Jump to content

Version 16 released


DavidW

Recommended Posts

:)

 

ty.

 

 

Beholder fight screen: notice how I keep getting spell failure even after the 6 secs of magic immunity, and how a spell deflection is absorbing a huge amount of rays ( I might try the burn through component )

 

baldr001.jpg

 

Edit: in a previous fight, I manage to go invisible after the first antimagic ray, but the beholder ( standard, not hive mom ) kept targetting me with its standard rays for some rounds till my death.

 

re-Edit: This happens every fight now (testing with burn through atm ); even if i go invisible the lame orb keeps firing spells at me.

Link to comment
Beholder fight screen: notice how I keep getting spell failure even after the 6 secs of magic immunity, and how a spell deflection is absorbing a huge amount of rays ( I might try the burn through component )

Hmm. The spell deflection is a vanilla problem (that's the motivation for the burn through component). The 6 secs thing I don't seem able to reproduce locally. (I can't read your screenshot, I'm afraid, it's too low resolution.)

 

Edit: in a previous fight, I manage to go invisible after the first antimagic ray, but the beholder ( standard, not hive mom ) kept targetting me with its standard rays for some rounds till my death.

This I can confirm. Sorry, this is turning into a depressingly buggy release. Will fix.

Link to comment

I overwrote the standard antimagic rays reducing the spell failure from 20/30 to 6 and then reinstalled the pnp option, now in game I get the right duration for the spell failure icon. It looks like the beholders were still firing standard antimagic rays ( usually first ray was pnp one, followed by vanilla ones ).

Link to comment
I overwrote the standard antimagic rays reducing the spell failure from 20/30 to 6 and then reinstalled the pnp option, now in game I get the right duration for the spell failure icon. It looks like the beholders were still firing standard antimagic rays ( usually first ray was pnp one, followed by vanilla ones ).

 

When you say "it looks like", what do you mean? I don't see how that could be possible. (Which doesn't mean you're wrong - it's often hard to guess what weird effect you're failing to allow for.)

Link to comment
Guest Guest_Loz_*
I have the same problem as Mad Mate (parse errors when installing smarter priests). Can anyone confirm that it's okay to play through this? I'm eager to start a new game, but I want to make sure it's not going to crash. Thanks.

 

I can confirm it's harmless. (Priests won't cast Elemental Summoning, but this won't make much difference.)

 

 

I've also been having some stability issues with the new version. It has crashed lots of times, sometimes giving errors sometimes not. Could this have anything to do with Tobex and could the fact that I didn't do a full reinstall of BG2 since the last version be the cause?

 

I'm not sure. I don't see any obvious reason why a full reinstall would be needed; equally, if you've got a complicated install it's possible something could have been messed up. If you want to check if it's ToBEx, edit scsii/scsii.ini in a text editor, and add the line

 

Disable_ToBEx 1

 

Then reinstall SCSII.

 

Ok I tried that and it does seem to have improved stability, but there are still crashes. For example any hit from crom faeyr will crash the game. I only have fixpack, scsii, ascension and tweaks on my install right now. Still I guess something may be messed up so I will try a full reinstall and see what happens. Would be helpful if someone else could check the crom faeyr thing on their install.

 

Update: I uninstalled scsii(didn't reinstall BG2) and things seem to be back to normal. Unfortunately I can't really help as to what is causing these crashes especially since as far as I know scs doesn't modify e.g. crom faeyr. Other things it was crashing on before i disabled TobEx(scsii still installed) were balthazars lunar stance and sarevok attacking with the ravager(error message - programmer says: weird death type).

Link to comment
the spell shield should protect against one cast of the new pnp antimagic rays as well, DW#BEHAN.SPL and DW#HIVAN.SPL.
Nope. Those are exact copies of spin550/spin992, and it's the innards that are protected from, not the outer shell.

 

Modify script state effect does last 288 ( 48 rounds? ), same as the end lighting effect, while the pro-spells are changed to 150 and the description says 3rounds/lvl.
Duration is incorrect just about everywhere, true.

 

I can't seem to edit an older post? :) Added old visuals

DEFINE_ACTION_MACRO ~ardanis_spell_shield~ BEGIN

// adding new sectype

ADD_SECTYPE SpellShield  @14200

COPY_EXISTING ~spwi519.spl~ ~override~
 WRITE_BYTE 0x27 SpellShield
 CLEAR_ARRAY ab_array GET_OFFSET_ARRAY ab_array 0x64 4 0x68 2 0 0 0x28
 PHP_EACH ab_array AS int => ab_off BEGIN
CLEAR_ARRAY eff_array GET_OFFSET_ARRAY2 eff_array ab_off ITM_V10_HEAD_EFFECTS
PHP_EACH eff_array AS int2 => eff_off BEGIN
  PATCH_IF SHORT_AT eff_off = 226 BEGIN
	SET $spellshieldheader("%int%")=LONG_AT(eff_off+0xe)
  END
END
 END
 LPF DELETE_SPELL_EFFECT INT_VAR opcode_to_delete = 226 END


// patching antimagic

ACTION_FOR_EACH spell IN
 ~spwi321~ // spell thrust
 ~spwi419~ // secret word
 ~spwi513~ // breach
 ~spwi608~ // pierce magic
 ~spwi704~ // ruby ray of reversal
 ~spwi705~ // khelben warding whip
 ~spwi805~ // pierce shield
 ~spwi903~ // spellstrike
 // beholder innates
 ~spin992~  // beholder antimagic ray
 ~spin550~  // hive mother antimagic ray
BEGIN

 COPY_EXISTING ~spwi519.spl~ ~override~ // spell shield  
 PHP_EACH spellshieldheader AS ind => res BEGIN
LAUNCH_PATCH_FUNCTION ADD_SPELL_EFFECT INT_VAR
  header=ind+1
  opcode=206
  target=1
  duration=res
  power=5
STR_VAR resource = EVALUATE_BUFFER ~%spell%b~ END
LPF ADD_SPELL_EFFECT INT_VAR
  header=ind+1
  opcode=215 // play 3d effect
  target=1
  duration=res
  power=5
  parameter2=1
STR_VAR resource = ~spturni2~ END
LPF ADD_SPELL_EFFECT INT_VAR
  header=ind+1
  opcode=142 // display portrait icon
  target=1
  duration=res
  power=5
  parameter1=123 // spell shield
END
 END

 ACTION_IF FILE_EXISTS_IN_GAME ~%spell%d.spl~ THEN BEGIN // check if I've modified the spell already to make it penetrate Inv.
 OUTER_SPRINT ~spellcore~ ~%spell%d~
 END ELSE BEGIN
 OUTER_SPRINT ~spellcore~ ~%spell%~
 END

 COPY_EXISTING ~%spellcore%.spl~ ~override/%spell%b.spl~
WRITE_ASCII 0x8 ~~ (8) // clearing out the name
READ_LONG 0x64  ab_off
READ_SHORT 0x68 ab_num
FOR (i=0;i<ab_num;i+=1) BEGIN
  WRITE_SHORT (ab_off+i*0x28+0x0c) 1 // target = creature
  WRITE_SHORT (ab_off+i*0x28+0x26) 1 // projectile = none
END


 COPY_EXISTING ~%spellcore%.spl~ ~override~			  // modifying the original
READ_LONG 0x34  level
READ_LONG 0x64  ab_off
READ_SHORT 0x68 ab_num
READ_LONG 0x6a  ef_off
READ_SHORT 0x70 cast_num // global effects aka casting features

total_eff=cast_num
FOR (i=0;i<ab_num;i+=1) BEGIN
  READ_SHORT  (ab_off+i*0x28+0x1e) ef_num  // effect number
  total_eff+=ef_num
END

DELETE_BYTES ef_off (total_eff*0x30)
DELETE_BYTES ab_off ((ab_num - 1)*0x28)
WRITE_SHORT 0x68 1
WRITE_LONG 0x6a  (ef_off - (ab_num - 1)*0x28)
WRITE_SHORT 0x70 0

WRITE_SHORT (ab_off+0x1e) 2
WRITE_SHORT (ab_off+0x20) 0
WRITE_SHORT (ab_off+0x10) 1 // level required

offset=(ef_off - (ab_num - 1)*0x28)
INSERT_BYTES offset 0x60

WRITE_SHORT (offset+0x00) 146	 // opcode = cast spell on creature
WRITE_BYTE  (offset+0x02) 2	   // target = pre-target
WRITE_BYTE  (offset+0x03) level   // power level = spell level
WRITE_LONG  (offset+0x04) 0	   // parameter 1 = caster's level
WRITE_LONG  (offset+0x08) 1	   // parameter 2 = instant
WRITE_BYTE  (offset+0x0c) 1	   // timing mode = permanent
WRITE_BYTE  (offset+0x12) 100	 // probability 1 = 100%
WRITE_BYTE  (offset+0x13) 0	   // probability 2 = 0%
WRITE_ASCIIE (offset+0x14) ~%spell%b~ (8)

READ_ASCII offset ~clone~ (0x30)
WRITE_ASCIIE (offset+0x30) ~%clone%~ 
WRITE_ASCIIE (offset+0x44) ~%spell%c~


 COPY_EXISTING ~%spellcore%.spl~ ~override/%spell%c.spl~
WRITE_ASCII 0x8 ~~ (8) // clearing out the name
READ_LONG 0x64  ab_off
READ_LONG 0x6a  ef_off
WRITE_SHORT (ab_off+0x1e) 1
WRITE_SHORT (ab_off+0x26) 1
DELETE_BYTES (ef_off+0x30) 0x30

WRITE_SHORT ef_off 230		  // opcode = remove one sectype
WRITE_LONG (ef_off+0x4) 9	   // max level = 9
WRITE_LONG (ef_off+0x8) SpellShield
WRITE_ASCII (ef_off+0x14) ~~ (8)

END

END

 

Edit: toying a bit with the improved beholders ( option 2, pnp antimagic, rays don't burn through spell turning ) it looks like the antimagic bypasses the spell shield even after changing ardanis code to include spwi550 and spwi992 and while the protection from magic icon is always displayed, the spell failure portrait icon isn't always.

The 'scsii/beholder/beholder.tph', ~beholder_pnp_antimagic~ macro. I suppose the

	 COPY_EXISTING 
~spin992.spl~ ~override/dw#behan.spl~ // beholder
~spin550.spl~ ~override/dw#hivan.spl~ // hive mother

sould be changed to

	 COPY_EXISTING 
~spin992b.spl~ ~override~ // beholder
~spin550b.spl~ ~override~ // hive mother

Custom filenames for rays are already generated by ~beholder_core~ macro, and their actual effects will have been transferred to Bs by Spell Shield macro from the initailising component.

Link to comment
I can't seem to edit an older post?
I've seen this recently here too. I think it has something to do with having a different IP address than the original post, which is almost always going to be the case with a dynamic ISP.
Not to mention, as a law practitioner I find using Latin is both fun and disturbing to others
I suppose you thought hiding this in a tiny font would make us miss it?

 

You are hereby BANZORED on two accounts:

1. For using Latin to make others uncomfortable

2. For being a law practitioner

:)

 

I recently had the thankless task of editing someone's doctoral dissertation. Nearly everywhere she used "i.e." she meant "e.g." and vice versa, and this is a very common occurrence in academic writing. So did I just switch them around? Hell no. I substituted "that is" (or omitted it) and "such as" instead. It's not like the abbreviations save any real space or syllables. Just one example of why folks shouldn't use Latin unless they really know what they're on about, and usually not even then. I like Latin, but if you're writing a document in English you should use plain English.

 

(Eh, sorry for the major derail...)

Link to comment
I can't seem to edit an older post? :)

 

Same problem for me. From one day to another I noticed the Edit button disappeared and I thought I was going mad.

 

I am writing from the same computer, same static IP address.

Link to comment

Ease-of-use party AI.

 

I have do some test with SCS v15 and my melee and ranged characters with Ease-of-use party AI ofen try to hit Mordakeins sword even if there is some more vulnerable enemy in range.

 

Could it be possible to fix this David? :) It is really boring to see characters try to hit this f...sword.

Link to comment
I recently had the thankless task of editing someone's doctoral dissertation. Nearly everywhere she used "i.e." she meant "e.g." and vice versa, and this is a very common occurrence in academic writing.

Find a better class of academic writing, is my advice. (Or a journal with better copy-editing.)

 

So did I just switch them around? Hell no. I substituted "that is" (or omitted it) and "such as" instead. It's not like the abbreviations save any real space or syllables.

 

I'm sympathetic to the broad point about Latin, but "i.e." and "e.g." are just part of (written) English, whatever their etymology. People aren't using them as abbreviations (ever seen "id est" or "exempli gratia" in a contemporary document?), they're just using them directly as words. Not that that's an excuse for using words whose meaning you don't know.

 

Just one example of why folks shouldn't use Latin unless they really know what they're on about, and usually not even then. I like Latin, but if you're writing a document in English you should use plain English.

Again, I'm sympathetic; equally, there's English and English. Academic writing is normally aimed at a rather specialised audience, and is intended to fulfil rather specialised needs. Most of my professional writing would be completely incomprehensible to a lay audience, because it's full of both technical philosophy terminology and a lot of reasonably advanced maths and physics. And I not-infrequently use Latin expressions, usually because they don't mean exactly what the nearest reasonably-short English paraphrase means, and because absolute precision is important in academic philosophy. (And because my audience can be assumed to know what they mean, of course.)

 

None of this is a reason to use Latin in blog posts about Baldur's gate: that's just a bad habit, my academic writing style leaking out.

 

Ease-of-use party AI.

 

I have do some test with SCS v15 and my melee and ranged characters with Ease-of-use party AI ofen try to hit Mordakeins sword even if there is some more vulnerable enemy in range.

 

Could it be possible to fix this David? :) It is really boring to see characters try to hit this f...sword.

Should be fairly straightforward, yes.

Link to comment

[large digression]

I'm sympathetic to the broad point about Latin, but "i.e." and "e.g." are just part of (written) English, whatever their etymology. People aren't using them as abbreviations (ever seen "id est" or "exempli gratia" in a contemporary document?), they're just using them directly as words. Not that that's an excuse for using words whose meaning you don't know.
True enough, and I'm not opposed to using such shortcuts per se* but these are examples where the shortcuts mean very nearly the same as short English phrases of the same or lesser length (viz. namely "that is" and "such as"). They've become commonplace English abbreviations but there's no real reason to use them over the alternatives.

 

*Sigh, it's Latin I know, but this is one counterexample where English equivalents e.g. such as "in and of itself; without consideration of extraneous factors" justifies the shortcut. Similarly, I have no problem using "etc." in place of "and so on" because it's nearly universal. Though that is relative - Germans, for example, use usw. [und so weiter] as they do z.B [zum Beispiel] in place of e.g., and so on. Inasmuch as English has more German than Latin in it, such abbreviations might be acceptable in English, but they aren't.

Most of my professional writing would be completely incomprehensible to a lay audience, because it's full of both technical philosophy terminology and a lot of reasonably advanced maths and physics.
Perhaps, but there is an onus (sigh) on all writers to make their writing comprehensible (to laypeople and peers alike). Attempting to do so shouldn't impair the quality of one's writing. It's the difference between reading Kant and Hume. Kant is nearly unreadable to the layperson. Not because his philosophy is more complex - Hume is just a better writer who gets his point across more clearly.
Quid quid latin dictum sit altum sonatur.
I think many use it for its 'high-soundingness'(?) alone, which is bad. To quote the writer's "bible":
The writer will occasionally find it convenient or ncecessary to borrow from other languages. Some writers, however, from sheer exuberance or a desire to show off, sprinkle their work liberally with foreign expressions, with no regard for the reader's comfort. It is a bad habit. Write in English.
Having said all that, I tend to violate these guidelines quite frequently in informal writing like forum posts, but a writer should compose more carefully in a formal document.

[/large digression]

Link to comment
[large digression]
I'm sympathetic to the broad point about Latin, but "i.e." and "e.g." are just part of (written) English, whatever their etymology. People aren't using them as abbreviations (ever seen "id est" or "exempli gratia" in a contemporary document?), they're just using them directly as words. Not that that's an excuse for using words whose meaning you don't know.
True enough, and I'm not opposed to using such shortcuts per se* but these are examples where the shortcuts mean very nearly the same as short English phrases of the same or lesser length (viz. namely "that is" and "such as"). They've become commonplace English abbreviations but there's no real reason to use them over the alternatives.

I don't think "i.e." or "e.g" are abbreviations. I think they're English words whose etymology is that they derive from abbreviations of Latin terms.

 

 

Most of my professional writing would be completely incomprehensible to a lay audience, because it's full of both technical philosophy terminology and a lot of reasonably advanced maths and physics.
Perhaps, but there is an onus (sigh) on all writers to make their writing comprehensible (to laypeople and peers alike). Attempting to do so shouldn't impair the quality of one's writing.

With respect, technical fields don't work that way. Here's a quote from a recent paper of mine:

 

The symmetry group of the gluon field is SU(3), which acts irreducibly on V = su(3) via the adjoint representation:

Ad(g)v = g v g^{-1}

 

With the best will in the world, I can't make that lay-accessible without a huge drop in clarity of exposition.

Link to comment
I don't think "i.e." or "e.g" are abbreviations. I think they're English words whose etymology is that they derive from abbreviations of Latin terms.
They're considered abbreviations, even in English.
The symmetry group of the gluon field is SU(3), which acts irreducibly on V = su(3) via the adjoint representation:

Ad(g)v = g v g^{-1}

There is nothing wrong with the English of that sentence, except that it lacks a verb for the subject (leaving out the ", which" would resolve that, though that may not be the full sentence). I can't say I know what it means, but it's possible I might in context after reading the whole thing carefully. The main goal of academic work should be to inform one who isn't familiar with the subject, not reiterate known material to one who already is familiar with it, no?
Link to comment

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...