Jump to content

Minutiae

Wisp

By Wisp
in BG2 Fixpack - General Discussion

Recommended Posts

Wisp

Wisp

Posted
Posted

This should be a reasonably complete and accurate list of items where the stated weight, speed factor, base damage or strength requirement of an item does not conform to the actual value in the item file. I have not included items already fixed by Fixpack, unless I thought there was something to be remarked upon. (Fixpack's changes here are typically consistent with the rest of the game.)

 

The data:

Damage:

Item									  Item Value Description Value
BRUENAXE (Battle Axe +3)				  3D8 + 3	1D8 + 3
SW1H40   (Blade of Roses +3)			  1D8 + 3	2D4 + 3

 

Speed factor:

Item									  Item Value Description Value
AX1H07   (Bala's Axe)					 5		  7  
BLUN14D  (Flail of Ages)				  5		  7
BLUN14E  (Flail of Ages)				  5		  7
BLUN14F  (Flail of Ages)				  5		  7
BLUN35   (Ice Star +4)					3		  4
BOW11	(Strong Arm +2)				  5		  4
BOW25	(Long Bow +3)					3		  5				 1
HALB04   (Dragon's Bane +3)			   6		  9
MISC4U   (Embarl's Dagger)				0		  1				 2
MISC5T   (Shaman's Staff)				 4		  1
NPSTAF   (Staff of the High Forest)	   2		  1
NPSW05   (Entropy)						1		  0
NPSW06   (Chaos Blade)					1		  0
SPER03   (Spear +3, Backbiter)			3		  6
SPER11   (Ixil's Nail +4)				 2		  6
SPER12   (Ixil's Spike +6)				1		  2				 3
STAF10   (Staff of Curing)				3		  4
STAF11   (Staff of the Magi)			  1		  4				 4
STAF13   (Staff of Thunder and Lightning) 1		  4				 2  
STAF15   (Staff of Air +2)				2		  1
STAF16   (Staff of Earth +2)			  2		  1
STAF17   (Staff of Fire +2)			   2		  1
STAF18   (Quarter Staff +2)			   2		  1
STAF23   (Serpent Shaft)				  2		  1
SW1H52   (Scimitar +3)					2		  4
SW1H60   (Angurvadal +4)				  1		  0
SW1H69   (Spectral Brand +5)			  0		  1
SW2H03   (Cursed Berserking Sword +3)	 7		  10
SW2H15   (Silver Sword)				   7		  10
TELSWD   (Long Sword +3)				  2		  3
WA2HALB  (Harmonium Halberd)			  6		  9

1. Fixpack alters speed to 4 but does not alter the description.
2. Fixpack alters speed to 2 but does not alter the description.
3. Fixpack alters speed to 0 but does not alter the description. Also, 0 is not consistent with other highly enchanted weapons.
4. Fixpack alters speed to 2 but does not alter the description. Also, 2 is pretty arbitrary; 4 (per the description), 1 (if the weapon is considered +5) or 3 (if +1) could be justifiable.

 

Strength requirement:

Item									  Item Value Description Value
AX1H07   (Bala's Axe)					 10		 4
SW1H35   (Adjatha The Drinker +2)		 5		  6

 

Weight:

Item									  Item Value Description Value
BAG06	(Potion Case)					2		  5
BAG06B   (Potion Case)					2		  5
BAG06C   (Potion Case)					2		  5
BAG06D   (Potion Case)					2		  5
BLUN03   (Flail +1)					   13		 12
BLUN35   (Ice Star +4)					7		  8
BOW11	(Strong Arm +2)				  8		  7
CLCK13   (Traveller's Robe)			   3		  4
DAGG05   (Throwing Dagger)				0		  1
DWCHAN02 (Drow Adamantine Chain +5)	   10		 12
DWSHLD01 (Drow Shield +3)				 6		  7
HLOLTH   (Handmaiden's Mace)			  7		  8
KUOBOLT  (Kuo-Toa Bolts)				  0		  1
MISC5T   (Shaman's Staff)				 4		  3
SHLD23   (Fortress Shield +3)			 10		 3
SHLD27   (Saving Grace +3)				4		  5
STAF08   (Martial Staff +3)			   3		  4
STAF10   (Staff of Curing)				3		  4
STAF11   (Staff of the Magi)			  3		  4
STAF13   (Staff of Thunder and Lightning) 3		  4
STAF20   (Staff of Rynn +4)			   2		  3
SW1H15   (Scimitar +3, Frostbrand)		3		  4
SW1H16   (Scimitar +5, Defender)		  3		  4
SW1H23   (Scimitar +2, Rashad's Talon)	3		  4
SW1H32   (Dragonslayer)				   2		  3
SW2H03   (Cursed Berserking Sword +3)	 5		  15
SW2H12   (Flame Of The North)			 9		  10
SW2H15   (Silver Sword)				   10		 15
WA2SHIEL (Shield of Balduran)			 4		  5

 

 

The conclusions:

Damage:

I would recommend both items have their description altered. Bruenor's axe probably wasn't a mistake and longswords do 1D8 damage by convention.

 

 

Speed:

The general trend exhibited by most weapons is s = b - e, where s is the weapon's speed factor, b is the speed of the corresponding, unenchanted weapon and e is the weapon's enchantment level. The reasonably consistent* exception is for highly enchanted weapons, which mostly have a speed of 1, even though s = b - e would have given them speed 0.

 

*At least if you squint, tilt your head and want it to be consistent.

 

As such, I would recommend the following weapons have their speed altered to match the description:

AX1H07   => 7  //Unenchanted melee axes have speed 7
SPER03   => 6  //It is a cursed weapon, after all
SW1H69   => 1  //Description says 1, but altering the description wouldn't be out of place either
SW2H03   => 10 //Cursed

 

And along list of items which would need to have their descriptions altered to be consistent:

BLUN14D  => 5
BLUN14E  => 5
BLUN14F  => 5
BLUN35   => 3 
BOW11	=> 5
HALB04   => 6
MISC5T   => 4
NPSTAF   => 2
NPSW05   => 1
NPSW06   => 1
SPER11   => 2
STAF10   => 3
STAF15   => 2
STAF16   => 2
STAF17   => 2
STAF18   => 2
STAF23   => 2
SW1H52   => 2
SW1H60   => 1
SW2H15   => 7
TELSWD   => 2
WA2HALB  => 6

 

BOW25, MISC4U and STAF13 should (obviously) have their descriptions altered along with the item values. I would recommend SPER12 has it's speed and description altered to 1, as it's relatively uncommon for a non-shortsword, non-dagger to have speed 0 (and unheard-of for a two-handed weapon). I would recommend STAF11 has its speed and description altered to 3, to be consistent with its apparent +1 enchantment level.

 

 

Strength:

Other axes require 10 strength and other longswords require 6 strength, so I'd recommend altering the description for AX1H07 and the item for SW1H35.

 

 

Weight:

An occasional trend among enchanted weapons is that the item weight is determined by w = b - e - 1, where w is the item's weight, b is the weight of the corresponding, unenchanted item and e is the item's enchantment level. Sometimes, e.g., for bows, the trend is w = b - e.

 

Items where I'd recommend the item is altered to match the description:

CLCK13   => 4  //Minor robes weigh 3, medium robes (Adventurer's and Knave's) weigh 4 and major robes weigh 6
DAGG05   => 1  //All other thrown goods weigh at least 1
DWCHAN02 => 12 //There are no trends among armour
DWSHLD01 => 7  //Medium shields have a fairly consistent trend of w = b - e, but neither the item or description is a match
SHLD23   => 3  //Light Large Shields are not that uncommon
STAF08   => 4  //Staff weights are all over the place.
STAF10   => 4
STAF11   => 4
STAF13   => 4
STAF20   => 3
SW1H15   => 4  //No reasonable trends among scimitars either
SW1H16   => 4
SW1H23   => 4
SW1H32   => 3  //Same for longswords
SW2H03   => 15 //And for two-handed swords
SW2H12   => 10
SW2H15   => 15

 

Cases where the description would need to be altered to be consistent:

BAG06	=> 2  //Bags of Holding weigh 5. All other bags weigh 2.
BAG06B   => 2
BAG06C   => 2
BAG06D   => 2
BLUN03   => 13 //Consistent with weight trend
BLUN35   => 7  //Consistent with weight trend
BOW11	=> 8  //Consistent with weight trend for other bows
HLOLTH   => 7  //Consistent with weight trend
KUOBOLT  => 0  //No other ammunition weigh anything
MISC5T   => 4  //Fixpack also alters speed to be consistent with that of an unenchanted staff
SHLD27   => 4  //Consistent with weight trend among medium shields
WA2SHIEL => 4

 

Challenge away. I can whip up some code after the heated debate which will, no doubt, ensue.

Link to comment
cmorgan

cmorgan

Posted
Posted

heh.

 

Wisp, those changes look well-reasoned, and the weight materials are very useful since Acesnsion64's encumbrance enabling/regiggering in ToBEX- my only question concerns description string alteration, and is what happens "downstream" of Fixpack. As far as I can see, no one is doing any REPLACE_TEXTUALLY work that would be messed with, but it might be worth a recheck.

 

(And I would love to suggest that we recode to banish ALLOW_MISSING. Yes, I am volunteering to assist, as long as a serious Code Guru rechecks my work.)

Link to comment
cmorgan

cmorgan

Posted
Posted

Nope - it works as advertised. The problem is not with ALLOW_MISSING itself, or even with its use in the Fixpack. It is with modders who may not understand/do not code with understanding/are not careful. If we use ACTION_FOR_EACH x IN y or GAME_IS or A_I F_E_I_G, or any of the other checks and combinations that make ALLOW_MISSING a moot point, then we won't add 0 byte files that may mess with less carefully crafted mods when they pick them up and confuse platform, or when they try to edit them, etc.

 

I know in the age of BWP and community fixes, most if not all of these kinds of bugs are worked out, but it would be great to avoid the potential problem. Plus, it shows off the best way of adding things/checking for things in other mods.

Link to comment
CamDawg

CamDawg

Posted
Posted

WeiDU doesn't leave 0-byte files lying around with ALLOW_MISSING, it just temporarily introduces them while the install is running to prevent COPY_EXISTING from choking. Way back in the Weimer days, maybe, but not for a loooooong time.

 

Not to say I disagree with modernizing the code--I prefer ACTION_FOR_EACH simply because it makes code marginally more maintainable.

Link to comment
DavidW

DavidW

Posted
Posted
Darned good to know. Too much reading old posts, not enough practice on my part, I guess :)

 

So one "I agree with Wisp" general statement of support registered, two "modernize where we can as we go" statements registered?

 

One vote against modernising. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Link to comment
DavidW

DavidW

Posted
Posted
One vote against modernising. If it ain't broke and doesn't improve the overall quality/maintenance/etc., don't fix it.
Fixed.

 

The bold part, I believe, is not the case here.

 

It's a contingent matter, and I'm not familiar enough with Fixpack's coding to make the relevant call in this case. It's more a general point: bits of code that work perfectly well and determine stable bits of contact shouldn't be modernised just because, in hindsight, they could have been done more smoothly and elegantly. If there is some visible-in-game advantage to a change, and/or the relevant bit of code is still being modified all the time anyway, then that's different. But my suspicion is that going through chunks of five-year-old code in Fixpack and recoding it is an absolute recipe for introducing embarrassing bugs.

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...