The downside to invoking a third program from MO to handle fomods.

[GrantSP]

As MO becomes more and more popular, mod users are probably going to face the issue of installing fomods that use C# as the installation script, and the resultant error from no suitable plugin in MO.

 

I have seen mentioned here in S.T.E.P. the method of invoking FOMM from within MO and creating a new mod package that is then installed.

While I understand the rationale behind doing so, and in fact I laud those that have written installation guides to assist mod users, I feel this is in fact making the task of assistance harder.

 

Let me see if I can elaborate on that idea.

 

Forum members that write these guides or answer questions about installation probably have a great deal of knowledge about what mods are and how they work, perhaps even creating a number of mods themselves. They know the easy way to do things and can cut through the hardship of installation and provide a quick fix.

 

Therein lies the problem. They know these things because they had to figure it out for themselves and are now aware of what is needed. The vast majority of posts in forums like this or other sites where mods are hosted are from users that have little understanding of what a mod is or how they work. Without wanting to sound patronizing a great deal of mod users see that a mod does such-and-such and they go all: "oohh, shiny. must have it", thinking that it will magically transform their game by some strange method. That's fine if all they are wanting is to do something simple. How many times though have you read posts from users that haven't even read the description or readme and are expecting the mod to just work wonders? Have you not seen the pain in the mod author's comments as they handhold them through it or perhaps dismiss them entirely?

The problem is the majority of mod users just don't know what mods are and how they work. Most of the installation/setup issues could be solved by themselves IF they knew how the mod operates.

 

Now I'm not decrying tools that are used to manage mods, far from it. I have used Wrye Bash and its derivatives for ages and am now a MO advocate. I know their worth. These tools are great because they speed up or automate repetitive or tedious tasks or give access to areas previously hard to reach.

 

Which brings me back to topic: FOmods.

Your average user has no idea what these files are that they just downloaded. To them they could be little armies of robots that somehow construct a new world in their game.

*.rar, *.zip, *.7z mean very little to them, let alone what *.OMOD, *.FOMOD or for that matter *.esp/esm or *.bsa are.

 

They should!

 

So, asking them to use another tool to handle a file they have no, or little, understanding of only obfuscates the reality for them. They need to know what are inside those files. It helps in so many ways.

• Isn't there an ingame menu supposed to show?
• Where is that icon for X feature?
• What textures/meshes are inside it?
• Are they loaded before or after another mod with the same files?
• Is this mod compatible with X or Y?
• What does it contain that needs precedence?

 

Those sort of questions become much, much easier to understand if we show users how to look at what these packaged mods contain. That means encouraging users with FOmod issues to unpack them and either remove the fomod folder or check if it can be tweaked in some way. Quite a lot of the problematic mods are actually very easy to install in MO since there is no chance of overwriting anything. This alone makes MO a fantastic tool.

If the user then opens the archive and sees it is just a collection of folders and a few files they will start to see where it all fits in the game's file structure. Some are even easier since they are just an *esp/esm and a *.bsa. Two files to place! What is hard about that?

 

Doing this gives the mod user, not only a working mod but, a sounding in what to check for in maintaining a good load order or even in taking the first steps towards merging files or making bashed patches! The extra couple of steps they do with just one tricky mod may mean less steps in the future.

 

 

Just in case it wasn't made clear in the preceding paragraphs:

 

I am not criticising the knowledgeable forum members that have posted guides here, they are to be lauded for all the work they do.

 

[DoubleYou]

Am I to understand that we should be giving manual installation instructions for fomods? Is that not even harder to understand?

[GrantSP]

This whole discussion is probably a moot one now, as it seems MO can, with a bit of coaxing, handle fomods acceptably. Up till the point of my posting this I could never get MO to handle C# style fomods correctly. Now it appears to do so. 

 

Having said that. Yes, where possible guides to installing mods should provide manual instructions, when the preferred option throws curveballs.

 

I guess what I'm trying to advocate is an agnostic view of installation for mods. If we can avoid the concept of: fomod == FOMM or bcf == Wrye Bash

 

MO is so much more advanced than all the tools I've used before for so many reasons which I won't go into now except for saying this.

 

It makes the contents of installed mods much more important rather than just being the tool that unwraps the contents and shields the user from them. This, IMO, is needed to show users how the mod is doing what it does.

It's one thing to install a mod that provides A, B, C & D. It's another thing to SEE how all that is done. This is what users need to know.

 

If users had to unpack the fomod and see the structure of the mod, which files go where etc.. They might gain insight in how to fix common problems mentioned in forums. 

 

That may be 'harder' in the first place but much easier in the long run.

 

I would say there are users that have followed, 'to-the-letter', installation guides, like those here in S.T.E.P., and they have no idea why they did what they did. Install modA before modB but only if you don't want modC etc. Those steps can be followed, but surely they need to be shown why.

That way when they come upon a new mod that isn't explicitly covered they may be able to deduce the steps needed based on what they learnt previously.

 

Does this make me sound patronizing or arrogant? Possibly. I would like to think I'm not though. I learnt over many years from more skilled users that didn't tell me what to do, but showed me what to look for. It also is the way I operated as a teacher way back when I was still working.

 

More instruction -- less hand-holding