Fomenting Mutiny

[Legacy_The Amethyst Dragon]

               

I added my idea for a possible new logo.  Feel free to add your own.

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_The Amethyst Dragon]

               

Still looking for volunteers to spend some time pulling creature appearance credit info into the excel file I linked to 2 posts before this one.  Packaging the documentation with CEP would be nice, I think.

 

I'm working on 2da files a little today, and came across an inconsistency that I'd like to fix.  For creature appearances, some models in the toolset include a reference to the source in the appearance name, such as (CODI), (WRM), etc.  Many, many others do not.  Same goes for some placeables and other things where the appearances show up in a drop-down in the toolset.

 

So, the question is, keep the source references in the appearance drop-downs, or remove them so they just appear in the credits documentation?  If we keep the source references, I'd like to get them added to other content included in CEP.  If we don't, the info will still be available, but I'll remove it from the appearance names just to be consistent.  I posted a simple poll on the wiki in regards to this to get community input: http://nwncep.wikia....i/Various_Polls

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Bannor Bloodfist]

               

Still looking for volunteers to spend some time pulling creature appearance credit info into the excel file I linked to 2 posts before this one.  Packaging the documentation with CEP would be nice, I think.

 

I'm working on 2da files a little today, and came across an inconsistency that I'd like to fix.  For creature appearances, some models in the toolset include a reference to the source in the appearance name, such as (CODI), (WRM), etc.  Many, many others do not.  Same goes for some placeables and other things where the appearances show up in a drop-down in the toolset.

 

So, the question is, keep the source references in the appearance drop-downs, or remove them so they just appear in the credits documentation?  If we keep the source references, I'd like to get them added to other content included in CEP.  If we don't, the info will still be available, but I'll remove it from the appearance names just to be consistent.  I posted a simple poll on the wiki in regards to this to get community input: http://nwncep.wikia....i/Various_Polls

 

Since this is NOT a project I am helping with, you can obviously take my opinion as just that, an opinion, and do with it as you wish.

 

I am one of those that NEVER deletes data, unless absolutely necessary.  That has been the issue with the old CEP in the past, they would have folks willing to add the data, but others chose to just delete it because it pointed out the facts that not everything was covered.  In this particular instance, you have "additional" data that is easily read by the end user, right from the start, instead of having to dig into a huge credits.txt file to find the information.  Most of us, wouldn't take the additional time needed to find that data, at all, much less if it required looking through hundreds or thousands of lines of boring text in a readme type of file.  Here, you have at least some of the extra crediting information already laid out for you... why delete it?  Yes, it does point out that other bits do NOT have that extra information, so you could handle that in other ways, either by adding that additional data in for those items missing it, ignoring the fact that extra data is missing for those bits that do not have it, OR removing all of it.  The removal would mean that the data is effectively lost forever, as no one wants to dig back into a huge project and attempt to ADD back in data that once existed.

 

Anyway, good luck with the project, do as you see fit.

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_The Amethyst Dragon]

               

 

Since this is NOT a project I am helping with, you can obviously take my opinion as just that, an opinion, and do with it as you wish.

 

Aha!  But you are helping with this project.  Right now, by giving your thoughts and opinions on it!

 

I am one of those that NEVER deletes data, unless absolutely necessary.  That has been the issue with the old CEP in the past, they would have folks willing to add the data, but others chose to just delete it because it pointed out the facts that not everything was covered.  In this particular instance, you have "additional" data that is easily read by the end user, right from the start, instead of having to dig into a huge credits.txt file to find the information.  Most of us, wouldn't take the additional time needed to find that data, at all, much less if it required looking through hundreds or thousands of lines of boring text in a readme type of file.  Here, you have at least some of the extra crediting information already laid out for you... why delete it?  Yes, it does point out that other bits do NOT have that extra information, so you could handle that in other ways, either by adding that additional data in for those items missing it, ignoring the fact that extra data is missing for those bits that do not have it, OR removing all of it.  The removal would mean that the data is effectively lost forever, as no one wants to dig back into a huge project and attempt to ADD back in data that once existed.

 

Anyway, good luck with the project, do as you see fit.

 

Well said.  And your well thought out response to my request for input means I will weigh your opinion more heavily when the decision is made.

 

As far as the data being lost, I'd still have it in the excel file I use to edit and generate 2da files (new info is currently going into 3 new column at the end that record which CEP version the content is added in, the creator name/handle, and the Vault URL the content was downloaded from), and will include it in the CEP documentation.

 

Those source columns are why I was asking for one or more folks to go to the CEP forum and pull in that source information from the "Bestiary" thread, since many of the creature model sources are documented there, just not in a single handy column formatted file.  And if I get that information, it's not difficult to whip up a formula in excel to get the creator names added to the appearance drop-down automagically.

 

 

 

Now, speaking of content creators...if you have content in the CEP already and your name isn't already showing in the toolset appearance drop-downs, send me a PM with the content that's yours so I can get you into the documentation and possibly right into the actual 2da files.

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Shadooow]

               

There's a point of what Bannor says, but I voted no regardless. The credits in comments are imo better choice. If the source will be also in the excel file the better.

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Malagant]

               

Having the post-appearance name credit doesn't bother me as much as the "[CEP23]" that was added as a prefix. I have no issue with the descriptors like (Dynamic), [Unique], [Mounted], etc. Back when I used to build off of CEP, I invariably always removed the [CEP23] and [CEP24] to keep everything relatively alphabetical. It just seemed an unnecessary addition.

 

In this particular instance, you have "additional" data that is easily read by the end user, right from the start, instead of having to dig into a huge credits.txt file to find the information.  Most of us, wouldn't take the additional time needed to find that data, at all, much less if it required looking through hundreds or thousands of lines of boring text in a readme type of file. Here, you have at least some of the extra crediting information already laid out for you... why delete it?The removal would mean that the data is effectively lost forever, as no one wants to dig back into a huge project and attempt to ADD back in data that once existed.

 

It the data remains in or is added to the credits documentation (which I would figure is included with the package), I'm not sure how that equates to "lost forever". It's still there, it's just been moved to a convenient place. Sure, the drop-down is convenient enough but, from a pragmatic viewpoint, most of us veterans are already familiar with who made what of the more popular models and I would venture to say that many newer people using the package probably wouldn't care enough to find out where anything came from, not to mention some of the longer descriptor names edge that credit from visibility on the drop down list anyway.

 

I would think someone not wanting to be bothered with reading through thousands of lines of text, PDF pages, or a spreadsheet is probably intelligent enough to click on "Edit"/"Find", type in a word they are looking for, and click "Find Next". Since I haven't memorized the appearance line of every creature or placeable model in the CEP, I frequently have to use this method to avoid scrolling all the way through a currently possible 6275 lines of 2da, and not once have I asked myself why they didn't also add the appearance.2da line in the appearance drop-down so I could avoid the extra 3 clicks to find that one line.

 

For this reason I also voted no because, if I go to look for a resource on the drop-down, I'm not all that concerned with who to give thanks to or who's defunct website to not visit that no longer exists and prefer a more clean presentation. If I want to know who's credited then it's no more trouble for me than having to find a particular resource within a 2da, something people are more likely to do than seek out a credit.

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Pstemarie]

               

One thing I was thinking of doing for Q 2das is moving the drop down index (we use [Q] and some others) to the end of the name. That way it restores the alphabetical listing and still has the credit in the menu listing. You could do this for CEP easily enough too.

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_The Amethyst Dragon]

               

Having the post-appearance name credit doesn't bother me as much as the "[CEP23]" that was added as a prefix. I have no issue with the descriptors like (Dynamic), [Unique], [Mounted], etc. Back when I used to build off of CEP, I invariably always removed the [CEP23] and [CEP24] to keep everything relatively alphabetical. It just seemed an unnecessary addition.

 

I've already removed that particular text for when the next version of the CEP comes out.  It annoyed me as well.

 

One thing I was thinking of doing for Q 2das is moving the drop down index (we use [Q] and some others) to the end of the name. That way it restores the alphabetical listing and still has the credit in the menu listing. You could do this for CEP easily enough too.

 

Yup, mostly alphabetical is the way to go.  Any source/credit info will/would go at the end of the appearance names. Certain "tags" would remain at the front for a few (such as (Dynamic) and [Mounted]), but I'm a fan alphabetical and organized.  I wish we could do the same with tails and wings, but that can't happen without a toolset modification.

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Shadooow]

               

Actually the CEP23 and CEP24 tags were quite usefull to see the new content added in new version... Quite good feature to say - though maybe a tag [New] at the end of the name would be enough.

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_FunkySwerve]

               

Actually the CEP23 and CEP24 tags were quite usefull to see the new content added in new version... Quite good feature to say - though maybe a tag [New] at the end of the name would be enough.

Agreed. Made it easy to find newer content, for those of us who have been using the set for years. I'm not too fussed by the removal now, either, though, since the difference between the old and the new is far less than it used to be - it's all 'old' now.

 

Might want to put a prefix on the next set of added materials, though.

 

Funky

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Zarathustra217]

               

Personally, I'm not a fan of the prefixing either. When you are building something, you are usually focused on acquiring the right content, independent on whether it's old or new.

 

If we just make sure to document all the new creature and placeable appearances in a text file, people can always check that if they want to see what's new. Perhaps we could even make sure that the demo module included more explicitly showcased the new content. The existing demo-modules seem more oriented toward players than builders, who really just want a quick overview of the new stuff available.

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_The Amethyst Dragon]

               

If someone has started going through that forum link I gave (for all the appearance credits), no need to continue.  Decided to just do it myself and I've got them all from those posts.  Still a bunch of creature appearances that don't have the creator/URL, but it's quite a start.

 

Placeables, on the other hand, I've only gotten through ones that were referenced in the 2.2 to 2.3 documentation included in the CEP.  All the NWN2 stuff from thegeorge, plus a few other ones.  So, step right up and volunteer folks. '>

 

I'm putting all of this information into an excel file to make it easier to add to appearance names or to just copy and paste back out for a website table or plain text.  Don't want plain text myself, since it's easier to organize if I've got it right in the same excel worksheets with the actual 2da data.

 

I'm leaning toward including the creator(s) names at the back end of each appearance name in the toolset, since it would be really, really easy for me to add and would not change the alphabetical order of things.

 

   Spoiler
   

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Bannor Bloodfist]

               

<snipped>

 

I'm leaning toward including the creator(s) names at the back end of each appearance name in the toolset, since it would be really, really easy for me to add and would not change the alphabetical order of things.

 

   Spoiler
   

It is sooo sad that the toolset itself did not provide such a way of organizing things.  Life would have been sooo much better for everyone, user and builder, content creator etc.  Oh well, as the old saying goes "if wishes were fishes we would never go hungry..."  Speaking of food, I think I better go fix my meal for the day... been up for almost 24 hours and all I have had is 5 large mugs of sweetened coffee... not good for digestion or healthy thinking either ...

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Rolo Kipp]

               

<inserting his foot...>

 

I do really like the idea of merging Q with CEP.  I'd be interested in making it at least *three* of us stubborn, er, dedicated souls investing in this.

In fact, I'm interested in talking, or at least exploring the possibility, so long as we maintain the memorial conditions (primarily thinking of CTP Generic Doors), of incorporating the CTP tilesets (with the exception of CTP Babylon).

 

I feel very strongly about returning the CEP to an open community project. I feel very strongly about reducing the "fragmentation" from non-compatible but very desirable community projects. And I feel very strongly about continuing the work of the CTP.

 

I have offered before, mostly in passing, but I offer again to provide dedicated forums for major community project development: CEP, Project Q, CTP, CCP

 

I may be an absent-minded old wizard (TAD, did you finally get those files for Dark Sun? :-( ), but I think time has shown my dedication to... us :-)

 

<...in the narrow, dangerous place between frame and door>

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Lazarus Magni]

               

*Hugs Rolo*