I hope all these changes will cover what modders want in their open letter.
And I hope @Bloc will keep updating all of his mods like Freelancer, Intrigues, Religions, Ludus, Plague and Diseases and more.
It indeed has been discussed but it's low priority.Outstanding news, thank you. I just wanted to follow up on this request, as it's currently what's dissuading me from creating custom prefabs:
If I recall correctly it was being discussed at some point internally, but I don't see it on the list above, did this get scrapped or is it just low priority/early development?
Thanks for the confirmation, appreciate it. I had some additional questions relating to how scene files are generated and packed and possible API interaction with the scene editor but I'll probably defer that to a separate post entirely after I've had time to pull together my thoughts. Thanks again for putting in the work to pull all this together, I know it can be a lot of work documenting everything and writing up posts like this and comes with its own costs in terms of developer time, but I think it's worth it in the long run. It certainly made me excited enough to think about digging back into testing the modding capabilities of bannerlord.It indeed has been discussed but it's low priority.
Why dont u just keep pushing what you want specificly & stay in fight? There are many modders all puts hard work as hobby (generally) without (possibily) any income to get their own common-tasty butter(content). This is a good practice & also valuable for all( i appriciate all). Tell the things that prevent u on specific subjects & let TW take their time. Unfirtunately, they are not rockstar or respawn. Give them time & dont give up man.Good.
But I'm pretty sure this wasn't the initial release plan you had in mind. After all the backlash from people on the previous thread, you decided to reduce the number of internals you used before a clear explanation/release.
Because even though it could be that Dejan initially misexplained things at the first post, then both Dejan and Duh replied several times in that thread. Duh even somewhat lectured about how internals used even though this wasn't something people were asking. If it was initially like this, either of them could easily say "No need to overreact, we added ~4 while we removed ~x many" but they haven't. Either they don't know how to construct a meaningful sentence, or simply it wasn't only 4 keys added initially. We know that they are able to construct sentences, so we can have a wild assumption about this.
Can I prove this? No. Do I care? Also no. But I'm happy to see that TW did something at last and I hope this helps some other people who are doing TC mods and putting a lot of effort into this game.
I'm putting this inside the spoiler because it's not directly related to the thread. I'm not planning to continue on these mods or Bannerlord modding in general. My problem is not just internals with Taleworlds. If you can revisit my other posts, you can see that. TW's removing internals is not a "huge" step forward as others mentioned. A baby steps at best. This was actually something they can do in one week ( yes in one week, yes it won't break their architecture as some armchair reddit programmers claimed - as can be seen they did that already and nothing is broken ) but even this took months and resistance from Taleworlds' side. TW is being amateur on all fronts right now. Communication, support, SP/MP feature adding, bug fixing, etc all of them. I will not even go into amateur mistakes like releasing an Elephant DLC and removing it.
And community is toxic. Even after I said I'm done, I got a lot of random messages that are blaming me because I left modding (?) as if I have to do this all the time Breaking news, I don't have to. I have more important things to do than modding for this game. Game that even it's owner company clearly trying to fix it and be done with it as soon as possible ( check dropped features )
You might say "You are saying the community is toxic but you are being toxic" - which might be true although I did everything I can to show the right path to Taleworlds. I even created Intrigues, Religion, or Freelancer because this was a game mode I wanted in-game so that Taleworlds can see and realize that how much it's wanted by players. I think I gave the most solid constructive feedback possible by literally implementing it and showing it's proof of concept. If they are still not giving a jack****, that's not my problem.
Also, I saw some people bursting rage against developers. That's pointless. They are not the ones who are calling the shots. Even in this internal issue - even though it's code-related.
If you are unpleasant about something, be unpleasant about the company in general, not directly to individuals or developers within the company. You can choose to ignore what I say too, up to you, i don't care, really.
You are wrong. The decision to review access modifiers and other modding limitations came as part of the meeting discussing the open letter. The initial pass going over some 400 classes (and not just changing access modifiers) happened early may. Broad changes need to be part of our dedicated testing process and are not squeezed in at the last minute.But I'm pretty sure this wasn't the initial release plan you had in mind. After all the backlash from people on the previous thread, you decided to reduce the number of internals you used before a clear explanation/release.
Dejan simply informed people that changes would be coming with v1.6.0. He clarified that it will not be removing all internal keywords after some folks took it to mean that. Could he have worded it more clearly / waited for the patch to drop (given that we typically don't share details beforehand)? Sure. Is it worth battering him over? No.Because even though it could be that Dejan initially misexplained things at the first post, then both Dejan and Duh replied several times in that thread.
I don't see what benefit you would have from misconstruing things like that, but i will just leave the exchange here for people to judge themselves.Duh even somewhat lectured about how internals used even though this wasn't something people were asking.
I responded to Jance who was asking what we use access modifiers for with what we use access modifiers for.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).
It's a shame to see you resort to flinging insults for no reason. It is standard that we don't share details of upcoming patches before they release.If it was initially like this, either of them could easily say "No need to overreact, we added ~4 while we removed ~x many" but they haven't. Either they don't know how to construct a meaningful sentence, or simply it wasn't only 4 keys added initially. We know that they are able to construct sentences, so we can have a wild assumption about this.
You and he had plenty of time to correct that wording. You or he didn't as far as I can see. Wording stayed the same throughout the follow-up posts.Could he have worded it more clearly / waited for the patch to drop (given that we typically don't share details beforehand)? Sure.
What you quoted is an answer to my quote from Jance. And in that quote, I'm asking Dejan what's the reason for adding new ones. No one in that thread asked, "what do you guys use access modifiers for". I also said "If the official answer is "because of consistent structure", then you can just tell that too. I know you gave one reason but I want to make sure that this is the official and main reason of this weird decision." He simply ignored. We also said in all pages of that thread that we know what they are and why they are for. Just because they exist doesn't make it mod-friendly even if it's good for your coding practices. It also makes no sense to claim it's for better practices and then removing most of it and adding only a few of them. So it's not that crucial apparently.I responded to Jance who was asking what we use access modifiers for with what we use access modifiers for.
There is no insult in there. I specifically said you were able to construct sentences to imply that you didn't do it by mistake. You know I don't have an issue with you or Dejan personally. Feel free to PM me if you are sensing personal hostility, that's not what I'm doing or planning.It's a shame to see you resort to flinging insults for no reason. It is standard that we don't share details of upcoming patches before they release.
I'm pretty calm but what you are saying was not my point.However, please step back and calmly reconsider the soft commitment you're requesting. TW have always said that some stuff will remain hard-coded. We'd love everything to be open source but that's commercially unrealistic.
Thanks for your clarification.I'm pretty calm but what you are saying was not my point.
I'm aware of the fact that some things, especially core things that are deep down in the RGL cannot be open-source. I don't want them to be open-source anyway. It wouldn't make sense.
Perhaps it wasn't clear, I was referring to claims that this internal keywording is done intentionally ( which was also something I objected in same letter thread back then ) and for easing everyone's mind, I wanted to hear that this wasn't done intentional and they are not adding new ones to restrict modders. Officially stating this would sound like a "too-obvious thing to say" for them but there are definitely some doubt-clouds floating around on this matter. But anyway, we will discuss this with Duh privately to avoid derailing I think. If they choose to voice this out loud, they can.
Also by restrict, I mean making things harder for them. Otherwise having an internal have no real restriction effect on modders since they can always extract the entire .dll content to another solution and recompile it. I'm pretty sure TW also knows this.