- sandor - 03-21-2010
Personally I am in favor of OBSE (I use it myself).
For ST we didn't make it dependent on OBSE because of the installation problems, I never had these issues, many modders do have problems when e.g. installing a simple bsa. So I am quite sure you'll get a lot of questions about that.
OBSE makes scripting more versatile and interesting.
- Ibsen's Ghost - 03-21-2010
Hmm, for those reasons it may be best off as a late addition. I don't want to send things screwy at this stage. I have enough on my hands with the archive management.
- Deeza - 03-21-2010
I agree with Ibsen. There's plenty of good reasons for adding it in, but it's probably best to leave it until we're at a more advanced stage of development.
- InsanitySorrow - 03-21-2010
I would not worry about users not being able to install OBSE, for a start there are lots of people around to help, and also I am nearly finished coding an app that will quickly and effortlessly install OBSE for the user.
- Deeza - 03-21-2010
Sounds good. Look forward to trying it out.
- Ibsen's Ghost - 06-20-2010
I am currently working with brucevayne to try to get some more disease effects working in BM. Given that our current list here: BM Disease Mechanics - A little parting gift contains a number of items that would require OBSE, I'm starting to feel that this is what is going to tip the balance in favour of OBSE dependency. Likewise, TFS's quicksand is quite an important feature. I'll add updates on how the modding of diseases is coming along in an appropriate thread.
|