello.
I'm late to the party, but let me offer some thoughts from a mostly user perspective. Other people already said most of these, but I feel a clear explanation has some value. So here they are, in order of importance.

Try not to underestimate modders. We all understand what it's like to be users, b/c we were all users before we were modders. Some of us quite recently. Users, however, lack a modder's perspective.

Jan 5, 2018 10:08:04 GMT @zandertenoki said:

First, installing .mod and .tpf mods is a pain in the ass. Setting up the Explorer to even be able to mod literally takes hours, and if you made an error and didn't made backups (which most people don't) you have to repeat the whole process (after Origin repaired your game).

It doesn't take hours. It takes at most a half hour for Texplorer to scan for textures these days (even if you have all DC). I'm on an SSD and it takes 5 minutes. What takes time is *reading* the wiki documentation, which is what all users should be doing before using mods with Mass Effect regardless of their chosen tool.

Either way, DLC mod users *still* need to set up Texplorer if they're going to install textures with the toolset. How hard it is or isn't to install textures is irrelevant to the use of DLC mods.

Jan 5, 2018 10:08:04 GMT @zandertenoki said:

Second, old .mod mods might not install on newer Explorers. Once I had to carve out textures from a .mod file with a hex editor because it just wouldn't install properly.

This is nothing new. We've been quite clear since the toolset was created that MOD files will break as the toolset code changes. The fact that a MOD file might break is no reason for the mod author to use a DLC mod. It's *is* reason for them to pay attention and maintain their mod.

Users need to remember that mods are option content created by someone other than the game publisher. Games aren't guaranteed to be maintained in perpetuity; mods aren't either.

Jan 5, 2018 10:08:04 GMT @zandertenoki said:

Third, the Explorer is just not really user friendly* or foolproof**. Even with a good tutorial it can be quite scary. And if you browse through the comments of texture/mesh mods on the nexus is very easy to find people who had some difficulty installing .mod and .tpf mods.

No tool is foolproof. User error is always a possibility, as are bugs.

Jan 5, 2018 10:08:04 GMT @zandertenoki said:

So, in conclusion, the DLC format might not be necessary for a texture or mesh mod, but way more convenient for the end user, and if you want people to use your mod that's something to consider.

And that perspective is *exactly* why this thread was needed in the first place. Ease of use in the short term should not trump what's best for the community over the long term.

Jan 5, 2018 10:08:04 GMT @zandertenoki said:

One, there are 64535 mount slots (1000-65535) , that's more than the modable files's number in the game, DLCs included. Unfortunately some of that range only accessible to very specific mods, but still more 60000 slots are available for anybody. In comparison the nexus, as of writing, has less than 600 files to download, and not all of them are mods.

Two, texture and mesh mods only use one tlk-ID and no conditional-, codex- and whatever-IDs. That means almost 0 chance of conflict on that front.

While it seems unlikely, the community has already had multiple incidents of conflict. The problem isn't only with duplicating IDs the problem is with intermod compatibility and how that compounds with each DLC mod released.

Jan 5, 2018 10:08:04 GMT @zandertenoki said:

Three, texture and mesh mods typically use BioG and BioH PCCs, which are, as the OP stated, usually untouched by content mods. And if content mods do change those files, they are probably changing the same assets anyway, so no matter the format there will be conflict.

The fact that we were seeing a spike in DLC mesh mods that were touching BioD and BioP PCCs -- from authors who were mounting their mods higher than most content mods -- was part of the impetus of this thread.

Jan 5, 2018 10:08:04 GMT @zandertenoki said:

*This is only one thing really, but it's a major one. As of version 3.0 the main tool selection window is unresizable and there is no scrollbar and the PgUp, PgDwn and direction keys are not working either. That means that people who can't or won't use the mouse wheel are can't use the Explorer.

The main window of v3.0 of the toolset *shouldn't* resize. It's not meant to and it doesn't need to. There's no bug. Scrolling is only needed inside the Create Mods, Utilities, and Task Panes, none of which users like you should be using. Once you get in those menus, then scrolling works fine, whether you're using a touchpad or a mouse. Touchscreens and arrow keys won't work. This shouldn't be a big deal as most users will be using the toolset on the same device their game is installed on -- which will be a desktop PC or laptop, not a device that functions strictly as a tablet.

ME3Explorer v3.0 works just fine. I use it daily.

Jan 5, 2018 10:08:04 GMT @zandertenoki said:

**These issues are mostly stem form the fact that the Explorer are made by modders (people who know what they are doing) to modders (people who know what they are doing), but the end user not necessarily knows what they are doing. One example: while both the Texplorer and the TPF Tool has PCC-level control it's very easy to overlook. In both tools when you click on the texture that you want to replace/install it's going to list it's properties in the right side panel , and only when you click on the PCC tab yo can select to which PCCs yo want to alter.

No, the toolset is made by coders. The v3.0 overhaul was not only a drastic improvement for modders, but for users, as well. Everything you need is front and center. You don't have to dig into the toolset past the main menu. There are also new infopanel flyouts to explain what tools do and a wiki that describes -- in detail -- the interface and functionality of every "Install Mods" tool. v3.0 is the toolset in the most user-friendly form it's ever been in (and will likely ever be, since we're now in legacy mode).

Consult the documentation. You won't miss the functionality of features in Texplorer if you read the wiki article on how to use it.

[Deleted]

Jan 8, 2018 22:23:13 GMT giftfish said:

Ease of use in the short term should not trump what's best for the community over the long term.

It's not short term, DLC mods going to be easy to use always. Of course if somebody uses a lot of them they going to conflict, and figuring out what conflicting with what going to be tedious. But this is true for all games with all modding systems. More mod one uses higher the chance for conflict, that's just nature of the beast. But each individual mod remain easy to use until the game itself become unusable.

Jan 8, 2018 22:23:13 GMT giftfish said:

Making and using mods for Mass Effect is not easy. Nothing says that it *should* be easy.

I'm not saying it "should" be easy, I'm saying that people want it easy. And if it isn't (and your mod is popular) you're going to get a bunch of comments like "Something went wrong, help!" and "This mod is broken, man!". And with these comments you have three options, ignore them, which is rude IMHO, answer each and every one of them or preemptively make it easy. My choice is the third one, because I don't want to be rude, but I don't want to deal whit those comments either, I guess I'm just selfish this way. But at the same time I still don't want to be rude, so I'm trying to not to step on anybody's toes.

Jan 8, 2018 22:23:13 GMT giftfish said:

Try not to underestimate modders. We all understand what it's like to be users, b/c we were all users before we were modders. Some of us quite recently. Users, however, lack a modder's perspective.

I'm not talking about modders, I'm talking about users, people who don't want to make mods just use a few of them. Why should they learn all of this? They don't interested in it, they don't want to make mods. Yes, of course, some of them will learn, hell, some of them may become modders themselves. But I feel you are projecting a bit, I mean I know where are you coming from, I made the same journey. I saw a cool mod online, I tried to use it, it didn't work, I searched for a solution, I found it, and then when I got this "awesome" idea and now I knew how to start and where to look if I run into problems, and here I am, full-blown modder with two published mods. I just don't think it should be a requirement.

So to reiterate, most users don't know and don't care therefore they won't learn. And if you don't care about user satisfaction that's fine, do what you want, but I feel it's not fair to demand that attitude from everybody.

Oh, boy that last one is a perfect spark for a flame war, because it cuts into the main problem here. Should a modder inconvenience their fellow modders by releasing their mod in DLC format, or their user base by releasing it in .mod/.tpf format? On my part I'm going to convenience myself by making a DLC mod, thus that's what I going to release. Again I am a little bit selfish.


Now to address some of the concrete stuff.

Jan 8, 2018 22:23:13 GMT giftfish said:

The fact that we were seeing a spike in DLC mesh mods that were touching BioD and BioP PCCs -- from authors who were mounting their mods higher than most content mods -- was part of the impetus of this thread.

Well, yeah. You got me there. I was a bit disingenuous in my first post, because I know that there are mesh and texture mods which touch upon a lot of BioD and BioP PCCs, but I didn't know how numerous and popular they are. So I conveniently "forgot" about them. Mostly because I have no solution, those are a genuine problem, and I feel it's going to fall onto the user, considering that there is no compatibility patch provided, to either choose one or the other, or to make that compatibility patch.

Jan 8, 2018 22:23:13 GMT giftfish said:

No tool is foolproof. User error is always a possibility, as are bugs.

That goes without saying, but if we want to make the Explorer the main tool for installing mods, and not just making them, I think there is still a considerable room for improvement.
Case on point, the TSLPatcher for the KotOR games, that tool was designed for installing mods, if it's set up properly the user only needs to click on a couple of buttons and maybe find the game folder in a Windows Explorer window, and if there is a problem, that problem is only could be addressed by one of the conflicting mod's author. Of course setting it up properly require some thought, oversight and knowledge about the inner workings of the games, but that's the modder 's responsibility not the user's.

Jan 8, 2018 22:23:13 GMT giftfish said:

ME3Explorer v3.0 works just fine.

Yes it does. The stuff in the footnotes are just my pet peeves with the Explorer. Nothing major, but I feel they are still little design oversights, not bugs per se, but not features either.
(For clarification I use it on my PC, which only has a mouse with a busted wheel. I know, I should buy a new one, but it's comfortable and only the Explorer has this "problem".)

[giftfish]

Jan 9, 2018 3:27:17 GMT @zandertenoki said:

It's not short term... <snip>

It is indeed about the short term. This issue is about modders who don't want to deal with using MOD files since it's easier for both themselves and their users to release in DLC mod form. Therefore, they release in this format regardless of how it will affect the community over the long term.

Jan 9, 2018 3:27:17 GMT @zandertenoki said:

I'm not saying it "should" be easy, I'm saying that people want it easy. And if it isn't (and your mod is popular) you're going to get a bunch of comments like "Something went wrong, help!" and "This mod is broken, man!". And with these comments you have three options, ignore them, which is rude IMHO, answer each and every one of them or preemptively make it easy. My choice is the third one, because I don't want to be rude, but I don't want to deal whit those comments either, I guess I'm just selfish this way. But at the same time I still don't want to be rude, so I'm trying to not to step on anybody's toes.

I understand exactly what you were saying -- I don't need you to clarify. I *know* users want it easy. I'm well aware. I'm saying people don't always get what they want and the situation is what it is. 

Jan 9, 2018 3:27:17 GMT @zandertenoki said:

I'm not talking about modders, I'm talking about users, people who don't want to make mods just use a few of them.

You are talking about both. This entire exchange is about you feeling the need to point out a plethora of information that all modders and coders involved in toolset development *already know*. None of what you're saying here is new, which is why your "late to the party" statement is especially appropriate.

Jan 9, 2018 3:27:17 GMT @zandertenoki said:

Why should they learn all of this? They don't interested in it, they don't want to make mods. Yes, of course, some of them will learn, hell, some of them may become modders themselves. But I feel you are projecting a bit, I mean I know where are you coming from, I made the same journey. I saw a cool mod online, I tried to use it, it didn't work, I searched for a solution, I found it, and then when I got this "awesome" idea and now I knew how to start and where to look if I run into problems, and here I am, full-blown modder with two published mods. I just don't think it should be a requirement.

They should learn because that is what's required. If they don't want to learn, then they don't need to use mods.

Not wanting to learn is exactly why we have problems like users trying to change their own mount priorities and then wondering their mods don't work properly. Giving users the tools and or means to make things "easy" and remove the thought process out of modding is exactly what creates problems.

Jan 9, 2018 3:27:17 GMT @zandertenoki said:

So to reiterate, most users don't know and don't care therefore they won't learn. And if you don't care about user satisfaction that's fine, do what you want, but I feel it's not fair to demand that attitude from everybody.

If you don't like how we've built the toolset, you don't have to use it. It's a pretty easy solution.

Jan 9, 2018 3:27:17 GMT @zandertenoki said:

Again I am a little bit selfish.

Yes, that part is quite clear.

Jan 9, 2018 3:27:17 GMT @zandertenoki said:

So I conveniently "forgot" about them. Mostly because I have no solution, those are a genuine problem, and I feel it's going to fall onto the user, considering that there is no compatibility patch provided, to either choose one or the other, or to make that compatibility patch.

Convenient, yes, that you elected to ignore the primary reason for this entire thread. And, your admission of engaging in this discussion under false pretenses disrespects the community.

Jan 9, 2018 3:27:17 GMT @zandertenoki said:

That goes without saying, but if we want to make the Explorer the main tool for installing mods, and not just making them, I think there is still a considerable room for improvement.

Yes, there is. Which, again, is something we're entirely aware of. But, apparently you haven't realized that the toolset is no longer under development. There will be no improvement to any tool unless our lead coder returns, which is unlikely at this point.

----

So, let me clear. Deficiencies in Modmaker, TPF Tools, or Texplorer aside, none of that is an excuse to release texture/mesh mods in DLC form simply b/c it's more convenient for the user/modder. Prior to 2014 there were no DLC mods and these tools were the *only* option. Folks had no problems learning then. Why? B/c there was no choice. If they wanted new textures and meshes they had to. The only thing that's changed is the knowledge that there's a more convenient option out there. Well, that and now they actually have a real instruction manual in the form of the wiki which makes using those tools far easier.

The toolset will not be changing any time soon. We're in legacy mode and no changes will be made. If and when SirCxyrtyx returns, we'll see what happens. Toolset veterans are also aware that these 3 tools are especially sensitive to bugs, which is why if and when they are overhauled, that will be done in Kfreon's separate fork so we can confirm full compatibility before merging with the toolset proper.