Overwrite dependency incompatibility

[protocol_1903]

I can confidently say that no developer i know wants to have incompatibilities overridden, nor do they want to have to logic out conditional dependency trees. You're asking a feature most people actively don't want, and if implemented would cause even more headaches, false bug reports, and general issues.

[Stargateur]

Ultimately if such a feature existed mod(s) could just as easily detect runtime if a mod they are 'incompatible' with is enabled and error at startup or runtime - preventing you from using the mod(s) together - unless you manually edit them.

There is a big difference between a mod author really wanted to prevent you from using a mod, and using a base feature that a game push you to use.

[protocol_1903]

There is a big difference between a mod author really wanted to prevent you from using a mod, and using a base feature that a game push you to use.

Correct. But most of the developers I know create those incompatibilities for good reason, not trivial "I don't want you to use your mod with mine". Though, that is only from my experience interacting with people. And no, it would not be 'a base feature that the game pushes you to use' since nobody would want to use it except those trying to override incompatibilities which will not be the main developers in the first place. Nor will it be a base feature, since it's extra logic on top of the base system that's already been established.

[radical_larry]

Correct. But most of the developers I know create those incompatibilities for good reason, not trivial "I don't want you to use your mod with mine". Though, that is only from my experience interacting with people. And no, it would not be 'a base feature that the game pushes you to use' since nobody would want to use it except those trying to override incompatibilities which will not be the main developers in the first place. Nor will it be a base feature, since it's extra logic on top of the base system that's already been established.

He probably meant the current incompatibility feature that the game pushes you to use, not the hypothetical overwrite dependency feature. Right now there's only hard incompatibility, or nothing, which is a really bad feature. I'm not even sure what the point of the game enforcing it is, what's the use case?
Should have been the game telling the user that mod Y is incompatible with mod Z, then some options like right now, except one of the options is 'continue anyways' and everyone should be happy. Or at least no one explained yet how this would make someone unhappy.

Ultimately this entire request is purely for multiplayer purposes since in single player anyone can as you've mentioned modify the mods however they want.

So this thread was filed under won't implement. Is multiplayer irrelevant somehow? The problem outlined in the OP still exists.

[protocol_1903]

He probably meant the current incompatibility feature that the game pushes you to use, not the hypothetical overwrite dependency feature. Right now there's only hard incompatibility, or nothing, which is a really bad feature. I'm not even sure what the point of the game enforcing it is, what's the use case?

The point of enforcing it is so that developers can mark things as not compatible and not having to deal with the mountain of false bug reports caused by people ignoring the flags.

Should have been the game telling the user that mod Y is incompatible with mod Z, then some options like right now, except one of the options is 'continue anyways' and everyone should be happy. Or at least no one explained yet how this would make someone unhappy.

This would make developers unhappy because you run into either the case of "no, I really dont want you using my mod with this mod" and script forced errors, virtually recreating the incompatibility flag, or the previously mentioned case of people falsely reporting issues after ignoring warnings that the mods are not compatible. And, as already mentioned by Rseding, developers used to implement the previous solution of scripted errors, which is what they would likely revert back to if incompatibilities could be ignored. Regardless of the reason for the incompatibility. I know I'd still use it in certain places.

Ultimately this entire request is purely for multiplayer purposes since in single player anyone can as you've mentioned modify the mods however they want.

So this thread was filed under won't implement. Is multiplayer irrelevant somehow? The problem outlined in the OP still exists.

Multiplayer is not irrelevant, the request is not being implemented regardless of the viewpoint. The 'solution', if you can call it that, is the same as the singleplayer solution. Each user must locally edit their mods. Or, talk to the developer of the mod(s) and see if some workaround can be implemented to remove the compatibility.

[robot256]

What protocol_1903 said.

The only case where the proposal might have value is for abandoned mods with restrictive licenses that forbid forks even for the sake of compatibility and redistribution on the mod portal, of which there are very few. Thus, in the vast majority of cases the proposal will not accomplish its stated goal at all, and would make things worse for players who do want to modify their local copies. That's why it is marked Won't Implement.

[Stargateur]

I can confidently say that no developer i know
[...]
But most of the developers I know

Nice argument.

I still maintain, there is mod that abuse this feature, and so there is people who fork mod naming explicitly often with something like "fork of X for Y" to circumvent the incompatibility list, choice your poison. An option even in the super hidden options that allow to ignore incompatibility list would make most people happy and is trivial to implement. Let user have the freedom to choice, there is no reason to block this freedom.

[wanne]

The only case where the proposal might have value is for abandoned mods with restrictive licenses that forbid forks even for the sake of compatibility and redistribution on the mod portal, of which there are very few.

Out of the top 50 mods there are literally only 2 mods that allow forks and have incompatibilities: Krastorio 2 and VehicleSnap.

I can confidently say that no developer i know wants to have incompatibilities overridden, nor do they want to have to logic out conditional dependency trees.

I don't know how many developers you know. But I think the number of developers who have a problem with that is somewhere near 2.
And I can cite at least a dozen players who want it.
Alone here in the thread there are 3 players in favour of that feature and one against it. And since space exploration and seablock had extensive scripts to check for incompatibilities I am pretty sure that there is a bigger developer community who sees the need for extended dependency checking.
And there is much bigger need for it now then ever. How many mods depend on space-age purely to get a metallurgy crafting machine. And on the other hand how many conflict with it since changing ammunition recipes will almost always kill space platforms?
But just a dependency on metallurgy is impossible even with a script in the data stage.

[protocol_1903]

The only case where the proposal might have value is for abandoned mods with restrictive licenses that forbid forks even for the sake of compatibility and redistribution on the mod portal, of which there are very few.

Out of the top 50 mods there are literally only 2 mods that allow forks and have incompatibilities: Krastorio 2 and VehicleSnap.

First of all, any sort of top 50 is no indication of the general consensus, since there are currently 8493 mods on the portal for 2.0. And I can confidently assert that all of those top 50 mods are either in active development or still in maintenance, not meeting the 'abandoned' requirement. All of which you could probably reach out to the developers and have a conversation about the incompatibilities instead of straight forking it.

I can confidently say that no developer i know wants to have incompatibilities overridden, nor do they want to have to logic out conditional dependency trees.

I don't know how many developers you know. But I think the number of developers who have a problem with that is somewhere near 2.
And I can cite at least a dozen players who want it.
Alone here in the thread there are 3 players in favour of that feature and one against it.

I know a couple dozen developers, if you really want to play a numbers game of who wants what we can make a poll. Regardless of the numbers the request has already been sidelined and will not be looked into further, rendering this argument and any further investigation useless. And you know players, the people using the mods. We are the developers. We have to implement everything. Just because a hundred people want something doesn't mean we'll implement it. The same goes for Wube.

And since space exploration and seablock had extensive scripts to check for incompatibilities I am pretty sure that there is a bigger developer community who sees the need for extended dependency checking.

Two does not make a pattern. They make an exception. And I'd argue that those are not 'extended dependency checking' but esoteric issues that could not even be solved by the proposed convoluted solution.

And there is much bigger need for it now then ever. How many mods depend on space-age purely to get a metallurgy crafting machine. And on the other hand how many conflict with it since changing ammunition recipes will almost always kill space platforms?
But just a dependency on metallurgy is impossible even with a script in the data stage.

That is an extreme generalization, but I'll humor the example. As far as I know, no mods depend on SA for the foundry other than those already building on space age as a whole. Most use their own. I can confidently say that none conflict with it because space platform ammunition recipes change. It'd be a theoretical conflict anyway, likely workable if you design your platforms for that mod. No mods that I know of add incompatibilities because something might not work, they either don't know of the issue, ignore the issue if its minor enough, or add some form of compatibility.

[MrSmoothieHuman]

I can confidently say that no developer i know wants to have incompatibilities overridden, nor do they want to have to logic out conditional dependency trees. You're asking a feature most people actively don't want, and if implemented would cause even more headaches, false bug reports, and general issues.

this, literally this - i dont know what there is to argue about. this makes almost all of our jobs harder to humour people who have 200+ mods in their save (which are already a nightmare) or some other headache-inducing thing we have to deal with. I'd much rather live with a 50 (8 of which are scrapers) download mod that forks my mod to change one thing that messes with the intention of my mods then whatever nightmare "overwriting incompatability" would bring us
if 2 mods you want to play with are incompatible, your local copy is right there!

[wanne]

All of which you could probably reach out to the developers and have a conversation about the incompatibilities instead of straight forking it.

As I mentioned: It is impossible to do for them, since there are no boolean expressions for dependencies.
As I mentioned: It is impossible to do for them, since there are no boolean expressions for dependencies.
As I mentioned: It is impossible to do for them, since there are no boolean expressions for dependencies.
As I mentioned: It is impossible to do for them, since there are no boolean expressions for dependencies.
As I mentioned: It is impossible to do for them, since there are no boolean expressions for dependencies.

I doubt it will help to mention it another 5 times, but I had to try...

Either they remove the incompatibility with the other mod which will make the game not work, if the other mod is loaded but not mine. Or they add my mod as dependency which will mess with the way their mod is played. Also most modders do not like to add dependencies on mods of other people.

I know a couple dozen developers, if you really want to play a numbers game of who wants what we can make a poll. Regardless of the numbers the request has already been sidelined and will not be looked into further, rendering this argument and any further investigation useless. And you know players, the people using the mods. We are the developers. We have to implement everything. Just because a hundred people want something doesn't mean we'll implement it. The same goes for Wube.

Oh yes. An other toxic game developer community that hates their users. This is why I kept away from commercial games and stayed in OSS projects. Less toxic environment .
But make the poll. But not here. Since we (and your friends/family) are the only two who are fallowing this thread.

Two does not make a pattern. They make an exception. And I'd argue that those are not 'extended dependency checking' but esoteric issues that could not even be solved by the proposed convoluted solution.

True. But going back from the json incompatibilities to the old style lua errors would solve the problem. There you could just wrap an other if around.

That is an extreme generalization,

No it is an example. The opposite of a generalization

or add some form of compatibility.

Yes this for example: https://mods.factorio.com/mod/Spaghetorio/dependencies
Does not use space at all. But requires space age to fix the problems that would occur if you would load it together with space age instead of just activating the required flags.

[MrSmoothieHuman]

All of which you could probably reach out to the developers and have a conversation about the incompatibilities instead of straight forking it.

As I mentioned: It is impossible to do for them, since there are no boolean expressions for dependencies.
As I mentioned: It is impossible to do for them, since there are no boolean expressions for dependencies.
As I mentioned: It is impossible to do for them, since there are no boolean expressions for dependencies.
As I mentioned: It is impossible to do for them, since there are no boolean expressions for dependencies.
As I mentioned: It is impossible to do for them, since there are no boolean expressions for dependencies.

you cant message a developer to improve or remove an incompatibility because.. boolean expressions for dependencies dont exist? well, that doesn’t seem true at all, especially considering someone did it to me last month

Also, i’m really not sure how this represents toxic devs when they dont want to add something that’d (checks notes)
make mod dev’s lives harder for minimal gain and probably loss? and would make dependency trees harder to navigate?
how dare these toxic devs make a friendly API that anyone can pick up, create a forum where people can suggest new ideas for their API and game and actually respond! smhmh