Jump to content
Wisp

Things I think should be considered for Fixpack 10

Recommended Posts

They copied him from some creature, or gave it on purpose? And what is more probable, that they gave him short swords and dual-wielding profs but just copied the other profs from some other creature, or that they gave him the other profs and copied the short swords and dual-wielding profs?
The old-style proficiencies would have been inherited from whichever CRE was cloned when they created him. They equipped him with short swords, and gave him a new proficiency effect (the BG2 proficiencies are handled entirely differently than the old-style fields) so that he wouldn't be totally helpless.

 

The inventory and proficiency effect wouldn't have been cloned (no other creature would have that inventory, and no creature would have new-style proficiencies).

 

So my assumption is that the proficiency assignment is leftover junk (they would all be 0, except the toolset didn't work that way). Nobody thought about what stars he should have (either the template had a correct generic setup, or they simply set all the old-style proficiencies to 2 or 5 in the case they thought about it at all), and there's no reason for us to put any stars in short sword (because those stars in missile and spear don't mean anything, except that he was cloned from a "boss" fighter or druid or ranger or similar from the BG/TotSC resources).

 

Correcting his proficiency assignment (should he even have that number of pips) is an issue of balance, not of bug fixing, and there are mods far more suited to balance adjustments. For sure, I support buffing the snot out of Hendak. But it's not something appropriate for us to do.

Edited by devSin

Share this post


Link to post
We don't change things to have them make more sense.

 

I disagree. There are numerous examples in the Fixpack where things are changed to make more sense, like the "Creature Alignment Corrections (some into Core changes, others into a relevant OBC component), the consistency fixes (ex. "Consistent Raise Dead Prices At Temples", "Commoner In Amketheran Runs Away At Normal Speed" and "Player Not Receiving XP For Miscellaneous Watcher's Keep Quest"), and many attempts to eliminate exploits (ex. "Hell Trial Exploits")

 

 

 

I'm not convinced that there's enough material for another OBC component.

 

Maybe not. But there is already an OBC component which is purely PnP inspired: "Giants Receive Penalties When Attacking Halflings, Dwarves and Gnomes". It would be enough to change it into a more comprehensive component that'd make many users happy offering 1) PnP additions/corrections and miscellaneous sensible changes and 2) Only PnP additions/corrections.

 

Such a component would belong to the Fixpack as much as the current "Giants Receive Penalties When Attacking Halflings, Dwarves and Gnomes" does today.

Edited by Salk

Share this post


Link to post

I have nothing to add about proficiencies, components, PnP interpretations, etc, etc. I do have this observation, and maybe this is the time to state it:

 

This is the perfect time and the perfect collection of personalities (and maybe even the perfect, ahem, forum) to re-evaluate the offerings of G3 BG2 Fixpack.

 

To the casual reader, the discussions and debates may seem nitpicking. But consider some of the actors in our play:

 

devSin --the godfather of the fixpack, like our resident software architect, he was there at the beginning (even before), guiding and advising the mod's development. When he talks, everyone listens.

 

aVENGER --has been developing quality mods since the rest of us were in diapers (BG-wise, that is). He knows mod development before and after the fixpack, his coding kung fu is better than your kung fu. No, really.

 

Hurricane, Wisp, and literally a whole host of others --I'm not sure if they've created even one mod, but they have proven they got the chops to create, analyze, explain, and defend their coding contribs. Watch these tigers for the future.

 

Salk and others like me --we're middle guys, we have enough expertise to mod-the-mods (code) but we're not developers; plus, as long-time players, here before/during/after the megainstall method (we helped create it), we're still close to the players' experience to keep the discussions close to what players want (not just technical from you big-brain coders).

 

 

So debate and nitpick and grouse all you like--it's time: the Fixpack needs a good review every few years, with new eyes and new perspective.

 

Just remember, we're all doing this for Fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Salk and others like me --we're middle guys, we have enough expertise to mod-the-mods (code) but we're not developers;

 

Too generous a comment about my person (I agree about all the others mentioned). I know nothing about coding.

 

My expertise is barely sufficient to make me understand how to open a .tp2 file with notepad. I can only try and bring some suggestions and opinions about Baldur's Gate's modding, hoping to contribute some ideas from time to time.

Edited by Salk

Share this post


Link to post
I disagree. There are numerous examples in the Fixpack where things are changed to make more sense, like the "Creature Alignment Corrections (some into Core changes, others into a relevant OBC component),
The alignment fixes have given us no end of grief. They are not a model of how things should be done. It required an entire fullscale review to finally get things into a state where there weren't so many arbitrary and unwarranted changes, compared to the earliest versions.

 

the consistency fixes (ex. "Consistent Raise Dead Prices At Temples", "Commoner In Amketheran Runs Away At Normal Speed" and "Player Not Receiving XP For Miscellaneous Watcher's Keep Quest"),
I'm pretty sure these are actual bugs. "Give Hendak Proficiency in Short Swords" is not.

 

and many attempts to eliminate exploits (ex. "Hell Trial Exploits")
Exploits are bugs.

 

Such a component would belong to the Fixpack as much as the current "Giants Receive Penalties When Attacking Halflings, Dwarves and Gnomes" does today.
Actually, if you ask me today, I would suggest that that component be removed and that it clearly does not belong (and I say this as the person who originally mentioned and got Cam to include it).

 

It is, however, different, as we didn't change anything based on pnp (I doubt it's even fully compliant with the rules). A couple resources existed, were used or misused in one place, and it seemed fun to hook them up to the rest of the giants. The only reason, though, is because somebody at BioWare already made the EFFs for that one lonely item.

Edited by devSin

Share this post


Link to post

There are numerous examples in the Fixpack where things are changed to make more sense, like the "Creature Alignment Corrections (some into Core changes, others into a relevant OBC component), the consistency fixes (ex. "Consistent Raise Dead Prices At Temples", "Commoner In Amketheran Runs Away At Normal Speed" and "Player Not Receiving XP For Miscellaneous Watcher's Keep Quest"), and many attempts to eliminate exploits (ex. "Hell Trial Exploits")

 

Remembering some of my past discussions with Cam, I have to agree with devSin on this.

 

It's best to keep the number of controversial fixes at a minimum. We should stick to fixing the stuff that's unquestionably broken and not reinvent the wheel within the fixpack. Anyway, we could always include some of the discarded material in a different mod.

Edited by aVENGER_(RR)

Share this post


Link to post

Well, in that case the only solution I see is the creation of a child mod that includes all the controversial fixes already present in the Fixpack, the new ones being mentioned here and there and a correct implementation of PnP rules where some believe the developers screwed things up (ex. skillrac.2da).

 

A small team could handle this. I am no modder but I could do some research/testing, aVenger could tell us what current BG2 Fixpack material should be directed to a "BG2 PnP additions/corrections and Sensible Changes" modification and perhaps Hurricane could take care of the WeiDu coding?

Share this post


Link to post

Just one question: does the upcoming version need an update of the translations?

 

For the moment, no new strings have been introduced into the current build (except for GTU Light, but that isn't being translated).

 

If that changes in the future, the translators will be notified.

Share this post


Link to post

Minor typo in setup.tra:

 

@139 = ~The flail is a sturdy wooden handle attached to an iron rod, a wooden rod with spikes, or a spiked iron ball. Between the handle and its implement is either a hinge or chain link. This particular flail has been magically enhanced.

 

STATISTICS:

THACO: +2 bonus

 

THACO -> THAC0

Share this post


Link to post

Minor typo in setup.tra:

 

@139 = ~The flail is a sturdy wooden handle attached to an iron rod, a wooden rod with spikes, or a spiked iron ball. Between the handle and its implement is either a hinge or chain link. This particular flail has been magically enhanced.

 

STATISTICS:

THACO: +2 bonus

 

THACO -> THAC0

 

I do not know if THACO strictly qualifies as a typo. It is one of the things the GTUL changes, but the vanilla text is rife with that spelling. Changing one instance in setup.tra will hardly be noticeable.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm not sure where typos in setup.tra are visible.. but surely all instances of THACO that shows up in game should be changed to THAC0?

Share this post


Link to post

I'm not sure where typos in setup.tra are visible.. but surely all instances of THACO that shows up in game should be changed to THAC0?

 

They definitely should in my book.

Share this post


Link to post

Two very small details. First, Hendak is not proficient with Short Swords (that he's dual wielding) which makes the outcome of his fight with Lehtinan sketchy at times. On the other hand, he has 4 stars in BG1 Missile Weapons (slings and such) which he doesn't carry. Proposed change:

 

// Hendak should be proficient with Short Swords (which he's dual wielding) instead of missile weapons (which he doesn't carry)

COPY_EXISTING ~hendak.cre~   ~override~ // Hendak
 WRITE_BYTE 0x6f 4 // BG1 Proficiency slot (small sword)
 WRITE_BYTE 0x75 0 // BG1 Proficiency slot (missile)
BUT_ONLY_IF_IT_CHANGES

While you're at fixing Hendak, you might consider to fix Lehtinan's HP too. He's 4HD human fighter with 15 con, but have only 6 hit points in vanilla, probably to ensure the outcome of the argument with Hendak, but it's just rediculous. I think he should be able to win the fight. He also have some dialogue lines juggesting he's the winner. So I suggest we give him hp according to his stats, I think it's perfectly legit.

 

And thank you for your efforts!

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
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.


×
×
  • Create New...