This is correct; private is a more restrictive access modifier than internal. Regardless, using internal to "enforce good coding practices" with their own developers is very strange to say the least... those good coding practices should be enforced by their developers when carrying out code reviews.
So changing internal to private wouldn't do anything for the modders it seems.
So the pushback to the "internal consistency" reason isn't so much about the practice itself as it is "that doesn't line up with how TW has done things so far so it doesn't really make sense"?
That wasn't my point. I think I misexplain that. The scenario he described sounds like a better fit for private than internal. Internal means we want to use it internally in the assembly but not outside of this assembly. More like "we can change it but not you =)". And Taleworlds have around 6-8 dll's and it's very unlikely that there will be cross-assembly change attempts by their team. That's why I don't find his explanation sincere.
- it was a worst-case example, like in case if an intern has no clue and even if they do such an easy thing, it's very unlikely that it will break anything on their build process.So it's more that the fact that it's internal and not private makes it not line up with the reasons they've given since private would make far more sense for that purpose? Hence you're rather suspicious of that reasoning they've given for the internals?That wasn't my point. I think I misexplain that. The scenario he described sounds like a better fit for private than internal. Internal means we want to use it internally in the assembly but not outside of this assembly. More like "we can change it but not you =)". And Taleworlds have around 6-8 dll's and it's very unlikely that there will be cross-assembly change attempts by their team. That's why I don't find his explanation sincere.
Changing internal to public shouldn't have any effect on Taleworlds' codebase and it would just make life easier for modders.
And to clarify something, of course, I'm not talking about CTRL+Shift+F, I see some people really think I suggested that
But again, I personally don't care it anymore. Please add more internals and privates Taleworlds. If this will make your game better and add more content, you can even rewrite entire codebase in Pascal or F#
Sorry if I misquoted you. I just sorta used this to show that while it may seem simple it isn't just as easy as that, and is an actual process. Once again, I did not mean to make it seem at all as if you did not know what it means. I apologize if that was the effect, I just want you to know that that wasn't the intended one.And to clarify something, of course, I'm not talking about CTRL+Shift+F, I see some people really think I suggested that
Yep, I was incorrect about that. My bad.
I think the argument, if I'm not getting it wrong again, is (a) that since the code is already messy anyway it doesn't seem to make sense, and (b) modders would prefer TW uses code reviews to keep their code in check, instead of using internal, which is such a major hindrance to modders.
You mean violation of copyright as possible trouble? The devs would have no connection to that whatsoever, only the modders are exposed. Are the devs giving Star Wars models to the modders? No.
But providing a direct support to someone using your game for a violation of copyright through modding, it could be a situation problematic for TW. The naive defense of "I don't have control about what they did with our game" could not hold. The workaround is that someone else ask for the change and that the dev never answer to the demands from people doing mods with copyright violation.
Giving more access to their own game has nothing to do with anyone else's intellectual property. This is kind of obvious.
THIS. The "CTR + F" solution may be drastic as far as the code you're working on in-house, but I don't see a reason why it isn't worth doing for release branches if the alternative is no complex mods being developed ever.
COBOL? No! Visual Basic? No.... I got it... Java! Wait... Flash!!! They should remake BL in Adobe Flash.
Yeah that's not a thing and hasn't been a thing for any mods, with extremely rare exceptions. Even if copyright claims could be made, the entire industry outside of TW plus a few others realizes that antagonizing modders is a great way to turn lifelong fans into lifelong enemies. It'd be like throwing copyright strikes at fanfics. People who gladly spend their free time paying homage to your content or enjoying said homage are also people who will spend a substantial portion of their disposable income on your franchise.
Lotr mods in Skyrim had issues :
www.theonering.net
Right. Although my question to the devs is legitimate I think and not off-topic.
It is off topic, and there are already multiple threads where that topic has been thoroughly discussed.
If IP law or anything else were the reason behind TW's response to the letter, I'm pretty sure they would have said so themselves. If they want to pipe up about it, they have plenty of opportunity without us going into the legal history of fan-produced content.
