Jump to content

Salt Monolith

Global Moderator
  • Content Count

    15,124
  • Joined

Posts posted by Salt Monolith

  1. ADoS, I assume that's a joke.  Maybe it's supposed to be a friendly joke, but we've discussed boundaries and harassment in the past, and that is a step too far.  So on the off chance that you're serious: please hit pause, consider past warnings, and take a second to think about what you're trying to accomplish here.

     

    And on that note, since this thread's original topic has run its course, and it's moved on to... whatever it is that's being expressed here, I think it's time for it to end.

  2. You don't necessarily need a license in order to have permission to use someone's work, absolutely.  If there's no license, and they give you permission, that's just fine.

     

    (You can't use a license unless the license actually applies.  That means the requirements for the license need to be met.  This depends on the license but might include things like the original release stating the license and including the full text of the license.)

     

    Finally, if we're talking about modifying and distributing somebody else's creative work as a new version of that work, please operate based on explicit permission  and not "good faith beliefs."  As this thread shows, you had some good faith beliefs that turned out to be not quite true when you went to look at the actual emails.

  3. ADoS, given the immense confusion in this thread, I'm just going to go ahead and make a clear proclamation about what you need to do for anything you are linking to off the forums.  I think this is uncontroversial but if you'd like to it to work differently, just say so and the mods can have a discussion and get back to you.

     

    - If you have email permission to use somebody's work as-is, and there's no evidence suggesting otherwise (or that there are license issues), that's fine.

     

    - If you have email permission to distribute a modified version of somebody's work, and there's no evidence suggesting otherwise (or that there are license issues), that's fine, but you need to clearly label that it is a modified version both where it is linked, and within the download itself.

     

    - If you want to distribute somebody else's work (as-is, or modified) under a given license, then (1) their work needs to have been publicly released under that license, and (2) it needs to be done in accordance with the terms of the license.

     

    Sounds good?

  4. Milu hasn't released their work under GNU GPL 3.0 if all they've done is say that in an email.

     

     

    At the very least there needs to be a notice included with the released file that spells out the license.  It looks like you are also supposed to include the text of the license itself, which makes sense.  There's a whole list of requirements if you look up the license itself:

     

    https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.txt

     

    Note there's a section there on the requirements for releasing modified versions as well.  But the original release has to meet the license requirements first!

     

  5. I would just add that if it actually is GNU GPL 3.0, permission to distribute derivatives is conditional based on using the same license, which you don't seem to have done here.  (Unless this is the original, I can't tell.)

     

    And -- as I exhorted in the other thread -- if you're distributing a modified version of something and not the original, THAT NEEDS TO BE CRYSTAL CLEAR.  Where you link it for download, and in the downloaded item itself.  I genuinely can't tell if what you've linked here is your modified version or the original.

  6. Because they could be referenced -- by your family, or by the Nisse, who will presumably both appear in some form, and who would both have some access to most of this information.

     

    What the heck would be the point of transferring the PC's reactions to the Queen and to Sutter if the PC isn't also in the second game?

     

    I'm also just trying to imagine a QW style game, with it's clear-areas-set-up-forts-acquire-resources gameplay, on the same map as QW.  That would be an immense rehash, in a way that did not apply to an Exile II style game.

     

    Finally, the endgame code feels a lot like a throwback to games like Ultima and Wizardry -- which Jeff has repeatedly cited as an influence -- where you could actually transfer your party (just the PC, in Ultima's case) from one game to the next, often with nerfs so you didn't start at max power.

     

    I can't imagine there are going to be huge gameplay differences based on the code -- Jeff never really branches gameplay until the very end -- and this seems like an awful lot of trouble to go to just to set up slightly different dialogue about "the royal who was here 100 years ago" or whatever.

  7. I don't know if I buy that.  I feel like if Sacramentum were intended to be a multi-game location, more attention would have been paid to individual characters.

     

    Randomizer, you say "Based on how Jeff likes to reuse previous work" but that isn't actually how he operates at all.  Outside of Exile/Avernum, which was designed as an enduring game location way back in 1994, he's never reused previous locations en masse.  Geneforge and Avadon never do.

  8. Lol, so it's a rereremix...

     

    I actually did most of one for A2CS, but stalled out before finishing it.  It's a lot of work.

     

    I'm a little leery about someone simply transposing the changes from an AEFTP mod onto A2CS, because the game balance is somewhat different in A2CS.  I suspect that with only those changes, you'll still end up with a game where there's really no reason to have any physical attackers whatsoever.

  9. Ok, now we're both confused :)

     

    I thought you were saying that you installed the reremix and were playing with that... but were you talking about A2:CS and just meant that you installed the graphics portion only?

     

    As far as the specific changes... this was a long time ago, but basically, there was just a different approach to game balance.  I put together a carefully constructed balance with battle disciplines, for example, that provided reason to go deep into some of the otherwise suboptimal skills the game offered; this was replaced with much looser requirements, with some skills being removed entirely.  In the change notes, you see comments about my version being "wrong" or needing to be "beefed up" -- this reflects the different approach.  I deliberately wanted to create divergent paths for capable characters to take, each with strengths and weaknesses; the reremix leans a bit more towards making the easily accessible stuff powerful without needing to fuss.

  10. 9 hours ago, Varel015 said:

    Unlike many people playing these game I imagine I actually like linear stories and class restrictions when it equals better story and better immersion :/.

     

    You're not the only one.  Completely agreed :)

     

    FWIW, I disagree with the bulk of the changes the Reremix made.  It would be hypocritical for a modder to complain about modding ;) but personally, I still recommend my original mod over the less tightly balanced reremix.

  11. Regardless of what you personally think, if you can be honest while being thoughtful about the person you're talking to, I think you're very unlikely to get downvoted.  The attitude above will get you downvoted -- or moderated -- just about anywhere.

     

    Your time matters -- I hate having my time wasted too -- but it is 100% possible to avoid having anyone's time wasted and still have a friendly community.  It's possible to give honest feedback without being a jerk.  (And if for some reason you can't or don't want to give feedback that is honest but kind -- well, your time doesn't matter more than having a friendly community, so that's why you'll find yourself pushed out by downvotes or moderation.)

  12. On 4/20/2021 at 8:48 AM, Varel015 said:

    2) New moders need support to persist, and crushing them can just push them out.

     

    This, this, this, this, this.

     

    This is something we've experienced here, with Blades scenarios.  Kindness is a wonderful thing.  Constructive feedback is also wonderful -- there are ways to say "this quality is bad" that aren't just dumping on someone.  Comments that are honest and supportive are unlikely to get downvoted.

  13. For anyone else reading, the download links on Spiderweb's website work just fine.

     

    ADoS, since you aren't hosting the original versions of the games, but rather versions that you have applied changes to, I would suggest

     

    (1) state specifically what the changes are in the readmes ("a particular bug fix applied directly to the original application" is an impressively long description given that you have avoided saying what the fix actually was ;))

     

    (2) make it clear in the download link itself that these are modified versions of the original software.

×
×
  • Create New...