Talk:2DA - Revision history

Eshme: /* Excel file formatting */

2010-02-05T00:27:36Z

‎Excel file formatting

Eshme: /* Excel file formatting */

2010-01-30T07:47:02Z

‎Excel file formatting

FollowTheGourd: /* le sigh. */

2010-01-30T06:15:03Z

‎le sigh.

FollowTheGourd: /* formatting... oops */

2010-01-30T06:14:04Z

‎formatting... oops

FollowTheGourd: One other response

2010-01-30T06:13:43Z

One other response

FollowTheGourd: Responses inline, bolded

2010-01-30T06:09:46Z

Responses inline, bolded

Eshme at 16:27, 29 January 2010

2010-01-29T16:27:33Z

Eshme: /* Objection to some of the article changes */

2010-01-29T16:13:59Z

‎Objection to some of the article changes

FollowTheGourd: /* fixed typos */

2010-01-29T00:46:39Z

‎fixed typos

FollowTheGourd: Urge to undo... rising

2010-01-29T00:44:11Z

Urge to undo... rising

@@ Line 49: / Line 49: @@
 :: '''Eshme''' I had assumed by reading the rest of the article, that for example the 2DA "attributes", cannot be extended. Because its not listed in the M2DAbase. I know that Scripts read from the 2DA directly with some orders i havent a clue about scripts really. When you add "attributes" to the list, will additional M2DAs work or not? I mean without writing Scripts or doing something fancy, like i do with M2DAs that are already in the list?
 :: Well in the end i see few 2DAs, so perhaps it doesnt matter to a modder. o)
-−
 ** [[User:Eshme|Eshme]] 16:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 == M2DA_base ==

@@ Line 31: / Line 31: @@
 *** Proposal: remove "Integer"
 : '''Maybe'''. I suppose it's a matter of taste, but I'd prefer "integer row ID" to "row ID number" or "integer row ID number" if we went the simplifying route. I don't understand how integer could make it sound "hidden", though. If somebody is altering 2DAs, I'd assume they know what an integer is. --[[User:FollowTheGourd|FollowTheGourd]] 06:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 ** "that is unique to that row across all files (unless creating an M2DA override)" <br> Isnt that wrong? The ID is unique, but its not unique across all files. For example almost every 2DA has a "ID 1" So it is just unique across the single 2DA isnt it? And it is also unique across an M2DA, and "unless" makes it sound like unique doesnt matter for M2DA. Who knows.. but this is my experience.
 *** Proposal: undo conflicting change, perhaps find better explicity than ''worksheet and therefore''
 :'''Good point'''; it's easy to overlook that by "reading the right thing" and interpret that as all the M2DAs that comprise the 2DA instead of all M2DAs everywhere. But the previous change still didn't seem quite right to me either. Perhaps simply change ''all files'' to be more precise instead of rewording the rest? --[[User:FollowTheGourd|FollowTheGourd]] 06:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 ** "since BioWare might release an update to a core table at a later date that would overwrite any changes third parties had made to it" <br> The problem here is that Bioware doesnt overwrite things. It is a conflict, that actually the modder overwrites with the override folder. And Bioware isnt the only one who adds things, so. M2DA's purpose as i understand it, is to use a blank sheet, and then conflicts are cut irrelevant in the first place.  It can however be noted that Bioware reserves edits the existing M2DA. There is no "might" to it thou because M2DA's purpose is also to destinct from other modders, and should find a better word for it than "Coretable" thou, if that is what it means.
 *** Proposal: undo conflicting change, and remove explicity "for modders only", and only explain why M2DA are made from a unique worksheet or something like that.
 : '''Couldn't they, though?''' What if there's a patch that updates the GDA files or they create a "patch erf" with another complete copy of M2DA_base instead of just extending it. Maybe there's a better phrase than "core table", but it sounds good to me. If anything, perhaps we need to also stress the need to extend M2DAs properly so modders won't have conflicting changes with each other - not just with BioWare. --[[User:FollowTheGourd|FollowTheGourd]] 06:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 ** " References must then be made aware of the M2DA_base, instead of the single 2DA." <br> The purpose was to destinct entries in the M2DA base, with the parts of the game that is responsible for handling M2DAs. An entry there doesnt automatically make a 2DA an M2DA, if other parts dont take reference of it. For example the Script or whatever handling the BITMbase will take reference to the M2DAbase since it is programmed that way. A script handling a normal 2DA will be programmed to only reference that 2DA. If you put this 2DA in the M2da base, nothing will change. Therefore ,and if my english wasnt good enough, someone else should explain that, or at least note in short words which is all i tried.
 *** Proposal, undo conflicting change.
 : '''I still don't understand''' to be honest. Can you give a more complete example of what you mean? I've extended M2DA_base in a working mod, and I didn't have to do anything special to read the new rows. --[[User:FollowTheGourd|FollowTheGourd]] 06:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
+:: '''Eshme''' I had assumed by reading the rest of the article, that for example the 2DA "attributes", cannot be extended. Because its not listed in the M2DAbase. I know that Scripts read from the 2DA directly with some orders i havent a clue about scripts really. When you add "attributes" to the list, will additional M2DAs work or not? I mean without writing Scripts or doing something fancy, like i do with M2DAs that are already in the list?
 ** [[User:Eshme|Eshme]] 16:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

@@ Line 30: / Line 30: @@
 ** I think that "Integer Row ID" is too much, row ID's are just numbers, and if you say a "number row ID" it makes more sense to say "a row ID number". At least "Number" isnt such a strange word which everyone knows. Integer makes it sound like there is hidden ID's to me.
 *** Proposal: remove "Integer"
-: '''Maybe'''. I suppose it's a matter of taste, but I'd prefer "integer row ID" to "row ID number" or "integer row ID number" if we went the simplifying route. I don't understand how integer could make it sound "hidden", though. If somebody is altering 2DAs, I'd assume they know what an integer is.
+: '''Maybe'''. I suppose it's a matter of taste, but I'd prefer "integer row ID" to "row ID number" or "integer row ID number" if we went the simplifying route. I don't understand how integer could make it sound "hidden", though. If somebody is altering 2DAs, I'd assume they know what an integer is. --[[User:FollowTheGourd|FollowTheGourd]] 06:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 ** "that is unique to that row across all files (unless creating an M2DA override)" <br> Isnt that wrong? The ID is unique, but its not unique across all files. For example almost every 2DA has a "ID 1" So it is just unique across the single 2DA isnt it? And it is also unique across an M2DA, and "unless" makes it sound like unique doesnt matter for M2DA. Who knows.. but this is my experience.

@@ Line 30: / Line 30: @@
 ** I think that "Integer Row ID" is too much, row ID's are just numbers, and if you say a "number row ID" it makes more sense to say "a row ID number". At least "Number" isnt such a strange word which everyone knows. Integer makes it sound like there is hidden ID's to me.
 *** Proposal: remove "Integer"
-: [b]Maybe[/b]. I suppose it's a matter of taste, but I'd prefer "integer row ID" to "row ID number" or "integer row ID number" if we went the simplifying route. I don't understand how integer could make it sound "hidden", though. If somebody is altering 2DAs, I'd assume they know what an integer is.
+: '''Maybe'''. I suppose it's a matter of taste, but I'd prefer "integer row ID" to "row ID number" or "integer row ID number" if we went the simplifying route. I don't understand how integer could make it sound "hidden", though. If somebody is altering 2DAs, I'd assume they know what an integer is.
 ** "that is unique to that row across all files (unless creating an M2DA override)" <br> Isnt that wrong? The ID is unique, but its not unique across all files. For example almost every 2DA has a "ID 1" So it is just unique across the single 2DA isnt it? And it is also unique across an M2DA, and "unless" makes it sound like unique doesnt matter for M2DA. Who knows.. but this is my experience.

@@ Line 30: / Line 30: @@
 ** I think that "Integer Row ID" is too much, row ID's are just numbers, and if you say a "number row ID" it makes more sense to say "a row ID number". At least "Number" isnt such a strange word which everyone knows. Integer makes it sound like there is hidden ID's to me.
 *** Proposal: remove "Integer"
 ** "that is unique to that row across all files (unless creating an M2DA override)" <br> Isnt that wrong? The ID is unique, but its not unique across all files. For example almost every 2DA has a "ID 1" So it is just unique across the single 2DA isnt it? And it is also unique across an M2DA, and "unless" makes it sound like unique doesnt matter for M2DA. Who knows.. but this is my experience.

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:13, 29 January 2010
Line 25:		Line 25:

	--[[User:FollowTheGourd\|FollowTheGourd]] 00:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)		--[[User:FollowTheGourd\|FollowTheGourd]] 00:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
		+
		+	** Objection. I had following reasons. Sometimes it is better to remove explicity, sometimes better to add.
		+
		+	** I think that "Integer Row ID" is too much, row ID's are just numbers, and if you say a "number row ID" it makes more sense to say "a row ID number". At least "Number" isnt such a strange word which everyone knows. Integer makes it sound like there is hidden ID's to me.
		+
		+	** "that is unique to that row across all files (unless creating an M2DA override)" <br> Isnt that wrong? The ID is unique, but its not unique across all files. For example almost every 2DA has a "ID 1" So it is just unique across the single 2DA isnt it? And it is also unique across an M2DA, and "unless" makes it sound like unique doesnt matter for M2DA. Who knows.. but this is my experience.
		+
		+	** "since BioWare might release an update to a core table at a later date that would overwrite any changes third parties had made to it" <br> The problem here is that Bioware doesnt overwrite things. It is a conflict, that actually the modder overwrites with the override folder. And Bioware isnt the only one who adds things, so. M2DA's purpose as i understand it, is to use a blank sheet, and then conflicts are cut irrelevant in the first place. It can however be noted that Bioware reserves edits the existing M2DA. There is no "might" to it thou because M2DA's purpose is also to destinct from other modders, and should find a better word for it than "Coretable" thou, if that is what it means.
		+
		+	** " References must then be made aware of the M2DA_base, instead of the single 2DA." <br> The purpose was to destinct entries in the M2DA base, with the parts of the game that is responsible for handling M2DAs. An entry there doesnt automatically make a 2DA an M2DA, if other parts dont take reference of it. For example the Script or whatever handling the BITMbase will take reference to the M2DAbase since it is programmed that way. A script handling a normal 2DA will be programmed to only reference that 2DA. If you put this 2DA in the M2da base, nothing will change. Therefore ,and if my english wasnt good enough, someone else should explain that, or at least note in short words which is all i tried.
		+
		+	** [[User:Eshme\|Eshme]] 16:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

	== M2DA_base ==		== M2DA_base ==

@@ Line 10: / Line 10: @@
 * Leaving out how 2DAs in the 10000-10999 range are treated exactly. The more explicit, the better - if somebody's reading this article for the first time, what are they to assume they're treated as if not M2DAs?
-* I think it's cleared if we keep referring to "worksheet" rather than "name".
+* I think it's clearer if we keep referring to "worksheet" rather than "name".
 * I've read this statement a few times, but I don't know what it's supposed to mean: "References must then be made aware of the M2DA_base, instead of the single 2DA."
@@ Line 18: / Line 18: @@
 * I thought it was clear enough saying "an integer row ID" instead of "a row ID"... it tells you the column type at least, even though you could see it in 2DA examples anyway.
-* Changing "that is unique to that row across all files (unless creating an M2DA override)." to "that is unique to that worksheet and therefore 2DA (including any added M2DA)" loses the information about creating override this way.
+* Changing "that is unique to that row across all files (unless creating an M2DA override)." to "that is unique to that worksheet and therefore 2DA (including any added M2DA)" loses the information about creating an override this way.
 === Excel file formatting ===

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:44, 29 January 2010
Line 1:		Line 1:
		+	== Objection to some of the article changes ==
		+
		+	I'm writing this here so I don't start getting into the habit of mashing the undo button on changes I disagree with, but I think some of the recent ones are losing important information in the process of trying to make it more understandable.
		+
		+	I'll outline here what I'm taking issue with... not as a point-by-point nitpick, but just the sort of changes that make my undo-button-finger twitch.
		+
		+	=== Extending the game via M2DAs ===
		+	* I think the original was much clearer, and stressed the fact that BioWare might change the 2DA file itself, which would make your modifications to it out of sync. The latest revision makes it sounds like BioWare might have conflicting changes, maybe because of the row IDs chosen - which probably won't be the case unless you've ignored the reserved 2DA range to begin with.
		+
		+	* Leaving out how 2DAs in the 10000-10999 range are treated exactly. The more explicit, the better - if somebody's reading this article for the first time, what are they to assume they're treated as if not M2DAs?
		+
		+	* I think it's cleared if we keep referring to "worksheet" rather than "name".
		+
		+	* I've read this statement a few times, but I don't know what it's supposed to mean: "References must then be made aware of the M2DA_base, instead of the single 2DA."
		+
		+	=== Guidelines ===
		+
		+	* I thought it was clear enough saying "an integer row ID" instead of "a row ID"... it tells you the column type at least, even though you could see it in 2DA examples anyway.
		+
		+	* Changing "that is unique to that row across all files (unless creating an M2DA override)." to "that is unique to that worksheet and therefore 2DA (including any added M2DA)" loses the information about creating override this way.
		+
		+	=== Excel file formatting ===
		+
		+	* The previous line "When extending a 2DA, new ID's have to be given, and Columns have to be exactly the same." seems succinct and understandable to me. But the last part of the latest edit makes no sense to me: "When extending a 2DA, new ID's have to be given, and Columns have to be exactly the same as the game references its name vs the row ID."
		+
		+	--[[User:FollowTheGourd\|FollowTheGourd]] 00:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
		+
	== M2DA_base ==		== M2DA_base ==
	Reminder to check, but is the ''base name'' of M2DA_base actually just ''M2DA'', so instead of extending it with ''M2DA_base_MySuffix'' you could instead do ''M2DA_MySuffix'' (or even just ''M2DAMySuffix'' but less clearly.)? It's just when looking at other mods for compatibily, I happened upon this, so it would appear so at first glance. --[[User:FollowTheGourd\|FollowTheGourd]] 06:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC)		Reminder to check, but is the ''base name'' of M2DA_base actually just ''M2DA'', so instead of extending it with ''M2DA_base_MySuffix'' you could instead do ''M2DA_MySuffix'' (or even just ''M2DAMySuffix'' but less clearly.)? It's just when looking at other mods for compatibily, I happened upon this, so it would appear so at first glance. --[[User:FollowTheGourd\|FollowTheGourd]] 06:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC)