DLL Features

[Roland Johansen]

Just a question.....

Are you going to include the unofficial patch code in BULL?

I would call that problematic, given that Dresden made some fixes that were somewhat ill received ( I'm talking specifically of caping the overflow gold, but there might be others ), and I think it is not the objective of this mod to change rules, espacially ones that people are split regarding them. Not mentioning that the patch has some bugs of their own that were never corrected ( stuff regarding solver changes to air power )....

On the other hand I wouldn't use BULL without the unofficial patch, so....

Opinions are divided on this issue. It depends a bit on the percentage of BUG users that presently combine or would like to combine the unofficial patch with BUG.

edit: I will even want to combine BULL with the BetterAI project and that includes the unofficial patch. I'm presently unsure whether I have the skills to do this. I will probably have to learn a bit of merging skills. I have done very little with modding the gamecore.

 

[AlpsStranger]

Just a question.....

Are you going to include the unofficial patch code in BULL?

I would call that problematic, given that Dresden made some fixes that were somewhat ill received ( I'm talking specifically of caping the overflow gold, but there might be others ), and I think it is not the objective of this mod to change rules, espacially ones that people are split regarding them. Not mentioning that the patch has some bugs of their own that were never corrected ( stuff regarding solver changes to air power )....

This is an interesting issue. I haven't been using the unofficial patches, so I hadn't heard of it until now. I would second the recommendation not to make it mandatory since some of the changes are not gameplay neutral. If they were *strictly* fixing bugs--though changing the gameplay in the process--my opinion would be different.

Some of the changes in BUG mod *do* change gameplay slightly by exposing very tiny slices of information that could not be derived normally, but these are so minor that they are barely worth mentioning. It would be akin to seeing .05% farther into the fog of war in an RTS. This would barely rate as a cheat.

Let's hope this mystery doesn't linger long, eh Rolo? I would kill for some BULL Mod right about now

On the other hand I wouldn't use BULL without the unofficial patch, so....

Opinions are divided on this issue. It depends a bit on the percentage of BUG users that presently combine or would like to combine the unofficial patch with BUG.

edit: I will even want to combine BULL with the BetterAI project and that includes the unofficial patch. I'm presently unsure whether I have the skills to do this. I will probably have to learn a bit of merging skills. I have done very little with modding the gamecore.

He has already stated that the DLL will be open source. I am sure many mods will be merged with it by the community. This would likely occur even if Emperor didn't wish for it.

 

[EmperorFool]

The current version of BULL started from the Unofficial Patch. It won't take much to remove it, though. Dresden had agreed to maintain the merged version, but since he's been MIA since December cry I think that's going to fall on me.

My intention had been to maintain a single set of source files with #ifdef UNOFFICIAL_PATCH checks to allow me to build UP and non-UP versions. That would of course require adding all that (easy but probably several hours work) and then figuring out how to set up VS 2008 to have a new build configuration with that symbol defined (as well as the PITA of updating the makefile). All very good work, and very likely to delay it even more.

The other thought I had was to create options for all the UP fixes just like the other BULL features. All would work except one: collateral damage. The reason is that part of the collateral damage fix is in the XML (removing the ability for Tanks to get the Barrage promotion line). I cannot modify that from Python/C++. Still, I could make the effects optional and leave reverting the XML to the player.

Anyone have any thoughts or ideas on the subject?

 

[r_rolo1]

My point is not to drop all the unofficial patch changes.... As most of you know, I contributed for the discussion of the changes on the unofficial patch a lot and there things that are must haves. But there were some changes that dresden and solver introduced that were not entirely bug fixing and had one foot in the game rule design side of the road..... And some of those were ill received by a lot of people in CFC. I talked about the overflow gold cap ( that was really ill received by some people ), but there are some others......

What i wanted to know is how the unofficial patch changes would be introduced.... are going to work in top of 0.21 unoffficial patch as template without looking back or sort between the changes that were made ( and maybe introduce some of the changes that Dresden never introduced, like the worst enemy of the human bug )?

 

[ruff_hi]

Some of the changes in BUG mod *do* change gameplay slightly by exposing very tiny slices of information that could not be derived normally, but these are so minor that they are barely worth mentioning.

No, please do mention them. We even have a thread here about our commitment to UG .

 

[Roland Johansen]

As far as I recall, all the changes introduced by the unofficial patch were supported by the majority of the users of the patch. Some changes were supported by all, some changes had some opposition. Some changes were even discussed quite severely and had polls to see if they were supported enough. I can't recall any changes however that were opposed by the majority. That would have made the unofficial patch useless as an unofficial patch. An unofficial patch needs to be supported by the majority or it will lose its status as unofficial patch.

 

[r_rolo1]

The point is that exactly, Roland ( and the same reason with I didn't used the last version of Bhruic patch, with my strong dissent about the ban on gifting missionaries to Theo civs ). The persons that disagree with the changes in the patch will not continue using it, so they will not be counted for the support of the changes ( call it self exclusion ) . I know of atleast a handful of BUG users that don't use 0.21 because of the overflow cap ( obsolete, for a example ) and there is no reason to push those people out of BULL because of a feature that is not fundamental for it and that is definitely not UG (twist it the way you want, but putting a cap in the overflow gold IS a rule change )

 

[Roland Johansen]

The point is that exactly, Roland ( and the same reason with I didn't used the last version of Bhruic patch, with my strong dissent about the ban on gifting missionaries to Theo civs ). The persons that disagree with the changes in the patch will not continue using it, so they will not be counted for the support of the changes ( call it self exclusion ) . I know of atleast a handful of BUG users that don't use 0.21 because of the overflow cap ( obsolete, for a example ) and there is no reason to push those people out of BULL because of a feature that is not fundamental for it and that is definitely not UG (twist it the way you want, but putting a cap in the overflow gold IS a rule change )

Those who stop using the unofficial patch because they disagree about a feature will stop using it only after the discussion and the following implementation of the feature. So the self exclusion that you're talking about is not causing a flaw in any poll about the inclusion of an element in the unofficial patch because it happens after the poll results.

Any discussion about UG depends on what you call the basic version of the game. The way it comes out of the box, the way it is after patch version x or the way it is after the unofficial patch version y. Each version has altered gameplay compared to the other versions.

It all boils down to what you prefer. There is no objectiveness in this.

 

[EmperorFool]

Just to be absolutely clear as this discussion relates to this thread, BULL will definitely have a version without the UP. Anyone will also be free to merge BULL with whatever other mods they see fit, be they UG or non-UG. Case closed.

Please take the argument about whether or not the UP is good or representative or evil or pink to a new thread. Thanks!

 

[r_rolo1]

I was just remembering that BUG and the UP have diferent objectives and diferent clients

 

[Roland Johansen]

Just to be absolutely clear as this discussion relates to this thread, BULL will definitely have a version without the UP. Anyone will also be free to merge BULL with whatever other mods they see fit, be they UG or non-UG. Case closed.

I also prefer clarity: you have the position that the Unofficial Patch (UP) is altered gameplay? This because one of the later version of the UP is used as a basis for the HOF-Mod which is the mod for civ4-competition. I always assumed that the ideas for unaltered gameplay of the HOF-Mod and the BUG-Mod were quite similar. Are both mods using a different basis for unaltered gameplay?

It would be easy if everyone had the same idea about unaltered and basic and vanilla and such words, but that's likely never going to happen. I'm just wondering what is the idea of unaltered by the BUG-team. (I'm not looking for a definition here as that is probably too restrictive, it might haunt you.)

 

[EmperorFool]

I also prefer clarity: you have the position that the Unofficial Patch (UP) is altered gameplay?

My position on this is not the issue. BUG is not just about unaltered gameplay; it's also about user choice. I refuse to have a huge options screen with nearly every feature configurable but make the UP changes mandatory.

 

[ruff_hi]

I also prefer clarity: you have the position that the Unofficial Patch (UP) is altered gameplay? This because one of the later version of the UP is used as a basis for the HOF-Mod which is the mod for civ4-competition. I always assumed that the ideas for unaltered gameplay of the HOF-Mod and the BUG-Mod were quite similar. Are both mods using a different basis for unaltered gameplay?

My position on this is not the issue. BUG is not just about unaltered gameplay; it's also about user choice. I refuse to have a huge options screen with nearly every feature configurable but make the UP changes mandatory.

I totally agree with EF here - it is not the nature of the unofficial patch, its UG or non UG etc ... it is about choice - we (nearly?) always give our uses the option to turn features on or off. In fact, you can run BUG and have it behave (and look) like vanilla BtS v3.17 with very little trouble.

 

[Roland Johansen]

My position on this is not the issue. BUG is not just about unaltered gameplay; it's also about user choice. I refuse to have a huge options screen with nearly every feature configurable but make the UP changes mandatory.

I totally agree with EF here - it is not the nature of the unofficial patch, its UG or non UG etc ... it is about choice - we (nearly?) always give our uses the option to turn features on or off. In fact, you can run BUG and have it behave (and look) like vanilla BtS v3.17 with very little trouble.

I really like the options that BUG offers, it's one of its greatest features (although it might start to become intimidating to beginning users). So adding (a lot of) mandatory changes is clearly not the style of this Mod. However the choice to not add the UP is very similar to the choice of adding it. In both cases, the rule set you're offering in this mod is mandatory. It's a choice you'll make for all users (who are not proficient at changing the gamecore). Maybe, you're both unconsciously considering BTS 3.17 more UG than BTS 3.17 + UP (I really hate all these abbreviations in one sentence ) and therefore considering the choice between rule sets obvious. If that is the case, then just say so. If it's something different, just explain it better.

 

[r_rolo1]

Roland, by definition, BtS 3.17 is the standart for UG ( no matter how flawed it may be )

 

[ruff_hi]

Maybe, you're both unconsciously considering BTS 3.17 more UG than BTS 3.17 + UP (I really hate all these abbreviations in one sentence ) and therefore considering the choice between rule sets obvious. If that is the case, then just say so. If it's something different, just explain it better.

There is lots of history here (at BUG). Originally, we grew out of my cobbled mod pack for Vanilla and Warlords (and other cobbled mod pacts too - before anyone gets their nose out of joint). All of these modpacks targeted optionality and the players of Succession Games (SGs). Obviously, we have gone much much further than any prior cobbled (UG) mod - even so far that people have begged us to make a version of BUG for Vanilla and Warlords (not going to happen ). Prior to the inclusion of a DLL with BUG, the issue of a DLL was a non-starter - we didn't care, it was up to the user to include a different DLL (or not).

Now, typically, SG leaders specify the version that the game is being played under (eg v3.17) and some went as far as saying "no UP", "UP required" or "UP optional". As such, BUG, in keeping with its SG roots needs to provide its community the same options.

 

[Roland Johansen]

Roland, by definition, BtS 3.17 is the standart for UG ( no matter how flawed it may be )

Ok, then for you that's clear. You must have noticed that it isn't that clear for me. And also the HOF uses a different definition. (which is also again different from mine)

Most things in life are opinion based, subjective. Any discussion with others will be much friendlier when people in the discussion realise this.

Without a dll mod in BUG, it was easy to use your own definition of UG by adding the gamecore that used your own definition of UG (or nice gameplay when you didn't care about UG). I guess that was one of the reasons the team hesitated about creating a dll-mod. (Any BUG-users of course still has the option of not using the BULL features or merging gamecores.)

 

[Roland Johansen]

Now, typically, SG leaders specify the version that the game is being played under (eg v3.17) and some went as far as saying "no UP", "UP required" or "UP optional". As such, BUG, in keeping with its SG roots needs to provide its community the same options.

So..., you want to create multiple versions? I can't estimate how much work that will be with my limited gamecore modding experience, but I guess it might be some work.

At some point, you'll have to provide a limited set of choices to limit your own work. I just hope my preference is one of them.

 

[ruff_hi]

So..., you want to create multiple versions? I can't estimate how much work that will be with my limited gamecore modding experience, but I guess it might be some work.

Err - I don't think I said that. BULL is EFs domain, but my reading is that we will include the following:

- any UG features that we want to add
- the latest 'official' unofficial patch (if you know what I mean)

The user will have the following options:

- include BULL (all features)
- include BULL (without the UP)
- exclude BULL (ie no DLL)

I am pretty sure that no one at BUG wants to be pulled into the UP / not UP discussion on various items of the UP and so we will leave that decision up to the UP generators.

That said - the source code of BULL will be publically available and anyone can create their own version of BULL (if you have the required ability - which I don't ).

 

[EmperorFool]

Without a dll mod in BUG, it was easy to use your own definition of UG by adding the gamecore that used your own definition of UG (or nice gameplay when you didn't care about UG). I guess that was one of the reasons the team hesitated about creating a dll-mod.

Actually, the only reason we haven't had a DLL yet is because my old machine BSODed whenever I compiled the SDK. My suspicion was that one of my RAM modules didn't like the timings I was using. My new machine handles it just fine.