An open letter from the Kingdoms of Arda team, and the total-conversion mod community

[Phantom425]

The forum has changed the way they asked, for the first 9 months pretty much everyone was polite and understanding (check out those links I sent you), however, that got little results. So people switched tactics and started being tough, and started putting a lot of pressure on Taleworlds.
Also, I wasn't calling you and Gadheras insane, I was saying that what you guys were doing was insane. (Also, it happens to be one of my favorite sayings so I wanted to put it in there )

I’m on mobile, so forgive any spelling mistakes.

I completely understand the rage that has been brewing over the course of two years on this forum, I do. All that I’ve been saying is that if you actually want change to happen after they reach out, being aggressive is not the answer. It will only worsen relations.

 

[WhyAmIHere]

I’m on mobile, so forgive any spelling mistakes.

I completely understand the rage that has been brewing over the course of two years on this forum, I do. All that I’ve been saying is that if you actually want change to happen after they reach out, being aggressive is not the answer. It will only worsen relations.

I'll highlight the relevant part of the post for you since you seem to have missed it:

"for the first 9 months pretty much everyone was polite and understanding (check out those links I sent you), however, that got little results."

in reality it's more like 12 months. **** didn't really start going downhill here until April.

 

[Phantom425]

I'll highlight the relevant part of the post for you since you seem to have missed it:

"for the first 9 months pretty much everyone was polite and understanding (check out those links I sent you), however, that got little results."

in reality it's more like 12 months. **** didn't really start going downhill here until April.

You’ve also missed my part. I am saying that even with this outrage, this thread should have been more diplomatic and waited until 1.6.0 before coming to conclusions.

 

[stevehoos]

You’ve also missed my part. I am saying that even with this outrage, this thread should have been more diplomatic and waited until 1.6.0 before coming to conclusions.

1.6.0 will introduce more keywords, they said so themselves. They have no intention of fixing this problem or adding any meaningful content to the game.

 

[Phantom425]

1.6.0 will introduce more keywords, they said so themselves. They have no intention of fixing this problem or adding any meaningful content to the game.

They also said they would remove some, without being specific. They also said more complaints should be filed following the update, which has yet to release.

 

[WhyAmIHere]

It'll definitely work THIS time guys I promise! Just try being nice for the 501st time! No matter that it didn't work the first 500 times!

 

[Phantom425]

It'll definitely work THIS time guys I promise! Just try being nice for the 501st time! No matter that it didn't work the first 500 times!

I've said earlier in the thread that if this doesn't work, then yeah, there is a reason to get angry if they don't give a proper reason following the release. But, they've said to wait until the release of 1.6.0, take stock of what is actually changed and what isn't, and then tell them if this is a good direction to take the game. Ngl, stuff like this is just gonna make the whole discussion more toxic instead of it actually being productive.

 

[loxley86]

Just to clarify and avoid giving a false impression: We have gone over "internal" usages, added and removed some internal modifiers to make it less random / more consistent. So we haven't "removed all the internal modifiers".

There are some more coding-related changes relevant to you modders coming with e1.6.0 but let's wait for the patch. It's coming soon as always, we have some more blocker issues to resolve.

I sense that a more detailed proposal is on the way? What is it that you're trying to achieve and why? Have you tried doing it already and if so, what's the blocker? You can either respond here or preferably make a new dedicated thread here, please.

you folks are the worst community reps since anthem

 

[WhyAmIHere]

I've said earlier in the thread that if this doesn't work, then yeah, there is a reason to get angry if they don't give a proper reason following the release. But, they've said to wait until the release of 1.6.0, take stock of what is actually changed and what isn't, and then tell them if this is a good direction to take the game. Ngl, stuff like this is just gonna make the whole discussion more toxic instead of it actually being productive.

You know what makes a discussion toxic? Your tone-policing.

 

[Orion]

Since a few people seem to have missed it, here's your last reminder to stay on topic:

Please stay on-topic. It's either about the open letter or the latest responses coming from the development team.

You won't get another polite one.

If all you have to say is that TW sucks at this or that, then you're sadly unoriginal. This thread is not a place for broken records to endlessly loop their insults, it's for modders to state their grievances with TW's practices & mod support. Keep it between the lines. Because this thread will not be locked, mutes are the next step.

 

[momo1]

Since a few people seem to have missed it, here's your last reminder to stay on topic:You won't get another polite one.

If all you have to say is that TW sucks at this or that, then you're sadly unoriginal. This thread is not a place for broken records to endlessly loop their insults, it's for modders to state their grievances with TW's practices & mod support. Keep it between the lines. Because this thread will not be locked, mutes are the next step.

I didn't miss the message, I missed the flag. Maybe they could make the Subforum Moderator's flag bigger, so that it won't be the same size as a weapon.

 

[Duh_TaleWorlds]

I've probably asked this 20 times already, and have yet to receive a conclusive answer. The lack of an official response has led to all sorts of speculation (I personally think it is someone non-technical high up in management pushing for this), so it's only further damaging TW's reputation as long as they aren't transparent about this.

Access modifiers such as internal and private are a code design choice to enforce good practices and ensure that specialized parts are not misused. They are a part of our software engineering work and not there to enforce / enable mod compatibility.

Especially considering that this is an ongoing project, it should be no surprise that we intend to continue to use these tools for our work where appropriate. Having said that, we did go over the code to review their application across a broad range of classes - as was announced in our initial response to the open letter. The adjustments that will come with v160 aim to reduce inconsistencies as well as unnecessary limitations. As a result some modifiers were added while others were removed (alongside other changes).

This, however, certainly doesn't mean that the game is unmoddable. Indeed, there are already rather complex mods available to players. Furthermore, it doesn't mean that we will not make further adjustments to resolve issues that are highlighted by the modding community. This is why we noted:

In this case, we feel that the best approach would be for us to know specifically what you are trying to achieve so that we can find an appropriate solution. Please let us know which specific problems you’re facing here.

We won't drop the conventions that are important to our work, but we will examine problems that people are facing to understand if there is a bug that we can address, an unnecessary limitation that we can remove - or simply a lack of documentation that we can respond to.

At this point, the best approach would be to go with what Dejan said

Let's wait for the patch to drop, evaluate what has changed, and see if it's a step in the right direction for you guys to make the modding easier and more accessible. After that, we can discuss the remaining issues further.

 

[momo1]

Access modifiers such as internal and private are a code design choice to enforce good practices and ensure that specialized parts are not misused. They are a part of our software engineering work and not there to enforce / enable mod compatibility.

Especially considering that this is an ongoing project, it should be no surprise that we intend to continue to use these tools for our work where appropriate. Having said that, we did go over the code to review their application across a broad range of classes - as was announced in our initial response to the open letter. The adjustments that will come with v160 aim to reduce inconsistencies as well as unnecessary limitations. As a result some modifiers were added while others were removed (alongside other changes).

This, however, certainly doesn't mean that the game is unmoddable. Indeed, there are already rather complex mods available to players. Furthermore, it doesn't mean that we will not make further adjustments to resolve issues that are highlighted by the modding community. This is why we noted:



We won't drop the conventions that are important to our work, but we will examine problems that people are facing to understand if there is a bug that we can address, an unnecessary limitation that we can remove - or simply a lack of documentation that we can respond to.

At this point, the best approach would be to go with what Dejan said

What do you mean by misused?

 

[Duh_TaleWorlds]

What do you mean by misused?

To provide an example, HernAddedToParty is internal because it should only be called when a hero is added to a TroopRoster. HernAddedToParty is not meant to be called by any other place than a TroopRoster and directly calling it may not update all the game variables correctly; creating an unstable state.

Edith - unintentional smileys are best smileys.

 

[momo1]

I see, and there isn't a way for an experienced Modder to see that himself?

 

[Duh_TaleWorlds]

I see, and there isn't a way for an experienced Modder to see that himself?

Access modifiers are not added because of modders. It's done as part of our work and for our work.

 

[Eärendil Ardamírë]

In that case, wouldn't a good solution be that you guys do your work with Access Restrictions, and whenever you push out updates, you remove all the Access Restrictions. You guys wouldn't need to worry about making a change that would destabilize the game, and the modders can change whatever they want.

I am not sure if you have actually read and understood his message...

I didn't miss the message, I missed the flag. Maybe they could make the Subforum Moderator's flag bigger, so that it won't be the same size as a weapon.

You should maybe visit an optician of your trust since that flag is surely big enough to not miss it.

 

[momo1]

I am not sure if you have actually read and understood his message...

You should maybe visit an optician of your trust since that flag is surely big enough to not miss it.

I saw the flag out of the corner of my eye, however since it was the same size as the weapons that regular people have, it didn't stick out from regular weapons.
I read his message, what part of it do you think I misunderstood?

 

[Eärendil Ardamírë]

Access modifiers such as internal and private are a code design choice to enforce good practices and ensure that specialized parts are not misused.

In that case, wouldn't a good solution be that you guys do your work with Access Restrictions, and whenever you push out updates, you remove all the Access Restrictions. You guys wouldn't need to worry about making a change that would destabilize the game, and the modders can change whatever they want.

 

[Calabanar]

Access modifiers such as internal and private are a code design choice to enforce good practices and ensure that specialized parts are not misused. They are a part of our software engineering work and not there to enforce / enable mod compatibility.

Especially considering that this is an ongoing project, it should be no surprise that we intend to continue to use these tools for our work where appropriate. Having said that, we did go over the code to review their application across a broad range of classes - as was announced in our initial response to the open letter. The adjustments that will come with v160 aim to reduce inconsistencies as well as unnecessary limitations. As a result some modifiers were added while others were removed (alongside other changes).

This, however, certainly doesn't mean that the game is unmoddable. Indeed, there are already rather complex mods available to players. Furthermore, it doesn't mean that we will not make further adjustments to resolve issues that are highlighted by the modding community. This is why we noted:



We won't drop the conventions that are important to our work, but we will examine problems that people are facing to understand if there is a bug that we can address, an unnecessary limitation that we can remove - or simply a lack of documentation that we can respond to.

At this point, the best approach would be to go with what Dejan said

Thank you very much for the clarification Duh!

In regards to what he is saying, waiting for 1.6 as Dejan said makes sense. Sundeki wasn’t wrong either, by the way.

@Duh_TaleWorlds do you think we can expect more of those “modifiers” to go down on release? As in, do you think there might be an effort to get them to the minimum possible? I understand you are already making compromises between modder’s expectations and how you work.

I understand bloc‘s position and can only hope the changes added in 1.6+ will please modders.