Jump to content

IR Revised V1.3.200 (2020 August 22nd)


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, NdranC said:

Regarding description rewriting. I've been doing it and so far it seems to work. I've also added (manually instead of a macro though) "Keen:" to every scimitar since I play with 3e scimitars. Lower casing dice both in SR and IR and up-casing the damage types and what not. Now my experience is not exhaustive but so far it's been working and haven't noticed any inconsistencies.

Now that I have your attention on descriptions. I think weapon proficiencies have 2 inconsistency issues.

The ones patched (short sword, katana, mace... maybe another one, can check at the moment) their translation files have them listed this way

<DOT1>
<DOT2>
<DOT3>
<DOT4>
<DOT5>

without any spaces. I'm not sure if this is EE only but all other proficiencies have spaces/line breaks between every <DOT> entry.

The other issue I have with them, and this might be a personal one, is that I prefer weapons to list their proficiency as the actual weapon they are. So currently, both short swords and ninja-tos show "Proficiency Type: Short Sword" while I think it would be more intelligible if it was "Proficiency Type: Short Sword" or"Proficiency Type: Ninja-To" based on the actual weapon it is. To match this change, I think the actual proficiency names in the proficiency screen should be "Short Sword/Ninja-To" or "Katana/Wakisashi" or "Mace/Morning Star".

This way you can tell what weapon something is by looking at it's proficiency while at the same time you can tell what proficiency is relevant for that weapon based on the name of said proficiency mentioning both weapons it pertains to.

I believe if you install the cdtweaks component that changes weapons proficiencies on top of IR it fixes some of these issues, but I keep fixing them myself by creating my own functions in the code that call for the macros to rename them properly. About the only one I haven't wanted to mess with creating is the "Keen:" one for scimitars since I'm not sure I understand how to do it yet so I just manually do it. Obviously it's up to you, but if I can convince you to like some of these changes it will offload some of the work I have to manually do every time I download a new version of IRR and SRR 😛

SR descriptions:

This is probably also a personal taste thing, but, do you think it might be worth it to add a new item to the top of spell descriptions, maybe right after the "Saves: partial" that at a glance highlights if the spell bypasses MR? Just as a convenience thing mostly. Maybe we could add some of the mage chess info there as well, like if something is considered a spell protection or a combat protection. Just a thought.

Scimitars: I'd be in favor of a "Special: +5% chance to score critical hits" field for scimitars when using the 3E setting. But it would have to be done through description patching (and not description setting), and I am quite frankly not at all interested in figuring out how to do it, haha. I really don't like messing around with those macros if I don't have to!

<DOTS>: I have no idea what you're talking about, can you please provide an example that I can see for context? Just not sure what you're looking at or talking about here.

Proficiency text on items: Hm. Listing them that way does make a sort of sense, but I imagine the reason they're not is for functionality purposes: it is useful for players to be able to immediately tell that their e.g. short proficiency is also effective for ninja-tos just by looking at the description of the item. I do see where you're coming from, but I'm unsure if I want to change that.

Proficiency text on characters: I actually fixed these at some point to have them listed correctly inside of your level up screen, but ended up reverting it. I do not remember why - I would guess there was an original game vs. Enhanced Edition split issue that I didn't want to deal with at the time, but I don't remember the details anymore. It's something that would have to be tested for all games.

Magic Resistance on spells: I actually have considered doing this before! The reason I didn't is because...it's a bit of work to do it for every spell, and I couldn't find a format that I liked. I just want to be able to write "Magic Resistance: [Applies/Doesn't Apply/Special]" there, but it just looks so awkward and I'm not sure if those are the exact words I want to use, so I just stopped thinking about it.

Link to post

Description patching is very finicky and there are lots of odd cases to consider when you start dealing with additional languages and format differences between the original games, EE games, and modded content.

Recommendation: keep it to a minimum for the necessities.

Link to post
Posted (edited)
25 minutes ago, Mike1072 said:

Description patching is very finicky and there are lots of odd cases to consider when you start dealing with additional languages and format differences between the original games, EE games, and modded content.

Recommendation: keep it to a minimum for the necessities.

Yep, exactly how I feel. All fine and dandy to write macros for one game's items listed one exact way (...at least, after you've already rewritten all of their descriptions via the main component anyways), but it ain't just ToB games we're talking about like it used to be in the old days - there's tutu, BG1EE, BG2EE, BGT, EET, hell, some people even apparently put all of Icewind Dale in their EET games? And then piles of mod-added stuff...and these macros are going to read every single item's description and try to re-arrange and re-write stuff in possibly unexpected and/or destructive manners. Worse, I don't even use any of this stuff so I can't see for myself what's happening or what weird exceptions are occurring or anything like that, and I especially don't want to waste valuable time on testing them, haha. And I assume Demi/you felt the same way, so the rewriting stuff really only goes to the basic necessities - damage, damage type, proficiency, and speed factor. Any other inconsistencies are...simply not IR's problem.

It'd honestly probably be easier to just write a mod that reads the raw stats of weapons and completely deletes the old text while constructing entirely new text depending on what it reads. Stuff like damage rolls, speed factor, weight, damage type, etc. are all stored in static locations for weapons - wouldn't be impossible to look for just the "Damage: " text and then delete it and everything else after it, then rewrite it and everything else after according to what it detects. But I'm already thinking of potential problems - some formats list special damage like "Damage: 1D8 + 1 cold" (or if you're playing BG1, it's actually its own field under "Damage" like "Special:  +1 Cold damage"), so immediately that will be erased and no mention of cold damage would be made. The entire prospect of automatically rewriting items that you didn't personally write the descriptions for is unfortunately rife with problems.

Edited by Bartimaeus
Link to post

IR does some pretty complicated description patching.  It covers different languages and handles inconsistencies in formats from mod-added items.  It's not rewriting anything to a specific standard (which would be next-to-impossible to automate); it's replacing particular parts of lines or adding new lines.  My recommendation to avoid it where possible is based around the experience of doing it.

However, if you enjoy dealing with stuff like ~\(Not[ %tab%]+\|Un\)[Uu]sable[ %tab%]+[Bb]y[ %tab%]*:~, then dive right in.

Link to post
2 hours ago, Bartimaeus said:

Scimitars: I'd be in favor of a "Special: +5% chance to score critical hits" field for scimitars when using the 3E setting. But it would have to be done through description patching (and not description setting), and I am quite frankly not at all interested in figuring out how to do it, haha. I really don't like messing around with those macros if I don't have to!

<DOTS>: I have no idea what you're talking about, can you please provide an example that I can see for context? Just not sure what you're looking at or talking about here.

Proficiency text on items: Hm. Listing them that way does make a sort of sense, but I imagine the reason they're not is for functionality purposes: it is useful for players to be able to immediately tell that their e.g. short proficiency is also effective for ninja-tos just by looking at the description of the item. I do see where you're coming from, but I'm unsure if I want to change that.

Proficiency text on characters: I actually fixed these at some point to have them listed correctly inside of your level up screen, but ended up reverting it. I do not remember why - I would guess there was an original game vs. Enhanced Edition split issue that I didn't want to deal with at the time, but I don't remember the details anymore. It's something that would have to be tested for all games.

Magic Resistance on spells: I actually have considered doing this before! The reason I didn't is because...it's a bit of work to do it for every spell, and I couldn't find a format that I liked. I just want to be able to write "Magic Resistance: [Applies/Doesn't Apply/Special]" there, but it just looks so awkward and I'm not sure if those are the exact words I want to use, so I just stopped thinking about it.

Scimitars: Understandable. I tend to manually go in in NI and manually rewriting some stuff myself after all my installs if necessary, thankfully not needed for scimitars if I edit the item descriptions file. BTW is there an easier way to edit the dialog.tlk file than NI?

<DOTS>: This is how it looks by default in the latest IRR.

Spoiler

@100000 = ~Short Sword~ // Short Sword/Ninja-To
@100001 = ~SHORT SWORD/NINJA-TO:  The preferred weapon of many a thief and halfling, short swords and ninja-tos are light but useful weapons.

<DOTS1>
<DOTS2>
<DOTS3>
<DOTS4>
<DOTS5>~
@100002 = ~Katana~ // Katana/Wakizashi
@100003 = ~KATANA/WAKIZASHI:  Katanas and wakizashis are the finest examples of the swordsmith's craft, and require great care to use.  As skill develops, the wielder and blade become a single being, dedicated completely to the art of warfare.  These weapons are hard to find outside of Kara-Tur, so care must be taken when considering this proficiency.  After all, skill with katanas and wakizashis is only helpful if you can find them.

WARNING:  Magical katanas and wakizashis are very rare in Baldur's Gate 2!

<DOTS1>
<DOTS2>
<DOTS3>
<DOTS4>
<DOTS5>~
@100004 = ~Scimitar~
@100005 = ~SCIMITAR:  This weapon class allows the character to use curved, bladed weapons such as scimitars.

<DOTS1>
<DOTS2>
<DOTS3>
<DOTS4>
<DOTS5>~
@100006 = ~Flail~
@100007 = ~FLAIL: Flails are blunt weapons used to knock your enemies senseless.  They are difficult to use, but with skill and practice these weapons can be quite powerful.

<DOTS1>
<DOTS2>
<DOTS3>
<DOTS4>
<DOTS5>~
@100008 = ~Mace~ // Mace/Morning Star
@100009 = ~MACE/MORNING STAR:  The mace is most often associated with clerics.  It is a powerful blunt weapon, similar to the club, but designed to do more damage. A morning star is similar to a mace, typically with spikes instead of flanges.

<DOTS1>
<DOTS2>
<DOTS3>
<DOTS4>
<DOTS5>~

This is one that I'm currently using and manually edited it myself:

Spoiler

@99999 =~// these descriptions are 99.999% stolen from the BG2 Tweak Pack~
@100000 = ~Short Sword/Ninja-To~ // Short Sword/Ninja-To
@100001 = ~SHORT SWORD/NINJA-TO:  The preferred weapon of many a thief and halfling, short swords and ninja-tos are light but useful weapons.

<DOTS1>

<DOTS2>

<DOTS3>

<DOTS4>

<DOTS5>~
@100002 = ~Katana/Wakizashi~ // Katana/Wakizashi
@100003 = ~KATANA/WAKIZASHI:  Katanas and wakizashis are the finest examples of the swordsmith's craft, and require great care to use.  As skill develops, the wielder and blade become a single being, dedicated completely to the art of warfare.  These weapons are hard to find outside of Kara-Tur, so care must be taken when considering this proficiency.  After all, skill with katanas and wakizashis is only helpful if you can find them.

WARNING:  Magical katanas and wakizashis are very rare in Baldur's Gate 2!

<DOTS1>

<DOTS2>

<DOTS3>

<DOTS4>

<DOTS5>~
@100004 = ~Scimitar~
@100005 = ~SCIMITAR:  This weapon class allows the character to use curved, bladed weapons such as scimitars.

<DOTS1>

<DOTS2>

<DOTS3>

<DOTS4>

<DOTS5>~
@100006 = ~Flail~
@100007 = ~FLAIL: Flails are blunt weapons used to knock your enemies senseless.  They are difficult to use, but with skill and practice these weapons can be quite powerful.

<DOTS1>

<DOTS2>

<DOTS3>

<DOTS4>

<DOTS5>~
@100008 = ~Mace/Morning Star~ // Mace/Morning Star
@100009 = ~MACE/MORNING STAR:  The mace is most often associated with clerics.  It is a powerful blunt weapon, similar to the club, but designed to do more damage. A morning star is similar to a mace, typically with spikes instead of flanges.

<DOTS1>

<DOTS2>

<DOTS3>

<DOTS4>

<DOTS5>~

Notice the proficiency titles renamed to have BOTH weapons just like inside the description. Instead of "Short Sword" is "Short Sword/Ninja-To". Also notice the spaces between the line breaks between the <DOTS>. If you don't have them then the paragraphs describing all the different proficiency levels of those weapons are smushed together. All the other weapon proficiencies use these line breaks on their descriptions. Not sure if it's an EE thing or not.

Proficiency text on actual weapons: Well, it's obviously up to you. When I invest a proficiency point I'm very keenly aware of what weapons become usable due to the name "Short Sword/Ninja-To". I understand that is a 2 for 1 deal and it also shows in my character record screen as "Short Sword/Ninja-To". I sometimes have a hard time telling what a weapon is supposed to be because several weapons share the same animation or break conventions like a dagger that deals 1d6 damage. Sure you can have a ninja-to that says "Proficiency Type: Short Sword/Ninja-To" and it will convey you already have that proficiency, but saying "Proficiency Type: Ninja-To" will also convey this while at the same time telling very specifically what type of weapon this should be. The way you currently have it it will say "Proficiency Type: Short Sword" on a ninja-to which to me sounds obfuscated since the paper model doesn't look like a Short Sword. Why is that useful? Well, not sure if it matters. I like to compare the weapons stats based on what I know Ninja-Tos should look like maybe... I guess I find it annoying that I can't look at a weapon at not immediately tell what it's supposed to be. It's worse with Katanas and Wakishashis since they are both part of the same proficiency and have the same animation. Technically doesn't matter if you are wearing one but damn it I want to know.

This is how it looks in my character record:
 

Spoiler

 

gCF4OOw.png

Scarlet Ninjato:

wJEEFl1.png

Ilbratha:

O7Pi3I5.png

 

These are my edits to make this happen:

Spoiler

//////////////////
// Proficiency  //
//////////////////

// catch ~Proficiency type:~
@100146 = ~Proficiency[ %tab%]+[Tt]ype:.*~

// replace @100146
@100147 = ~Proficiency Type: Katana~

// replace @100146
@100148 = ~Proficiency Type: Flail~

// replace @100146
@100149 = ~Proficiency Type: Scimitar~

// replace @100146
@100150 = ~Proficiency Type: Mace~

// replace @100146
@100199 = ~Proficiency Type: Short Sword~

// replace @100146
@100168 = ~Proficiency Type: Wakizashi~

// replace @100146
@100169 = ~Proficiency Type: Morning Star~

// replace @100146
@100170 = ~Proficiency Type: Ninja-To~

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

//////////////////////////////////////////////
//  descriptions

DEFINE_PATCH_MACRO wc_slash_to_pierce BEGIN
  SPRINT t1 @100132
  SPRINT t2 @100133
  REPLACE_TEXTUALLY ~%t1%~ ~%t2%~
END

DEFINE_PATCH_MACRO wc_pierce_to_slash BEGIN
  SPRINT t1 @100134
  SPRINT t2 @100135
  REPLACE_TEXTUALLY ~%t1%~ ~%t2%~
END

DEFINE_PATCH_MACRO wc_crush_to_crushpierce BEGIN
  SPRINT t1 @100136
  SPRINT t2 @100137
  REPLACE_TEXTUALLY ~%t1%~ ~%t2%~
END

DEFINE_PATCH_MACRO wc_pierce_to_slashpierce BEGIN
  SPRINT t1 @100133
  SPRINT t2 @1001380
  REPLACE_TEXTUALLY ~%t1%~ ~%t2%~
END

DEFINE_PATCH_MACRO katana_prof BEGIN
  SPRINT t1 @100146
  SPRINT t2 @100147
  REPLACE_TEXTUALLY ~%t1%~ ~%t2%~
END

DEFINE_PATCH_MACRO waki_prof BEGIN
  SPRINT t1 @100146
  SPRINT t2 @100168
  REPLACE_TEXTUALLY ~%t1%~ ~%t2%~
END

DEFINE_PATCH_MACRO flail_prof BEGIN
  SPRINT t1 @100146
  SPRINT t2 @100148
  REPLACE_TEXTUALLY ~%t1%~ ~%t2%~
END

DEFINE_PATCH_MACRO scimitar_prof BEGIN
  SPRINT t1 @100146
  SPRINT t2 @100149
  REPLACE_TEXTUALLY ~%t1%~ ~%t2%~
END

DEFINE_PATCH_MACRO mace_prof BEGIN
  SPRINT t1 @100146
  SPRINT t2 @100150
  REPLACE_TEXTUALLY ~%t1%~ ~%t2%~
END

DEFINE_PATCH_MACRO morning_prof BEGIN
  SPRINT t1 @100146
  SPRINT t2 @100169
  REPLACE_TEXTUALLY ~%t1%~ ~%t2%~
END

DEFINE_PATCH_MACRO short_sword_prof BEGIN
  SPRINT t1 @100146
  SPRINT t2 @100199
  REPLACE_TEXTUALLY ~%t1%~ ~%t2%~
END

DEFINE_PATCH_MACRO ninjato_prof BEGIN
  SPRINT t1 @100146
  SPRINT t2 @100170
  REPLACE_TEXTUALLY ~%t1%~ ~%t2%~
END

I obviously also called the right macro per weapon. In this case all of them very minor and easy edits, and at least on my end I haven't found a single item out of line up to the underdark.

Magic Resistance:

Hmm if I were to do it I might do something like

Saving Throw: None
Magic Resistance: Ignores

Saving Throw: Negates
Magic Resistance: Negates

Saving Throw: Partial
Magic Resistance: Special

Ignores means it will ignore MR, Negates is just like making your saving throw, if the creature makes it's "MR roll" then it negates the spell. Special would probably be exclusively for "Lower Resistance" and "Pierce Magic". Summons could either skip the line entirely or use "None" or "Ignores".

Edited by NdranC
Link to post

Ninja-To: I didn't realize until now that the proficiency listed is simply "Short Sword". "Ninja-To" should be included in some part of that at the very least. The good news for you: since it was already wrong, I can much more easily change it to simply "Ninja-To" now, along with the others.

Magic Resistance: I'd probably go "Ignored" vs. "Negates" vs. "Partial" vs. "Special" or something like that. "Special" when used for the "Saving Throw" field implies special circumstances. It could mean "there is more than one type of saving throw made" (Icelance, Prismatic Spray), or "in some circumstances or on some creatures, the saving throw applies while it doesn't in others" (e.g. Nahal's Reckless Dweomer, Power Word: Sleep, Otiluke's Resilient Sphere, etc.), or "the saving throw is not applied directly to the target" (e.g. on-hit effects like Chill Touch and Shocking Grasp, etc.), or "some other type of resistance" (e.g. Dispel Magic)...or other unusual circumstances. For Magic Resistance, it would mean the same sort of things. I'm not actually committing to adding this as of yet, though.

<DOTS>: Ah, yes, I see. Yes, the EEs changed the formatting of this, it is set consistently with how it is presented in vanilla BG2, but I see that is not the case in the EEs. I'll fix it.

Link to post
Posted (edited)

Y'all like patch notes? IRR v1.3.200 released.

NOTE: I've updated (and curtailed) the main post to make it more visible and up-to-date (so you can read a more detailed explanation there if you prefer), but the install order of 1pp, IRR, and SRR has drastically changed. Instead of being the main SRR component -> the main IRR component -> all of 1pp* as it had been for years, it is now all of 1pp* -> the main IRR component -> the main SRR component - literally a complete reversal. The non-main components of IRR and SRR should be installed after all item mods (IRR) and NPC/spell mods (SRR) have been installed, respectively. It is strongly recommended, if you are not on an EE game, to install at least the 1pp components "Core content patches" and "Core updates and item patches" before IRR to make sure that all icons are in the game. Beyond that, everything else is optional and IRR should react to your choices in what you choose to install from 1pp. EE players need not worry, although if you like BG1-style shields and like them to be universal everywhere where possible, a new settings.ini option has been introduced to do just that.

*With the exception of the avatar-switching component, which should be installed after all item-adding components, including IRR. I assume the CDTweaks component with a similar name/function works just as well on EE games - I recommend using it if you like to use multi/dual-class characters.

Also note for non-EE players that this version of IRR is made specifically for the new version of 1pp. However, it actually does not matter basically at all if you use either v4.1.0 or v4.2.0, so do as you please.

Larger changes:

  1. A huge amount of Enhanced Edition item icons were corrected. It's difficult to explain exactly how, but if you've been playing an Enhanced Edition game and have noticed that some items' icons are oddly small for no apparent reason compared to similar items (e.g. Gargoyle Boots being extra-small), this fixes those icons to be the correct size. About 70 items in all were affected. The cause of this problem was not actually IR or IRR, but rather the EE devs changing the way icons are presented...and then never fixing their icons to be consistent with the new presentation style.
  2. The full item charging function is now online. Previously, you would see a number of messages like "~OHBIMIM.STO~: ~WAND02.itm~, primary charges: 50 => setting them to 10..." during installation of the main component - now you will likely see hundreds as IRR mass sets every single area, creature, and store item in the game to have the correct number of charges upon finding/buying them, so if you see hundreds of those messages, you...probably shouldn't be concerned. Probably. There are two exceptions to this: items not handled by IRR (and therefore not its responsibility/within its knowledge to set), and items created by script (e.g. an item created as a reward for a player). Script-created items have to be corrected manually, so report them if you see any inconsistencies with them.
  3. There is a new settings.ini switch to enable and set BG1-style shield graphics. Not every single shield has an alternative BG1 variant, but most of them do (including all shields found in BG1, obviously). A @Salk special.
  4. Full support for both the new and old versions of 1pp v4.2.0 - please read the notes above regarding install order. Don't worry, this only required adding about 10,000 lines of new patching.

Smaller changes:

  1. Quivers now get 1pp/EE projectile animations (will look like +1 and +3 variants being shot when using +1 and +3 quivers, respectively).
  2. Shield of Falling Stars' radius was set to 10' (from 5'), and it's been forced to be more consistent.
  3. Gauntlets of Might is slightly stronger - instead of +2 STR, -2 DEX, and -4 THAC0, it is +3 STR, -2 DEX, and -2 THAC0: hopefully with the effect of actually proving mildly useful for somebody somewhere.
  4. Claw of Kazgaroth has been slightly nerfed: -15% HP and -5 saves vs. death instead of -10% and -3 respectively.
  5. Ring of Folly is now only usable by mages (it looks like a Ring of Wizardry and its effects are clearly primary to affect mages).
  6. Items that say they protect against Charm also now say Domination as well for clarity's sake.
  7. Periapts have their protection portrait icons re-enabled.
  8. Anything that previously said "neg. half" in regards to making a saving throw simply says "half" now instead, since the meaning is just as clear and it saves space.
  9. Root of the Problem is now usable by rangers in addition to druids.
  10. helm01.itm (the most basic and widespread helm) now has the horned icon to go along with its appearance. helm11.itm (what used to also be a copy of the basic horned helm) is now a horned + tail helm for a little more variation.
  11. Some additional minor color revisions (K'logarath, Firetooth getting its bolts colored correctly, Lawgiver's gold hit wasn't quite gold enough).
  12. Set some OCD text stuff that was mildly inconsistent inside of descriptions and on the level-up screen. You won't even notice the difference. Mostly for @NdranC, but to my own accordance after agreeing with most of the inconsistencies.

Fixes:

  1. Fixed a file compatibility problem between SR and IR related to Banishment and its inconsistent application due to overlapping filenames.
  2. Fixed a file compatibility problem between SR and IR related to Haste's fatigue effect and Bracers of Speeds' exhausting effect due to overlapping filenames.
  3. The flail form of Rod of Lordly Might had 2D4 damage instead of 1D6 + 1 damage (if you use Weapon Changes, it's then set to 2D4).
  4. Crossbow of Affliction's disease ability now lasts for 1 duration longer to enforce that correct number of damage ticks go through.
  5. Belt of Inertial Barrier had some no-duration effects that weren't supposed to be no-duration, leading to some effects effectively not happening.
  6. Staff of Earth's Earthshaking ability was lacking its -2 saving throw.
  7. Skin of the Forest's enchantment level and lore requirement were one too high internally (no change to its actual AC, though).
  8. Stonefire was secretly causing Burst of Fire at 15% frequency when it wasn't supposed to.
  9. Periapt of Form Stability had a weird immunity problem where it was potentially immunizing against friendly spells due to SR's Druid's Polymorph Other.
  10. Shazzelim is suppose to offer a save vs. death (and not a save vs. spell) for its bard-slaying ability.
  11. Arrow of Biting had strength bonus erroneously applied.
  12. Carsomyr wasn't always actually casting Dispel Magic depending on what exact mods in what exact order you had.
  13. Hammer of Corrosion had a mis-centered icon that was fixed (applies to only non-EE games, since EE games always center icons for better or for worse regardless).
  14. Fixed Potion of Speed from not dispelling Slow effects as it should.
  15. Some ultra minor tutu-related typo that somebody reported that I don't remember the details of was fixed.
  16. Spear of the Unicorn had incorrect weight.
  17. Control Circlet was missing a letter in its name!
  18. A handful of bracers and gloves had wrong ground icons (there are two ground icons - one that looks like bracers, one that looks like gloves, and some had the wrong kind for their type).
  19. Claw of Kazgaroth had a dagger ground icon. I don't know why.
  20. Gem staves (e.g. Staff of the Magi) didn't have their special gem staff ground icon set.
  21. Fixed gem staves not always having their colors set correctly (colors were being set in the opposite order as intended).

 

...Also, I said both IRR and SRR would be released today, but that's going to have to wait 'til tomorrow for SRR, along with my reply to Subtledoctor.

Edited by Bartimaeus
Link to post
1 hour ago, Bartimaeus said:

Set some OCD text stuff that was mildly inconsistent inside of descriptions and on the level-up screen. You won't even notice the difference. Mostly for @NdranC, but to my own accordance after agreeing with most of the inconsistencies.

I feel personally attacked. I bet at least 2 extra people will notice the difference... right?...

Thank you for spending your free time working on the update and accommodating so many annoying requests that probably don't even affect the client you play in. I'm looking forward to my next run.

Link to post
6 minutes ago, NdranC said:

I feel personally attacked. I bet at least 2 extra people will notice the difference... right?...

Thank you for spending your free time working on the update and accommodating so many annoying requests that probably don't even affect the client you play in. I'm looking forward to my next run.

Damn, I should be more persistent with the request for updating item descriptions to EE-style for EE games, then :p This would be probably noticed only by me, but Hey, let's go crazy :p

Link to post
11 minutes ago, Cahir said:

Damn, I should be more persistent with the request for updating item descriptions to EE-style for EE games, then :p This would be probably noticed only by me, but Hey, let's go crazy :p

Hey I noticed too, but there are so battles that just require 6 text changes while others require hundreds. I had to give in on the scimitar one. At least I can solve it on my own end without a text patching macro.

Link to post

I have make a new install a week ago with the IR_Revised-master of 08/15/2020. I respected the installation order of first post without 1pp. I have a classic bg2, not an EE.

The game crash when i equip a short bow. After investigation, and help, i found IR installed the 1pp script (1pp.tpa). Bow.itm got changed theirs ground icons and equiped apparence to BS(short bow which don't exist without 1pp).

Is 1pp a mandatory now ?

 

 

 

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...