Mod authors should have made a master list of locations

[DrakeTheDragon]

I think the biggest problem of the very idea/concept and why it is faced with so much negativity is its inherent lack of usefulness.

 

Let's say we go by the original proposal of managing such a list of touched locations (cells) and make it so it's used to prevent touching locations again, which already have been touched by another mod.

A cell in Bethesda games is huge. Take an entire park area for example and a mod moves only 1 tree. This would render the entire park inaccessible for any other mod to touch it, by the premise originally expressed.

After a strictly limited number of mods (as many as there are cells inside the game) no more mods affecting locations could be made. Restricting modding the game like such is not of much use to anybody.

 

And even if we ignore the original premise and only manage such a list. While the number of cells inside the game is limited, it's definitely quite high.

We're talking of hundreds, if not thousands, of mods touching the same cell, making for quite a long list. But then we also have to keep in mind only very specific modifications to the cell will even have a means to actually conflict.

Take the park example, or make it a wood, and make it a hundred mods only moving trees around (for example to make room for pathways or the like), then it is even possible none of them actually conflict at all, as they all move around different trees.

So we have a list with 1000 entries of changes to the same cell, while in reality almost none of the changes causes any conflict.

 

Add to it you won't know which mod moved which trees, and the list will quickly be entirely useless to you.

 

Now let's even assume we'd add every detail to it where it "might" conflict with other mods "theoretically"... and I say theoretically, because the number of things one mod can conflict with another in is practically unlimited, as even the core design of the game can be expanded by mods... then, no, we can't even assume that, because it's simply impossible to do. It is not even defined what a "conflict" even is. Not all conflicts are a problem. Even a "patch", be it for improvement or for compatibility, is a "conflict" still technically.

 

So in summing it up it's the inherent uselessness of the list and the practical impossibility of the task of managing it, which makes authors here so opposed to the idea.

And the game didn't have a conflict check for much the same reasons. What even is a conflict? By technicality every "plugin" is a conflict with the master file. And then add to it that the game can't even "detect" conflicts of mods outside of plugins.

Sometimes even conflict detection by tools is pretty useless, as the conflicts they detect are all "intentional" rather than troublesome.

[showler]

"Freedom of Speech" is irrelevant on a private website. You follow their rules or you get kicked.

[showler]

If you think rules against racism, sexism and things like homophobic language are silly then I am very glad I never worked with you.

 

Also, an IT admin and a forum admin are so different I have no idea why you would even mention it.

[HeyYou]

 

"Freedom of Speech" is irrelevant on a private website. You follow their rules or you get kicked.

 

I think I've been banned from about 50 websites. Why do only arrogant people work as admins? I used to be an admin in IT/network support, I was praised for actually doing what the users asked, instead of making silly rules.

 

I am admin on a couple sites, and we ban for those reasons as well. This is a gaming forum, not a place to collect followers for whatever ideology it is you wish to express. We have a debates section here, but even some topics there are banned. (religious discussions, for instance.) The sole aim of those rules is to keep the site manageable, and not have to hire full-time moderators JUST for those sections. You may see the rules as frivolous, or silly, but, you still agreed to them when you signed up. That means, follow the rules, or you are history.

 

Here, they have a warning point system. I am not even that nice. If I have some member causing issues, they get ONE chance to change their behavior. If they don't, that's it, they are gone. The rules are there for a reason, what you think about them simply doesn't matter. If you want to participate in the forums, you agreed to follow them. So, stay within the rules, or off you go.

[hucker75]

Ah, so you're one of those (insert word you'll ban me for in a temper). There's a difference between someone spamming politics, and someone just bringing it up in the middle of a gaming discussion, or daring to use a "naughty" word.

 

I didn't agree to anything, I pressed the button to let me join. Do you seriously think anyone has actually read that? At my first place of work, we were told to read a 350 page(!) book and sign something. Nobody but nobody read that godawful pointless rubbish.

Edited January 18, 2022 by hucker75

[zcul]

Thread locked for the time being, before the discussion gets entirely out of hand ...

Edit:
As a side note:
Every site member confirmed (at least once) that s/he had read and accepted the rules for use of the site – when registering with the site by setting a check mark to confirm that in order to complete registration.

Staf Ref.: