Fomenting Mutiny

[Legacy_henesua]

               

Bluebomber4evr wrote...

henesua wrote...

Bluebomber4evr wrote...

I don't think it's a good idea to cull content, as that would break compatibility with earlier versions. Yes, there's clearly some content that should never have been added, but it's simpler to just ignore that stuff and not use it in your module/server.

Don't let the obsession with backwards compatibility hang like a millstone over the project.

The last time a CEP update broke compatibility (2.0) it was a regular cluster**** and that didn't even cut content. I know as a builder, I wouldn't want to have to yank out all of the CEP haks and redo all of my 2da files and rebuild the huge module all over again like I did when 2.0 came out. I did that once because the understanding was it wouldn't happen again, I'm not doing it again.

It depends on how it is handled. There are ways to make this work. But if you are obssessed about full backwards compatibility you won't be able to do much of anything. The obssession will hang around our necks like a millstone and kill this at the start. That is my point.

Culling content is what you responded to as a problem breaking backward compatibility. Well why not put the culled content in a legacy HAK, and produce a 2DA for legacy modules?

Many ways to do this. That was one idea of the top of my head that I came up with in a few seconds that would work just fine. You need to give people space to come up with novel solutions if you want anything good out of this. Otherwise you'll be stuck with teh utter crap that is CEP 2, but with a different name.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Bluebomber4evr]

               

henesua wrote...

Bluebomber4evr wrote...

henesua wrote...

Bluebomber4evr wrote...

I don't think it's a good idea to cull content, as that would break compatibility with earlier versions. Yes, there's clearly some content that should never have been added, but it's simpler to just ignore that stuff and not use it in your module/server.

Don't let the obsession with backwards compatibility hang like a millstone over the project.

The last time a CEP update broke compatibility (2.0) it was a regular cluster**** and that didn't even cut content. I know as a builder, I wouldn't want to have to yank out all of the CEP haks and redo all of my 2da files and rebuild the huge module all over again like I did when 2.0 came out. I did that once because the understanding was it wouldn't happen again, I'm not doing it again.

It depends on how it is handled. There are ways to make this work. But if you are obssessed about full backwards compatibility you won't be able to do much of anything. The obssession will hang around our necks like a millstone and kill this at the start. That is my point.

Culling content is what you responded to as a problem breaking backward compatibility. Well why not put the culled content in a legacy HAK, and produce a 2DA for legacy modules?

Many ways to do this. That was one idea of the top of my head that I came up with in a few seconds that would work just fine. You need to give people space to come up with novel solutions if you want anything good out of this. Otherwise you'll be stuck with teh utter crap that is CEP 2, but with a different name.

I'm not obsessed with it, and I find that a little offensive. I just don't want to go through the hassle that the CEP 2.0 was ever again.

I will simply state this: if the only way to use the new CEP in a module/PW is to throw out all of the old CEP haks and redo all of the 2da files, I'm not going to bother downloading it or using it. It won't be worth the hassle, no matter how much better the content is. I'll simply yank out what I want and make my own hak on top of the old CEP, which would be way less work.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_henesua]

               

Bluebomber4evr wrote...
I will simply state this: if the only way to use the new CEP in a module/PW is to throw out all of the old CEP haks and redo all of the 2da files,.

Who said that? I didn't. So can we stop fighting old battles and move forward? This is tiresome.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_KlatchainCoffee]

               *does not see a battle to fight*

Honestly, if the solution of 'special hak for old stuff' would work in a modular setup - that might be the way to go.

I both see the need for CEP to move forward and become the state of the art thing it really should be AND the need for it to be backwards-compatible to avoid huge rebuilds and basically be usable by people/builders like me to whom doings things manually with 2das on a large scale would look scary.

If there is a way to achieve both and its realistically doable - what is there to argue about?
               
               

               

                     Modifié par KlatchainCoffee, 14 janvier 2014 - 04:08 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_Bluebomber4evr]

               

henesua wrote...

Bluebomber4evr wrote...
I will simply state this: if the only way to use the new CEP in a module/PW is to throw out all of the old CEP haks and redo all of the 2da files,.

Who said that? I didn't. So can we stop fighting old battles and move forward? This is tiresome.

I never wanted to argue in the first place? I was just stating my opinion: Anything that would make implementing the new version as painless as possible for existing users would be my preference. I had already agreed that some sort of legacy/compatibility modular hak was a reasonable compromise.

I'm just going to chalk it up to text conversations not being the best medium to gauge someone's tone and move on.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_3RavensMore]

               --- Removed by poster ---
               
               

               

                     Modifié par 3RavensMore, 14 janvier 2014 - 04:29 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_henesua]

               There is a difference between providing methods for a CEP 2 module to work with the new system, versus maintaining backwards compatibility. If you do the later, you don't have CEP 3. You have add ons for CEP 2.

Its also a question of vision for the project. To start off with the overriding concern being backwards compatibility you don't have a vision just as the CEP 2 team never had any visioin.

Better is to ask meanignful questions that people can act on such as:

How do you enable builders that used CEP 2 to import their areas into a module using CEP 3?

There are ways to do this. I have stated a few possibilities, and I have many more ideas how to do this. And I think it would be worth while to get creative here to make it work.

BUT not everything needs to be backwards compatible to achieve this. And much of it shouldn't be - the stuff that is used for character for example - clothing, phenotypes and so on. All of this should be rethought without having to keep every head and piece of clothing at the same index.

Anyway, I'm not interested in wasting more time on this. I'll see what people decide and if I have time I'll help.

The first step I think should still be to get a WIKI up so that real work can be begun. Drawin gup a plan of attack. Posting manifests of files. Task lists and so on.

I propose that we start working on CEP 2 to fix the broken stuff. And then move on to CEP 3. We would be able to use the same assets so none of the fixes would be wasted.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_The Amethyst Dragon]

               An updated CEP can be both modular and backwards compatible.

If only using a part of the CEP is what a builder wants, that can be done with modular haks.  If someone with an existing CEP (say version 2.4) doesn't want to break anything, they'd just choose to use all the haks and all of the existing content would be there (including 2da lines!).

For older modules that don't get updated, the CEP 2.4 haks will still be kept available for downloading, so they will still be playable.

For existing modules/PWs that use CEP 2.4, switching to modular haks would be as simple as opening the module in the toolset, then Edit > Module Properties > Custom Content, switching the CEP haks out for all the newer modular ones, and hitting "OK" (or whatever that button is) (you can cancel the module build as soon as the button appears, it won't hurt anything).

I would not consider modular haks if I had to really change anything in my PW.  I've got CEP stuff all over the place.  But, since they'd work just fine, I think it's a good idea.

Now, as far as people getting heated about the subject...I can understand.  We all put hundreds upon hundreds (upon hundreds) of hours into this game (playing, building, creating).  It's an emotional investment.

I say, "Fear not!."  I would not take this on (nor instigate it) if it meant making a builder's work unusable.  I myself use CEP 2.4 heavily, and will not break backward compatibility by removing older content or moving around CEP 2da lines.

Based on what I've learned the last couple of months about history with the old CEP team (at least a couple of the members anyway), I do expect some blowback from them (should they bother to look at this forum or the CEP forum after almost a year and a half).  If they do throw a fit, I'll simply remove the content they made and complain about.  Then suggest people go download version 2.4 and extract what ends up missing to add to their own personal/module haks (I think it's mostly doors, a couple of placeables, and a couple of scripted systems).
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Bluebomber4evr]

               

The Amethyst Dragon wrote...

An updated CEP can be both modular and backwards compatible.

If only using a part of the CEP is what a builder wants, that can be done with modular haks.  If someone with an existing CEP (say version 2.4) doesn't want to break anything, they'd just choose to use all the haks and all of the existing content would be there (including 2da lines!).

For older modules that don't get updated, the CEP 2.4 haks will still be kept available for downloading, so they will still be playable.

For existing modules/PWs that use CEP 2.4, switching to modular haks would be as simple as opening the module in the toolset, then Edit > Module Properties > Custom Content, switching the CEP haks out for all the newer modular ones, and hitting "OK" (or whatever that button is) (you can cancel the module build as soon as the button appears, it won't hurt anything).

I would not consider modular haks if I had to really change anything in my PW.  I've got CEP stuff all over the place.  But, since they'd work just fine, I think it's a good idea.

Now, as far as people getting heated about the subject...I can understand.  We all put hundreds upon hundreds (upon hundreds) of hours into this game (playing, building, creating).  It's an emotional investment.

I say, "Fear not!."  I would not take this on (nor instigate it) if it meant making a builder's work unusable.  I myself use CEP 2.4 heavily, and will not break backward compatibility by removing older content or moving around CEP 2da lines.

Based on what I've learned the last couple of months about history with the old CEP team (at least a couple of the members anyway), I do expect some blowback from them (should they bother to look at this forum or the CEP forum after almost a year and a half).  If they do throw a fit, I'll simply remove the content they made and complain about.  Then suggest people go download version 2.4 and extract what ends up missing to add to their own personal/module haks (I think it's mostly doors, a couple of placeables, and a couple of scripted systems).

Awesome, great to hear, AD! '>
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Killmonger]

               lol Amethyst Dragon

You bring this topic up just as I was just beginning to redo 2da's 
I, too, am fed up waiting for this mythical Barry guy to descend to us with his grace and actually be part of this ongoing community. His long absence speaks volumes about his sincerity and commitment to the CEP and Nwn.

A dynamic documentation Wiki and change log are totally required !
There is much to the CEP which is really very good
Some of the old content could be overridden by new textures and models without disturbing the 2das
Shields, Tlk, and conflicting phenotypes (etc) are the problems.

Because of the scope of this project, achievable chunks should be attempted first without trying to repackage the entire original content (Community Expansion Project Overrides? or "3CEPO" ).

Then, as content is assembled and made coherent (a separate task) a new CEP3 could be introduced which would allow PW's time to adapt (also all arguable content should be identified and separated or remade by a different artists' variation   <Another huge library science task !). The scripted systems would also need to be included in this effort. At every step it should be as inclusive as possible...

User's can then choose to build with the newer version separate from the older version
Older modules simply would require that the older version be present in the correct folders.

This is an enormous undertaking that you propose. Patience and diligence will be very important.
It also could provide a fantastic opportunity for newbies learning to mod Nwn.

A clear definition of what all the technical conflicts and obstacles are, needs to be posted and considered in a timely fashion. After that the old turkey can be carved up with a more surgical approach...

Once a streamlined and modular version is available, those of us who are left at that future date can include or exclude it as we individually see fit (Or continue to use the "3CEPOs" to override specific things)  
jmho.

<Before posting I see that much of my line of thought has just now been captured by others>

Many of us (hereabove) seem to be of like mind.

Visionary....indeed, evolutionary....
This topic needs more progressive discussion and inspection

<Aye matey, there be golden booty enough fer all !!! >
aside,
Is it really a mutiny or just apostasy?
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_The Amethyst Dragon]

               Apostasy is where you once believed in something, then left it behind.  Usually in reference to a religion...in some cases apostates are considered worse than people that never believed in the first place.

Mutiny is the taking over of a ship by a crew that no longer wants to follow the captain, or, in this case, take over a big-ass custom content compilation that's been anchored by a reef for way too long.

And yes, this will require a lot of discussion, planning, opinion harvesting, and so on.

I think I'll go set up a wiki for this tonight.

Now, the really important question remains:  Do we keep the original CEP logo, or modify it with a pirate motif?
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_The Amethyst Dragon]

               New CEP wiki is set up (http://nwncep.wikia.com), so the planning/documentation can take off. '>
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Mecheon]

               

The Amethyst Dragon wrote...
Based on what I've learned the last couple of months about history with the old CEP team (at least a couple of the members anyway), I do expect some blowback from them (should they bother to look at this forum or the CEP forum after almost a year and a half).  If they do throw a fit, I'll simply remove the content they made and complain about.  Then suggest people go download version 2.4 and extract what ends up missing to add to their own personal/module haks (I think it's mostly doors, a couple of placeables, and a couple of scripted systems).

Hey, they picked it up from someone else, if they have a problem, well, what if whoever originally started it comes knocking on their doors?

Also I'd love for it to be called the CEP 2 Electric Boogaloo
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Tarot Redhand]

               @Killmonger Your "(Community Expansion Project Overrides? or "3CEPO" )" is amusing but with one word the acronym is even better - Community Expansion Project instant Overrides for 3CEPiO (). Anyway it inspired the following -

CEP 1 - All for one, one (cep) for all
CEP 2 - This time it's personal
CEP 3 - A New Hope

TR
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Proleric]

               I'd support this project, and would be prepared to help, time permitting.

I've no beef with the old team, but, since nothing seems to be happening, it would be pragmatic to adopt it, as we did with the 1.69 Lexicon.

Setting aside the "how to" momentarily, I'd suggest some key learning from the past:

• CEP backward compatibility, so that live projects feel motivated to use the new content
  
  
• Attribution to the original author by component
  
  
• Unambiguous licensing, with regard to attribution, share alike, derivatives and (especially) perpetual use
  
  
• Governance which is inclusive of stakeholders (e.g. content authors, PW owners, module builders, players)

Subject to those constraints, I like modularity, because it provides more choice, faster semi-independent delivery, and one means of working around those awkward license issues.

EDIT : I should perhaps emphasise that my learning points refer to past initiatives in general, and are not specifically about the CEP or any other individual project.
               
               

               

                     Modifié par Proleric1, 14 janvier 2014 - 11:46 .