Jump to content
DavidW

Bug reports in v30

Recommended Posts

There is one issue I could never got to work - Refinements spells appear not to be used anymore. I'm sure they worked in v28, but ever since v30 is out I've never witnessed a mage or a cleric using any of Refinements spells.

Share this post


Link to post

There is one issue I could never got to work - Refinements spells appear not to be used anymore. I'm sure they worked in v28, but ever since v30 is out I've never witnessed a mage or a cleric using any of Refinements spells.

The mod wasn't in very great condition by then... it might have influenced DavidW to remove the spells.

And yeah, subtledoctor has made a EE version of it that, and it works in the normal game too... so now it should be a better condition, and in separated components. And if there's a case that there's any problems, subtledoctor will be able to handle them.

Edited by Jarno Mikkola

Share this post


Link to post

 

There is one issue I could never got to work - Refinements spells appear not to be used anymore. I'm sure they worked in v28, but ever since v30 is out I've never witnessed a mage or a cleric using any of Refinements spells.

The mod wasn't in very great condition by then... it might have influenced DavidW to remove the spells.

 

It didn't. (If it had, it would have made it into the readme.) If they're not showing up, it's a bug. (Not implausibly something to do with the updating-Refinements-to-EE issues though.)

Share this post


Link to post

It doesn't work even on vanilla engine with vanilla Refinements. Oddly enough, the casters seem to get the spells, but don't use them.

Share this post


Link to post

It doesn't work even on vanilla engine with vanilla Refinements. Oddly enough, the casters seem to get the spells, but don't use them.

Yes, I see it. The variable that tells SSL that Refinements is installed is set too early and is being overwritten. Fixed locally.

Share this post


Link to post

There's one more issue. Sarevok final battle in BG1 seems kinda bugged, unlike most oponnents these won't flee cloud spells and similar.

Share this post


Link to post

I doubt that's a bug exactly, more likely they're using bespoke scripts written before I added cloud-avoidance. (It wasn't part of original SCS I, and I haven't really touched Sarevok et al for ages.

Share this post


Link to post

It didn't. (If it had, it would have made it into the readme.) If they're not showing up, it's a bug. (Not implausibly something to do with the updating-Refinements-to-EE issues though.)

Just so everyone is well-informed: my new version of Refinements does not change any spell names or anything to do with how spells are added. It *does* change the names of the HLA tables for each kit ("LUxxx.2da"). To the extent that matters for any mod, the name of each table can easily be looked up in LUABBR.2da. (In fact the naming formula for the new tables is "LU" + "d5" + the row number of the kit in LUABBR.2da.)

 

Also note that the new version of Refinements defers to any HLAs it finds installed by Rogue Rebalancing. So users who install them correctly (RR, then Refinements) will have a mix of abilities from both mods.

Share this post


Link to post

 

I think there might be a bug in prepblocks\chaincont.ssl, though it depends on developer intent. I notice the option 1 blocks at the top are identical to the option 3 ones further down, whereas it looks like the option 3 ones might have been intended to load with WithoutSI||True rather than WithSI.

I think you're right. TBH I ought to go over that code in general, I haven't looked at it systematically since about v15.

 

 

 

That's great. I suppose this would be good time to make a small suggestion, make of it what you will. One of the most common complaints I see about scs mages is that they all seem a bit too similar. I think splitting down into different specialisms helped quite a lot but I think the prebuff routines are probably the other main reason people say this. Probably there is a little bit too much II+SI:D and they (option 3 mages in particular) seem to pretty well always appear only with the "white wiffle ball" spell immunity type protections. In terms of combat ability alone, I think the breach change means II+SI:D is easily matched by, say, spell turning+spell shield or even just spell turning alone. And if running out of spell slots with just chain contingency, there could always be a trigger or sequencer reserved for defences for an option 3.

 

There are also a few spells beyond spell immunity/spell turning which have quite a strong visual identity. Off hand I can think of the fireshields, globe of invulnerability and mirror image. The good thing about these spells is that they are useful, but not having them isn't devastating to a mage's defences. Furthermore, they could be associated with different specialisms. Fireshield: blue is maybe a bit necromancery and fireshield: red more an invoker type buff. Wouldn't it be cool if you saw a blue fireshield and thought "oh damn here come fingers of death and wiltings"? Perhaps mirror image fits an enchanter. Maybe pink (both at once) is used by epic level mages. The exact assignment doesn't matter, but the point is they could be used carefully to give the feeling of more variety among mages, without sacrificing too much combat potential. Sort of the way a mage20b in the original game feels quite different from a mage20a, just because IIRC it has a fireshield and summons a pit fiend.

 

One other unrelated note regarding the Sarevok comments above is that the last time I played BG1, Angelo did not use his arrows of detonation, which was one of most lethal and challenging elements of the original final fight. This may have been fixed but I didn't see it in the changelog so thought I'd mention it.

Share this post


Link to post

Putting aside the issue of visual variety and just considering what's optimal, II + SI:Div needs two spells to penetrate, ST needs only one.

 

But more generally, it's true that Spell Shield adds some flexibility here. When I wrote the buffing routines, SS hadn't been fixed. That's one reason I think it would be worth going through them again.

Share this post


Link to post

Speaking of Spell Shield, there is one issue with it. It doesn't protect one against Breach cast via Wish (apperantly, nothing does, it goes through everything).

I did some tinkering on SR side to change that, but I'm sure people who don't use SR would appreciate the fix to be in SCS.

Share this post


Link to post

Speaking of Spell Shield...

You are talking about the 8th level version, correct ?

Share this post


Link to post

Speaking of Spell Shield, there is one issue with it. It doesn't protect one against Breach cast via Wish (apperantly, nothing does, it goes through everything).

I did some tinkering on SR side to change that, but I'm sure people who don't use SR would appreciate the fix to be in SCS.

I don't regard that as a bug. The wording of the wish is: "I wish for my enemies' magical defences to be utterly destroyed!" It doesn't say "Unless they're protected from Spell Shield". And from a source-material perspective, Wish certainly shouldn't be being blocked by a sub-9th level spell.

 

Having said which, if SR changes this it won't break anything in SCS.

Share this post


Link to post

 

Speaking of Spell Shield, there is one issue with it. It doesn't protect one against Breach cast via Wish (apperantly, nothing does, it goes through everything).

I did some tinkering on SR side to change that, but I'm sure people who don't use SR would appreciate the fix to be in SCS.

I don't regard that as a bug. The wording of the wish is: "I wish for my enemies' magical defences to be utterly destroyed!" It doesn't say "Unless they're protected from Spell Shield". And from a source-material perspective, Wish certainly shouldn't be being blocked by a sub-9th level spell.

 

Having said which, if SR changes this it won't break anything in SCS.

 

Tnx for explaining.

I'll revert it back then. Thinking of it; Spell Shield doesn't block even normal Breach with SR anymore, so that's clearly wrong on SR's side.

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...