Final update! This is the final version of the inventory for Release 1 of the CEP. Notes: 1) This inventory is for the CEPbaseitem.hak only. If you see an 'X' beside an item, it means it is being considered for another CEP hak. It does not mean it will not be included in the CEP, just not this particular inventory. 2) Some popular items are currently marked 'N' because they do not meet technical standards. If you are interested in updating a model you really like to make it compliant, please let me know. Unfortunately, the CEP team does not have time to do them all ourselves. 3) If you find your hak here and do not want it in the CEP, please e-mail me.
ChazM: "The CEP is a really fantastic idea. Any idea when the first release might occur?" I'm naively shooting for the end of September. Reality may rear its ugly head but we all need targets. Dradjeel: Good point about tilesets. We are looking at a few ideas but have not made any commitments so far as to what we will do with them. Ninjatroll: "...but you can always hope that the creators release a updated verion. We're hoping. And in a few cases where the creator has dropped off the face of the community, we're seeing if we can get another enterprising and self-sacrificing individual to do it for us (witness Quinn's LoTR hak). So some of the 'not technically compliant' haks may be made compliant through the good graces of the community before we are done. "Any ETA for inventorys for the other sets?" No ETA we will publish yet - they are each *big*. There is a ton of content out there to be sifted. But we're making progress.
Posted by Dradjeel at 2003-08-0212:49:00
And furthermore, while speaking of Forgotten Realms, it is a rather popular setting for modules.
Posted by Eligio_Sacateca at 2003-08-0206:37:00
DoA: "Along the lines of "thematically consistent", why are all the FR items included? It would seem these are pretty campaign-specific." Primarily because while they may be campaign specific they aren't genre-specific. The FRCS gems are just nice gems. The FR shields and flags, like the Greyhawk ones, are shields and flags like you would find in any campaign world - it doesn't have to be Ilmater's device, just a pair of hands. "I think Lisa's and Eligio's staves are pretty much must-have. I know there are problems with both (such as differing baseitem types and non-interchangable parts), but they can (and should) be cleaned up and included." Working on that. I think we've agreed to include parts that don't necessarily match up but we will carefully document what goes with what. I'm more concerned with the male and female specific staves. "I would be to completely change the way weapon models work... namely, I'd consolidate the bottom and middle models into 1 node so that you have the option of pairing a "blade" with a "handle/guard" (which should be forged in one piece anyways)." Minor point: They aren't forged as one piece - the guard (or tsuba on a katana) is typically forged, with a slot punched into it for the blade. It is kept from sliding up and down by the width of the blade and the size of the handle. Major point: Unfortunately, this isn't in our scope.
Posted by ChazM at 2003-08-0122:06:00
The CEP is a really fantastic idea. Any idea when the first release might occur?
Posted by Dradjeel at 2003-08-0113:13:00
I think that tileset haks are so big that they should perhaps be used on an individual basis, for maximum convenience. Besides, tilesets do not need any jiggling to fit together (aprat from stuff like doors)
Posted by Ninjatroll at 2003-07-3113:57:00
Ok first of all this is a great idea. I am happy that all the, future weaposn are not included. They will only make for unecessery MB. The choises looks good, have actully no complaints so far ;), a few of the weapons that are not included due to the fact that they don't have three colors is a shame to lose, but you can always hope that the creators release a updated verion. Any ETA for inventorys for the other sets? Or are you aiming for a releas of one set at the time? A Tileset hak would be wonderfull but here is a big problem, size. In the other sets will this not be that much of a problem as filesize probably will not be that large (especialy not if WinRAR is used) but if there will be many tilesets then the filesize will become way to large for many users. Perhaps a set with only additions to alredy created sets or truly uniqe sets, like the tower and the Dungeons tileset and not reskinns of existing tilesets. Or perhaps some of the forrest/rural, city/dungeon. Sounds is another that size have to be weiged to usefullness, but it would be nice to have. Also, need help working on some of the sets? I have some time I think I can spend and might be intrested in helping you out.
Posted by elandys at 2003-07-3005:55:00
Thanks for the reply, Eligio. I had thought thru most of the possible drawbacks by the time I had completed the letter, but had to press 'Submit' anyway, just to get it off my chest. And to see if the actual problems were the ones I anticipated. :D
Posted by Eligio_Sacateca at 2003-07-2921:40:00
Dradjeel, "Yes, those are tough choices to make and no, I do not agree with some of them, but I still support them." Thanks for the support in general. Would actually like to hear about the specific ones you don't agree with. --- elandys: Thanks for your feedback (I do mean this seriously). We are interested in the community's feedback and would like to understand if there are areas where we have missed the mark. We are following some specific principles which is why many of these items were excluded: 1) we are staying thematically true to standard NWN and 3rd ed. This is why you won't see d20 modern, starjammer, etc. That isn't to say we don't like these backgrounds (personally, I think Starjammer is very cool). These items will find use in some campaigns but they are much more limited in appeal than standard 3rd edition. It also isn't to say some enterprising individual can't create a d20 modern hak that fits on top of the CEP. 2) we are also being very wary of content that overrides the behaviour of the base game because it is a judgement call as to whether it is 'better' or not. This is why we aren't introducing new ranged weapons at this time (who is going to tell the sling users their weapon is no longer available because we liked guns better?) It is also why we are not including DoA's base item set. Thunderscape seems to miss this point - however, his rant to the contrary, we defined a set of principles to follow so we could be objective about what goes in and what does not rather than arbitrarily choosing stuff we like. "It was a shame to see that many of these future ranged weapons overlaid items (like slingshots) due to limitations in the engine." Unfortunately, this problem still exists. "I would love to see this (having items represented graphically on the ground) be the standard way the game operates." Unfortunately, it is a judgement call as to whether a player will like it or not. For example, the new items appear actual size - which makes small things like rings very difficult to see when dropped. The issue is that it may be realistic but realistic doesn't necessarily make the game more playable. If we include this hak, then anybody who uses the CEP has to deal with this new behaviour whether they like it or not. You can't turn it on and off because it is replacement behaviour. The CEP is primarily intended to provide new content that the module creator can choose to make available or not, as meets the needs of their vision. If we get near-overwhelming support of this particular hak though we could be convinced that we are wrong and most people do want it. I suspect the split in favour of and against is likely more even than that. "Just wanted to know if you had considered these points, and the answer is probably 'Many times.' *sigh*" We make no claim to omniscience :-) We have thought through these particular issues but I'm sure there are some we've missed. That's why we're asking feedback instead of forging ahead and doing this in a vaccuum. It probably should be obvious but sounds like it bears repeating for some people: "thi5 hax 5ucks" doesn't constitute feedback that we can do anything with. Get it off your chest if you want but don't be surprised if it doesn't result in any changes.
Posted by gnomad at 2003-07-2918:24:00
Thank you
Posted by Dradjeel at 2003-07-2912:41:00
Here we go again. Calling CEP "Exclusive Snobs" is completely uncalled for. They are working for the benefit of the community, builders and players such as myself. Part of that work involves making choices. Yes, those are tough choices to make and no, I do not agree with some of them, but I still support them. Someone has to make the choices of what goes in and what does not if we are ever to reach a "standardized" hak file system. The CEP team will have to make compromises in order to maintain a file size that remains within any boundaries of reason. On the matter of futuristic content, I will say only that the majority of modules will not require it, and thus those who do use it will have even more of an effect. The use of rare and/or content is always a good thing. Bloating the CEP hakpak with material not of use for the majority of medieval fantasy campaigns is not.
Site
