Suggesting A Standards-Based Approach

[ytene]

Please forgive the impertinence of this post. As a Skyrim gamer who is only now just learning about the Creation Kit and related tools, I'm very conscious that I'm about to ask people *way* more experienced than I to do things differently. I certainly don't mean to be presumptuous...

 

As my confidence with Skyrim modding has grown, so I have added quite a few mods to my game (probably north of 180 by now). In so doing, I've learned that it's actually quite difficult to know, when you have so many mods, where you might find issues. For example, yesterday I downloaded and installed TES5Edit for the first time, and discovered to my horror that many of my favourite mods were carrying a range of errors. I also quickly learned that tracking down problems is not easy - for example, when TES5Edit reports an issue with a mode file, and yet I can find no Mod in NMM with a matching name or reference. I also discovered that, at some point, I've added something to my system which breaks the Creation Kit - I get errors when I launch - and that I've no way of detecting the source of this issue...

 

So, thinking through some of the challenges I've seen, I wondered if this community would be willing to consider a couple of ideas?

 

1. Naming Conventions

One problem I've seen is that there is often a discrepancy between the name of a mod file at the Windows File System level (i.e. the name of the ESP file) and the way that it gets displayed in tools like NMM. So my first suggestion would be that maybe there's scope to have some "mod development guidelines", with best practices that we could share, to make it easier for non-modders to diagnose issues if they occur. I really see this as important - it's all well and good if TES5Edit reports an issue, but finding it can be a problem! [ And: sorry in advance if I've missed something in my ignorance...]

 

2. Defect Reporting

A second idea would be to ask if there is scope to either implement a feature, or to stipulate a "convention" to follow with respect to reporting issues with a mod. At the moment, a mod's home page has a lovely set of clickable buttons - "DESC, FILES, IMAGES, POSTS, FORUMS, TAGS, ACTIONS, READ ME. Some mod authors do create a forum for bug reporting, and others include an FAQ forum where answers to previously-raised questions get posted. Would it be a good idea to either add a new entry to the above list of buttons: "Report Problem" (which on the back end captures details and emails the mod author), or to provide guidelines to all authors to set up a certain set of default forum topics (or do this for them) to give a consistent approach to bug reporting...

 

3. Defect/Status Ranking

One of the things I've spotted through my (very brief so far) experimentation with TES5Edit is that not all mod authors clean their mods before uploading, and that files contain varying levels of issues. I wonder if it would be appropriate for a mod home page to contain a marker/field/indicator showing both the latest "defect status" of a mod, and an indicator of whether or not the known issues are cosmetic, minor, or likely to cause known problems with other combinations of mods. I see that some modders do provide this in their descriptions, but this is discretionary, and displayed in an inconsistent way... A clear and consistent approach would let gamers make an informed choice about whether or not to download a particular mod.

 

4. Mod Versioning

This observation relates more to the functionality of the NMM, but I've observed that NMM often flags up a version issue with multi-part mod when perhaps non exists. Specifically, imagine there is a Follower mod for a character, with version ID 1.1.1. I have this loaded... There is also a supplementary mod for this character, the "No Face Paint Patch", with version ID 1.1.2. Within the NMM Tool, the first of these 2 mods will get the "Version Mismatch" warning triangle associated with it. Obviously, there are 2 ways that we could fix this : change the NMM or change the mods. Of the 2 options, I'd much prefer to educate mod authors to apply a consistent file naming convention to their mods, so as to resolve this particular issue. Honestly, I'm not too fussed as to the "right way" to address this, but I do think it would be helpful if we could find a way of removing the "issue noise" by addressing this.

 

5. Mod Upgrades

Sorry in advance if this needs to go in a bug report list elsewhere, but I think there is an issue with the Mod Upgrade feature within NMM itself. When I try to use the mod upgrade feature, I get an on-screen display to suggest that it is scanning my mod library, but I don't think I've ever seen a mod properly updated by this automatic tool. Again, I wonder if this is because of a broken bit of functionality, or an inconsistent approach to mods themselves?

 

6. Mod Combinations And Clashes - An Audit Log

I might struggle a bit to explain precisely what I mean by this, but let me try anyway. We know that if two or more mods both make changes to the same game element, then the mod most recently applied will typically be the one that over-writes the game default settings. If I have 2 or more mods that change Lydia, for example, then applying both of them will produce a "custom" result. More importantly, the sequence by which I apply those two or more mods gets very important too... So I wondered if it might be possible for the NMM itself to maintain a simple flat log file that records, in chronological sequence, the precise series of mods that I add and remove to my game. Armed with this [and aided with clear naming conventions] it should be possible for me to re-constitute my game configuration/environment with nothing more than this file... and get back to precisely the configuration I have previously enjoyed...

 

7. Local Mod Cache

Most of the time I don't use Windows on my home PC, but a version of Linux (Mint Debian Edition). Just like NMM, Linux uses packages to deliver functionality to the core product. Unlike NMM, however, Linux has come up with an amazingly simple way of letting me manage upgrades. Basically, it separates "updating" into 2 discrete steps - the first is downloading a package file, the second is installation. The advantage is that I have, on my machine, a folder that contains every single Linux package I've ever downloaded. When I build a new machine, I simply copy that folder to a shared drive, and make it available to the second system. When the second system tries to download one of the optional packages, it checks it's local cache, finds that it already has a copy, and installs it without trying a second download.

 

This massively reduces my network traffic (and cost to me) and reduces the load on the central servers too. So, I was wondering... Since NMM uses compressed (7Zip?) files to distribute packages, would it be possible to reconfigure the client to keep "local copies" of all deployed mods? Maybe as an optional switch?

 

The advantage here is that if I decided that I needed to rebuild my games machine, then re-installing Skyrim would be a case of

 

1. Archiving my NMM Package Files

2. Archiving my NMM Config (i.e. which Packages I had deployed, and it what load order)

3. Re-installing the game

4. Placing my archived Package files in the appropriate directory

5. Importing my "Config Script" to put everything back the way I wanted it...

If you think about it, there's a wonderful side benefit. If you apply a mod which over-writes something in a way that you did not anticipate, and you don't like the result, you can use a "Config Script" to get you back to your desired setup. Simply implement an "Uninstall All Mods" option, then re-run a previously saved copy of your optimum config and you get everything back the way you like it...

 

 

 

Sorry for the long, rambling post. I hope it proves to be helpful, and/or thought-provoking. If any of the suggestions I've made here sound possible but are not entirely clear, do feel free to reach out, and I'll be happy to clarify.

 

Thanks for reading all the way down to here!

[AhtnamasStudio]

To be honest with you Big wall a text will turn 85% of people away and lol thats allot of mods

[meh321]

Never had more than 100 mods installed myself, and I didn't read the whole thing but if you are suggesting everyone start to follow certain rules when creating mods then it's just a little bit naive. :)

[chanchan05]

I have almost 200 mods installed. I agree with meh321 that it's a bit naive to have everyone follow certain rules. It's not like they're doing this for a living. However you are free to rename and edit the files in your computer to your liking.

 

1. Mod naming isn't really a problem, not when you can edit how NMM displays the mod name, and how the esp files are named. I do that all the time. The one thing here is that people find different ways to sort things to their own liking and which makes it easier for them. And this allows that. If you don't like how a particular mod's naming was made. Change the file names.

 

2. That's what the Posts section is for. The problem I see with "report problem" buttons, is that people just post a problem and think it will get magically fixed in an update. Thing is, modding is a delicate act of balancing. Any problem a person may be encountering may be specific to him alone, which is why "report problem" buttons may not be a good idea. The Posts section actually links into the forums here, allowing for a more in depth discussion and where other people can read up. Most mod authors update the description pages on bugs and fixes anyway.

 

3. Because some mods need those dirty edits. If I remember correctly, Convenient Horses is found to have dirty edits, but the mod page warns that this is needed. As for the "defect status", it's almost impossible IMO to make a consistent list about this, and very difficult to verify (takes repeat clean saving and reinstallation on removing of the mod in accordance with other mods), considering that there are thousands of mods out there.

 

4. I see no problem with this. Say a mod is version 1, then obviously a patch for it will be 1.1.

 

5. The mod upgrade utility does not automatically update your mods, and I will stop using NMM if it does so. It only scans the mods then the server and gives you the yellow triangles if a mod needs an update. That's basically the single reason why Steam can break your save game to irretrievable status: automatic mod updates. Some mods require clean saves and a few workings before updating. For example, Elysium Estate's last major update changed the interior of the house quite a bit. This required you to remove everything in the house and going to a cell away from the area (like inside the town) before updating. If you do not do so, you risk losing everything you stored in the house. Imagine if your mod manager automatically updated it. Goodbye to all the daedric artifacts and dragon masks and etc. you collected.

 

6. Actually, the best order of reinstalling mods is your working load order, which NMM already can export as a text file. The lower the mod is in the load order, the higher priority it gets, and therefore should be installed later than anything higher up that it so that it will overwrite those.

 

7. I don't really understand the problem here. All files you ever downloaded via NMM are in a folder in your PC. Even the older versions of the mods unless you told NMM upon download that you want to overwrite. You don't need to redownload them. Reinstalling Skyrim would simply be:

 

1. Copy the zip files of the mods from the NMM download folder in the old PC

2. Reinstall Skyrim on the New PC.

3. Install NMM on new PC

4. Open NMM and use the add file option in the mods tab to add the mods you have already downloaded

5. Install

 

Personally i wouldn't want a complete recopy of my old PC's Data file ini files. Remember that the new PC could have new hardware, and you may need different settings. A clean setup is always the best approach.

 

 

As it is, I prefer the way things are right now. Makes rooting the idiots (forgive the term) out easier. As it is, you're less likely to try something of the more complex overhaul mods without learning something of modding. The current set up makes it a bit intimidating, thus prompting people to think twice and thrice about modding, and thus leading them to proper places to ask questions. Some of what you are suggesting are being done in Steam, and take a look at the problems their newbie modders are getting, and how more experienced modders often stay away from Steam, except for the DLCs and exclusive mods. As it is, the intimidating nature of modding via Nexus sort of makes it idiot-proof IMO, and that's good.

[ytene]

Thanks, Chanchan - very helpful!

[bben46]

While standards can be a good idea, it's kind of difficult to go back over 12 years and about 100,000 mods to enforce them. As for revision levels, some mod makers don't bother, some use one convention and some another - Most do use the 1.0, 1.1, 2.0 convention. Some don't even speak English. Many are amateurs that have never done anything relating to programming before and don't even realize there are such things as standard practices. Others are 14 years old and extremely proud of just getting a mod they made on the Nexus. Trying to get mod makers to adhere to one single standard is kind of like herding cats. :blush:

 

What you are seeing as errors when using Tes5 is not necessarily actual problems, but changes that the mod makes to either the game or other mods. Very handy thing to have. And what it shows as 'dirty' are often (almost all of the time) no more than a duplicate record that will be overwritten with a copy of itself and not cause any problems. My own recommendation - don't fix it if it ain't broke - or don't clean mods unless you know that the dirty edit is actually causing a problem. - And Tes5 is good for finding that out. :dance:

 

NMM does not and will not automatically update your mods for you - that was never a goal. It does tell you when the maker has posted a new version - but only if he put it on the Nexus - Then you really do need to read what the changes were before deciding for yourself if you want those changes - not all changes will be appropriate for your game - especially if the 'new version' requires starting your game over or conflicts with some other 'must have' mod.

 

As for a compatibility log. That is what BOSS does. Skyrim alone has over 30,000 mods now with many more added every day. The BOSS team tries their best to keep up, but are swamped with new mods and changes to old ones. And they still try to support 5 other games also. If you have the skills, they would love some help. :thumbsup:

 

As for making windows work just like Linux - you are talking to the wrong people - But I doubt if Bill G. will listen to you. He has never paid much attention to my suggestions either. Possibly because of my recommendation on where he could put Windows 1.0 a few years ago. :whistling: And what you described is a lot like what NMM does when you use it to download and install a mod. But with the limitations imposed by Windows structure.

 

I have a lot of hope that the Steam Linux initiative will get some of the major game studios to support Linux. Even if it is the proprietary Steam distro.