[Request] Advanced Options
HeroicSpur
Member Posts: 907
This has come up in a number of requests already and will come up in a few more.
The point of this is to actually address the issue of advanced options. Essentially this is a request for a seperate menu to be created, so various functions/selections can be chosen as prefered.
Before considering what to put in, it's natural to ask that one be implemented in the first place.
My preference for this menu would be that it exists in the BGconfig file, seeing as that is where many of the 'details' are handled as it is.
There has also been suggestion that the options should be available just before character creation, with a disclaimer that they are intended for experienced players.
Either way I think there are some gameplay/difficulty decisions which are perhaps too big/controversial to be implemented outright, or just a matter of pure taste. Such a menu is necessary to allow experienced players to customise their experience, and use features which have for years become second-nature through mods.
The point of this is to actually address the issue of advanced options. Essentially this is a request for a seperate menu to be created, so various functions/selections can be chosen as prefered.
Before considering what to put in, it's natural to ask that one be implemented in the first place.
My preference for this menu would be that it exists in the BGconfig file, seeing as that is where many of the 'details' are handled as it is.
There has also been suggestion that the options should be available just before character creation, with a disclaimer that they are intended for experienced players.
Either way I think there are some gameplay/difficulty decisions which are perhaps too big/controversial to be implemented outright, or just a matter of pure taste. Such a menu is necessary to allow experienced players to customise their experience, and use features which have for years become second-nature through mods.
7
Comments
Secondly in multiplayer everyone creates a character seperately, this would require an inconsistent system of selecting advanced options. Although I appreciate that the natural response to that is in mutliplayer the option should be removed, and should be reserved for the arbitration screen, although that creates a difficulty if any options affect character creation. (Also generally in multiplayer I think any advanced options should be what the host set them as).
Thirdly some options may require restarting the game if they're integral. This problem could be skipped just by dealing with all of these options outside the game in BGConfig (I appreciate that you may say, what options could possibly be so integral?!).
Fourthly the BGConfig is just the sensible place to put these things. There are already very similar types of options there, and new advanced options would slot right in. There is for example a whole screen completely dedicated to difficulty, where you could easily add more difficulty options. I think generally the technicalities should be dealt with out of game, and inside the game as option free as possible.
-And then we can move on to whether the 'tab' functionality should be removeable as an advanced option...
Also I did note the sarcasm in your first post Bhryaen*
I can understand your arguments against having several of the advanced options available directly in the game at character creation. Accessing the BGConfig isn't really a big deal, a slight annoyance perhaps, but I do think there are issues with sending most of the advanced options to there:
1. I imagine that some of the advanced options should only be activated at the start of the game and then remain locked for that entire game (though at the moment I can't give you a good example of this). How would this be addressed in the BGConfig? I'm no programmer so I can only throw out guesses, but I think this might complicate stuff a bit.
2. Sending all of the advanced options to the BGConfig might hide them too well from players. While a first time player will probably play the game on the "Normal" settings, they might never learn about these advanced options if they're too well hidden away in the BGConfig. Though I admit this is a really minor issue since they can always have a loading screen message saying "You can find Advanced Options for the game in the BGConfig menu".
I think a compromise could be reached where ticking an "Enable Advanced Options at Character Creation" box on the BGConfig menu would open the advanced options menu in the game. Of course, only one of the developers can comment on the feasibility of something like this.
"Firstly"
I doubt seriously that new players (and how long is anyone new anyway?) will mistake an Advanced Options screen for a Required Extra Options Selection screen, particularly with the disclaimer that I decided against better judgment to suggest. IIRC I've seen just such an AO in other games, and I knew from the title I'd probably not know what it entailed. I checked it out anyway, of course, perused for what made sense, and then left it. I believe most new players will do the same if they don't read the warning signs. They'll be more interested in getting their CHARNAME together and getting in the game than tweaking every option for a game they've not even played yet.
"Secondly"
Good point- multiplayer, hadn't thought of that. But it seems fairly intuitive to assume that the host would be the one to set the options that determine the type of game it will be. Still, it would have to be setup to gray out the AO tab when in multiplayer and not the host.
"Thirdly"
I'm not sure they'll need a full game start actually, particularly if it's setup as variable-driven. The programmer devs would know better but a lot are fairly simple and simply with some exceptions to prepare for. What I've been trying to anticipate in implementation was potential for exponential variable expansion. If the options are setup outside the CC and not at game start itself, numerous other factors have to be taken into account. Only putting it at the CC eliminates most of those conflagrations of scripting provisions, forcing every change to apply only to the particular game being started. What I can see being a nightmare is being able to start a game with one set of AO changes, then saving and going to the BGConfig (or wherever) and changing those settings so that the next time you open that save things that were planned one way now have to reverse themselves across the entire game. I'd rather do away with any possibility for reversals, thus making it easier on devs to implement. When changing mods one has to restart a game also, but they also have to reinstall the entire game and all the mods, so this allows the same changes without the hellish reinstallations.
"Fourthly"
The BGConfig is filled with options for setting screen size, audio quality, frame rate... i.e., hardware and software related issues. It's not really the intuitive place for the gameplay options that we're talking about. And on preference for fewer in-game options, I have to say my preferences are the opposite. I'd much rather the convenience of in-game options right at game start than the same lack of in-game options we presently have, forced to seek out more problematically implemented options out of game.
"What is it, Obi-Wan?"
"It is a set of Advanced Options for-"
*Luke screams and runs away*
The problem is what happens if someone sets rest difficulty too high, and find themselves completely stuck in the game. How do they reduce that particular difficulty component without restarting the whole game? Or if they just decide they can't stand one advanced option they've set?
Insofar as multiple games are concerned, you raise a very good point, players may want different options for each of them. I think the resolution to that would be to have the options available as a mirror in the ingame options. Or alternately have a dialogue in the BGConfig which says 'please note changing these advanced options will not affect games currently in progress, click modify all if you want to modify existing games.'
Very easy: they start over. Or they persist. It's an Advanced Option after all. Believe me when I say I've struggled over how this would be best to implement, and I know that it means restarts. But what happens when you mod in a component that's too hard? Complete game and mod reinsta- *vomit*... Whew, need a glass of water.
The exception to this would be those AO items I've mentioned (or will be mentioning) which I'm incorrectly assuming need to be only at game start. Those could be in the Game Settings instead, able to tweak them as you wish, but I've considered them all, wondering at how feasible it would be. Take the "Remove Fog of War." OK, so you choose that from the Settings, and now there's no Fog of War and you start a game. Should the game track everywhere you walk anyway in case you later decide you want Fog of War after all? It's a lot of data to collect, but there's no choice because it has to be able to "restore" Fog of War as it would've been if it had been enabled already. Leaving it only at game start eliminates this needless variable. It's either normal lawnmowing or it's open- done. Much easier for devs, and the player just experiments with it as they like. It's not perfect, but neither is modding.
EDIT: Sorry for the nitpicking.
I vote for leaving the options on the BG config, where every veteran can easily find them and where novice players won't trouble themselves with, which they shouldn't.
And again, the problem with leaving it in the BGConfig isn't primarily just that it's far more convenient and reasonable at the CC screen: it's that it makes implementation that much more difficult to script for, that much more prone to bugs, and thus that much less likely to be done well enough or at all.
The only compromise I could see making would be to prevent the AO becoming available until the game is beat once, not to relocate it, but even that just sounds so patronizing to the player...
Huh... I guess I'm not very consistent. In that case, this programming illiterate says forget what I said.
''Very easy: they start over. Or they persist. It's an Advanced Option after all. Believe me when I say I've struggled over how this would be best to implement, and I know that it means restarts.''
Having options that can't be modified once the game is underway is likely to be a very big no-no as far as implementation is concerned (from a marketing/creation perspective), even if it does make scripting challenges easier. It's understandable to restart if you made a bad character, but a lot of people will be very annoyed for options that seemingly should be modifiable at any time are locked from them. It also has big ramifications insofar as players may stop playing altogether if they're quite far in (which is likely when they'll realise the ramifications of a bad decision), or stuck playing a game which they've ruined. I can already see it being a minus point on reviews too.
It seems to me that implementing some kind of system which allows you to modify the settings used in games in progress and new games seperately is one-sided decision compared to something so severe as unmodifiable changes (from the man who wants great modding potential!).
The other difficulty is you want options that permanantely and irreversibly affect the game to be put in at character generation, it seems that's even more a reason to move it away from there. Pointing out that players are intelligent does not mean they won't use dangerous AOs and vice versa. Like you said you do yourself, most people will have a flick through them and look at what they like the look of. The other thing they are very likely to do is come here and ask others what AOs they should set for their first game. Caruga will say disable tab...
As far as bug stability is concerned I think your suggestion is a double-edged sword. While being able to change things in game might require some retroactivity, not being able to change at all will present its own problems. In particular you're more likely to come across catch-22 scenarios. The developers won't be able to account for every variable, and so they'll have thousands of games which are all different. That would make bugfixing very problematic, in that problems would be difficult to replicate. Whereas they may otherwise be able to say, disable your advanced options and then try it.
What I am willing to concede (lol! I don't have anything to start with, but I'm willing to concede it!) is that some AOs may themselves individually be accompanied by a disclaimer to the effect that once they are selected they cannot be removed if they are particularly integral to the game. However stuff like store prices, rest danger etc should be adjustable at any time.
In terms of facilitating changes on BGConfig I would say, have the AO menu. And then once a new game is started have a sidebar which lets you select your savegames and adjust the AOs for that game. A bit more work but certainly less draconian than changes that cannot be undone.
So from a veteran, modding BG player's perspective the abandoned game "danger" is no trouble at all, just par for the course. But what you seem to be driving at- and something I've not been bothering with- is the position of some brat who's never played BG but who's played all the latest games with all their options worked in at game release and who comes across the AO on the CC screen rather than being available at any time and- before starting to whine and cry- associates what is intended as a way of integrating a decade of modding into BG instead with a limited options application system that makes them have to plan ahead more than they wish and be prepared to try again. A brat will not recognize, no, that this new AO is a great advantage to BG players in removing mods from the equation, only that they can't get exactly what they want and play with all the sliders and checkboxes in-game. For sure I'd have to empathize with the brat because I want everything I want too, but, yes, they'd have a sense of entitlement that I lack. The AO at the CC would unquestionably be a fantabulous enhancement from prior BG gameplay, but despite all the fantastic built-in options it introduces to a game, those whiny brats would act like those options are located there because the devs were lame and lazy and spiteful and have ruined BG and where's my bottle and my snuggleblankey? and waaAAAA! Mommy!... And this is a legitimate position to which to cater, so... I just wonder at what proportion of the future BGEE fans will be represented by that segment of society...
Mind you, making scripting challenges easier is no small concession to make for the devs to be able to do it and do it right, as Kaksi was mentioning on Beamdog the other day. Just think about the variables that every AO involves. Most are very simple if just for a single game. To apply across all saved games as well... will require provision for numerous extra contingent applications of that tweak- provision by designing the reversal into every one of those contingencies- enough that bugs are not a nontrivial consideration at that point. And if, as you suggest, there is a new system built in which brings up saved games with a query of which ones to which it's supposed to apply, now the devs not only have to prepare for those same numerous contingent applications, but also devise this new saved game pop-up which gets applied selectively. It's work, and even if it's a labor of love as well as a paid position, it takes
Now, speaking of concessions (and not the cotton candy, Goobers, overpriced popcorn kind), it is true that some of the AO might be just as easy to implement at any time- i.e., that they could be relocated from the CC to the Game Settings (or *sigh* the BGConfig Settings) without it making a difference scripting-wise since the variables are universal. The store prices slider that you mention might be one of those, in fact, with a simple multiplier and "Iron_Shortage_Over" variable that would work, as caruga would say, "dynamically." And there might be other tweaks that the devs recognize as such as well. I am alas admittedly running into a wall in terms of knowledge about exactly how much work these would be to implement individually, but I'm not entirely without intuitiveness on the matter. I've read through the numerous mod readme's and forums for every mod I use- a major undertaking, enough that it's daunting having to do it again in order to make my mods current- and I see that many of them use scripting that relies on broad sweeps through the game to accomplish. I can only imagine how much time and effort it took. To script in both the ability to implement a tweak and the ability to undo its effect in the game is often not merely double the work but much more. But do I know if the total work per AO for an experienced dev tech is a single day or three weeks? No. And it may be that only a handful are workable into the game otherwise given time restraints and the prevalence of other requests they're implementing.
Actually it would be good to go through the various AO Settings to see which could be transferred out of the CC without (major) consequence. I could see reworking all those threads to accommodate the conclusions we come to. Just remember that it may very well mean asking more- maybe plenty more- of the devs. I'm more reticent to do that. I also have the feeling that the ones that can be transferred are the ones that are more likely to be implemented, if for no other reason than how much simpler they are to implement. lol This they and he are likely to do. However, that can't be helped. People on the DAO forums advocate Nightmare to people- doesn't mean they do it, and shame on them for not listening to themselves for what they like. Every game comes bundled with a learning process. This is true- hadn't thought of that. So I'd have to ask one extra of devs to add a .txt file- or something of the sort- in the save game files for each particular saved game that lists out which options were selected at the AO. Solved- and then one doesn't even have to open the game and check out the AO to know what they used for that game. As for fixing issues for that game, no, it would mean starting over, but the bugs would be so much fewer in the first place that this scenario would occur rarely anyway. Still, you have a point. What I anticipate more would be folks who turn on AO settings and then mod in similar content without recognizing the conflict they're creating. This is the equivalent of loading mods that overwrite each other though, so it's no different. We'll have a forum section where experienced players can answer the same n00b question over and over for the next several years. :-)
My understanding was that while advanced options would be implementing features (or at least the option for them) which have existed in mods, they would in fact not be mods at all. You say:
'It's the way the modding process already works today... And people do it. Modded component selections don't remain open during a game, so modding is a big no-no as far as implementation is concerned as well... and people do it. In fact, it's how BG has weathered the decade+ that it's been around.'
But what is requested is an 'advanced options menu'. Now the problem I see, is that if you're treating these advanced options as mods (unremoveable once selected, unless starting new game), or at least analogous to them, then the whole request for an advanced options menu becomes redundant. Trent has already said they're looking into a system for managing mods, so why shouldn't these options be moved to there? The answer is because the capacity in which we (or just me, I've probably lost my mind) seek the contents of these mods is in options. One of the fundamental differences between an option and a mod, is the level of integration into the game, the degree of flexibility and customisability, in the sense that you can switch them on/off or have them in any combination you seek. Mods like you say are more rigid, removing them often cannot be done without killing the game or at least causing inconsistencies, and having them enabled together may cause conflict. Options can often be turned on and off without killing anyone.
The other key point is that mods and options are fundamentally different in the expectations they create for players. You say:
'By your sensible and pragmatic logic, on the contrary, BG mods should've made the game an obscurity by now, but that's anything but the case. So I'm not convinced that players are necessarily daunted by the every-game-is-different scenario, particularly as it now would be a matter of a new game, not a new installation...'
I said your logic was sensible and pragmatic, not mine. Anyway, my first point is that when I install a mod, I don't have expectations as to its quality or functionality. I hope they're good, but I don't complain if they turn out not to work, or be rubbish. I don't pay for them. The flip-side of the coin to having everything easier with options, is that the burden falls on the developer to ensure they work correctly. Unlike a mod if they don't work, or create conflicts, the user will undoubtedly expect them to be fixed. The level of integration is also expected to be higher/better than a mod, so if they require the player to start a new game they will attract a higher level of vexation and dissastifcation. If I was told I had to start an 80hr+ RPG again (that I was someway into) I would be pretty pissed off, possibly to the point of giving up on it. Finally I'm unable to comment on the continuity of the BG community. Mods have played an essential role, but I think it's fair to say that it's mainly experienced BG players who use them, or new players who have been told to install them from the start. By saying it's a definate no-no to make to prevent modification of AOs retrospectively, I meant that for a retail product, telling players they have to start a new game for an ingame option which should seemingly be modifiable at any time to the average player, is asking for trouble. This is fundamentally different to telling someone who is using a mod that they have to start a new game.
You go on to address this point by saying it's a complex process which is significantly simplified for the player, with only the minor drawback that it may require starting a new game to change them:
''So from a veteran, modding BG player's perspective the abandoned game "danger" is no trouble at all, just par for the course. But what you seem to be driving at- and something I've not been bothering with- is the position of some brat who's never played BG but who's played all the latest games with all their options worked in at game release and who comes across the AO on the CC screen rather than being available at any time and- before starting to whine and cry- associates what is intended as a way of integrating a decade of modding into BG instead with a limited options application system that makes them have to plan ahead more than they wish and be prepared to try again.''
This is a perfectly valid point, it is a great boon to be able to select options so easily, that were for others in the past a lot more difficult to select consistently and safely. But is the essence of the point you're making here, modders had a tough time when they wanted these options, and they may have had to restart their games for or because of these options. For that reason the system should sustain that difficulty by not allowing players to change advanced options retrospectively? By comparing the functionality and workability to mods, you are essentially undercutting the very purpose of having these things as options.
Remember this is also an ehanced edition, the instrinsic purpose is to bring an up-to-date, errm...enhanced BG to a new audience who missed it the first time round. It is no concern of theirs what problems you and I have had with mods, and the difficulties and challenges they represented.
Anyway, you go on to say:
'The AO at the CC would unquestionably be a fantabulous enhancement from prior BG gameplay, but despite all the fantastic built-in options it introduces to a game, those whiny brats would act like those options are located there because the devs were lame and lazy and spiteful and have ruined BG and where's my bottle and my snuggleblankey? and waaAAAA! Mommy!... And this is a legitimate position to which to cater, so... I just wonder at what proportion of the future BGEE fans will be represented by that segment of society...'
As a starting point, I don't find your suggestion perverse now that you have elaborated on it. I would rather it was implemented your way rather than not all, as it is after all 'fantabulous'. However I think being dismissive of what the concerns of the additonal new market for the EE are likely to be as childish, doesn't really advance anyones cause.
I also think it's very unfair to call someone a brat for realising well into their game that they were wrong to set a setting, and being 'upset' as it were, that they have to restart their whole game. There are not many people who are as devoted as you, nor any who should be expected/required to be. And if having to start a new game is the potential price to pay for these options if there's a change of heart, then it's better that they are nowhere near the CC (shameless plug for BGConfig AOs).
I would reiterate if the AOs were to exist in the CC, then those integral to the game should be flagged as subsequently unchangeable with the proper disclaimer. While I think in any event all of the options should be in the BGConfig, those options should be readily changeable. Consider for a moment in BG2, the difficulty slider on 'core' rules, meant that spells were learned automatically. By increasing the difficulty they had a % fail chance. That is a substantial gameplay adjustment which is made at the flick of a slider, there is no reason why the vast majority of other AOs should not be the same. If you are not willing to accept that, then there is very little to distinguish these AOs from the mods which may come to be available through the mod management system Overhaul plan to introduce. And incidentally even then, there are mods which can be adjusted mid-game without requiring you to start again.
Though there are cases where these shouldn't be changed during the game because they would raise a lot of conflicts. An example would be mods that change the location of items in the game (like the item randomizer).
I'm not sure what the difficulty is in the concept that by incorporating a CC AO this acts similarly to mods without the misery of them. A CC AO would in itself be a major enhancement. So, yea!... And it's all I'm trying to convey on that ground. The provision I add is only that shifting the AO further into a more complex and versatile role can compromise its viability for implementation. Such a provision isn't to say, "Gosh, I sure like the rigid structure of mod installation. Why not make it the way the AO works!" or "Well, mods work this way, so why shouldn't the AO?" It's to say, "OK, this may be a bit much to ask of the devs to implement, so how about this compromise? Will they do it this way then?" If the compromise is unnecessary, so be it: I'll happily surrender to a more complex and versatile AO... but I'd rather not surrender to a failure to implement any AO at all... and what is the likelihood of a BGConfig AO being implemented with a number of the AO settings we've described? and is there a greater likelihood with a CC AO? The only ones able to answer that would be Cam/Scott/et al themselves- and probably on a case-by-case basis- but an educated guess tells me the CC AO is easier. We all make mistakes. I understand. ;-) Yes, this deepens the approach to the matter that lacks what I mentioned previously: context. The improvement of adding a CC AO is nevertheless a major improvement, and therefore in that context I wouldn't fault the devs whatsoever for not going further and trying to make it work for saved games so that it could be placed in the BGConfig or Settings sections instead. If one approaches the matter outside that context instead with an eye only to procuring and playing a game that does everything as they wish, then a CC AO's limitations stand out like a sore thumb. For veteran mod-users this likely is a moot point. For a segment of new players it very well might be an issue, particularly if they don't appreciate what's being offered given the context. It would be a pathetic shame though to deny the rest of us such an advantage due to their whininess, right?
If (when) I pay for BGEE and play it, and if (heh) there's a CC AO, I will indeed expect it to work. And since I know a CC AO has more likelihood to work without issue than anything else, I advocate it over a BGConfig AO (or a Settings AO which would be the best), at least in the cases where it's clearly much easier and less potentially problematic to implement. Despite the lack of convenience on a general level of gameplay manipulation that a CC-based AO would entail, I'd be happy to see it there- very! :-) And anyone upset at seeing the options there is incomprehensible to me. "Less options! Fewer choices! Limit us! End our freedom! Chain us, please!" It's really a judgment call regarding the "average player" concerning what they expect from BGEE: perfection from an overhauled 14yr-old isometric game or a damn, fine improvement on the original? For many of these AO settings, it may be a matter of CC-based or nothing regarding implementation after all, but the player may, as you seem to be suggesting, not recognize and appreciate this reality, entirely oblivious to the context of why the AO came to be in the CC and how it helps them. And there's no way inform them adequately of the context either, if at all, particularly if they are, as I've described this particular player segment, unable to get mods at all in order to understand the difficulty of procuring and installing them.
For them I can conditionally empathize only. Mind you, their ignorance doesn't move me as much as your concern about sales does, but I'm not convinced this is a game-breaker at all. Even reviewers know that options are options, as shockingly and ferociously as they conduct their reviews. It's too bad that BG is 14yrs old and that the BGEE devs have had one hand tied behind their backs on a lot of content given the reticence of mysterious "non-obvious sources" which the "average player" of BGEE will never hear about, only seeing the finished product. I certainly don't want to ask such players to accept a car without an extra booster fan for the A/C or extra subwoofer speakers in the back quarterpanels without explaining how the car can't handle it, how it just wasn't feasible, but there's really no way to explain it. They just have to take the game as-is and enjoy it for what it is and what it offers- in this case a spectaculous new set of options and, far more importantly as we likely both agree, a spectaculous game in itself... and they'll take it as-is, an improvement on BG, just as countless players have for the last 14yrs. Precisely! I'm not calling those types of players "childish" for such an unwitting realization though, am I? I'm calling a particular segment whiny for complaining about the need to plan ahead at all. "But I thought BG was just a casual game! This AO thing requires me to think ahead a little! What crap! I want my money back!"... isn't the typical BG player base. And yet... the CC AO doesn't require thinking. The Advanced Options are exactly what they're called: options... albeit of the advanced sort. They simply don't have to go there whatsoever. That segment of the new player base that would wade into the oh-so-"dangerous" AO and select the most difficult possible settings only to turn around and whine that they're upset at having to restart... don't really factor into an assessment of the CC AO's integrity as much as factoring into an assessment of BGEE's player base. Vanilla BGEE will be GREAT! BG1 was great! Why be so ridiculous as to choose advanced options on a completely new game and then give up as if the game ruined it for you? Such folks aren't arguing from a particularly defensible position when they're arguing at all.
Now you're right in what you proceed to say: that I tend to endure a lot more than most players (of any game). But the thing is, options don't force anyone to endure anything. "If you don't like BGEE, go play BG1 with mod installations instead and tell me how much easier it is!" is, of course, what I'd rather say, but instead I'd just say, "This set of advanced options is fairly well described as such in the AO, so... why did you choose such miserable options? I'm a veteran BG player, and even I never choose those options."
What you describe as a trap I consider a garden. It's all in how you approach it. Again this is a false dichotomy: for some options it's ultimately not a matter of BGConfig v CC but of CC or not at all. Some of the options may be just that difficult to implement properly at the BGConfig screen. Take the example that @Tanthalas just mentioned: Item Randomizer. I haven't yet made that request (coming soon to a forum near you), but it's a good example: it would require that all the randomized items be accounted for. If the option is in the BGConfig, it has to apply to all saves. Let's say some saves have it, some don't. What happens if you unselect it and all games have to revert? Some saves have involved finding some of the randomized items already, and, say, Greyhawk may be dead already in some. Of course, his sword had been randomized previously and is now in Taerom's merchant items instead of the Stealth Armor which is now on Drasus instead of the Boots of Speed (which are elsewhere). But you've bought the +2 sword out of Taerom's merchant items already and also killed Greyhawk, so it can't be put back any longer... It's simply too much of a mess to undo- much too much- and indeed the mod itself doesn't involve anything like an in-game reversion to pre-modded conditions (as no mod really does). And as a result there really isn't any meaningful chance of an Item Randomizer that can be toggled in-game- not in a Settings AO and not in a BGConfig AO. It's either a CC AO Item Randomizer or none at all. Now I really really like the Item Randomizer's option, so I'd rather have it. So CC AO it is! :-) No problem for me to "pay that price" at all. And I do appreciate the reason why. And I have no shame about those who don't. And I'd bet that most players getting that option in a CC AO who like it in-game would also appreciate it being there regardless of their knowledge of the context of why it's there. I mean, how many games have a item randomizing option in them? It's fantabulously unique! (Kudos to Wisp who made the mod!)
Mind you, a variant of this as a Settings Option (or BGConfig Option *rolls eyes*) would be that any game you start while the Item Randomizer checkbox is marked would cause the game to do the randomization at game start, but that unchecking it only applies to new games... thus leaving all affected games alone (and not requiring the miserable provisional scripting)... and which still entails requiring a new game... but it would move it from that dreadfully dangerous CC anyway. The option would have to be renamed "Randomize (or whatever) Major Magical Items at Game Start" to clarify. Good enough for me, but likely not for whiners. As I said, the devs would have to consider each AO on a case-by-case basis. In this case you can move the slider and it doesn't cause any item replacements, attribute adjustments, NPC relocations, or, in short, provisional scripting. It's a one-time activity: the player right-clicks to learn the spell, and what's the % chance of learning? The game then implements the predetermined % chance. (I'd rather such a thing be something adjustable, but regardless...) So having that Tweak in the Settings Options (where it is, where it belongs, and where it should stay) requires no major work by the devs. It's not equivalent... and this is why you may have noticed that I'm in favor of locating AO away from the CC where I can. I have no CC AO fetish... Why not just flag the entire AO? Put a message under the title when entering the screen that changing the options will permanently affect that particular game. "Danger: selecting options you don't understand because you haven't even played the frickin' game yet could result in, duh, a game you find too hard or easy!" Can't say they weren't warned... OK, a few wording changes, but still...
A more meaningful discussion at this point on AOs would be which specific Tweaks can be implemented outside the CC with no- or at least reasonably little- extra work on the devs' part regarding retroactivity when changes are made. That I'll be getting to when I get the time... If the CC AO is unnecessary, I'll edit all my AO threads to reflect it... but don't expect happiness to locate it somewhere as silly as the BGConfig screen. :-P
@HeroicSpur & @Bhryaen ... My monitor isnt big enough to read your long posts !!!!!!!!! hahaha..
If they ever need 2 Moderators in here, it should be the 2 of you.
Both ofYou got my vote
My hope is that the UI upgrade will allow modders the freedom to implement whatever advanced options they can imagine.
@Bhryaen: While I will not resile from my position, your view has substantial merit. The practical element of it that you emphasise, particularly insofar as easier implentation is concerned, is something I agree with you on. Like I mentioned in my previous post, if the difference between having the AOs in CC (unmodifiable), and having them modifiable in BGConfig/CC, is not having them at all in the later case, then it is of course a no-brainer. The AOs should be implemented at CC.
This it seems to me is the main driving force behind your position, so ultimately I suppose it comes down to how easy it is for Overhaul to implement. If it wouldn't be significantly more difficult for Overhaul to allow these selections to be subsequently changeable then that would be the ideal scenario.
As far as BGConfig and CC are concerned, I suppose it's a trivial distinction. If it's easier for AOs to be implemented at the CC stage, then that's where they should go.
However I would still insist that if AOs go in at CC, it should be split into two screens, or two clearly differentiated selection menus (or more). I don't think that it should be the case that in any event, all AOs should be unchangeable. Those that are and are not should be clearly differentiated. There are mods which allow you to uninstall and install their components mid-game, so there's no reason why that shouldn't be true for an AO that is suitable for it in-game.
And of course while you dealt with it sensibly in your earlier post, I think we shouldn't forget that CC options are going to at the very least force some change to multiplayer. While that might be graying out the options for non-host as you say, it seemingly leaves them arbitrarily at the power of the host. At the arbitration screen there would presumably need to be some details on the AOs the host has selected, especially if they're the game changing variety.
On a final note you say:
'I'm not calling those types of players "childish" for such an unwitting realization though, am I? I'm calling a particular segment whiny for complaining about the need to plan ahead at all. "But I thought BG was just a casual game! This AO thing requires me to think ahead a little! What crap! I want my money back!"... isn't the typical BG player base. And yet... the CC AO doesn't require thinking. The Advanced Options are exactly what they're called: options... albeit of the advanced sort. They simply don't have to go there whatsoever. That segment of the new player base that would wade into the oh-so-"dangerous" AO and select the most difficult possible settings only to turn around and whine that they're upset at having to restart... don't really factor into an assessment of the CC AO's integrity as much as factoring into an assessment of BGEE's player base.'
It's impossible for someone who has never played BG before to plan ahead, the essence of an RPG is that you don't know what's coming. You will rightly respond to that if they are new players they shouldn't be messing with AOs. But consider this, if an 'advanced options' menu appears in front of your face at the very first stages of the game, everyone is going to have a look. And as I'm sure you've mentioned before, people will pick those options that seem reasonable. While I agree with you that any problems arising from this are outweighed by the practical benefit in having the menu there, it is problematic if those options can't later be changed. Even for experienced players who may not have anticipated the potential effects (I didn't realise that option would make Nexlit invincible!). The AO menu at CC is the equivalent of the archetypal big red button. Incidentally my only point here is to highlight that this will remain a problem, regardless of understanding or lack thereof players have of the context in which they came to be there, or the relative benefit they provide.
And I may have just thought of the solution (ED: Tanthalas' solution!!!!)-have the option for AOs to appear at CC in BGconfig. If that's not selected the AOs shouldn't appear at CC. At (before) CC a dialogue could appear stating, 'advanced options can be enabled for a new game by selecting it in BGConfig. Note, advanced options are intended for experienced players, use them at your own risk.' (this could be very similar to the watchers keep box that pops up when you have BG2 and ToB installed). I appreciate you will bemoan this is as pandering, but I think it's the closest thing to benefitting everyone as you can get, if the AOs are to appear at CC.
I hope you guys can implement some of these "Advanced Options" yourselves though. Would make it easier on us during installations.
Locate the AO in the regular Settings options on their own tab, call it the AO Tab (combining "AO" with "Tab"!!! The danger continues to mount!!!!), but for those game-start-dependent settings, simply add a disclaimer on them of "Enabling this option will affect only new games. It will not change games already started." Those particular ones could be in their own AO Screen section also under that heading and/ or designated with an asterisk or some such. I suppose this new approach doesn't resolve your concern about it being "too available" for a new player (and it wouldn't be in the BGConfig?) but for sure it locates it away from the oddly conspicuous CC where the primary concern should be simply creating a character and starting a game.
I'll be editing all my AO settings Feature Requests when I can get to them... So you're a plagiarist as well as a cockblocker! You are doubly exposed, sir! (lol)
@Tanthalas as well... I still see this button-hiding approach as just a silly inconvenience no better than parental controls for the poor, hapless new "underage" player. If it means we can have consensus (since the devs are definitely going to go for this if we do (lol)... and @Coriander's comments above seem to indicate barely a luke warming to the idea, alas), I'd agree, but you'd get just as many players whining about how they couldn't find how to access the AO as those whining about having found it and been "harmed" by all that freedom to do what they wanted- or actually arguably moreso since people are "new" to a game for far less time than they're "old" to it. It would be a matter of determining whether to remove the AO Tab entirely from the Settings screen or just gray it out, but, of course, it would be easier just to leave it. Having to navigate all the way to the Settings screen is already more of a bother and search than seeing the AO Tab on the CC- the latter of which I do agree is a good thing to avoid. Speaking of people who really ought to know about Nexlit the Xvart's significance and inner being, you know that letting people know ahead of time that Nexlit the Xvart is a powerful and sinister arch-hero and quasi-bhaalspawn in his own right would be just wrong to the core of his little blue soul... No one should anticipate the greatness of the Fireball-Friendly Xvart!
Mind you, this new tact I'm taking doesn't prevent a new player from immediately navigating the Settings to the AO Tab and still making their game hard, even harder than they can handle and failing repeatedly... After all some players like to do this! They wouldn't play any other way. You read caruga's account of that one game where he intentionally wouldn't use healing potions. Even I nowadays do such things: I pretty much switched to the "Hard" setting in DAO immediately (after a few minutes on Normal) and never went back. Now I'm "Nightmare" trying to defeat the Harvester without any of my usual mage-dependent tactics availabe... and yet I won't back off "Nightmare" no matter how many times that disgusting flesh golem thing defeats me... In any case some like the thought that they can master a new game so quickly that even setting the options up high can't stop them. Why deny such players?
On multiplayer: Multiplayer AO looks strong if kept at the arbitrator's discretion. Not sure what player would protest. It's the host who arbitrates all the rest of the items as well. Presumably the other players will be in contact with the host and can ask, but, yes, it would be nice if the AO settings chosen were made clear in some way for joiners during the arbitration process. It should just be made plain that the game being played is using the host's settings. Not sure which is best- denying the AO during multiplayer or making it just as available but irrelevant if not the host- but I think denying it might be more clear with a grey-out of the AO Tab with a "hover over" message of "These options are unavailable to players during a multiplayer game unless the host." Just on a technical note (since I agree with the point you were making) I started modding with this idea, and every time I made a component change- even just that one little card in the house of cards- it bugged my game and I had to reinstall the entire lot. The reinstall failures were always clearly visible in the command prompt that WeiDU opened during the change. So I just got into the habit of doing a full reinstall every time- only way I ever avoided the bugs. Yes, and alas I once again didn't leave myself enough time to do the full accounting of the AO settings we're after to delineate which are game-start-dependent and which are reasonable as availabe-at-any-time. *sigh* Why put off for a day what you can put off indefinitely with a simple self-cajoling here and there? "Bad procrastinator!... And I'm gonna change my bad procrastinating habits just as soon as I get around to it..."
I don't think we need to go overboard with this availability for new players thing, my main motivation behind it was the same as yours in originally asking for the AOs at CC. Namely that it's a factor which affects feasibility of implementation.
Also settings is fine, but my only concern with that is that it might be too buried!! I think in any case there needs to be some sort of dialogue to alert players that AOs are located there.