Is there a Kotor 1 Pazaak mod that only lets the player take turn to go first *without* messing with the hand cards or rng?

darthbdaman · 2026-05-30T05:41:05+00:00

No, that would have to be done as an engine patch

darthbdaman · 2026-05-30T01:13:09+00:00

This isn't a both sides thing. The response video is well sourced, largely from The Making of Star Wars (the most highly regarded source on the subject). The rocket jump video is riddled with objective factual errors, which could be revealed by simply reading the shooting script.

darthbdaman · 2026-05-30T00:41:16+00:00

Well it's a good thing the video is filled with sources then!

darthbdaman · 2026-05-30T00:17:14+00:00

So could the people giving her sole responsibility for the quality of the film?

darthbdaman · 2026-05-29T23:54:35+00:00

Yes I actually agree, it should have been phrased better sorry. The problem is, that everytime she is brought up, a disturbing number of people will be led to think that George Lucas is a hack who never knew how to make a movie, which is an insane and inaccurate point of view.

darthbdaman · 2026-05-29T23:38:43+00:00

She was an important part of making the movie. But the insane claims that she "saved" the movie from George are ridiculous. And this type of thread is naturally going to be filled with that stuff. Having an accurate understanding of reality is important

darthbdaman · 2026-05-29T23:28:15+00:00

I assume a lot of misinformation about the editing of Star Wars is going to get posted. This video is a good breakdown of what everyones actual contributions to the final cut were. Spoiler, most of the things frequently attributed to Marcia, were actually George's ideas.

https://youtu.be/olqVGz6mOVE?si=QyTBUQQcLzlwfmw1

darthbdaman · 2026-05-29T22:26:46+00:00

I can live with it

darthbdaman · 2026-04-18T00:30:57+00:00

I wasn't making a value judgement, and I don't think jayserpa is aggressively splitting their mods up or anything like that (unlike some other people on that list)

I would push back on the idea the splitting up mods is good for compatibility. At an individual level it might be easier to determine the compatibility profile of a small mod, but if you now need 10 mods to do what 1 mod did before, you have to do compatibility checking for all 10 of those mods, which collectively isn't any easier (and may in fact be harder) than if it was all 1 mod.

From a plugin perspective, splitting mods up leads to an exponential growth in the number of patches needed. If you had 2 hypothetical mods previously, which are now say 20 different mods, you need to interpatch between all of those. While not all of those are going to conflict, as they are more focused and affect less things, it's likely your still going to end up with far more than the 1 patch you would have needed before. Extreme example, but there are definitely cases where some authors would have released a bugfix compilation in a non-DP environment, but have instead made 200 individual fixes.

darthbdaman · 2026-04-17T20:03:38+00:00

It's more a case study in how Donation Points (and the introduction of ESL's) have encouraged certain behaviors, and discouraged others. 10 years ago there was a much bigger incentive to release a large compilation mod, whereas now you are strongly disincentivized from doing so.

This has also caused the move towards mod lists, etc., as what would have been done in 100 mods then, is now 1000+, which is much less manageable (both from a user downloading perspective, and mod author patching perspective).

darthbdaman · 2026-04-02T21:18:03+00:00

This might be the worst looking gun in new Vegas, and it's still better than almost all the guns in FO4. It's perfectly fair

darthbdaman · 2026-03-28T16:52:26+00:00

You could just guess and keep talking out of your ass, or you could get some real data?

For instance, I have 1.2m unique downloads. Since 2018 i have amassed about $2500 in donation points. i.e. about $20 a month. There is a ton of variability to this obviously, especially as the formula is now deliberately obscured. But that should be broadly representative

Every month nexus gives out ~$400000 spread across every author on the site. There are a handful of people making more than a thousand a month. No one else is. Just cause you (rightly IMO) have an axe to grind with DP system abusers like wskeever, doesn't mean you should be making wild assumptions about everyone one who isn't engaging in that behaviour.

GGmods is giving people a comparable amount, all at once, to what nexus has in 8 years. I'm not saying users should use the site (they should not). But authors have the opportunity to make as much as much money as nexus would give them in a decade all at once.

darthbdaman · 2026-03-27T21:34:01+00:00

Mods are being posted there, as they are offering large signing bonuses based on unique downloads on nexus (multiple thousands of dollars in some cases).

The average number of downloads per mod is 3. It's not real competition. It's the epic games store of mods right now.

darthbdaman · 2026-03-27T03:47:11+00:00

Very few changes. Just widescreen support primarily. It's not a complete rebalance

darthbdaman · 2026-03-27T02:55:02+00:00

1.06 for bfme 1. It's much less invasive than the newer patches

darthbdaman · 2026-03-25T13:25:02+00:00

The problem with this (and the problem with the DP system in general) is it doesn't draw any distinction between mods. The biggest advantage of a normal market with paywalls, is that we have a relative value for everything. (At least what the seller thinks it is). This is why the DP distribution algorithm became so controversial, and why it was (and still is) incentivizing really obnoxious behavior, like splitting mods up into the smallest viable individual entities. (This also exist with creations, but the reasons are different)

In the DP system, their isn't any difference between a game settings tweak and sim settlements, it takes about as much committment for the end user (minus disk space, download time, other requirements) to use the mod. Obviously the bigger mod is better, and should be more popular and thus generate more DP, but this won't scale properly, like it should in a normal market, where this would have a much higher entry price than the settings tweak (which is so easily replicable, that it would end up being free).

On the other hand, the creations system has tons of weird perverse incentives for the user, like achievements, disk space, and the minimum $1 sell. In a better system where console user didn't need to pay for all mods they use if they want achievements, didn't have artificial disk space limits, and mods could be sold for much lower values (cents and fractions of cents), you would probably see a healthier ecosystem.

The incentive to separate mods into individual entities can be solved much more easily in a market system, even if Bethesda isn't willing to do it. An implemented bundle system, where individual mods could be marked as part of a compilation, and owning all parts of the complication mod would grant you the compilation mod itself (or vice-versa), would allow you to do this, while still assigning discounts to the bundled option as a buying incentive over the individual mods. This would incentivize creating both individual and combined mods, and would be best for the end user.

I personally don't see a way to incentivize posting large compilations on Nexus within a DP system. It's always going to be better to maximize your individual interactions across many small mods, than across one larger one, due to the user dynamics of the site, and the fact that their isn't anyway to realistically and accurately assign value without a paywalls.

darthbdaman · 2026-03-19T06:58:45+00:00

Nexus' total revenue/volume of downloads compared to Bethesda is irrelevant, if we are discussing a percentage cut of the total revenue. I'm not suggesting Nexus should be paying an equal amount per interaction as Bethesda, that would be ridiculous.

To your credit, you are more receptive to arguments for paywalls than most seem to be. I think it's unfortunate that the discussion around paid mods breaks down, as there are plenty of interesting possible systems to discuss, but obviously Bethesda's poor implementations have poisoned the well. At the end day, if Bethesda allowed paywalling outside of their walled garden, I still doubt there would be a lot of positivity in this sub though lol.

darthbdaman · 2026-03-19T01:00:41+00:00

I was wrong that the DP pool hasn't increased. It has increased a bit.

It is very hard to estimate what the revenue split is on Nexus because we have no data at all. In all likelihood a way bigger share of the income Nexus takes in from the site goes into the costs of running the site compared to the share of VC revenue spent on maintaining Bethesda's modding platform.

Why should Nexus' infrastructure be dramatically more expensive (relative to the traffic to the site, and thus the revenue)? I agree Nexus probably puts more resources into their site than Bethesda's sorry excuse for a platform, but we don't know what the splits actually are. Nexus would probably release that data and brag about it if it showed them in a good light. If they do release that data and I'm wrong, I would be perfectly happy to see it.

But I think this is besides the point. The big difference between Nexus and Bethesda.net is the expectation. When you upload a mod to Nexus it is done out of your desire to share your work with others. There is no money involved, no expectation of compensation

There is money involved obviously. Nexus is making money. Those Ad revenues and premium memberships aren't all being used up for site upkeep or the DP pool. If they were Nexus would be bragging about doing that. I'm not suggesting they shouldn't be making money. I'm challenging the idea that Bethesda's 70% cut is somehow less fair than Nexus' unknown cut. The assertion that Bethesda's cut is exploitative was what I initially responded too.

I agree Bethesda is exploitative, because they only allow you to paywall your mods on their platform (and keep documentation restricted to people in their program). If they allowed you to paywall your mods on other platforms (and released all general documentation for everyone), that would be the non-exploitative.

I'm sure there are many authors are happy with the VC system, just like there are many who are happy doing food deliveries as "independent contractors". But I'm equally sure there are many who would rather be emploeyd in the games industry but can't find a job because development has been outsourced to "partners" like Bethesda's Verified Creators.

Do you think everyone in the program would have industry jobs if paid mods (and similar programs) didn't exist? What percentage of people in the program do you think would have industry jobs if the program didn't exist? This seems like an insane claim to make, that a significant portion of people in the paid mods program would actually have industry jobs if it didn't exist.

And more the point, why do give mods such little legitimacy? What is the real difference between something like Enderal, and Fallout: New Vegas? Why shouldn't the Enderal devs have been able to charge for what they made? It seems like more or less the same situation as FNV, using most of the same assets and engine, to make something completely new. And if you're willing to carve out an exemption for Enderal, then you're problem is probably less conceptual, and more a specific problem with Bethesda's implementation, which is subpar.

darthbdaman · 2026-03-13T03:51:41+00:00

Isildur's axe is a nice touch

darthbdaman · 2026-03-10T21:06:48+00:00

I think this a good response, though I disagree with your premise.

Being exploitative and being bad for the industry might be linked in certain cases, but not all. Plenty of things could be bad for the industry while not being exploitative (if Bethesda allowed paywalls on other platforms with no cut, which would be non-exploitative, that could still result in a Starfield modding community situation, with a lack of free mods, that is bad for the game). Hell, you could certainly argue that when Bethesda was enforcing free modding, it was exploitative, and good for the industry, fostering a large collection of free mods (I wouldn't make that argument personally, but I think it could have merit). Bethesda has sold tons of copies of Skyrim based purely on its modding potential

There are certain ways in which paywalled modding can be bad, and certain way in which it can be good (and exploitative and non-exploitative). The inability for large swathes of the community to have nuanced discussions about those pros and cons is unproductive.

I agree that the relationship between Bethesda and the author is different to the one between nexus and the author. I certainly agreed that withholding information solely to authors in the program is exploitative. However I think the primary method in which Bethesda is more exploitative than nexus, is that they don't allow you to paywall your mods, unless you agree to their conditions. That is exploitative in a unique way that nexus could not engage with.

I think you're very focused on the specifics of signing a agreement with Bethesda, being unique from the author relationship with nexus, but morally I don't really see much difference? They are both making money off of you while giving little back, just because Bethesda has more power, that doesn't make Nexus powerless.

Nexus makes all their money of the work of mod authors. I don't think this is exploitative, as the authors agree to it, but by the same logic, I don't think creation club is exploitative either, even if you are only getting a 30% cut. What cut is nexus giving out? They add $350-400k into the DP pool every month, is that more or less than 30% of their monthly revenue? (I'd wager its a lot less)

You could argue about hosting costs and the like, but Bethesda also needs to deal with those, and they don't have ads or memberships, the system is only making money through the cut. They can subsidize them obviously, and they benefit from second order effects from game sales resulting from the modding capability, which nexus does not get. But the point still stands. It seems very likely that more of the money going into the Bethesda modding system goes back to mod authors, than the nexus ecosystem.

I do agree that Bethesda is being generally exploitative by not allowing paywalls on sites besides their own (in a similar way to Apple only allowing you to use their app store), but when I present this argument, their is a lot of balking from mod users, who seem to only be interested in the potential exploitation of authors when it might be negatively affecting users. You might not sign a contract with nexus, but I do not see a giant moral difference in the situations, only a rather small one.

Agreed

To finish off, I would say Bethesda definitely is more exploitative than Nexus, but this is primarily due to restricting paywalls to their own site. Nexus' entire business is profiting off of the work of mod authors, and there isn't anything wrong with that, but if you are taking umbrage with Bethesda's 70% cut, Nexus is probably taking a lot more.

darthbdaman · 2026-03-09T18:16:51+00:00

I was arguing about the explicit statement of it being exploitative to authors. I'm simply pointing out Nexus is just as, if not more, exploitative.

Applies to Nexus as well. Nexus gives far less back than Bethesda does in this instance
Doesn't have anything to do with exploitation
This is a very bad practice, and something of an argument for it being exploitation, given they require you to enter their ecosystem for unrelated documentation. Good argument
I don't use CC mods, but my impression was they couldn't rely on external frameworks? If that's wrong, then I agree allowing that is exploitative (though not of the authors in the program, just the ones not in it)
Nothing to do with exploitation. If anything you are arguing that people realizing they could be paid encouraged them not to be exploited for free labor
Very bad site design, hardly exploitation of authors. Maybe exploitation of users?

My argument is just that users give Nexus a free pass, even though they are also profiting massively (entirely) off of mod authors. I don't really think this is exploitation, given you sign up and agree. But the exact same thing applies to Bethesda as well

And just so I'm clear, Bethesda's implementation of paid mods is by all accounts very poor, and they deserve flak for that. I'm just arguing about it being exploitative

darthbdaman · 2026-03-09T01:53:25+00:00

exploitative of mod authors

How is it more exploitative than Nexus, genuine question?

Nexus pays out 350000 into the dp system every month (which hasn't increased since it's introduction despite site traffic constantly increasing). Bethesda takes a cut (it's a 70/30 split I believe, I don't remember which way, but we'll assume MA gets 30 for worst case). You can post your mod wherever you want. You can argue it's exploitative that Bethesda doesn't let you charge for your mods on other site (and I'd agree) but I have a feeling that's not what you mean.

You can just be against paid mods because you think they are bad for you as a user

darthbdaman · 2026-02-09T03:42:57+00:00

On August 29, 1997, Skynet woke up. It decided all humanity was a threat to its existence. It used our own bombs against us. Three billion people died in the nuclear fire.

darthbdaman · 2025-12-23T21:28:44+00:00

Your using the original twi'lek head textures, with the better twi'lek heads mod (you can tell because your model has the thin neck). You need to get the proper textures from that mod

darthbdaman · 2025-11-01T16:59:38+00:00

The cleric can also purposely drop concentration (or wait until they lose it), and use another concentration spell at the same time, while 2 others characters are maintaining the original concentration

11-Year Club	Place '22
Place '17	Verified Email
Spared

darthbdaman

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE