IR Revised V1.3.800 (2022 January 11th)

[Guest Alkaid]

7 hours ago, Bartimaeus said:

I just made this post that I was literally about to post right as you said this...that I'm still going to post for potential future education. Thanks for figuring it out.

Here's what you can do...

In [game directory]\item_rev\backup\, there will be folders titled with numbers. Said numbers correspond to which components you've installed. So for example, the main component has a component number of "0", so the "0" folder's contents will correspond to the files it's backed up for that component. The same is true of all mods (well, except for SCS, which stores its backup stuff in a folder called weidu_external instead for some reason). Anyways, you can find your clck14.itm before it's been modified by the components in questions inside those folders...with the exception of usually the very first listed component at the top of the list, which, in this case, is IR's component 0. The reason for that being is that clck14.itm is either taken from the .biffed (archived) game files or a brand new file and so the "backup" for it would actually be just deleting it from your override.

ANYWAYS, if you could upload the different versions of your clck14.itm, I could examine them to see with what component it went wrong. There should be one in your override (your currently used resource), one in the backup folder for component "100" of Scales of Balance, another in Faith and Power's "75", and one in Item Revisions' "17". If we examine all of those, I should be able to figure out what the culprit is.

Yeah, it was definitely Scales' YARAS component... But the interesting thing is that on its own, it's fine. I've tried installing it onto an unmodified version of the game and there was no issue. So, despite being the trigger mechanism, it alone isn't solely responsible for whatever it was that's happening. Any ideas on what could be done to figure out exactly what the issue is? Here's my exact load order up to the point where things explode, if you're curious. https://pastebin.com/emgbhqCK

As far as things go for my actual game, what I've done is installed it and then manually cleansed the various robes of the 'disable wizard spells' property with NearInfinity. Overall it was about half of them, not all of them. I suppose it was a coincidence that it applied to all 6 or 7 that are available in the Adventurer's mart. Just have fingers crossed there isn't anything else super awful later on that's going to break, lol. I can at least fix characters and items mid-save with tools.

[Bartimaeus]

Unfortunately, no, especially as I installed the same components as you did and did not get the same issue. IRR's main component + Weapon Changes + Faiths and Powers' altered weapon proficiencies/usabilities + Scales of Balance's Yet Another Revised Armor System...though I am using slightly newer versions of IRR and Scales of Balance than you (V1.3.566 instead of x.500 for IRR and v5.33.2 instead of v5.33 for Scales of Balance).

[DavidW]

16 hours ago, Bartimaeus said:

The same is true of all mods (well, except for SCS, which stores its backup stuff in a folder called weidu_external instead for some reason).

This is the reason.

[Bartimaeus]

4 minutes ago, DavidW said:

This is the reason.

Now that you mention it, it would be nice to have mod folders that remain perfectly unchanged by the act of installing and uninstalling...thanks for the education.

[DavidW]

Come and join the Cult of Immutability. We have cookies! (But no-one is allowed to touch them.)

[Guest Alkaid]

6 hours ago, Bartimaeus said:

Unfortunately, no, especially as I installed the same components as you did and did not get the same issue. IRR's main component + Weapon Changes + Faiths and Powers' altered weapon proficiencies/usabilities + Scales of Balance's Yet Another Revised Armor System...though I am using slightly newer versions of IRR and Scales of Balance than you (V1.3.566 instead of x.500 for IRR and v5.33.2 instead of v5.33 for Scales of Balance).

Well, apparently the issue was fixed with 5.33.2, so that may help. =P

But also, it wasn't an interaction with Faiths and Powers, but something Tomes and Blood's arcanist kit and a typo somewhere. I'd use the newer version of IR, but that would require me reinstalling and probably restarting the game, and I'd like to play now that I finally have a functional one. (And also have already had to do a bit of manual fixing to get the Vampiric Touch innate necromancers are meant to get with TnB, and make it work properly).

[Salk]

Hey Bartimaeus!

I noticed you upgraded to WeiDU 247 and I have a question. Would the IRR installation (and possibly SRR) work even with older WeiDU versions? I have had unpleasant experiences with v247. I was hoping for v248 to be out soon but apparently it's going to take a while longer so I am sticking to v246 for the time being for every mod that does not require v247. 

[Bartimaeus]

6 hours ago, Salk said:

Hey Bartimaeus!

I noticed you upgraded to WeiDU 247 and I have a question. Would the IRR installation (and possibly SRR) work even with older WeiDU versions? I have had unpleasant experiences with v247. I was hoping for v248 to be out soon but apparently it's going to take a while longer so I am sticking to v246 for the time being for every mod that does not require v247. 

You can safely downgrade to v246 for both IRR and SRR so long as you do not use the new "ee_style_ac_descriptions" option (it's defaulted to off). That particular option relies on code from @DavidW and will blow up the main component's (and Weapon Changes') installation if you enable it if you were on the previously used version of the weidu .exe. I don't know the technical details of exactly why, just that the installation will die on whatever version it was that was previously being used, . I also don't remember off-hand what version *was* being used before I updated it (I just took SCS's weidu.exe and replaced them with that as a bit of an emergency fix) - it's possible that v246 would have actually worked fine. Do you also down-grade SCS's .exe to v246? If not, how do you prevent the latest weidu .exe from propagating itself?

My remaining potential-to-do list before releasing x.600:
1. Apply new small shield strength requirement (4 -> 6)?*
2. Complete the EE-ized descriptions (there are a few outstanding issues left).
3. The EEs gave two ToB wands new icons, are they better than the original ToB icons and should they be backported to non-EE games?
4. Revert requirements for quick-slot wands/rods?**

*I can't figure out how to do this in a satisfactory manner, because I have realized that IR overhauled all the weights of shields (and armors) in general. If I make this happen through Revised Shields, it could catch mod-added shields where it makes no sense (e.g. a mithral shield with reduced weight/strength requirement). If I just do it on only IR-added shields, it creates inconsistencies with e.g. some EE shields. But as it stands, there are already inconsistencies with EE/mod-added shields, because IR shields are a lot heavier than non-IR shields. Maybe I could do "if the shield equals the vanilla weight and strength requirement for this particular shield type, then patch it, otherwise do not"?

**I made the requirements for using wands/rods slightly higher and more or less a direct function of the actual spells they cast at some point, and I've been considering reverting them because I think my changes were probably ill-advised. Alternatively, I've been thinking of tweaking the exact formula I used to be slightly less stringent. I believe the original formula was simply "level of spell + 10", so a wand that casts a 3rd level spell would require 13 intelligence...but maybe something more like "(level of spell * 0.5 rounded up) + 10" would make more sense and be closer to the original game...or I could just revert them all to their vanilla values.

Edited October 5, 2021 by Bartimaeus

[Salk]

Hello again! 

Thank you for replying to my query. This thing about the EE description is interesting because I have been working on a revamped BG2 GTU which is based on the BG2 EE. I like both IRR's classic and the new EE approach to items and spells descriptions but for the work I am doing I became much more familiar with EE text style so I am quite confident that'll be my choice.

Incidentally, for the class requirements I decided to go for a simple alphabetical order rather than the current implementation because I think it makes most sense.

It won't be a problem sticking to v247 for IRR, SRR and SCS though. It is possible to use the "--noautoupdate" argument when launching the installer from the command window so that v247 won't update the other WeiDu .exe files it finds.

A few comments about your remaining points in your list:

1. I think you have it right with what you wrote last about it. Let WeiDU check the standard values for different shield types and patch the item if they are a match and just skip them if they aren't. At the moment I can't seem to think of a better solution myself.

2. Nothing to comment here.

3. I do trust your aesthetics sense but I cannot give you my direct opinion here since I never saw any comparison shots. Generally, I don't feel particularly attached to original graphics if it can be replaced with better. Of course the requirement being that it should be a seamless change (same style and bonus point if the drawing is close to the original).

4. Here I must say I pretty much like the original formula. It's simple and it makes sense. Matching the requirement for wand use to the Int requirement for casting the spell is a very sensible change, in my opinion.

Good luck!

Edited October 5, 2021 by Salk

[Bartimaeus]

23 minutes ago, Salk said:

Incidentally, for the class requirements I decided to go for a simple alphabetical order rather than the current implementation because I think it makes most sense.

I do base classes first in alphabetical order, then kits in alphabetical order. I find placing all of them strictly in alphabetical order to be displeasing from a usability standpoint, since it becomes more difficult to parse which base classes are restricted quickly.

23 minutes ago, Salk said:

Thank you for replying to my query. This thing about the EE description is interesting because I have been working on a revamped BG2 GTU which is based on the BG2 EE. I like both IRR's classic and the new EE approach to items and spells descriptions but for the work I am doing I became much more familiar with EE text style so I am quite confident that'll be my choice.

The EE-ized description file currently included in the latest repository version of IRR may be of interest to you, in that case...or not, depending on where exactly you took your own revised descriptions. Be warned that by making your own formatting changes, you may very well break the description-updating components of all the other secondary components, which is the current trouble Cahir and I had been running into for a long time, . Will depend on the types of changes you made, though.

23 minutes ago, Salk said:

3. I do trust your aesthetics sense but I cannot give you my direct opinion here since I never saw any comparison shots. Generally, I don't feel particularly attached to original graphics if it can be replaced with better. Of course the requirement being that it should be a seamless change (same style and bonus point if the drawing is close to the original).

Yeah, it's more of a "I just need to take a close look" thing, . Thanks for the vote of confidence, though!

23 minutes ago, Salk said:

4. Here I must say I pretty much like the original formula. It's simple and it makes sense. Matching the requirement for wand use to the Int requirement for casting the spell is a very sensible change, in my opinion.

I thought so too, but then I considered that if you were to follow this formula to its logical extreme, a wand that casts a level 9 spell would require 19 intelligence, which is absurd - indeed, any wands that would cast high level spells would have unreasonably high intelligence requirements and make it so some actual NPC mages would be unable to use them. Additionally, there are some basic wands that are usable by non-mages/bards that have historically always usable by some characters that have effectively become impossible to do so because of the new intelligence requirements, and I realized this was an actual problem for another user somewhat recently when they were trying to figure out ways of temporarily raising a character's intelligence so that they could use that wand (and that's actually another issue because IR removes temporary forms of improving intelligence). So all in all, I'm thinking some kind of change is necessary, and maybe the slightly less extreme formula would make more sense.

Edited October 5, 2021 by Bartimaeus

[Salk]

Hi again!

55 minutes ago, Bartimaeus said:

I do base classes first in alphabetical order, then kits in alphabetical order. I find placing all of them strictly in alphabetical order to be displeasing from a usability standpoint, since it becomes more difficult to parse which base classes are restricted quickly.

Can you give me a practical example of usability woe by having a strict alphabetical order for classes? 

55 minutes ago, Bartimaeus said:

The EE-ized description file currently included in the latest repository version of IRR may be of interest to you, in that case...or not, depending on where exactly you took your own revised descriptions.

Yes, I had no idea you were working on something like that. The last time I checked on your progress with IRR and SRR was well over a month and half ago.

I used the original BG2 EE dialog.tlk as base for my revision. My own changes are really minor and have mostly to do with punctuation and compatibility (mostly, the EE text lacking usability descriptions for items). And that takes me to the next part...

55 minutes ago, Bartimaeus said:

Be warned that by making your own formatting changes, you may very well break the description-updating components of all the other secondary components, which is the current trouble Cahir and I had been running into for a long time

Can you give me an example of this too?

I don't think there should be any problem because, as I mentioned, this is almost a straight port of the BG2 EE original dialog.tlk file but I surely don't want to make a mess and cause compatibility problems.

55 minutes ago, Bartimaeus said:

I thought so too, but then I considered that if you were to follow this formula to its logical extreme, a wand that casts a level 9 spell would require 19 intelligence, which is absurd - indeed, any wands that would cast high level spells would have unreasonably high intelligence requirements and make it so some actual NPC mages would be unable to use them.

I have been careless in what I wrote above.

What I wanted to say was that the INT requirement for arcane spells wands should be the very same we apply for learning the spell itself:

1-4 Int 9+

5 Int 10+

6 Int 12+

7 Int 14+

8 Int 16+

9 Int 18+

It might seem harsh but I favor internal consistency over the rest. If you create your own character you are responsible about how you spend your ability points. When it comes to joinable NPCs instead, it just becomes a matter of whether or not they are intelligent enough to cast high level spells. Note that a measly Int of 9 would still allow them to use many, if not most, wands. 

Cheers!

 

Edited October 5, 2021 by Salk

[Bartimaeus]

20 minutes ago, Salk said:

Can you give me a practical example of usability woe by having a strict alphabetical order for classes? 

How would you handle this, Casiel's Soul? In IRR, it's currently...

 Good-aligned characters
 Bard
 Druid
 Mage
 Monk
 Thief
 Archer
 Barbarian
 Beast Master
 Kensai
 Stalker

Alphabetically, it would become...

 Archer
 Barbarian
 Bard
 Beast Master
 Druid
 Good-aligned characters
 Kensai
 Mage
 Monk
 Stalker
 Thief

To me, even ignoring the "good-aligned characters", this just seems much more difficult to parse at a glance than just listing the classes first.

20 minutes ago, Salk said:

I don't think there should be any problem because, as I mentioned, this is almost a straight port of the BG2 EE original dialog.tlk file but I surely don't want to make a mess and cause compatibility problems.

Well...for example, Revised Armors revises the bonuses vs. different damage types, so the listed bonuses would be incorrect; components like "you can cast spells in armor" are likely to place the spellcasting failure/speed cast penalty in the incorrect spot in the EE format style; the Revised Helmets component won't know how to update the helmet text in the EE format; Weapon Changes may not be able to parse updating proficiencies (or even changed damage/THAC0 bonuses for e.g. ammunition) as it stands with the EE formatting. All those text changes are performed on the fly by identifying particular key fields in particular formats, so if you're using IR's secondary components and changing text around, you may run into those kinds of inconsistencies. DavidW was kind enough to fix the most major one, the "bonuses vs. different damage types" one, and I've fixed SOME of the other ones, but I'm still working on others.

20 minutes ago, Salk said:

What I wanted to say was that the INT requirement for arcane spells wands should be the very same we apply for learning the spell itself:

That's much more like what I had in mind, I should probably adopt it. I wonder how the intelligence requirements of vanilla wands compare - perhaps they already do do that and I simply did not recognize it at the time.

Edited October 5, 2021 by Bartimaeus

[Salk]

Hello!

19 minutes ago, Bartimaeus said:

How would you handle this, Casiel's Soul? In IRR, it's currently...

I don't have alignment requirements mixed with the class requirements.

Here is an example of the revised text for the original Robe of Good Archmagi:

@10037  = ~This powerful mage robe offers protection from all forms of physical attack while at the same time increasing one's Magic Resistance and Saving Throws. Due to the nature of its enchantment, it can only be worn by wizards of good alignment.

STATISTICS:

Equipped abilities:
– Armor Class: 5
– Saving Throws: +1
– Magic Resistance: +5%

Requires:
 Good alignment

Weight: 6

Only usable by:
 Mage
 Sorcerer~

Note that I don't always go for the "Not usable by:" list. When the entries become too many they'd impair readability I simply switch to "Only usable by:" instead.

19 minutes ago, Bartimaeus said:

Well...for example, Revised Armors revises the bonuses vs. different damage types, so the listed bonuses would be incorrect; components like "you can cast spells in armor" are likely to place the spellcasting failure/speed cast penalty in the incorrect spot in the EE format style; the Revised Helmets component won't know how to update the helmet text in the EE format; Weapon Changes may not be able to parse updating proficiencies (or even changed damage/THAC0 bonuses for e.g. ammunition) as it stands with the EE formatting. All those text changes are performed on the fly by identifying particular key fields in particular formats, so if you're using IR's secondary components and changing text around, you may run into those kinds of inconsistencies. DavidW was kind enough to fix the most major one, the "bonuses vs. different damage types" one, and I've fixed SOME of the other ones, but I'm still working on others.

This worries me much more instead and will require some thinking.

19 minutes ago, Bartimaeus said:

That's much more like what I had in mind, I should probably adopt it. I wonder how the intelligence requirements of vanilla wands compare - perhaps they already do do that and I simply did not recognize it at the time.

I don't have at the moment a chance to check this for you but I wouldn't be surprised if it was already so.

All the best! 

Edited October 5, 2021 by Salk

[Guest JPags]

Hi, do you know why Oil of Speed was renamed to Potion of Speed? I wanted to patch it back so it would interact properly with Luke's PnP Potions (which looks for "oil" in the ID'd name string), but thought it might be safer to ask first.

[Luke]

14 hours ago, Guest JPags said:

Hi, do you know why Oil of Speed was renamed to Potion of Speed? I wanted to patch it back so it would interact properly with Luke's PnP Potions (which looks for "oil" in the ID'd name string), but thought it might be safer to ask first.

My mod is not 100% compatible with IR as of now (the actual effects of some potions such as Potion of Speed, Potion of Fire Resistance, etc. are applied by a subspell via op146, and my code doesn't detect those effects... Will try addressing them in a future update...)

Edited October 8, 2021 by Luke