ACCEPTED STEP Patches

[EssArrBee]

STEP: Core is pretty much set in stone and you shouldn't worry about developing around that. Any changes to STEP: Core will not be major things that break all the packs anyways. STEP: Extended will probably a bit different and if you develop a pack that requires Extended then you should expect to developing your pack with that in mind.

 

My advice is to develop packs that require Core and then to pick as a selection from Extended or to just list those mods an addendum.

[Nearox]

I see, right on then :)

 

Btw isn't the only thing that would potentially bring some big changes is the AOS mod? Still needs loads of mod testing of course, but if that one does get accepted then quite a few sound mods may need scraping. 

[z929669]

Moved all patch-related posts from the 2.2.8 dev thread into this one.

 

Let's keep the compatibility patches for STEP conversation going here ... we should be using GitHub for versioning. Just download the windows installer, create an account on GitHub, create the patch and the repository, and post back here so that the rest of the users working on this can sync the repo and contribute.

[EssArrBee]

Well, someone needs to talk to kryp about some of the weapon and armor keywords that are added by WAF and how they affect things compared to the keywords added by the unofficial patches. Once we know what the differences are we can decide which approach to use, either hers or the USKP team's and have a patch up right away.

 

I haven't seen kryp around lately, so I'm guessing it is a bit of a break. Until then we can postpone a STEP: Core patch and just patch up a few extended mods that conflict from Extended. Tomorrow though, now must sleep.

[kryptopyr]

I know I'm behind with updating WAF (and a number of my other mods). I had an update for WAF ready in early October, but decided to hold off until USKP 2.0 was released. Then events in my real life sort of went nuts, and I haven't had any spare time for modding for the last 3 weeks. I haven't even had a chance to download USKP 2.0 to take a look at it, so I'm not sure how much needs to be updated.

 

The keywords in WAF are used for several things. In one or two cases, they're being used to fix exactly the same bug that USKP-added-keywords also fix (I recreated these fixes rather than add USKP as a master file to WAF, which would have been a headache to maintain). In other situations, the new keywords are being used to add missing armor sets to the Matching Set perks, to allow the armor or weapons to be upgraded properly if using Smithing Perks Overhaul, or to allow the items to be sorted into the proper categories in the crafting menu.

 

Rest assured, I am definitely planning to update my mods and resolve any conflicts between USKP that need to be addressed. I will try to sit down and look at this in the next week or two, but things haven't quite settled down for me in RL so unfortunately I can't make any guarantees. If there are questions on specific conflicts, let me know, and I'll try to take a look at those and get back to you guys right away.

 

I'm thrilled to see that there's movement toward STEP supporting all DLCs as standard. I've started moving this way with my own mods as it was just getting to be too much work (and at least triple the time) to keep all DLCs individually supported. There will definitely be some backlash, as I've experienced some people just have no intention of buying the DLCs (particularly Hearthfire).

[z929669]

... snip/

I'm thrilled to see that there's movement toward STEP supporting all DLCs as standard. I've started moving this way with my own mods as it was just getting to be too much work (and at least triple the time) to keep all DLCs individually supported. There will definitely be some backlash, as I've experienced some people just have no intention of buying the DLCs (particularly Hearthfire).

 

Well I think that they will all change their tunes if STEP and a large contingent of mod authors begin thinking this way.

[TechAngel85]

There's no reason to not own all the DLCs at this point. You can catch a sale on Steam and get them for super cheap...Black Firday and Christmas is just around the corner so I expect they'll be on sale again very soon.

 

Current prices on Steam:

Dawnguard - $19.99

Hearthfire - $4.99

Dragonborn - $19.99

 

*Prices in US dollars.

[EssArrBee]

Going off what kryp said, it doesn't look like it would matter which keywords we forward for a STEP patch, I would just make sure that we stick with one or the other not a mix match. That only goes for forwarding the keywords that fix perks and other stuff mentioned. As far as the stats tweaks we should keep the ones WAF makes because it scales stuff better. I think that also requires our patch to have a stats tag for WB users.

 

Leaving out HF support is no big deal, but we have to include DG and DB two years out from release. Not even sure for a CORE patch we would even have to fix anything from HF. I'll set something up a little later and someone can take a look at it.

[z929669]

Once v1.0 of the patch is created, we can load to Git to allow versioning and commits by user (see my prev post). This will enable various versions simultaneously

[EssArrBee]

Oh, should there be a 2.2.7 patch for now and we can do a 2.2.8 patch as we go along?

[kryptopyr]

Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting that STEP should avoid requiring the DLCs due to the stubborn refusal of some players to acquire them, just that some complaints should be expected. From the comments I've gotten, I don't think it's always a matter of money, sometimes it's just a lack of interest in the DLCs. In any case, I think simplifying and reducing the work necessary to maintain STEP more than justifies including the three DLCs as requirements.

[z929669]

Oh' date=' should there be a 2.2.7 patch for now and we can do a 2.2.8 patch as we go along?[/quote']

Sure. whatever you want to do. the SVN methodology is well suited to versioning.

Don't get me wrong' date=' I'm not suggesting that STEP should avoid requiring the DLCs due to the stubborn refusal of some players to acquire them, just that some complaints should be expected. From the comments I've gotten, I don't think it's always a matter of money, sometimes it's just a lack of interest in the DLCs. In any case, I think simplifying and reducing the work necessary to maintain STEP more than justifies including the three DLCs as requirements.[/quote']

Totally agree, and they will need to acquire this "bloat" in order to mod Skyrim sooner or later. A fair price for lessening the burden of authors and modding services.

[EssArrBee]

I think I did this correctly, someone more familiar with GitHub can point me in the right direction if not.

 

https://github.com/EssArrBee/STEP2.2.7Patches

 

It is five patches, I think I listed most the changes in the readme, three of the patches are just ones I had for Wearable lanterns, SoS, and WL-SoS, the other two are CORE and Extended.

 

Still need someone a bit more experienced to take a look at Dialog, quests, and there are couple Navigation Mesh conflicts I didn't touch.

[z929669]

Yep, it looks right (although you could name it "STEP Patches" and leave versioning to the system in terms of 'commits' and 'releases' I think).

 

I am no SVN expert, but perhaps others reading this could offer guidance as to initial setup.

[stoppingby4now]

It's fine to through an archive in there, but I would unpack it and store the contents on a per-patch basis in github. It will enable you to check single files in/out to update them, and allow you to track changes per file. You can't do that with a single archive.