Having options or not?

[Legacy_Shadooow]

               

In a past discussion/flame/spam about my unofficial patch, lot of peoples said that what they dislike the most is that CPP is a "one or nothing" package without possibility to install its content one by one by choice.

 

This is discussion as why do you prefer having options or not having options when you installing game modifications and why. I would really want to know your reasons and experiences because my experiences with optional installations are very negative.

 

Which games that allowed this have you played?

 

Jagged Alliance 2, Patch 1.13

For me, Jagged Alliance 2, a modern turn based strategy with rpg elements: There is a community patch called 1.13 that itself enables around 10 new options when starting a new game (that cannot be toggled after and some options have different effect when combined together which make unique gameplay for each setup). Around 30 new gameplay options that can be turned on from ingame and it also features and unlimite modification of any game mechanic via INI file that comes with it, you can set everything there from the action points you have, from mine income to strenght of the enemies, their numbers and equipment or all gun properties.

 

As great it sounds, it caused me to lost interest of playing this game further. I started the new game with new options, after 2-10 hours I found out it sucks and its badly playable so I had to start a new game. Repeated twice until I found a options that made a game experience that suited me. Still I found some mechanics to be off and had to adjust them via INI. Etc. In the end, I no longer played the game as it was used to and I think that nobody does. Because since 1.13 the game balance/progression/creator's intent has been lost. Instead you get a multiple options that changes the original course enormously and I found this to be a bad thing. How can I compare my game experiences and progression (explanation: JA2 is a single player campaign only) with other players now? Basically this unlimited options and modifications are almost-if-not-really a cheating.

 

Baldur's Gate (I,II,ToB)

Baldurs gate is similar case. Modders created for this game a patching system called WEIDU that enables to make a mod compatible with other mods, basically a platform for easy mod creating and installing. Almost every modification in WEIDU allows you to choose every single option and choose whether install or not and sometimes give you even several options like if you want this portrait to be with red hair, dark hair or blonde.

 

As good as it sounds in theory I found this very annoying in a practice. Installing a complex modifications like BG2 Tweaks takes around 15minutes minimum till you choose every one of the feature. Very often you have to read the detailed readme to find out what is the difference between choices it gives you or what that option does at all. Also, otherwise great modifications and includes features I like are filled with cheats and boosts I do not want so you cannot simply install everything, which is rarely possible to do anyway because only a few mods have their WEIDU installation smarter enabling install all/uninstall all/install not installed/uninstall installed - most only offer installing one by one.

 

And my experiences with this are very similar to the JA2. I spent a several hours of changing modifications, uninstalling modifications, installing different modifications instead of the one I used before and sometimes repairing the damage it caused to my save game (since some changes are not possible to reverse after you see them ingame/and backwards some changes will manifest only when starting new game). And the result is exactly the same as for JA2. As a player I feel I no longer play the same game it used to be, and how it was intented to be and I cannot compare my gaming experiences with others. Also often the description of the change contains spoilers or becames clear only when you played the game once at least which is not my case, so I often cannot know if that option is good or bad (in this case I usually dont install at all).

 

BTW Im writing this because I recently started playing BG1 (as I havent yet, started with BG2 in past) and I just have this modding problems again, already spent 4 hours and my game is still not how I would like it to be. I wish there was a single one-or-nothing package that would provided me enhanced/bug fixed version of a BG while keeping the original game experience as much as possible. Seems however such package doesn't exist.

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_CaveGnome]

               

Haven't used the patch systems you talked about but, i know i like the "all-in-one no choice" patch ONLY for obvious bug correction (game breaking or crippling bugs). All new additional things and original content mods (non intended by original devs) would need fine control and detailed documentation. One very important thing is the ability to reverse to the previous original state if you don't like the patch/installer.

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_WhiZard]

               

This sounds like an "apples to oranges" comparison as the people who wanted options from you were predominately module builders, while your experience with Jagged Alliance and Baldur's Gate is from a player's point of view.  If we are looking at the customization end, NWN already has a plethora of haks and overrides which you can have in use for pretty much any module you play.  If we call these options, then a player could install The Krit's No PC skin, or even your CPP to get rid of the problems with PC skins appearing randomly.  Similarly other community features that you have included in your CPP are also options.  The statement you are providing is that your option set is close to the intent of the game; a statement that others may disagree with.  Should the PDK class have a 255 DC spell-like ability? Should firestorm be uncapped? Should Tenser's transformation be used for non-elves to take levels in Arcane Archer?  I have seen both "yes" and "no" coming from the community on these questions.  One person's exploit is another's feature.  Take away a feature from someone, and they'll see it as changing the game's intent.

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Dante2377]

               

 

As a player I feel I no longer play the same game it used to be, and how it was intented to be and I cannot compare my gaming experiences with others.

 

Here's the thing with the BG games, especially BG2.  They aren't that hard vanilla.  Once you play once or twice and know how to build a party, it's frankly just easy.  That's why a majority of people, especially those on these forums, mod BG2 - to make it more challenging.  It's like Vanilla NWN, a fricking monkey could do it.

 

And with BG2, there was so much vagueness about "developer intent", especially when it clashed with pen and paper rules, that "patches" to fix bugs often had to decided what was a bug and what was intent and then, even if it was developer intent, if it went against PnP, should it be fixed.  see this note from the Fixpack

 

 

This component includes all fixes deemed to be core by the Fixpack team. While some bugs are clearly bugs, the team also has a review process for 'gray area' bugs to insure that fixes do not contradict developer intent. The result is a 'core fixes' component which aims to address true bugs only and in a manner consistent with BioWare's original goals. When we encounter something we happen to think is a bug (or just strange behavior) but appears to be intentional, we generally fix those as an Optional But Cool component.

 

Most people at least when I played BG2 (when it came out through 2011 before getting into NWN) didn't want to compare their experience to others, unless it was a common set of mods and challenges to make it harder (e.g. the solo insane Ascension challenge).

 

Here's the thing, BG2 was a good game and one of the greatest for me, specifically because I could mod it to how was fun for me (e.g. making enemies harder and smarter, allowing multiple magic items, tweaking some balance, adding new kits for fun options, etc) - playing it "as intended" gets old for me wasn't fun after a few times through, but with mods, it could be different each time. 

 

Anyway, I haven't played BG1 more than a few times since I can't stand low level DnD, so BG2 was perfect starting at level 7ish.  All you really need after ToB and the official patches is the core fixpack and it should run just fine (I did that basic setup many a time and never had issues). 

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Shadooow]

               

Here's the thing with the BG games, especially BG2.  They aren't that hard vanilla.  Once you play once or twice and know how to build a party, it's frankly just easy.  That's why a majority of people, especially those on these forums, mod BG2 - to make it more challenging.  It's like Vanilla NWN, a fricking monkey could do it.

 

And with BG2, there was so much vagueness about "developer intent", especially when it clashed with pen and paper rules, that "patches" to fix bugs often had to decided what was a bug and what was intent and then, even if it was developer intent, if it went against PnP, should it be fixed.  see this note from the Fixpack

 

 

Most people at least when I played BG2 (when it came out through 2011 before getting into NWN) didn't want to compare their experience to others, unless it was a common set of mods and challenges to make it harder (e.g. the solo insane Ascension challenge).

 

Here's the thing, BG2 was a good game and one of the greatest for me, specifically because I could mod it to how was fun for me (e.g. making enemies harder and smarter, allowing multiple magic items, tweaking some balance, adding new kits for fun options, etc) - playing it "as intended" gets old for me wasn't fun after a few times through, but with mods, it could be different each time. 

 

Anyway, I haven't played BG1 more than a few times since I can't stand low level DnD, so BG2 was perfect starting at level 7ish.  All you really need after ToB and the official patches is the core fixpack and it should run just fine (I did that basic setup many a time and never had issues). 

First, I dont critice mods, im modder myself and I supported lots of mods on the czech forum about bioware games. I even made my own modifications into several games starting with diablo2 back then.

 

This is about having lots of options and install one by one or install as a full package and the experiences with both options.

 

And I expressed myself badly about creators intent perhaps. While I meant a Bioware's intent, that is difficulty, enemy progression, player progression, equipment, I also meant a intend of the creators of the modification - this is something the BG mods are missing. The only intent is take what you want and play with it, thus lots of different modification packages has features I want and I must find them and download them one by one and install the specific components from them.

 

I would prefer if there was a one package with fixes one for additional tweaks, one for visual styles and one for strategy. Instead every single one of these mods (maybe except the BG2 fixes) having several components of each category.

 

Another problem is that after I installed all these modifications which I wanted and playing with them for a while, Im continuously disabling some of the componens retrospectively as I soon find out they are bad for my game experience. Instead of actually playing the game Im toying with the modifications over and over and the game is constantly changing each hour Im playing it. I do not like this fact.

 

Speaking of difficulty, few years ago when I played BG2 I installed tactics and spent a lot of time with it. It was fun most of the time, but its was different. Same when Im playing BG1 with Stratagems - its riddiculously hard. Im playing on Easy and still replaying almost every fight twice sometimes even more times. Its still fun, but I realize that playing by save/load isnt very "legit". Its exploiting the informations from the first try for most of the time. To balance this I must have install other modifications such that boost my characters and now I get into point when Im playing BG1 on level 2 and it looks like playing some epic campaign.

 

I would prefer if this mod like tactic was without options because then I could compare my experiences with this exact mod with other players. Since every single component from the 100 of them is optional, I cant. Aka, I would like to play it against the mod creator's intent not per my own choice that I can everytime adjust if I feel its too harsh etc.

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_WebShaman]

               

Customization and choice is NEVER about the creator or the developer.

 

That is the most important thing to keep in mind when considering these things.

 

Instead, it is all about the player.

 

If it wasn't about the player, then there would never be a need for any customization or choice.

 

Since, however, there is a need for such in just about every game I have ever made, played, heard about, or has been conceptualized (IMHO), we need to consider the needs of the player here.

 

And those needs vary.

 

More choice, more customizations mean that more players will get that which they want.

 

Of course, one can make up any reason to contradict this, if one wants.  There are literally thousands (millions, billions, etc) of reasons not to have X, Y, or Z.

 

But somewhere, somewhen, there is a player who will be thankful for exactly X, Y, and/or Z.

 

Which is why I am for customization and choice.

 

Because since 1.13 the game balance/progression/creator's intent has been lost. Instead you get a multiple options that changes the original course enormously and I found this to be a bad thing. How can I compare my game experiences and progression (explanation: JA2 is a single player campaign only) with other players now? Basically this unlimited options and modifications are almost-if-not-really a cheating.

 

You can't cheat on yourself '>

 

And if you are truly worried about balance/progression/creator's intent, or wish to compare game experiences and progression with other players, then play it once through without any changes, if that is really something that is bothering you.

 

Then you have a good basis (a solid foundation) to build on for your modifications, IMHO.

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Malagant]

               

Sometimes you confuse me. You've spent an ample amount of time writing in a manner that supports all-in-one. You even write that you prefer all-in-one: "I wish there was a single one-or-nothing package that would provided me enhanced/bug fixed version".

 

In your very next post, however, you flat out contradict your own approach with your CPP ("I would prefer if there was a one package with fixes one for additional tweaks, one for visual styles and one for strategy"), a package which incorporates some of everything. By the end of the same post, you slide back into a position of preferring all-in-one so you can "compare (your) experiences with this exact mod with other players".

 

It's hard for me to decide where and what to comment on when I can't even tell which direction you are coming from so I will start with Planescape Torment: I like how the Infinity Engine Community compiled post-support on that game. There's a straight fix pack, a pack that restores lost content, and a tweak pack. The fix pack is simple, as they only changed things that were glaringly obvious errors or issues. The restoration pack is simple; it restores lost content. The tweak pack is simple; it goes through item by item: Do you want to install A? Yes/No. Do you want to install B? Yes/No. I haven't come across anything for BG and BG II that is handled the same way (as far as having a concise set of packs and having the ability to choose within the third which tweaks I want without having to sift through 20-30 separate mods). It doesn't bother me to spend ten minutes going through all that because I know exactly what I am getting in the end. If something doesn't work out for me, I'm not going to get upset about having to start over.

 

Conversely, my feeling on packages like the CPP is different, and I am going to use the CPP not to bash it but because it's a prime example, it's yours so we have a common frame of reference, and you asked for opinions.

 

When you first started the CPP, I was very interested and all for it. Your idea was to take all these separate fixes and obvious issues (Ben's familiars/companions, dialogue issues, creature issues, tileset fixes, etc. I was right there with you, I loved the idea and was all set to use it when it was released. When you started incorporating tweaks and features, however, I was leery. Then came the "anything that doesn't make sense (to you)" philosophy, forced changes, GUI changes, among others.

 

To clarify on that, some "fixes" seemed relevant while others seemed to be just something you preferred or wanted. The best example I can think of is colored icons. I don't think I'll ever understand the reasoning behind forcing colored icons, then turning around and releasing a separate override to reverse the changes for those that want to when all that could have been avoided by leaving it up to the user to apply ADs icons on their own with his own package. It's things like this that made me swear off using CPP.

 

The irony of you preferring not to deal with mods having several components of each category while you yourself have done the exact same thing with your own is not lost on me. Had the CPP been separated out into different related components, the likelihood of me using it for my own players and family would have been much greater (For instance: one component dedicated specifically to actual bug fixes and error corrections, one component for tweaks, one component for things you felt didn't make sense, one component colorizing GUI); it would have gone a lot further convincing me to use it than the take it or leave it approach- if you aren't going to take it, you've been left with only one other option.

 

Take all that for what it's worth. It is certainly my opinion and mine alone.

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Shadooow]

               

Customization and choice is NEVER about the creator or the developer.

 

That is the most important thing to keep in mind when considering these things.

 

Instead, it is all about the player.

That will be probably the main point in this discussion and I disagree. Choosing options and shaping the game to fit me personally is like playing your own single player module you created for NWN. If you are builder you know what I mean. Its different, the atmosphere of unknown is gone and its like watching the next tv show episode when you read all spilers what its goiung to be about and what will happen there.

 

As a player, I do not like this feeling.

 

You can't cheat on yourself '>

 

This was there already once and I disagree. Maybe, you can't cheat yourself, it makes no sense from the verbal point of view. However if you turn on immortallity, or you install a modifications that makes your character a god you do not play the game as it was intented/designed to be played. Your gaming experiences are not the ones you were supposed to get. Maybe you don't cheat yourself but you do cheat. The game ? I dont know neither I dont care how you gonna reason it.

 

Sometimes you confuse me. You've spent an ample amount of time writing in a manner that supports all-in-one. You even write that you prefer all-in-one: "I wish there was a single one-or-nothing package that would provided me enhanced/bug fixed version".

 

In your very next post, however, you flat out contradict your own approach with your CPP ("I would prefer if there was a one package with fixes one for additional tweaks, one for visual styles and one for strategy"), a package which incorporates some of everything. By the end of the same post, you slide back into a position of preferring all-in-one so you can "compare (your) experiences with this exact mod with other players".

 

It's hard for me to decide where and what to comment on when I can't even tell which direction you are coming from so I will start with Planescape Torment: I like how the Infinity Engine Community compiled post-support on that game. There's a straight fix pack, a pack that restores lost content, and a tweak pack. The fix pack is simple, as they only changed things that were glaringly obvious errors or issues. The restoration pack is simple; it restores lost content. The tweak pack is simple; it goes through item by item: Do you want to install A? Yes/No. Do you want to install B? Yes/No. I haven't come across anything for BG and BG II that is handled the same way (as far as having a concise set of packs and having the ability to choose within the third which tweaks I want without having to sift through 20-30 separate mods). It doesn't bother me to spend ten minutes going through all that because I know exactly what I am getting in the end. If something doesn't work out for me, I'm not going to get upset about having to start over.

 

Conversely, my feeling on packages like the CPP is different, and I am going to use the CPP not to bash it but because it's a prime example, it's yours so we have a common frame of reference, and you asked for opinions.

 

When you first started the CPP, I was very interested and all for it. Your idea was to take all these separate fixes and obvious issues (Ben's familiars/companions, dialogue issues, creature issues, tileset fixes, etc. I was right there with you, I loved the idea and was all set to use it when it was released. When you started incorporating tweaks and features, however, I was leery. Then came the "anything that doesn't make sense (to you)" philosophy, forced changes, GUI changes, among others.

 

Take all that for what it's worth. It is certainly my opinion and mine alone.

Hmm, yea my previous response was a bit unclear and "scattered". To clarify.

 

If there would be single modification for BG2 that would fixed all known bugs, enhanced the graphic, npc visuals, etc. and tweaking some game options that doesnt break balance (such as 100% spell learning/unlimited stacks of arrows etc.) I would go for it. But its not there. Instead there are BG2 Fixes, BG2 tweaks, Tactic mods, Quest mods, visual mods. And the problem I see there is that it seems to me like the authors didnt cooperated with each other, many of these modifications contains several components that would fit the other packages and so on.

 

I mean, if and when the modifications are divided on the single intent, they should contain only the components that fits the chosen scheme. That is not the case for BG modifications unfortunately.

 

 

To clarify on that, some "fixes" seemed relevant while others seemed to be just something you preferred or wanted. The best example I can think of is colored icons. I don't think I'll ever understand the reasoning behind forcing colored icons, then turning around and releasing a separate override to reverse the changes for those that want to when all that could have been avoided by leaving it up to the user to apply ADs icons on their own with his own package. It's things like this that made me swear off using CPP.

 

The irony of you preferring not to deal with mods having several components of each category while you yourself have done the exact same thing with your own is not lost on me. Had the CPP been separated out into different related components, the likelihood of me using it for my own players and family would have been much greater (For instance: one component dedicated specifically to actual bug fixes and error corrections, one component for tweaks, one component for things you felt didn't make sense, one component colorizing GUI); it would have gone a lot further convincing me to use it than the take it or leave it approach- if you aren't going to take it, you've been left with only one other option.

Then you could stay with the 1.70 that did not contain any of those '> . I wont react to as why I made that decision here, if you want to know that drop me a PM and I will explain it - Ive already explained it once or twice around here to other peoples in different threads but its lost in the spam. So please cut off the discussion about the specific CPP features off this thread, if you want to discuss it there is a proper thread for it.

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Empyre65]

               

You have talked to a lot of people about your CPP, so you should have a pretty good idea of which changes you make are popular and which are controversial. As a compromise, how about you make the popular changes all-in-one (the "core" of the patch) and make the controversial changes optional? I don't know how to mod NWN so I don't know if this next idea is possible, but maybe you could make a fancy installer with checkboxes for the optional components, defaulting to all checked.

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Shadooow]

               

You have talked to a lot of people about your CPP, so you should have a pretty good idea of which changes you make are popular and which are controversial.

You are absolutey right. Ive talked about CPP a lot and with a lot of different peoples and I already got all I needed to make a neccessary decisions. Thing is, that while many peoples see something as a controversal, to me it seems they dont understand the issue and dont know why it was changed in a first place. Also, there wont be ever 100% match in community on any change even those that are by a majority clear bugs such as uncapped Firestorm, thats something that needs to be considered and I have considered it. Etc. etc. different discussion...

 

As a compromise, how about you make the popular changes all-in-one (the "core" of the patch) and make the controversial changes optional? I don't know how to mod NWN so I don't know if this next idea is possible, but maybe you could make a fancy installer with checkboxes for the optional components, defaulting to all checked.

This thread is not *directly* about CPP. Its about peoples experiences with packages/modifications that gives you plenthora of options and those who dont. All I heard about so far is CPP, CPP and CPP while Im asked about your personal experiences with other modifications such as those from BG2 as I do have engative experiences with those. Yes Im asking about this because lot of peoples expressed a wish for CPP being optional but thats all. CPP as it is, is fine in my opinion and I do not think making it optional going to be any advantage. As Whizard said, peoples who wishes the options were mainly builders. But builders already have an options! They can change anything and the CPP has lowest priority so unlike any other "mods" it wont revert builders changes.

 

So please back on topic.

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_MagicalMaster]

               

That will be probably the main point in this discussion and I disagree

 

I don't think it will be as I don't think many people would agree with Webshaman (assuming that anyone does in the first place).  On both the customization and cheating issue.

 

I think the problem is precisely the modular version of NWN.  If you released a "New and Improved Official Campaign" for the original official campaign that featured balance changes, UI/graphic improvements, and bug fixes then I expect a lot of people would applaud it and use it (some people might dislike it but there's always purists).  If you did the same thing as a general patch then it isn't as appealing -- precisely because you're going from changing one module to changing ALL modules.

 

Do you see that difference?

 

I mean, I'm not that familiar with BG2, but it sounds like there was one campaign plus an expansion?  In NWN, it's not two campaigns with a (mostly) common ruleset, it's hundreds of campaigns and dozens of PWs with wildly different rulesets.

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Shadooow]

               

I don't think it will be as I don't think many people would agree with Webshaman (assuming that anyone does in the first place).  On both the customization and cheating issue.

If you recall the cheating in single player discussion it was fifty fifty - proved by a general poll on bioware site (across all games).

 

the rest of your post is spam, tyvm for your experiences with modding packages

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_MagicalMaster]

               

the rest of your post is spam, tyvm for your experiences with modding packages

 

It's spam to talk about the exact topic you made this thread to talk about?

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Malagant]

               

I would use the 1.70, but you were still using the broader things that don't make sense (to you) philosophy; I brought up a lot more than just colored icons and to not make this about CPP specifically, I just tossed out some examples from it.

 

My grandfather used to tell me that if I didn't want to hear opinions I didn't agree with or like then I should avoid asking for them.

 

I stated I was just using your particular project as an example because with it there would be a common frame of reference for you to understand my opinion. You asked "why do you prefer having options or not having options when you installing game modifications," which usually entails giving examples. You even open with this thread by using your own project as the basis for why you are seeking opinions on the subject.

 

"I would really want to know your reasons and experiences" should probably be rewritten to say "as long as you don't mention the exact project, which happens to be mine, that I am using to start the discussion". Apparently you are willing to accept any and all examples other than ones that mention it and are then, as always, ready to shoo off anyone who does as "not understanding", flaming, spamming, and then direct them to a "proper thread". In other words, you are saying that any opinion contrary to your own about your own is invalid.

 

I am in the proper thread: you asked for what people prefer and why and I responded, on topic, with examples why. If you don't want to hear it, don't ask. If numerous threads of yours seem to devolve into what you see as a flame fest, you should probably take note on what components they all have in common. I am not one of those components.

 

The Infinity Engine setup is a whole different animal and, as MagicalMaster stated, any changes are confined to that specific campaign. An all-in-one patch project that implements global changes is fine when applied to a specific module / campaign going forward and when you are building with it in mind. The problems start occurring when it's applications alter previously made modules that were not built with it in mind. Those builders worked within the constrains of the underlying system as it existed when they built it. This leads to having to make adjustment within the actual module to compensate for the changes the all in one made.

 

If you have the official campaign and the all-in-one, you know exactly what each has implemented and can specifically tailor the all-in-one to fit the module, balance, and make those components work together. Overlaying an all-in-one over a specific existing module means going back into the module and tailoring it to fit. This all works well and the Q Campaigns are a perfect example of this; it works out of the box.

 

Conversley, heaping Project Q on top of other existing modules means adjusting each module individually to fit. This is easier within Q's scope because Q is primarily visual resources, but an all-in-one that cuts deep into the inner workings, scripts, and fundamental behaviors is less appealing for global implementation.

 

Then again, "this thread is not *directly* about [Project Q]" so it looks like I've gone an done it again. I'll have to work better on giving examples without actually using examples.

 

 

It's spam to talk about the exact topic you made this thread to talk about?

Only on Shadooow's threads. (See paragraphs 4 and 5.)

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Terrorble]

               

@MM: I thought the comments were relevant.

 

 

 

I had considered using CP at the time I started my module project.  I didn't completely decide not to use it, so much as I just didn't use it because I was going to change so much stuff in my mod anyway(edit most spells/feats/abilities, use all custom NPCs); and maybe I got to a point in building where it was too late to incorporate it.

 

To answer the question: do I prefer options?  Yes.  As a mod builder, I want it my way (also considering I'm building for me first, and if I finish it and someone likes it, then they can enjoy it).  Over my years playing NWN, I only remain involved because I can make the game how I like.  If a spell sucks and is never used, I can edit it to do something useful.  If I think infestation of maggots is cooler as an OnHit weapon property that deals damage over time to targets failing a fort save, then I do it.  Or, if flame lash is weak and want it to affect targets in a cone like burning hands, I do it.

 

I use your boost system and think it is great.  It was totally easy to add, easy to use, and lets me add variability to my NPC mobs to keep them interesting.