[Discussion] What exactly are we trying to fix?

[Cahir]

Interesting, I didn't realise there is such component in BG1UB (or simply forgot about it). Still, it worth be checking if those corrections cover some of my findings. Unfortunately, since the thread in BD forum was in betatesting subforum, I lost access to it and cannot open it myself to crosscheck. Also, I think Oversight touches this area, but I'm not sure if this mod is compatible with the current 2.6.6 patch. Anyway guys, it's your call if this is worth fixing as a part of EE Fixpack or not

[jastey]

1 hour ago, Cahir said:

alignment inconsistencies

Only if it's a necessary fix, e.g. a fiend not being evil so "Protection against Evil" doesn't work on it. If it's solely a "make creature alignments mor like P&P", then that's a tweak that could go into a mod with that name. My opinion. I have a faint recall there was a huge discussion about this for the BG2FP.

[Cahir]

52 minutes ago, jastey said:

Only if it's a necessary fix, e.g. a fiend not being evil so "Protection against Evil" doesn't work on it. If it's solely a "make creature alignments mor like P&P", then that's a tweak that could go into a mod with that name. My opinion. I have a faint recall there was a huge discussion about this for the BG2FP.

Sure, that's a sensible approach. I do recall there were also cases that falls into this category (like some few orcs being neutral not evil, which looked like an ommission, because I don't see how those specific orcs are different from the rest). Some of my findings were indeed more of a "matching PnP" approach, true, but some I think was glaring enough that could be considered bugs. Anyway, can't open the thread anymore, but possibly @CamDawgcan. As I've said I'll leave the decision if it's worth persuing or not to you guys Anyway I just recall about this, and thought I'll add this under consideration.

[jmerry]

Protection from Evil is actually two separate effects; the attack roll penalty for evil attackers, and protection from summoned demons (that's a gender, technically). Summoned demons can't attack you even if they're "good", because that part works like a Protection from Undead scroll.

The fiend alignments only come into play if you're trying to use something like Holy Smite or Carsomyr or Dorn's Abyssal Blade against them.

On that note ... both potential patrons Azothet and Ur-Gothoz are lawful evil. Ur-Gothoz uses a cornugon animation, and Azothet a marilith animation. Kill Ur-Gothoz, and you empower the blade against (lawful) devils. Kill Azothet, and you empower the blade against (chaotic) demons. Shouldn't one of them be on the chaotic side of the Blood War? Probably Azothet, given the animation.

Though now that I look closer ... the blade effects are actually based on a class check, not an alignment check. Class "Imp" for the lawful side, class "Tanari" for the chaotic side. And those aren't applied consistently. Generic pit fiends, despite their lawful alignment, get the "Tanari" class. I think only the Watcher's Keep content really bothers to try to make that distinction, and it includes plenty of creatures with the "demonic" race but neither class. Better to just change OHDSW2B.EFF and OHDSW2C.EFF to target alignment (Lawful Evil/Chaotic Evil) instead of class (Imp/Tanari). (It's a multi-stage effect; opcode 177 on the weapon, targeting race DEMONIC only, calling those EFFs which decide which kind of fiend to target, and call another EFF that actually does the damage boost.)

[jastey]

Maybe make a rule that if the discussion about a topic whether it's a fix and should be included or not reaches two pages we do not include it?... *waves byebye to the Continue() in ar2700.bcs* EDIT unless all agree in the end, of course.

[CamDawg]

Yes, we're willing to tackle alignment corrections, and I'd suggest the same ground rules we used for BG2FP alignment discussions. Quoting myself from that thread:

Quote

... like the alignments of BG they're based solely on a characters actions in-game. An NPC could run a kitten adoption agency (or alternatively, kick them in the street) outside of the game, but it would have no relevance in these discussions.

Why mess with alignments at all? Unlike BG, which actually had thoughtfully applied alignments, BG2 is an absolute mess. Irenicus is classed as Chaotic Good, Ellisime is listed as LG in the manual but is TN in the game, some paladins are non-LG, and many, many creatures have no alignment assigned. These changes are important and under the scope of the Fixpack as they have a material impact not just on the quality of the gaming experience ("Know Alignment says Irenicus is what?") but also on the mechanics. Spells, such as Unholy Blight and Holy Word, and items, such as Daystar or the Equalizer, behave very differently based upon the alignment of the targets.

The upshot of all this is that you should feel free to kick off a new free-for-all reasonable discussion on alignments.

As for 'prolonged' discussions: everything is up for discussion, and that applies even after something's been decided. Re-examination of past decisions provides an audit on the quality and thoughtfulness of the work and is more than welcome. Even the most reasonable group of people--and so far it looks like we have a very reasonable group--won't agree on everything. As such it's critical that everyone gets to share their thoughts, even if EEFP ultimately chooses another path.

[Awachi]

I propose adding back in a 3 second loading screen, occurring each Master Area change, and randomly once every 10-20 (sub? Servant?) areas. The old "incorrect" one about importing your character to NWN should stay in. 

Developer intent is 100% on seeing these. Definitely a part of the game experience. If there's another way to see these in-game without needing player input, I'd accept that as a reasonable substitute. 

[jastey]

I have the slight feeling that some people are not taking this seriously.

[Sam.]

It has been suggested once or twice over the years, and to date I'm not aware of anyone with the skills to make it happen taking it seriously enough to do it.  It could have a place in a mod, but I'm not sure it should be in this mod.

[The_Baffled_King]

Just wondering if a different standard is or should be applied for fixes that essentially remove a resource or exploit that some people might have enjoyed, in circumstances where the fix offers little or nothing in return beyond the fact that an apparent oversight has been fixed? There are definitely fixes out there which will offer little or nothing to most players whilst being received very poorly by a small number of people who are happy with the status quo.

Also, when considering fixes of the kind I describe above, might it be wise for Beamdog to implement such fixes more sparingly when they relate to orginal game content thus far untouched by Beamdog (applying a more liberal standard only to problems with new EE content, or problems introduced by previous Beamdog fixes)?

Obviously it's not for me to say what Beamdog should do, but, given that BG1 was released over 20 years ago, and given that BG:EE isn't far from a decade old, shouldn't the cost/benefit analysis of any changes pay due deference to the situation as-is, rather than the situation envisaged by the developers? It's similar in some ways to the concept of the Death of the Author - the starting point for the interpretation of a work is the work itself, rather than the intent of its creator.

It seems to me that the standards applied to original fix packs should not apply by default to EE fixpacks, because the passage of time is a highly relevant consideration. Equally, the fact that Beamdog had an opportunity to fix the original game, and has created a new environment that players are now familiar with [Edit] is an argument against further change doesn't mean that remaining errors are not bugs, but it does mean people are more likely to feel cheated if stuff that they like is removed at this late stage. I say this on the basis that there was talk of Beamdog implementing this fixpack if the community does the work[/Edit]

To be fair, I read every entry on CamDawg's list, and it seems that few things were simply removed by previous fixpacks. Moreover, in cases where things were removed, there was a clear benefit involved (for example, some people might have preferred the workings of certain spells prior to a change, but it's impossible to make a good faith argument that matching a spell to its description offers no benefit). It's just that, without more, "developer intent" seems to allow taking stuff away while offering little or nothing in return.

I thought I'd post this spiel because I began writing it in response to a specific change suggested in a particular thread, but said response was really about making a wider point about the scope of the fixpack rather than commenting on the specific change. Here's the specific change in question (it's kind of trivial):

On 4/18/2022 at 4:35 AM, DavidW said:

Helm of Glory, 'Helm of the Noble' (helm03). Carried by Jardak, but can also be stolen from the noncombatant version of Pride in Durlag's tower.

Proposal: obvs Pride's version should be unstealable.

Personally, I would be fine with this change. I also think it would have been objectively correct to make the change at various points, both in the first few years when oBG was being patched, and when Beamdog was fixing things for the EEs. But I also think that a change like this will go unnoticed and unappreciated by most people, but will be noticed and vehemently hated by a few people, who will quite reasonably ask "why the heck are you stopping me from doing this 20 years after the oG and 10 years after the EEs??!!".

I'm gonna wrap this up by pointing to a very similar situation, where someone else has posted about how cool it was that they could steal an item the developers probably didn't intend them to steal. The item in question was Legacy of the Masters, stolen from Tazok following the bandit camp infiltration cut scene. There has always been a copy of Legacy of the Masters held by Meilum in Firewine. According to the BG wiki, Tazok, too, has also always had the Legacy of the Masters. However, the EE both attempted to make Tazok unkillable (presumably for continuity) AND added a copy of Legacy of Masters in a container in Tazok's Tent - the latter change likely intended to compensate for the former change making it difficult to get Tazok's Legacy of the Masters from him.

And yet, two months ago, here is someone posting how cool it is to get a third Legacy of the Masters:

https://forums.beamdog.com/discussion/83576/tazok-and-getting-legacy-of-the-masters-in-bandit-camp-yes-its-possible#latest

Is that the kind of thing that a fixpack should stop? I've literally no interest in stealing these items. Heck, on my first play of BG after buying the EEs (before I found SCS and its AI) I was deliberately moving my party forward to force enemy groups to fight me! But fixpack are used by all sorts so, y'know, there's that to consider.

If anyone feels motivated to reply, comments specifically about the Helm or the Legacy of the Masters are probably best placed in DavidW's thread about item duplication.

Edited April 30, 2022 by The_Baffled_King
Paragraph 4 edited as my position was not completely clear

[jmerry]

Wait, why are we even talking about Pride's helmet being stealable? He's wearing it properly, in the head slot. You can't steal anything from that. The only way to actually get it is to kill noncombatant Pride outright. It's on the same level as the clones of various unique items (Fallorain's Plate, Plate of the Dark, The Dead Shot) that the Ghost Knights in the Firewine ruins have, all of which are also in unstealable slots (body armor, active weapon).

As for killing Pride ... 100% resistance to magic and all damage types except magic and poison, 1000 HP, AC -20, saves against everything on a zero. It's technically possible to kill that (Magic Resistance plus Cloudkill, since Pride is only level 1), but it requires serious trickery.

If you want to block that, you either need to make it undroppable or give Pride a min-HP item.

Actually, what about min-HP items for the various BG1 noncombatants that have that "virtually immune to everything" package? That's a legacy of the original game, from before the better standard was developed.

[Graion Dilach]

1 hour ago, jmerry said:

all of which are also in unstealable slots ([...] active weapon).

Polymorph Other and the squirrel paw moves the weapon out from the equipped weapon slot, so this one can be circumvented.

[Sam.]

8 hours ago, Graion Dilach said:

10 hours ago, jmerry said:

all of which are also in unstealable slots ([...] active weapon).

Polymorph Other and the squirrel paw moves the weapon out from the equipped weapon slot, so this one can be circumvented.

See also SLTSTEAL.2DA and mods like Epic Thieving.  Not that I'm suggesting any of this equipment be made undroppable or removed.  It's a cool feature not a flaw that there are ways to tease out powerful items or XP from unexpected sources for the non-roleplaying power users.  I enjoy getting the Helm of Opposite Alignment from the demonknight (before BD ducked that up) and the third ring of wizardry from Winski Perorate every playthrough, to name a couple.

[DavidW]

12 hours ago, jmerry said:

Wait, why are we even talking about Pride's helmet being stealable? He's wearing it properly, in the head slot. You can't steal anything from that. The only way to actually get it is to kill noncombatant Pride outright. It's on the same level as the clones of various unique items (Fallorain's Plate, Plate of the Dark, The Dead Shot) that the Ghost Knights in the Firewine ruins have, all of which are also in unstealable slots (body armor, active weapon).

As for killing Pride ... 100% resistance to magic and all damage types except magic and poison, 1000 HP, AC -20, saves against everything on a zero. It's technically possible to kill that (Magic Resistance plus Cloudkill, since Pride is only level 1), but it requires serious trickery.

If you want to block that, you either need to make it undroppable or give Pride a min-HP item.

Actually, what about min-HP items for the various BG1 noncombatants that have that "virtually immune to everything" package? That's a legacy of the original game, from before the better standard was developed.

That’s just my ignorance of what is or isn’t stealable. No need to do anything, then.

[CamDawg]

Thank you @The_Baffled_King, this is a very thoughtful post. I'll try and approach it from a couple of different angles.

The question about whether an exploit should be 'fixed' came up a fair bit in BG2FP and IWDFP, and I'm sure you can find any number of (now archived) discussions about it. We generally used a loose standard of whether a player could 'stumble' into it. If it's something that requires a 14-step process: don't care. If it's something that can be experienced by pickpocketing or clicking on a character: that's being fixed.

Let me preface this next bit by saying I was generally the voice of conservatism in BG2FP, throughout EE development, and (so far at least) it seems like that will be my role in EEFP as well. On this:

On 4/28/2022 at 5:33 PM, The_Baffled_King said:

It seems to me that the standards applied to original fix packs should not apply by default to EE fixpacks, because the passage of time is a highly relevant consideration. Equally, the fact that Beamdog had an opportunity to fix the original game, and has created a new environment that players are now familiar with, is an argument against further change.

Unfortunately it's not so straightforward. There are multiple filters before a bug gets to the attention of the devs and, even if it does, it can be set aside in favor of higher priority issues. IOW we can't work under the assumption that because an issue has not been addressed through X patches that it must be intended. Granted, that may actually be the case, but we'll still need to examine each proposed fix on its merits. This is also why feedback from players is vital.

As for the EEs being their own thing compared to the originals: completely agree, though we shouldn't outright dismiss insight from the originals in deciding fixes.

On 4/28/2022 at 5:33 PM, The_Baffled_King said:

However, the EE both attempted to make Tazok unkillable (presumably for continuity) AND added a copy of Legacy of Masters in a container in Tazok's Tent - the latter change likely intended to compensate for the former change making it difficult to get Tazok's Legacy of the Masters from him.

Beamdog has a broader mandate for change and, while I'd be fine suggesting a solution like this in a bug report to BD, it's not something I'd be comfortable with in an unofficial fixpack.