This is a question we get on a fairly regular basis, so I think the time has come to consider our options for the future.

First off, yes, I know I've been staunchly opposed to unifying the Unofficial Patch under a single all-in-one file to cover everything. Recent events have begun to strain the current model we're operating under though. Some fixes, like certain perks, can't currently be handled by our existing setup without generating a small fix file to cover these.

Currently, the perk fixes are being handled here: http://afkmods.iguanadons.net/index.php?/files/file/1212-dg-and-db-axe-perk-compatibility-fix/

Another issue just reported involves incorrect dragon skeletons when a dragon dies: http://afkmods.iguanadons.net/index.php?/tracdown/issue/16721-dragonborn-serpentine-dragons-inappropriate-mesh-when-dying/ - In order to address this, the DragonActorScript would need editing, and such an edit can't currently deal with DG dragons while preserving the DB dragons and the Miraak support code.

A third issue is one that's been brought up before, but so far hasn't been formally reported - It's not possible currently to support adoptions on Solstheim because it would necessitate code that alters two DLCs. Technically it can be considered a bug that you can't even move your spouse to Raven Rock. It's pretty easy to see why Bethesda didn't even try.

In general, any inter-DLC issues that come up can't currently be managed.

Then there's the general difficulty in maintaining the separate packages as they are now. Each one requires a clean environment from which to work, which right now is only truly possible by having multiple Skyrim install folders that get switched between as each patch runs its cycle. Conflict resolution with this setup is made difficult because such conflicts can only be checked with every file in the same folder, and it's not wise to dirty up each folder with stuff from another.

One major downside to all this is that removing the existing DLC patches from a running game could very well break things. There would be no other good way to go about this though (thank God we're using BSAs!) that wouldn't potentially cause some problems.

Something that will need to be kept in mind. This changeover would mean the end of continued development on the current separate files. It is not feasible to manage the project in two entirely different branches.

This would not affect the High Resolution patch. That would remain separate since it isn't dependent on certain DLCs existing or not and the content isn't something everyone can run.

So briefly:

Pros:
No more need for multiple development folders.
No more unresolvable conflicts.
One unified patch that only takes up one ESP slot.

Cons:
Not everyone has every DLC yet.
A significant amount of work to properly merge everything into one unified ESP.
Support on the existing separate patches would be frozen except for hotfix issues.
Extremely likely that the game could get confused when ripping out the unsupported DLC patches when a change like this is made.

Again, as I once said, "hell no, never" - well. It's starting to become enough of a hassle to consider it.

But, as these patches are largely for the sake of the community, I think it should be put to a poll. So please cast your vote, and post your thoughts on why we should or should not do this.

So the cons to players would be:
1. Longer wait to next set of fixes: not a big issue
2. Need all the DLC: depends how much they're going for these days. They should be relatively cheap, and the previous patch version should still work (just no longer under active development).
3. May break saved games: bigger issue - I haven't yet managed to play all the way through before having to start another character for whatever reason. But hey.

Conclusion: this is a complex undertaking which not many of us (including myself) have a full understanding of. So if it has to happen at some point, then it has to happen. There's no use trying to hack away at something if the process is just becoming inefficient and unviable in the long run.

I have no strong feelings either way Arthmoor, however, you should do what is easier and more managable for you, less time dikeing around with multiple installs, having fixes that don't break other content is a good thing, and having three less plugins is a boon for those with beefy load orders.

Did not see the poll post here until after I posted here: http://www.gamesas.com/topic/1497829-relz-unofficial-skyrim-patch-thread-41/?p=23699168

Voted "No" in this poll for reasons explained in the linked post.

However, I know the final decision rests with Arthmoor and team. I will be fine with that decision.

To be clear this would 'require' all DLCs to be installed ?

Or if we dont have Hearthfire for example we could carry on with the all in one because the data that affects Hearthfire would just be redundant if installed ?

I dont intend getting Hearthfire because I have no need of it.

And I know similarly there are people out there who hate vampires so have abstained from installing Dawnguard

But if it went that way, I would install it, purely because we cannot do without UPP, it really is essential. I guess anyone not willing to install any missing DLC could just stop at final individual version .. A route I would take until I got around to actually getting Hearthfire...

Unsure, tossed a coin, voted no.

Yes, it would require all DLCs to be installed and active.

I voted no, but would like a combined patch as an option. Because:

• The CK is buggy. Doesn't it get worse with the size of the plug-in? Didn't you have a recent situation where a fix got lost (eaten by the CK) and had to be re-applied? I saw a mod recently on the Nexus that said they had to have several esp's because the CK caused problems with one big one.
• We may want to disable a DLC for a playthrough. So it should be modular.

Thanks.

I voted no because I don't have Hearthfire or Dawnguard, and don't intend on ever getting them. Given that, I'd appreciate being able to benefit from future updates to the Unofficial Patches.

If majority opinion was to go for it though, I'd understand. It's difficult to get irate over free user-made content, and an old unofficial patch is still better than none.

EDIT: Just had a couple more thoughts:

1. I'm fine with the individual patches development being stopped, but it would be nice if fixes to the patches themselves were back-ported. Eg. someone discovers an issue with how the patch fixes something, it gets fixed in the unified version, and the fix ported back to the individual patches if necessary. Or at least a record of such fixes so that if you didn't want to do that yourself, someone else could.
2. Could the unified patch not function as a Filter patch? I don't think Bash supports them yet, and I can't remember what the limitations are on plugins that want to be filter patches, but it might be an option that would let people use the unified patch without all the DLCs active.

I voted no and for a reason. I have Dawnguard and Dragonborn but no Hearthfire and I have no intentions to buy it ever. Not everyone has all DLCs and in my mind they shouldn't be left out of additional bugfixes.

Personally, I would prefer an all-in-one, although that would be mainly due to getting the fixes currently not possible with separate patches.

If it were viable to have an optional unofficial DLC patch add-on, which fixes any inter-DLC issues, I would be happy with that.

This is true, but the opposite also applies - those of us with all the DLC (who I believe are in a majority) shouldn't be left out of additional bugfixes just to cater for a minority of players who don't have the DLC.

Having said that, I think that things have worked as they are for a long while without any major issues (discounting the issues I see on occasion with users of the USKP and Dawnguard not also using the UDP) - is there really such a pressing reason to change things? I do believe that the final decision should be made based on ease of development by those on the front-line - Arthmoor & co.

As for saving esp slots for the end user - that really shouldn't be a consideration - 250+ other mods shouldn't really be encouraged in any case - that many mods are not really necessary for every single playthrough - and chances are with that many mods people have got lots of things overwriting patch fixes in any case!

That's my reason why I voted no.

Although, I do have all the DLC's both as separate and with Skyrim Legendary Edition, but as some people have already stated that have played one DLC in which they didn't like. Why should they being forced to use the actual DLC they didn't like with one USKP file?

There is obviously a trade-off here: flexibility for players in keeping separate patches vs ease of development for the developers in unifying the patches.

At the end of the day, I think it should be up to the developers - they are the ones doing all this work for free, and it is ultimately self-defeating for everyone if maintaining separate patches becomes so cumbersome and results in incomplete fixes that the entire project just becomes too difficult to continue. From the sounds of it, it is getting closer to that point.

As far I'm concerned only UHFP can be consider to be final and only hot fixes is needed if there is a confirmed issue(s) IIRC.

To be fair, you don't actually have to play the DLC if you have them installed...you can use a mod to disable the vampire attacks (or just put up with them), and there's no other obligation to follow through on either main DLC quest, you can simply ignore them.

EDIT: Actually, I just realized that may not be the case - does Miraak take your dragon souls even if you don't go to Solstheim?

Do whatever is easiest.

I'm all for it - since I tend to keep all the dlcs installed it makes things easier for me (one file to keep track of). The fact it would greatly simplify development is also a major plus - the setup needed right now sounds like a tedious and annoying nightmare.

No, he starts only after you meet him in Apocrypha.

And why should people who use all the DLCs be forced to use multiple files?

Voted no.

I happily own Legendary Edition but think a smaller extra "Unofficial Legendary Edition Patch" is the right way to go.

I wouldn't mind for me and it's clearly less work for you moving forward - but it's not just about me or even you. Your work improves Skyrim too much for players and modders to be restricted to premium players only.

Well I have just been gifted Hearthfires, so that changes my personal aspect slightly, but still keeping it at no

I really want to vote yes just for all the reasons from the development angle, but people stuck with not needing the full set will be forever envious of all the work adding to each release of the new UPP Legendary

Just one other thought, is their any feel for how many mods out there would need updating because of this change, which possibly will never get done ?

Until you feel that USKP will not receive any major updates, I will vote for no.

Not everyone has DLCs, and they still want the benefit of the unofficial patches, that's one reason.

It will be a huge hassle that outweigh (just my guess on your part) the benefit.

And I don't think people will realize that they might need a fresh install for the unified package. I don't think that's the issue, though, as long as the script names are the same?

Though I would love to give it a big yes, I voted for no given the circumstances.

From an egotistical point of view I say yes as I always use all DLCs, so it would only be advantages for me with a unified, legendary edition. From a more general point of view I'm conflicted as I can appreciate the arguments on both sides - but I'm leaning towards a yes and voted so.

Personally, out of ~100 esps, none has the uskp as master, that isn't either my Arthmoor himself or didn't get the dependency by me adding it myself

An important question: how many unmaintained mods use the unofficial patches as masters? I'm sure it's possible to update the USKP in such a way that at least the FormIDs of the USKP part of it remain the same, and if the file name stays the same, then those mods still work. However, the ones that use the DLC patches as masters - gotta be updated. Hence the question. I'm actually curious if anyone's gone through to check.

I actually have a bunch (some of them in patched/legendary editions), but I think all of them are regularly updated so shouldn't be much of an issue:

I own all the DLCs, and I still voted no. If someone just doesn't want to shell out for one or more of the DLCs (or genuinely can't afford to), I don't think it's right that they should be excluded from bugfixes for the vanilla game.

This too.

But that isn't really the case. The unofficial patches are quite comprehensive as it is - plus they would still get hotfixes if necessary.