Jump to content
Meira

ToB news

Recommended Posts

Exactly, there were some precautions and criteria mod NPCs needed to fulfill to prevent the romance to trigger for an NPC, so it's basically for a second PC-like created NPC for e.g. two players in a Multiplayer game.

Share this post


Link to post
On 11/11/2018 at 1:08 PM, jastey said:

Exactly, there were some precautions and criteria mod NPCs needed to fulfill to prevent the romance to trigger for an NPC, so it's basically for a second PC-like created NPC for e.g. two players in a Multiplayer game.

Technically, a second PC in a multiplayer game, which is specifically not an NPC. :) The intention was to keep it from triggering for any NPC (original or mod), but since this required some quite tricky scripting due to the limitations of the original Infinity engine, it may not be completely foolproof in the case of mod NPCs if they don't follow some of the technical conventions of the original NPCs.

Just to clear the issue and avoid any misunderstanding: no, Roxanne most definitely does not have our permission to host, much less alter or expand the mod (in fact the readme of the mod explicitly prohibits this, as Cam pointed out), and what little I have seen of the added content, it most definitely does *not* represent Meira's or my original vision of Amber or our original style. We are currently working on getting the unsanctioned versions taken down, since there is no justification for them, considering that the version hosted by G3 (with our permission and cooperation) should be compatible with the new versions of BG2.

Share this post


Link to post
On 10/28/2018 at 1:17 PM, miker17 said:

True, but you can always ask her/him. But then again she/he only did the TOB addon for Amber so I don't see any problem with that since this mod is dead for 8 years. And if it is on BWinstaller I think she/he has permission.

First of all, why would you ask *her*? Wouldn't it be more appropriate to ask the original authors (whose contact information – still valid – is found e.g. in the mod readme). Second, the mod is not "dead", but has been maintained here for all that time, complete with technical compatibility updates by the G3 staff. Third, she did not just create an "addon", but rather an altered version of the original mod, both removing content and adding stuff of her own that really does not represent Amber the way she was originally written. And fourth, she most certainly does not have – and has never even asked for – permission to do any of it.

Share this post


Link to post

For now I've been mapping out what we do have written for ToB. I've also tied up and finished writing bits here and there.

This is what we have (very slight spoilers):

12 talks for the P1/P2 romance and friendship tracks. Talks each have their own flavors and variations, depending on which of the three paths they are for. Two of them are partly unfinished and with one I'm not happy with at all; I might have to replace that entirely. 

All dialogues for 2 (very small) quests have been written; one is an encounter based and the other is very, very small thing for romance only. The reward is a special click-talk dialogue option. 

In the click talk menu you will have: 
1. The option to ask her tell (even) more about herself; there will be 5 new topics of which 4 are mostly written. (P1/P2 romance and  friendship)
2. Flirt with her. 7 new options for everyone, of which 5 have been written. In addition there are 9 options of which 1-3 are available depending on your character's class. 7 are written, 1 is half done and 1 is still missing.  (P1/P2 romances)
3. Ask to resolve something that happened. This option will come up 3-4 times when something dramatic has happened. 2 of these are written, 1 is a complete mess and the 4th idea I only just came up with. (P1/P2 romance and  friendship)

Banters: Imoen (2 + 2 with special conditions), Haer'Dalis (7 😳), Aerie (1 + 1 with special conditions), Viconia (2), Cernd (1), Krogan (1), Keldorn (1), Nalia (1), Edwin (1), Jan (1), Sarevok (1 + 1 with special conditions),  Mazzy (1), Jaheira (1). Valygar and Anomen have nothing.  Bonus round: Cespenar (4) while you're in the Pocket Plane. 

Interjections: Fate Spirit and Master Wraith have bee written, but besides them I only have scraps. I'm planning to leave designing interjections for the alpha / beta testing. I have forgotten too much of the game to figure out good places for her to speak up. Tips on the subject are appreciated!

Epilogues: a total of 10, all written, no worries here. 3 for P1 romance,  3 for P2 romance, 3 for friendship and 1 general, if none of the other conditions are met.

As you can see compared to Amber's SoA content ToB will be a much more modest. But ToB isn't that big of a game either and it's rather linear too. 

Next step for me is to finish the bits that have not been written and for Darios to edit and proofread (round 1) what I have written. This might take while longer.    

         

Share this post


Link to post

For as small a game as ToB is 12 sound like more than enough to round it out.

Looking forward to her hearing her interactions with Sarevok, Cespenar and Imoen.  7 with Haer'Dalis 😲 !  Whoah, were there that many more with the other tiefling in SoA?  I don't remember that much interaction between the two of 'em, but it's been half a decade since I played Amber and I don't know if I ever brought the two of them along on the same journey.  Sounds like something I need to rectify in my next playthrough.

As for tossing out interjection suggestions... In Watcher's Keep there's the gambling cambion and extended mentions blood war mention in level 3 of W. Keep.  Also, I think a number of npc's speak up about the "Imprisoned One" or the choice one has to make in his regards to that last level. 

I can't think of too much interesting in Saradush.  There's an interesting part in the prison where the vampire big bad waxes poetic about how she stands no chance against you, a comment there about how powerful Amber and the Bhaalspawn have become at that point (or perhaps not so potent, given a planar perspective) could be interesting.  The relationship between the witch and the Yaga Shura is one of the more interesting set up's in the game; maybe an opportunity for her comment.

Then in the second half, well in Amkethran there's the lich with the Soul Stone and the smugglers (another opportunity for a parting shot at Saemon is often at the top of people's lists).  In  Sendai's lair, I've always thought it weird that the party can go 1,000 corpses deep in duergar gladiators without batting an eye.  I know our favorite Bhaalspawn and company have more than exceeded the kill count of most any figure in Realms history, but it's a passing curiousity that no one complains about being forced to mow down slave warriors.  In Abzigal's abode, meh, I dunno; that one's so campy I just try to get in and get.  And Balthazar?  I dunno, I don't think people play the vanilla ending much at all anymore with the option for Ascension on the table.

Oh, lastly (thankfully, this post has dragged on enough) there's the personal trials that the Bhaalspawn goes through.  While I don't think anyone would want or expect an interjection for each one, a chance to confinde in Amber after an especially jarring one (where the PC is monologued at by his/her mother seems an interesting choice) seems both in character and fertile ground for popping in a comment.  Of course an interjection here might not translate so well for P2 romances.  Okay, done bending your ear regarding interjections.

10 epilogues?  Eeeee! 😁

Share this post


Link to post

Thanks for interjection tips! :) 

The thieflings should be pretty chatty in SoA too, but I really can't remember if some of those banters have specific conditions or not.

Share this post


Link to post

Almost done with a mostly-complete list of mod-added NPC’s DVs for Darious’ update on the Player2 screening for multiplayer flirts; we need to ask someone how many !Name() calls can be run in a script block or if he needs to play about using some kind of stacking/splitting of blocks. This sounds like a good @DavidW or @CamDawg question, but posting it here in case another Script Guru sees it first!

Share this post


Link to post

I’m not aware of a constraint. Though I do wonder if there’s some more systematic way to do it.

The idea is to make sure Player2 is really a player-created creature, if I’ve understood correctly. Could you just apply some effect to the Player2 character right at the start of SoA, in the Chateau Irenicus area script, before any NPC has a chance to join up? A SPLSTATE if you’re on EE, an extended stat if you’re on ToBEx, or you could even use the SPECIFICS field, which doesn’t play any particular role for joinables. Then that block Cam defines in amber.tp2 could just check for that effect.

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, DavidW said:

I’m not aware of a constraint. Though I do wonder if there’s some more systematic way to do it.

The idea is to make sure Player2 is really a player-created creature, if I’ve understood correctly. Could you just apply some effect to the Player2 character right at the start of SoA, in the Chateau Irenicus area script, before any NPC has a chance to join up? A SPLSTATE if you’re on EE, an extended stat if you’re on ToBEx, or you could even use the SPECIFICS field, which doesn’t play any particular role for joinables. Then that block Cam defines in amber.tp2 could just check for that effect.

Now that I think about it, applying something to charbase might be the easier route, as then it becomes an affirmative check and future-proofs it. I'm not sure an SoA script check would necessarily work, given that both BGT and EET allow NPCs to pass through, so to speak. If there was some way to poll the dialogue file assignment or bio field directly in the game, we'd be golden.

IIRC dplayer3 gets assigned to MP player-created characters and dplayer2 to joinables (e.g. Imoen and the like), but then you'll need party AI to be on for at least a script round.

edit: dplayer3 also gets assigned to the PC, but that could be filtered with a !Player1 check.

Edited by CamDawg

Share this post


Link to post

I think that is an awesome idea - a non-dispellable effect on Player2 means really cutting out a ton of !Name checks. Couldn't a Baldur.bcs block just detect a multiplayer game, and apply the resource immediately to the .cre in slot2?

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, cmorgan said:

I think that is an awesome idea - a non-dispellable effect on Player2 means really cutting out a ton of !Name checks. Couldn't a Baldur.bcs block just detect a multiplayer game, and apply the resource immediately to the .cre in slot2?

BGEE and BG2EE have 'create party' options for single-player games, so detecting MP mode still wouldn't cover all bases.

Share this post


Link to post

Curses. Foiled by good expanded code - who'd a thunk it possible :D

Share this post


Link to post

I can confirm that SPECIFICS can be placed on charbase.cre and is passed to a created character.

Unless I'm missing some problem with using the SPECIFICS field this way, you can do this by the following. (The 'print' command was just to check it did as it was told.)

	OUTER_SET specifics_value=93
	COPY_EXISTING charbase.cre override
     WRITE_BYTE 0x274 specifics_value
BUT_ONLY
COPY_EXISTING_REGEXP GLOB ".*\.chr" override
     WRITE_BYTE (0x274 + LONG_AT 0x28) specifics_value
BUT_ONLY
ACTION_BASH_FOR "%USER_DIRECTORY%/characters" ".*\.chr" BEGIN
   COPY "%BASH_FOR_FILESPEC%" "%BASH_FOR_FILESPEC%"
     WRITE_BYTE (0x274 + LONG_AT 0x28) specifics_value
   BUT_ONLY
END
	OUTER_SPRINT cd_say_no_to_the_dress
~
CheckStat(Player2,0,MORALEBREAK)
!HasItemEquiped("belt05",Player2)
Specifics(Player2,%specifics_value%)
~
	OUTER_SPRINT cd_say_yes_to_the_dress
~
OR(6)
  !Specifics(Player2,%specifics_value%)
  CheckStatLT(Player2,12,CHR)
  CheckStatLT(Player2,12,INT)
  Gender(Player2,FEMALE)
  !CheckStat(Player2,0,MORALEBREAK)  
  HasItemEquiped("belt05",Player2)
~
	
PRINT "%cd_say_no_to_the_dress%"
	

Share this post


Link to post

if I understand correctly you're trying to filter script block to work on Player2 and only if the character is not NPC. If this is the case you can use following code since PC characters don't use DVs:

IF
    Name("None",Player2)
THEN
    RESPONSE #100
        //do something 
END

 

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×