Friday, February 4, 2011

NCCS - Curious

Had a curious thing happen last night while I was playing dead.

Seems a companion-maker decided to, rather than simply use NCCS as a master, fold the entire mod into his companion plugin.

Now, this isn't going to be a "stole my stuff, con sarnit!" rant. I listed NCCS as freely reusable on the Nexus, so long as attribution is given. He kept it to the Nexus, and gave credit, so I'm not pissed off or anything.

What I am is wondering.

See, the whole concept behind NCCS, much like CM and RR before it, is that I as the system author, cannot know the RefIDs of the companions made with the system. So, all scripting has to be done in a roundabout fashion to account for this fact.

NCCS was folded into EVE-900 though, to drive one single companion. Now, maybe I've been writing my own systems too long, but it seems to me that writing a new framework from scratch to drive a single companion would be far less trouble in the long run, than trying to keep a create-your-own system updated inside your plugin.

Conversely, wouldn't it have been easier to just flag NCCS as a master? I mean, the master archive is less than a hundred kilobytes. Is it really that big a deal to download?

I realize NCCS looks super cool and spiffy and all to most of you guys who use it, but copying the entire mod to run one standalone companion is like using a 12 gauge to kill a field mouse - sure, you can do it... but it's hardly the optimal tool for the job.

But, hell, what do I know?

I nonetheless wish our intrepid modder much success with his creepy robot companion, regardless of what ends up under the hood.

6 comments:

  1. Curious? That makes two of us. Like you, I would simply make my satellite .esp dependent upon the .esm containing the companion system of choice for whichever game. That is, as long as I was shooting for a public release of the thing. For personal use, however, I could understand just smashing everything together. One of the things I've been doing for Oblivion lately is merging a whole lot of different custom races together into a single .esp and making them all dependent upon a single .esm which contains just hairstyles and eyes since many of the races utilize the same resources repeatedly. It would be a monster to try to release publicly not only due to permissions issues, but also because I'd have to round up all the various graphical resources and pack them into a BSA or OMOD. But for my personal use it's all good as long as all those resources are still in my Data directory where they're supposed to be and I free up several slots in my load order which as we all know is limited to a certain number of files and we are powerless to change the max number. But I concur, for a public release and especially for just a single companion it really doesn't make sense.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I suppose it's technically possible it was easier to do that way for custom dialog or something (nothing flagged as a modification to worry about conflicting with other plugins), but I still say it would be simpler at that point to just create anew.

    Copy the script, create a couple of your own packages, and if you're rewriting all the dialog anyway...

    But yeah, this is a publicly available mod. Not a homebrew or anything.

    Also: the creepy fucks in the comments of the file are already asking if it's sex-mod compatible.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Make it three of us. I can't see any possible reason to encapsulate your mod into theirs like that. In fact, couldn't duplicate copies of NCCS code running cause issues? never mind the possible nightmare of different companion code types running at once? UGH. And if you have to update the code, due to either discovery of a bug or (yeah, right) Beth/Obs actually putting out a patch sometime this decade - they would have to rewrite a lot more than if it was a simple companion using your code.

    And there was only one creepy FISTO fan asking about sex mods in the comments. :P But just the concept made me shudder. UGH.

    Stopping in for my fix of Nosphilosophy. :D

    ReplyDelete
  4. Agreed - the ObjectID issue had crossed my mind, as well. If it is a straight-across copy, the script and quest names will conflict if someone is running the real NCCS as well.

    And you apparently missed a comment: there was a second poster who gave a kudos point to the sex-mod-asker for their... "honesty". Two freaks = I was justified in my use of the plural. I stand by my insults and regret nothing. Nothing, I say!

    ReplyDelete
  5. ah, I didn't take that second comment as another pervo, more as someone merely amused at the pervo's honesty.

    One reason I continue reading your blog here. Besides the amusement factor, you stick to your guns, and if you're correct, you WILL defend yourself against the wankers trying to bring you down. But you do it with facts and logic rather than volume. So refreshing to see people on the net "doing it right".

    ReplyDelete
  6. I cheat.

    Truth is, I'm bad about researching. I rarely express an opinion without having read up first, so when I do take a stance, it's one I believe to be right.

    I am occasionally proven wrong; and when presented with such evidence I will reconsider my position... but it had better be good evidence and not hyperbole.

    I've been accused of conceit; but I always have to respond: "Is it still conceited if you actually are right most of the time?" Never seems to be a snappy comeback for that one...

    ReplyDelete