218 replies to this topic

[King Diamond]

Have you expected that such topic won't be started shortly?

1) I'm not sure, but should rumor dialogues (in taverns) add QUEST journal entries? I found that in RCANDL.DLG right now....

2) There's a wrong patch for

COPY + ~BG1D/OBE.D~ ~BG1D/OBE.D~
  REPLACE_TEXTUALLY ~igibber~ ~BGIGIBB~ //~BGIGGIB~

. Just a misspelling....

[**Added***]
3) BALDUR.GAM
There should not be IMOEN211. This will cause a doublespawning later.

4) The script for stuff shattering. Current script doesn't cover shields and make possible to break weapons even without actual successfull hits.
Earlier I proposed another way to handle that (attachment).

2Asc
Why don't you like a local var based method?

5) A patch for ELDOTH.BCS doesn't work for me. It stays in original form...

6) DELTHY.DLG has many "GLOABL" typos.

7) DYNAHE.DLG has wrong reference to DYNAHEP dialog,
GARRIC - to GARRICKP.

KHALID.BCS contains actions in support of his transition to Irenicus dungeon (+with wrong dialogue reference). That code should be removed 'coz that's impossible.

9) CH1CUT02.BCS.
Contains ~ActionOverride("Ogre",ChangeAIScript("None",RACE))~ that should be replaced by ~ActionOverride("Ogre",ChangeAIScript("",RACE))~

10) AR8202.ARE refers to SHOP08.CRE that is BGSHOP08 now (I believe).

11)Flamal.BAF should be transferred from \Unused\ to BDash part installation.

12) Garric.DLG. Response #12 refers to invalid dialogue.

Edited by King Diamond, 01 July 2005 - 10:09 AM.

[King Diamond]

May be tomorrow I'll start more systematic check, but now it's just a first glance....

[Idobek]

BG1 rumour dialogues added journal entries, it was damned annoying.

[GekkeR]

Odd , I didn't have that.

I've got Baldurdash installed though (but it shouldn't matter I think?).

Also , be very careful to NOT have any BG cd in your cdrom drive when installing (this REALLY made a difference for me).

If I had a bg cd in my cdrom drive when installing bgt a few things would go bad.
Example :
Prologue + Chapter1 text (intro) would scroll really fast and the sound wouldn't be correct from around the 3rd subparagraph onwards.

And that's only the beginning

[Ascension64]

I have a rather unusual error.

When Gorion encountered Sarevok + Henchmen, Tamoko appeared as well.  If I give her enough time, she walks up to me and warns me about Duke Eltan's physician. After the conversation she leaves Gorion and Sarevok to stand by and watch me get beaten up by a couple of ogres.

If I click through Gorion and Sarevok's dialog before Tamoko gets to me, she fires off a spell at me, and then stands around while Gorion and Sarevok fight around her - Gorion dies and the plot continues as normal.

I have BG1 + TotSC + BG2: SOA + BG2: TOB + offical patch + BGT-Weidu 0.99 beta (the first 0.99 that was released)

Is this a problem with my installation?

I might try Baldurdash-Weidu and see if that makes any difference.

 

Have you set Force Dialog Pause=1 in baldur.ini?

BG1 rumour dialogues added journal entries, it was damned annoying.

Well, they were there in BG1 so they stay in the core installation. A component may later be added to remove them. They will stay as quest, however, because many townsfolk rumours are also the same and they have been put as quest.

4) The script for stuff shattering. Current script doesn't cover shields and make possible to break weapons even without actual successfull hits.
Earlier I proposed another way to handle that (attachment).

2Asc
Why don't you like a local var based method?

Because that will increase incompatibility with other mods changing BG2 weapons like that. Therefore, I do not like the weapons part, and I don't think HitBy([ANYONE],CRUSHING) is crushing. It is any hit at all, so that part I believe will not work as intended either.

I'll take a look at the bugs when I re-install BETA 2. Reason being I did the SoS-TDD install for the other guy. Are you using BETA 2 KD? You will notice I forgot to remove the NPCAlive checks in D files in BETA.

Update: Alright, having a look.

5) A patch for ELDOTH.BCS doesn't work for me. It stays in original form...

This is one is a bugger. I can't say what is wrong, but it worked for me when I ran a test install, but I am aware that this doesn't work a lot of the time.

7) DYNAHE.DLG has wrong reference to DYNAHEP dialog,

Noted, but shouldn't affect gameplay. The referenced state is set with False() trigger. Same with Garrick.

12) Garric.DLG. Response #12 refers to invalid dialogue.

Not even used. But I did somewhat corrupt the file but commenting out JAHEIR.DLG copying for patching.

3) BALDUR.GAM
There should not be IMOEN211. This will cause a doublespawning later.

I need to show me When? Where? How? I know you mentioned this with 0.94 but I believed I removed all the instances where Imoen got moved to AR1512. Which could be bad come to think of it, because that rids of continuity.

Edited by Ascension64, 02 July 2005 - 07:42 AM.

[King Diamond]

BG1 rumour dialogues added journal entries, it was damned annoying.

Well, they were there in BG1 so they stay in the core installation. A component may later be added to remove them. They will stay as quest, however, because many townsfolk rumours are also the same and they have been put as quest.

How a rumor can be interpreted as a quest? And what do you mean about BG1? Plz think again, m8.... and then transfer them just to the ordinary non-quest journal...

I need to show me When? Where? How? I know you mentioned this with 0.94 but I believed I removed all the instances where Imoen got moved to AR1512. Which could be bad come to think of it, because that rids of continuity.

If you did that - ok. Then there won't be a doublespawning. But why did you do that? What is so special about Imoen? All other NPC spawnings are controlled by script but "after-spellhold-Immy" is not now? So it's not very logical to me right now....

And I disagree about items shattering... There should be a stable system - not the one based on a pure randomizing... Leaving CRUSHING only is ok 'coz it realy covers all types of non-magical damages. And I don't see any incompatibility issues with local vars setting ITMs - it will be strange enough (and of course other mods problems) if somebody will want to modify (overwrite) existing simple weapons. I can't even imagine what will it be necessary for....

[GekkeR]

bug no1 (for me) with 0.99b2 :

Silke doesn't respond , I think garrick needs to trigger something in silke.
After he says 300 , Silke should say "well lets make that 400" (or something close) and continue.

Click for Pic

and weidu.log to make sure :

Click for Weidu

Just noticed that it's probably the garric response #12 thing (used NI to temp fix my game).

Place this file into your overide dir for a fix (and remember to reload to a spot before speaking to silke).

Edited by GekkeR, 04 July 2005 - 03:08 AM.

[Ascension64]

bug no1 (for me) with 0.99b2 :

Silke doesn't respond , I think garrick needs to trigger something in silke.
After he says 300 , Silke should say "well lets make that 400" (or something close) and continue.

Click for Pic

and weidu.log to make sure :

Click for Weidu

Just noticed that it's probably the garric response #12 thing (used NI to temp fix my game).

 

Yep, KD mentioned this one but I thought it was unused. Fixed. There was a little typo that caused corruption of GARRIC.DLG.

BG1 rumour dialogues added journal entries, it was damned annoying.

Well, they were there in BG1 so they stay in the core installation. A component may later be added to remove them. They will stay as quest, however, because many townsfolk rumours are also the same and they have been put as quest.

How a rumor can be interpreted as a quest? And what do you mean about BG1? Plz think again, m8.... and then transfer them just to the ordinary non-quest journal... tongue.gif

Good question, but, if you got a quest to, say, Investigate the Iron Throne, and a townsperson said that they heard a rumour that dopplegangers had infiltrated them, that I consider that quest-journal worthy. Unfortunately, I'm not going to add super-smart journal entries so that you would only get the journal entry if you already have the quest because that would mean adding repeats of a large number of dialogues without journal entries. Also, cluttering a journal section with rumours is messy, especially with a dodgy journal deletion in-game. Other opinions on this would be appreciated. If people don't like it, then I'll remove the journal entries altogether from all townsfolk.

I need to show me When? Where? How? I know you mentioned this with 0.94 but I believed I removed all the instances where Imoen got moved to AR1512. Which could be bad come to think of it, because that rids of continuity.

If you did that - ok. Then there won't be a doublespawning. But why did you do that? smile.gif What is so special about Imoen? All other NPC spawnings are controlled by script but "after-spellhold-Immy" is not now? So it's not very logical to me right now....

I think trans-ing Imoen over will give the player a great disadvantage because Imoen is a lot more low-level than usual. When you get Imoen from Spellhold she is 11/7 or 13/7, whereas finishing BG will get you an Immy of 8. Sounds like a huge disadvantage to me. However, it is possible to give her some extra levels I suppose. That would be a lot considering dual-classing of 'normal' Imoen. Again, opinions on this from others would be appreciated.

And I disagree about items shattering... rolleyes.gif There should be a stable system - not the one based on a pure randomizing... Leaving CRUSHING only is ok 'coz it realy covers all types of non-magical damages. And I don't see any incompatibility issues with local vars setting ITMs - it will be strange enough (and of course other mods problems) if somebody will want to modify (overwrite) existing simple weapons. I can't even imagine what will it be necessary for....

And that is exactly what we are doing, modifying the base items. *ahem* I still don't like touching base files like that, but I agree with finding a more stable system...too bad you can't have Hit() in TRIGGER.IDS.

Edited by Ascension64, 04 July 2005 - 02:58 AM.

[King Diamond]

I think trans-ing Imoen over will give the player a great disadvantage because Imoen is a lot more low-level than usual.  When you get Imoen from Spellhold she is 11/7 or 13/7, whereas finishing BG will get you an Immy of 8.  Sounds like a huge disadvantage to me.  However, it is possible to give her some extra levels I suppose.  That would be a lot considering dual-classing of 'normal' Imoen.  Again, opinions on this from others would be appreciated.

And what about a situation when Imoen hasn't been dualclassed at all (!!!) in BG1 part of the game but after the Spellhold you will have her dualled... A MIRACLE!!! I think that is a main reason for all that possibility to continue to use your own pested NPC...

And I disagree about items shattering... rolleyes.gif There should be a stable system - not the one based on a pure randomizing... Leaving CRUSHING only is ok 'coz it realy covers all types of non-magical damages. And I don't see any incompatibility issues with local vars setting ITMs - it will be strange enough (and of course other mods problems) if somebody will want to modify (overwrite) existing simple weapons. I can't even imagine what will it be necessary for....

And that is exactly what we are doing, modifying the base items. *ahem* I still don't like touching base files like that, but I agree with finding a more stable system...too bad you can't have Hit() in TRIGGER.IDS.

 

But the BGT is somehow a BASE mod by itself, so it's allowed for us to do that here... And those modification are absolutely transparent. Nobody will even notice them because they don't touch anything from item's stats...

Edited by King Diamond, 04 July 2005 - 03:56 AM.

[Ascension64]

I think trans-ing Imoen over will give the player a great disadvantage because Imoen is a lot more low-level than usual.  When you get Imoen from Spellhold she is 11/7 or 13/7, whereas finishing BG will get you an Immy of 8.  Sounds like a huge disadvantage to me.  However, it is possible to give her some extra levels I suppose.  That would be a lot considering dual-classing of 'normal' Imoen.  Again, opinions on this from others would be appreciated.

And what about a situation when Imoen hasn't been dualclassed at all (!!!) in BG1 part of the game but after the Spellhold you will have her dualled... A MIRACLE!!! I think that is a main reason for all that possibility to continue to use your own pested NPC...

It probably seems quite out of place because she suddenly becomes a thief/mage. I believe that her time at Spellhold may result in a bit of a change because it is some time before you rescue her and Spellhold is a rather wonky place. How exactly would you like to see her trans-ed over? Again, open opinion to anyone else who wants to comment.

[Yacomo]

It probably seems quite out of place because she suddenly becomes a thief/mage.  I believe that her time at Spellhold may result in a bit of a change because it is some time before you rescue her and Spellhold is a rather wonky place.  How exactly would you like to see her trans-ed over?  Again, open opinion to anyone else who wants to comment.

 

Hehe, I like that idea Dunno if this is possible at all, but it would be cool if you could control Immy changing by a dialoque, something like
1) Immy, it's nice to see that you are still your old self (no change)...
2) Immy, I see that you changed quite a bit while you were here (change to thief/mage)...

Okay, I am obviously no writer, but I hope you get the idea

[Ascension64]

But the BGT is somehow a BASE mod by itself, so it's allowed for us to do that here... biggrin.gif And those modification are absolutely transparent. Nobody will even notice them because they don't touch anything from item's stats...

Fine I'll change it.

[King Diamond]

It probably seems quite out of place because she suddenly becomes a thief/mage.  I believe that her time at Spellhold may result in a bit of a change because it is some time before you rescue her and Spellhold is a rather wonky place.  How exactly would you like to see her trans-ed over?  Again, open opinion to anyone else who wants to comment.

 

I don't understand why have you changed that scripted transition in general... It was taken from BP-BGT and seems to be working quite well. Another question is of her level. There're 2 ways: add her an EXP a little or just left her as she was right after Irenicus dungeon 'coz I cant' imagine how could she earn any experience when she was all that time at spellhold in somnambula state.

[GekkeR]

It probably seems quite out of place because she suddenly becomes a thief/mage.  I believe that her time at Spellhold may result in a bit of a change because it is some time before you rescue her and Spellhold is a rather wonky place.  How exactly would you like to see her trans-ed over?  Again, open opinion to anyone else who wants to comment.

 

My vote goes for continuity (as in whatever you left her as , is how she'll return with perhaps a slight exp bonus).

Although I'd rather see her return as chaotic mage
I can already imagine imoen casting a spell , suddenly getting one of her many headaches and... POOOOOF
Crazy Immy

Edited by GekkeR, 04 July 2005 - 06:47 AM.

[Mythrantar]

If possible, I would rather have after-Spellhold Immy be as I developed her to be in my game. If not, no buiggy because I always dual-class her (seems so natural for her, even from an RP point of view).

As for the rumors in the quest journal, I personaly like it a lot and makes a lot of sene to me, so I would rathr have it stay as it is!

[Ascension64]

It probably seems quite out of place because she suddenly becomes a thief/mage.  I believe that her time at Spellhold may result in a bit of a change because it is some time before you rescue her and Spellhold is a rather wonky place.  How exactly would you like to see her trans-ed over?  Again, open opinion to anyone else who wants to comment.

 

I don't understand why have you changed that scripted transition in general... It was taken from BP-BGT and seems to be working quite well. Another question is of her level. There're 2 ways: add her an EXP a little or just left her as she was right after Irenicus dungeon 'coz I cant' imagine how could she earn any experience when she was all that time at spellhold in somnambula state.

 

Because it was easier. Anyway, Imoen will be continuous now. She won't change XP. Too bad for the people who play BG2 only I guess.

[masteraleph]

Yeah...either add XP or leave as is (though you seem to have decided this one). This also means that the PC has some sort of incentive to actually use Nalia over Imoen on occasion (which wasn't there, particularly if you played through BG1).

[King Diamond]

Because it was easier.  Anyway, Imoen will be continuous now.  She won't change XP.  Too bad for the people who play BG2 only I guess.

 

I think you are tired a little...
There's a perfect "ImoenPartyBG1" global variable that can help a lot.
If it's =1 Immy should be continous, if =0 - what's wrong when you'll just create Imoen211 and send her to AR1512 instead of the one that came from the dungeon (to make BG2-only lovers happy)? I think it's too easy....
Another keyword: "TELE0700.BCS" + some of her dialogs

[ADDED}
Just took a look into optional XPBONUS.2DA.
32 exp pts maximum for disarming a trap? 95 max for lockpicking????
90 for learning 9th level spell?????
What is a reason for such values and where did you take them?
Ppl want XP bonuses reducing but I hope not so LARGE....

May be that one will suit better? It's taken from BP-BGT...

Edited by King Diamond, 04 July 2005 - 10:18 AM.

[King Diamond]

COPY_EXISTING ~AR1000.BCS~ ~override~
  EXTEND_TOP ~AR1000.BCS~ ~BGT/Modify/BAF/xAR1000.BAF~

That will screw BG2 script part 'coz it has OnCreation() block that won't work.
So the script must be EXTENDed_BOTTOM.