bug related to 'Exploit to Keep Imported Items'

[Guest fury]

Some of these exploits being part of Core fixes don't make sense. At best, they should be part of the 'optional but cool' component.

 

The fix for 'Exploit to Keep Imported Items At Beginning of SoA' actually introduces another bug where, if your BG1 character was wearing the Ring of Wizardry (double the amount of 1st level spells) with all the spells memorized, and was exported, and then imported in BG2, the ring and all the other items in your inventory disappear obviously, but the spells you memorized back in BG1 are still in your spell book. This isn't anything new, but what is surprising is that your spell book will not have enough spell slots to accomodate all the spells (due to the lack of the ring of wizardry). So some of the memorized spells will be freely floating around and you can still use them regularly, provided you don't delete any of the memorized spells.

 

I understand exploits like multiple reward xp exploits are clearly not developer intended, so I don't object to that, but things like this one and the 'simulacrum restoration exploit' are left out in the grey area and should not be part of the core fixes, IMO.

[CamDawg]

The memorized spell bug is unrelated--all that the exploit fix does is make you unable to interrupt the opening sequence. That being said, enough folks have complained about it that I'm willing to drop it.

[SimDing0]

I don't have a problem with it as a fix. It uncontestably is. However, I often like to start a new game and check things out without having to sit through that fucking cutscene, and closing this exploit also shuts off that opportunity.

[Guest fury]

Some exploits should just be left alone. Even though the Fixpack team objectively tries to find and fix bugs, like in this case, it is sometimes better to not fix it. Those who make use of the exploit should be free to do so, and those who play the game normally will not be affected at all.

 

The simulacrum restoration thing is another one that gets me. Why is this classified as a bug? According to the spell description, the "simulacrum is created at 60% of the level at which the caster is currently on." Nothing from that indicates it should permanently remain at that 60% at all times. So why even bother trying to fix this?

[BigRob]

Well, technically, the Simulacrum is at 60% of the creator's level because it is a bad copy of the original, not because it is an exact copy that has been level-drained, so a Restoration spell should have no effect on it.

 

 

I can just about see a casting of Restoration on a Simulacrum happening by accident (must have happened at least once, or no-one would have noticed the exploit), so I'd put that fix in the "rare, but fair enough" category, myself.

[Salk]

Personally, my opinion is that exploits should be fixed because I consider them as bugs. So I believe you did do right in this Cam and I would wish to not see your corrections lost. If people want to cheat, there is BG2 Tweak Pack available a little more down...

[devSin]

I think the Simulacrum fix is fine. If you disregard the fact that the designers used functionality that was already available (level drain) when implementing it, there wouldn't be any way to affect the image's level (a simulacrum is a weaker clone of the caster, not a copy with the level drain effect applied to it that you can restore).

 

I don't like the modification to the intro sequence only because it slightly modifies the behavior (Player1 doesn't start selected) and because it doesn't address multiplayer parties at all. So it's only a partially-effective patch that forces an unnecessary change to the player's introduction to the game. Meh. OBC.

[Guest Guest]

Well, technically, the Simulacrum is at 60% of the creator's level because it is a bad copy of the original, not because it is an exact copy that has been level-drained, so a Restoration spell should have no effect on it.

 

But who is to say how the Restoration spell should affect a newly created simulacrum? There are plenty of anomalies in the game that work under some bizarre, insane logic.

 

"Technically", a healing spell (say Cure serious wounds) is supposed to heal creatures. Nothing from the spell description indicates that it can also be used to cause damage and even kill creatures. Yet, when you face the Empathic manifestation demon, you primarily use the healing spells to kill it.

 

I'll give you another example.

 

When you create the Rift device (Unseeing eye quest item), you are "technically" supposed to return it to the avatar after using it optionally on the Beholder boss. There is no way you can try to steal it and bring it back up to the surface. Because if you do, your character is instantly killed. No questions.

 

However, if you've read Userunfriendly's cheese guide, he mentions an ingenious, one of the most amazing exploits ever discovered IMO, where you can use your familiar to smuggle it out of the temple sewers. But according to Fixpack standards, this would be the textbook definition of a bug.

 

I agree with you that this should fall under "rare but fair enough".

 

 

Personally, my opinion is that exploits should be fixed because I consider them as bugs. So I believe you did do right in this Cam and I would wish to not see your corrections lost. If people want to cheat, there is BG2 Tweak Pack available a little more down...

 

This is more closer to preventing cheese rather than fixing a bug. So is the fixpack's mission to prevent cheesy tactics or is it to fix actual bugs?

 

So you think all exploits should be fixed? Well, I consider opening and closing doors to win tough battles an exploit. But I've read several times over the years where people used this exploit to beat Improved Ilyich. I guess the Fixpack team should then make all doors stay open at all times, right?

 

I'm not saying this should be removed completely. All I'm saying is this should not be part of Core fixes because it is a questionable fix. I would have no problems if it was an optional component.

 

 

If you disregard the fact that the designers used functionality that was already available (level drain) when implementing it, there wouldn't be any way to affect the image's level (a simulacrum is a weaker clone of the caster, not a copy with the level drain effect applied to it that you can restore).

 

I know the clone does not have the level drain affect applied to it, but that still does not mean Restoration shouldn't affect it in any way whatsoever.

 

Besides, why would you disregard the fact that designers used the level drain functionality on the clone? Maybe they did it on purpose? We don't really know their intentions.

[CamDawg]

Exploits are closed because players can accidentally encounter them. Making doors remain open is silly, though it does make for a nice strawman.

[Guest Guest]

Exploits are closed because players can accidentally encounter them. Making doors remain open is silly, though it does make for a nice strawman.

 

You may think it's silly, but when you get right down to it and look under the microscope, it is still an exploit. It is a bottleneck that you can use to deal with enemies one at a time and sometimes possibly remain completely out of their sight.

 

But hey, I guess there are some exploits we can just turn a blind eye to and pretend they don't exist.

[CamDawg]

But hey, I guess there are some exploits we can just turn a blind eye to and pretend they don't exist.

Or we can acknowledge that 'fixing' them introduces far greater silliness.

[Guest Guest]

Or we can acknowledge that 'fixing' them introduces far greater silliness.

 

lol, exactly. That is why I was saying some exploits should just be left alone.

[Salk]

The point is that some exploits can happen without the player wanting them. In those cases, the exploits is a bug and the BG2 Fixpack should stop this from happening. Using the doors for cheesy tactics is an intentional strategy.

[devSin]

I know the clone does not have the level drain affect applied to it, but that still does not mean Restoration shouldn't affect it in any way whatsoever.

 

Besides, why would you disregard the fact that designers used the level drain functionality on the clone? Maybe they did it on purpose? We don't really know their intentions.

The point is that the simulacrum *does* have the level drain effect applied to it. This is how they decided to implement the 40% reduction in level and is the only reason casting Restoration affects the simulacrum.

 

In this case, I find it hard to distinguish this from any other case where an effect that should or shouldn't be dispellable wasn't or was, and we have to make those decisions all the time. The simulacrum is a lesser clone of the caster, not a level-drained copy; you should be able to cast Restoration on it, but it shouldn't have any effect on the fact that it's intentionally permanently at 60% of the caster's level.

[Guest Guest]

The point is that the simulacrum *does* have the level drain effect applied to it. This is how they decided to implement the 40% reduction in level and is the only reason casting Restoration affects the simulacrum.

 

Sorry, I meant to repeat what you said earlier (i.e. its not a copy with the level drain effect applied to it that you can restore), since I said in my next sentence that they did use the level drain functionality on the clone.

 

As for saying this is how they chose to implement it, well that is anyone's guess because they could've just as easily put a little more effort and designed the Simulacrum so that it wouldn't be initially level drained. After all, they made this complex game happen, so I doubt they would have trouble designing this spell in an alternate way. So saying "it shouldn't have any effect on the fact that it's intentionally permanently at 60% of the caster's level" is a bit subjective. Like I said, we don't know the developer's intent. It is a grey area that can interpreted in different ways.