Boots of Speed

[Miloch]

Heh. Yeah I decided to go here, though at least I'm not cluttering the "Exploit" thread up with my gibberish, as this has nothing to do with an exploit. And it seems I've already got the Almighty Fixpackers slamming me, so... .

 

Regarding Boots of Speed having a unique description. In itself, that's somewhat arguable, but I won't even make that argument. I'll take it at face value as an assumption for my hypothesis that they *were* originally supposed to be unique... in BG1. There *is* only one non-bugged pair of them in BG1 - and only one in Tutu which doesn't copy over the bugged or unused ones (Lothander has a pair but the resource is misspelled - almost intentionally as some sort of joke, since it's kind of hard to mistype O as zero). The same goes for the Long Sword +2 (aka "Varscona") - unique in BG1; not uncommon in BG2, which stands to reason. Why would a sword +2 be unique in BG2 when you've got Celestial Flaming Scarlet Katanas of Fury +5 and who knows what else?

 

It's also not only possible but downright likely the people making and placing the items were different from the people charged with coming up with creative descriptive text. I'm working on a mod where that's the case, and that's just a mod with a few people in on it, not an entire game with a large staff. Most coders aren't necessarily creative writers and vice-versa. It's even possible the folks specing and placing the items *didn't have* the descriptions as yet (or just didn't read them as it wasn't their job to do so). They were likely charged to distribute equipment, so a few swords +1 here, a couple swords +2 there. [Oh and a Ring of Danger Sense on the starting mage in ToB too. Shouldn't mages have "Danger Sense" since they're weaker characters? ()]

 

So my theory is the developers wanted to place several Boots of Speed etc. in BG2 (as they did) but simply reused the BG1 description (as they did for these and many other objects) without looking closely at the description as far as potential "uniqueness." After all, the BG1 non-dialogue strings were copied over wholesale to BG2 with little or no revision. And I'll admit, I'm pretty meticulous sometimes, but I don't read the whole long description every time I put an item on a creature.

 

That theory though is a far cry from the suggestion that "I don't think the descriptive text is in any way binding, as the devs didn't care about it either." Let's give the designers *some* credit at least. If their indifference to their own work was really so evident, this game wouldn't be as popular as it is years after its release. Trying to coordinate a large team of people to meet a deadline and produce a finished product is enough work without stopping to overanalyse every minute detail, as we now have the luxury (?) of doing. And if you went back to them and asked about it, I'd bet dollars to doughnuts they'd say "yeah, that's kind of wrong... we should've changed the descriptions of some of those things."

 

The counter-proposal that they're supposed to be unique in BG2 is rather preposterous. How do you explain their appearance on so many creatures then? Typos? They really wanted BOOT06 (Worn Out Boots) rather than BOOT01 except in one instance? We're not talking about SCS misplacing _SW1H06 for _SW1H05, shelling out several Varsconas to Tutu in the process (a typo DavidW was quick to acknowledge).

 

So what we're really talking about here is a quality assurance issue that a Fixpack should be well-placed to remedy. The bottom line is you could change even just a couple words in these descriptions to account for their "non-uniqueness" in BG2. And as I said a long time ago I don't really get the vehemence of this whole Tweak vs. Fix vs. Optional But Cool (aka Tweak) debate. Just make it one or the other - pick one - but don't let indecision impede progress. Now I'm not saying this is a blanket theory that covers every case like this. There may be items that go the other way (i.e. should be unique but aren't) but it seems to hold for these two items.

 

Discuss, you commie pinkos (*j/k* on that - it's from an obscure post by someone on PPG - seems I've been forced to footnote my rather bizarre [lack of] humour on these boards). You may now commence your usual orc-bashing.

[BigRob]

I'd be quite happy to gowith the idea that the Devs may have miscommunicated or forgotten to update description texts in some cases, or that some duplicate items were put in as placeholders for other unique items with similar power/abilities and were never changed.

 

 

Certainly I think in one case (the boots "vending machine") there are copies of what was once a unique item being made. NWN certainly solved this problem by including something like "This is a copy of an original, whose history is this" in most item texts.

[Guest Guest]

And as I said a long time ago I don't really get the vehemence of this whole Tweak vs. Fix vs. Optional But Cool (aka Tweak) debate. Just make it one or the other - pick one - but don't let indecision impede progress.

to me, it's pretty simple: let the progress be, but progress in the chosen way. If you can't call all the changes that introduced by fixpack "fixes", than you cannot call it "fixpack". It's just not its purpose.

 

I think that developers simply didn't care about descriptions. It is not very hard to change descriptions, and I'd bet dollars, too, that developers would say "yeah, its kind of wrong, it can be done better", but no one of them would be really concerned about it. There's no sign that anybody of them ever intended to do it in other way, so it is not fixpack's area. Can you even imagine how many alterations can be made on assumptions "different people developed story and coded" and "they hadn't enough time"? I can't.

 

If you really want to, do it yourself (update descriptions). There isn't much work, anyway. Or use the mod removing excess copies. I think the main point is to play as you like, and I personally prefer to play with really unique items.

[devSin]

I think that developers simply didn't care about descriptions.

Another possibility that hasn't been mentioned: maybe they didn't even have all the descriptions when they were placing the items.

 

Can you even imagine how many alterations can be made on assumptions "different people developed story and coded" and "they hadn't enough time"?

Different people really did develop the story and code everything (the writers vs. the technical designers), and they really didn't have enough time.

 

Don't worry, though. I don't think this discussion is really going to affect the fixpack. We're not here to start making excessive modifications to item descriptions or enforcing some arbitrary "one pair boots of speed per game" rule.

[Kulyok]

Don't worry, though. I don't think this discussion is really going to affect the fixpack. We're not here to start making excessive modifications to item descriptions or enforcing some arbitrary "one pair boots of speed per game" rule.

 

*faint sigh of relief*

 

(Especially since I've already introduced an extra pair in the ToB part of my mod, too).

[Miloch]

I don't think this discussion is really going to affect the fixpack. We're not here to start making excessive modifications to item descriptions or enforcing some arbitrary "one pair boots of speed per game" rule.

I was proposing neither of those things. I suspect, as you've hitherto admitted, you didn't actually *read* the post before reacting to it. Your first comment is clear evidence of that, since it repeats something I said.

[Salk]

As partial excuse, devSin might say that your initial post was rather long (although interesting) and you know how modders have little patience with you, Miloch!

 

Seriously, my position is (again) close to yours. The only wrong thing would be to do nothing about unique items (according to descriptions) that can be obtained more than once in the game.

 

I don't like at all the Neverwinter Nights-kind of approach ("This is a copy of one unique artifact...") which is not really very elegant.

 

Every action we'd take though would imply some serious arbitrary decision. Certainly out of the fixing scope although consistency would benefit.

 

Now the question is if we want to give serious love to consistency problems in the fixpacks produced here (and I'd include also the BG1 Fixpack). My answer'd be a sound "yes!" but this is only me (and you, Miloch) while most seem to not care or even be against (Kulyok, CamDawg, the rebellious devSin and many more).

 

My suggestion might be to create a OBC component that would take care of the problem in one of these two ways: correct the descriptions or reduce the quantity of unique items to one and one only (I believe it is even nice that a player might end up with not getting everything that is in the game). The first solution is sub-optimal but less concectual problems would arise and overall less arbitrary.

[Guest Guest]

My suggestion might be to create a OBC component that would take care of the problem in one of these two ways: correct the descriptions or reduce the quantity of unique items to one and one only (I believe it is even nice that a player might end up with not getting everything that is in the game). The first solution is sub-optimal but less concectual problems would arise and overall less arbitrary.

I'd understand if you suggest it in the BG2 tweak pack forum. This is not a fix, definitely.

[Salk]

My suggestion might be to create a OBC component that would take care of the problem in one of these two ways: correct the descriptions or reduce the quantity of unique items to one and one only (I believe it is even nice that a player might end up with not getting everything that is in the game). The first solution is sub-optimal but less concectual problems would arise and overall less arbitrary.

I'd understand if you suggest it in the BG2 tweak pack forum. This is not a fix, definitely.

 

I disagree. It would be as much a fix as other OBC components.

 

To give the Ring of Free Action immunity to stun is perhaps less of a tweak (it even goes against the very words of Gaider) ?

[Kulyok]

To give the Ring of Free Action immunity to stun is perhaps less of a tweak (it even goes against the very words of Gaider) ?

 

Yes, I fully agree, it is a bad precedent, in my opinion. To me both suggestions seem like BG2 TweakPack material.

[Guest Guest]

I disagree. It would be as much a fix as other OBC components.

what is a fix, then? Can you give a definition?

 

Yes, I fully agree, it is a bad precedent, in my opinion. To me both suggestions seem like BG2 TweakPack material.

I think so, also. And even if one bad suggestion passed somehow, it is not a cause for others to pass.

[Salk]

To fix something is to mend what is broken. The BG2 Fixpack is an excellent mod for fixing and everything that is indeed broken should be restored to its full effect (unless it is clearly opposing what seems it was the developers' intention).

 

But the OBC should be more flexible. Components like the above mentioned ones are perfectly fine because are presented as optional add-ons. Their place is not the BG2 Tweak Pack simply because their extrema ratio is different from what at least I intend as tweak material.

 

They can't be considered fixes tout court but have valid reasons to exist because they make the game more consistent or restore some P&P variables (ex. Giants Receive Penalties When Attacking Halflings, Dwarves, and Gnomes).

 

To dictate the presence of what is a pure fix (whose definition is somehow a matter of semantics more than a widespread concept) into the Core fixes is reasonable. To require that other important modifications like the ones above should just be swept away would call to fanatism.

 

The OBC components have a valid reason to stay and even a more valid reason to be expanded when people like Miloch suggest that it would be proper to take care of inconsistencies like the presence of several supposedly unique items. It is enough that you go around looking for some WeiDu logs of people installing the BG2 Fixpack and check how many of them install at least 50% of the OBC components to understand their appreciation.

[Chev]

I think things are going to far with this fix pack. Boots of Speed, how are they broken?? If they are then they need to be fixed, but to change the description or make them unique because it says so in the description is way too much (imo). The same hold true with other items. If the items powers don't fit the description (and the description seems right) then fix the item. I am all for adding tweaks that make them more like P&P 2nd Ed D&D in the tweak pack.

 

They can't be considered fixes tout court but have valid reasons to exist because they make the game more consistent or restore some P&P variables (ex. Giants Receive Penalties When Attacking Halflings, Dwarves, and Gnomes).

Does it say this any where in BG1, TotSC, BG2:SoA, or ToB games or manuals? If not then this is not a fix, but a (really good) tweak. Fixing Bard song to fit the description is a (really good) fix. I think adding Bard song choices like IWD has would be a really cool tweak.

[Salk]

Chev,

 

and where did I write that the Boots of Speed are broken?

 

I am speaking of Optional but Cool Components. Changing the description of the Boots of Speed to reflect that they are not unique in the game is the least that can be done. And this should apply to all those items whose description and representation in game do not match. This is called consistency. Feel free to call it "tweaks" but if you guys want to be so anal I wonder why you even bothered to create the OBC Components. Check through them and you will see that none is a "real fix". And it is okay that they are not. Because otherwise they would fall into the Core fixes category.

[CamDawg]

Wow, some really good points I hadn't considered, especially regarding OBC and what defines it. I can certainly see the concern over adding non-fixes to OBC components but if we're going to have something to undo fixes, I think it's better kept in the same place. The last thing we need is players to feel the Fixpack is a) forcing a second mod upon them or b) associated with Tweaks. We can adjust the documentation on the OBCs to clearly indicate where the component is a speculative fix (i.e. Remove Second Attribute Bonus for Evil Path in Wrath Hell Trial) or where we're going against everything that's good and holy (i.e. Party Gets XP for Sending Keldorn to Reconcile With Maria).

 

Does it say this any where in BG1, TotSC, BG2:SoA, or ToB games or manuals? If not then this is not a fix, but a (really good) tweak. Fixing Bard song to fit the description is a (really good) fix. I think adding Bard song choices like IWD has would be a really cool tweak.

This is really closer to UB. All of the files to make this happen were in the game but they simply weren't connected.