The Community Expansion Pack - The EE Era

Neverwinter Nights 1 Enhanced Edition
1

Hello everyone,

So, for almost a year a continuation and successor for CEP has been in development, well in all reality I started on this back in November 2020, but then for many months the project was kind of abandoned, I saved my files though and resumed work on it around 2 months ago.

I have something that could be released bringing both new and incredible content from various authors on the vault, somethings that I have made myself and not published, and other.

I will go through a list of some of the things that have been changed, when I am back home since I am writing this post from work!

Brief summary:

  • 2da merges
  • New content
  • Fixed models best to my ability (E.G DH: Ringwraiths)
  • Tileset roofs, optional hak like weapons reforged
  • Fancy mapped weapons reforged, shields
    And plenty of other things.

What the current iteration of a CEP 3 (or 2.66) does not have however:

  • New scripts
  • Patches
  • Tilesets

The thoughts and philosophies have been weighing a lot on me the past few months, I wanted to try to continue what TAD was doing but, lets be real here there are not many people in the community with the incredible amount of talent he has, for a lot of these things, so we will just have to make do and still release a product that can be used by a lot of people.

The CEP Project has and will always be a controversial thing, because there is no doubt that some of the contents of CEP has some things that are not very good, could be incredibly bad looking models, or other.

There will always be resistance, but if it is well received for “most” parts, then I think it should be continued, and I think it should be continued with people voicing stuff like concerns, additions.

Currently we cannot remove content from CEP, I will explain below why.

Design philosophy:

  • The CEP successor (2.66 or 3.0?) should be fully compatible with 2.65, nothing should break, nothing should change other than fixes and many new incredible additions.
  • WIth permission of Author(s) adding new content, this can also be discussed in the community what should we have, and what should we not have.
  • Not compatible for 1.69. My reason for this is kind of simple, 1.69 is old, some people who might still play 1.69 will definitely not like this, but you do not create software specifically to be optimized for e.g: Windows 7, MacOS High Sierra (old systems) It is indeed possible to add seperate haks for this, but the work is too much to bother.
  • No plans to add a new optional hak that adds placeables nor an .erf for it.
  • Fancy maps is something I’ve wanted to integrate, this is sort of limited, but the OG TAD reforges, Pstemarie’s shields, some armors i’ve added myself, helmets, shield(s), and Longswords.

Let the discussions begin, tell me what you think, tell me if it’s a bad idea and why, anything would help a lot.

Permission were given by the various authors, which contents were used.

3 Likes
2

One thing. If you are going to include PBR textures then it should be neither CEP 2.66 or CEP 3.0. Rather it should be CEP EE. That is simply to make it obvious that it is not for 1.69/Diamond and to avoid grief when when a 1.69 user spends a long time downloading this new version only to get the “this was made for a newer version” error or their graphics are white because 1.69 doesn’t know what a mtr file is.

TR

4 Likes
3

Thank you for the input TR,

That is a good point but it should still be versioned in one way, it could be CEP EE 1.0 or something else?

4

As odd as this may sound - it sounds odd to me - what about versioning it using the versioning numbers used by Beamdog for their stable releases - e.g., CEP EE v1.28. This lets users know two things: 1) its for EE and 2) for use with Stable .28, potentially avoiding what Tarot mentioned in his his post.

While it would be nice for some users to have a 1.69 compatible version, I really don’t think its a priority. However, I’m biased as I don’t use 1.69. That said, all you really need to do for a 1.69 compatible version is put all the MTR files in a separate hak with the PBR textures. There would also be a few 2da reversions, but other than that…

3 Likes
5

I am not a big fan of the beamdog game versioning, I think something a bit more linear 1.1 1.2 1.3 etc would be better, although we are going to have to start somewhere since the current is 2.65, it could be a 3.0 where we just say fuck it, lets get rid of clutter and other, or just keep and build upon it and potentially replace stuff (e.g: lightsaber swords with proper swords) and overrides for improved looking things.

6

I honestly think it would be a big mistake to exclude 1.69.

  • In the last quarter, 45% of new modules were made for EE, 55% for 1.69
  • The vast majority of the 4000+ modules on the Vault were made for 1.69
  • From forum posts, it’s apparent that many players are still on 1.69
  • With that in mind, it would be a pity to deny appropriate new content to 1.69 builders, and unthinkable to do anything to break 1.69 modules
  • It would be very easy to make the new CEP 1.69 compatible, by putting any files that only work for EE in separate haks that the builder has to opt into (at the possible cost of having two top haks, one for EE, the other for 1.69)
  • Another benefit of supporting 1.69 is that we could still have just one current version of CEP2 supporting all past releases
5 Likes
7

Concerning the release name, I’d be happier with 2.66.

  • As a moderator, I’m especially aware that players already find CEP pretty confusing
  • We have at least reduced the offering to just one version of CEP1 and CEP2 respectively (albeit that many project pages point to old releases)
  • It would be a pity to add to that confusion by adding CEP3
  • In any case, what is proposed here is a relatively small change to the package, which wouldn’t ordinarily merit an entire new release number
  • Including EE in the title (as opposed to the description) could be confusing, as it’s not clear whether that means EE-only or EE-compatible

That said, the pre-requisite for calling it 2.66 in my view is that the release is 100% backward compatible with all CEP2 versions and 1.69. Otherwise, 2.65 would need to be retained as the stable release required for the vast majority of modules - the new CEP would definitely have to have its own page, and ought to be called something very different, for clarity.

2 Likes
8

Regarding tilesets, to be compatible with 2.65, the existing CEP tilesets need to be retained (even if I’m the only one using them, which I doubt).

9

Just some observations and seeking few points of clarification

  • How many modules in the last quarter? If we’re only talking 20 modules, that’s 9 for EE and 11 for 1.69. Not that big a difference but still significant.

  • Of those 4,000 modules how many are actually made for CEP and, of those, how many are broken because they were made for earlier versions of CEP?

  • Depends on the medium. How many user on the Vault forum vs. the Beamdog forum (EE) vs. Discord (EE mostly) vs. Steam (EE). Granted, Steam users probably stick to the workshop but how many end up here?

  • Inevitably, there comes a time when a version needs to retire. If Builders on 1.69 want the newest content at some point they’ll have to make the jump to EE. Would you actually be breaking 1.69 CEP modules? These modules were built with CEP 2,65 or earlier. Last I knew, CEP v1.x was still available, why not do the same for CEP 2.65? That puts the onus on the end user to have the correct version of CEP on their system.

  • Easy for someone EXCEPT the project manager. I HATED and DESPISED the optional HAKs in Project Q that required keeping two different copies of the same 2da. One wrong click and everything’s FUBAR.

  • CEP 2.65 already supports all past releases except CEP 1.x. A CEP 3.x doesn’t have to change any of this.

Keep in mind, I’m just playing Devil’s advocate here. I’m certain there are counter arguments to every point I made and for the sake of this conversation, I implore people to speak up and voice those counterarguments.

As a side note to point #4 - I am against turning over control of the CEP 2.x page IF CEP 2.65 would be removed from it.

10

TAD’s cep page will of course remain as is nothing will change there.

The page I will upload the successor to CEP 2.65 (be it 2.66 or 3.0 or other) will also have the option of downloads that TAD’s CEP has.

I see both points, but at this stage I mostly am in agreement with Pstemarie, in regards to there comes a time where people just will have to move over to EE to experience the new things…

1 Like
11

Hello guys,

A beta page on the NWVault might be something to come soon, the current brand and label is “CEP 3”
If you are an avid CEP 2.65 user and enjoy to build with that, make a copy of your module and follow the instructions for the hak order for this one.

This release is already an improvement but a big disclaimer is this build has had the [CEP] Tilesets removed, they can be brought back again with ease, just incase you are using the [CEP] Tilesets, something will break :slight_smile:

12

… only if you force them to do so, when you could very easily support them …

… in which cases, builders might say, better to stay with the old CEP and add new content to our own haks as we already do - power flows in both directions.

2 Likes
13

Correct. The point is that half of our builders aren’t using EE for new modules yet, hence it seems premature to abandon such a big section of the community that we’re here to support.

2 Likes
14

Right and significant enough to warrant advocacy for not abandoning them.

15

Lots of questions, hence multiple answers!

I don’t have the number of CEP modules, but clearly it’s a significant fraction of the total.

If memory serves, it’s about half of the top-rated ones, less for the average ones.

AFAIK no modules using earlier versions of CEP are broken. The latest CEP1 and CEP2 contain all the old top haks etc. The main haks may contain extra files, but the old ones are still there. So, playes just have to download the latest stuff. An old module will find the hak names it expects, and any content it uses should look and behave exactly the same.

I won’t go point-by-point through the rest of your post as most of the information is already on the table.

2 Likes
16

Thanks for all the input Pstemarie and Proleric.

I do think sorting 2das for both EE and 1.69 would be too much work. I’ve currently disabled fancy maps on armors and some placeables.

Remains shields and TAD’s reforged weapons, but that is an easy toggle off.

Doing 2 seperate 2das for two different game versions would be too time consuming.

17

I’ve done something similar already over the last couple of years – merging EE with CEP, the 2da’s, tilesets and then expanding upon that with various art assets, music, etc. Very much work, but it was also for a very singular purpose which was my vision. But it quite easily could be called CEP 4.0 or whatever. I’m not sure I see the value in making a CEP 2.anything at this point. Your casual player won’t need it, and building these days is nowhere near as silo-ed as it use to be when there was a different project for every type of thing you could think of – CEP, Project Q, Community Skybox, Community Creature Project, Community Tileset Project, the CMP and on and on it went. GIven the way both builders and players can grab assets through EE, it’s not as big of a deal to have a “one stop shop.”

When I did this, one of the challenges I faced was merging some of the CEP tilesets with the Zwerk’s Facelifts. It can be done, but it is not easy because there is a lot of incompatibility and it will definitely break your module if you’re not careful. So builders who’ve used those old CEP tilesets – particularly the interior Bio Extended ones – and then you try the Facelifts, there’s going to be some issues. Again, this can be overcome, but something to think about.

18

Thank you for the input Wise, is there any reason to not remove the CEP tilesets? They seem identical to the normal ones from what I can tell, so it just ends up being cluttered

19

You really shouldn’t remove the tilesets, thus making it not backward compatible, and call it CEP.

20

The tilesets specifically have some adjustments to them, they’re adjusted ones from CRAP if I remember correctly