Tactics Remix

[morpheus562]

Remove

Edited 6 hours ago by morpheus562

[herien_0]

I managed to install this backstab component of Tweaks Anthology along with the same SCS feature successfully in a BG1EE installation the other day with no issues if that offers anymore insight.

[jmerry]

OK, looking up that backstab component ... it's all in backstab_immunity.tph.

Start with lists of general categories, races, and classes that get immunity consideration here. IMP or MEPHIT race is most likely to be why a familiar shows up.

Build a list of items that grant backstab immunity.

Now, go through all creatures. If they match the characteristics needed, run a function to actually grant the immunity.

That function: First, check for equipped backstab immunity items. Second, check for backstab immunity effects. If neither are found, create a new backstab immunity effect.

So, that all seems fine. But is there something flaky in the implementation? Looking into it, it's all done very low-level; rather than using the ADD_CRE_EFFECT function, it reinvents that - INSERT_BYTES, write some things, then reindex the stuff that comes after the creature's effects. Where can that go bad? If you feed it a file with a bad value for the "Effects Offset" (at 0x2c4 in BGEE/BG2EE), that'll just be blindly used, inserting the stuff there whether it makes sense or not. And looking at your MOFAM01.CRE ... race IMP, effects offset 0. So the Tweaks component inserts a backstab immunity effect at offset zero, which just completely garbles the creature for any future attempt to parse it.

There's some shared blame here; your creature works on its own, and only breaks when another mod that does unwise low-level stuff is applied. But it's still something that you can easily fix; set the effects offset to an appropriate value instead of zero. The common order for the offsets seems to be known spells ≤ memorization info ≤ memorized spells ≤ effects ≤ items ≤ item slots, so I'd set the effects offset to be equal to the items offset.

[Added in edit: I tested ADD_CRE_EFFECT on that MOFAM01. It did not garble the creature; the built-in WeiDU function is guarded against zero offsets in this case. Okay, looks like I'm recommending a change to that Tweaks component as well - just use ADD_CRE_EFFECT rather than reinventing a less safe version.]

Edited August 6, 2023 by jmerry

[CamDawg]

ADD_CRE_EFFECT only supports v1 cre files (BG. BG2). It's done manually since the component also works for IWD and IWD2. And before you ask, the underlying creature validity check has the same fail condition.

So yes, Tweaks relies on non-borked files from other mods.

[morpheus562]

Remove

Edited 6 hours ago by morpheus562

[jmerry]

OK, that's a reason not to just use ADD_CRE_EFFECT in the Tweaks component. Implementing a smarter reindex routine that corrects stuff like this zero offset should be possible, but would be significant work.

On what the "Effects Offset" should be: the values at the six "**** Offset" fields should delineate non-overlapping segments of the binary file, that each come after all of the fixed-offset stuff. They don't have to be in any particular order, but there is a standard (noted in my post above). So, to fit a zero-byte segment in without being in the middle of any of the other segments, it should be equal to one of the other five fields or to the file size. The fixed-offset parts of a v1 CRE file take up 0x2d4 bytes, and thus the lowest of the offset entries will normally be exactly 0x2d4. To fit the standard, I'd set the "Effects Offset" value equal to the "Items Offset" value.

(And check your other CREs as well, of course. You never know when something like this will pop up.)

[Added in edit] Actually, on second thought, it wouldn't be too hard to compensate for this particular error in that backstab component, or anything that uses a similar effect-adding function. In any given CRE format, the header is a fixed size. Look that up. If the effects offset is smaller than the header size, then it's bogus; that would be a garbled file if there were even one effect starting there. So, on the grounds that we can assume the file isn't hopelessly corrupted already, compare the effects offset to the header size; if the offset is smaller, increase it to the header size (exactly) before doing any insert operations. As there were no effects before our changes, we don't have to worry about moving zero bytes from one spot in the file to another when we make this change.

Edited August 6, 2023 by jmerry

[morpheus562]

Remove

Edited 6 hours ago by morpheus562

[LichDiet]

@morpheus562, regarding your wish to not have a link page to your wonderful Tactics Remix mod on the Fandom BG wiki - perhaps I can help, or at least lobby for it.

As a fan and player of this mod, as well as others offered via G3, I'm personally happy to tell other players about your mod.   And have done so on Reddit and a few other BG related discussion boards.  Such is the nature of players and being social.   We've even chatted on Reddit a few times.

Rather than try and sway you to change your mind about your view of Fandom and monetization (it definitely does get revenue through advertisements), I can certainly try and resolve this issue for you as I'm a volunteer editor over at the Wiki.

How would you feel though, if another article page, or pages that has content that is related to your mod actually mentioned it?   Would that be OK in your book?  For example, if an article about the Docks district and the storehouse mentioned your mod's Lich in the Docks component - and then linked to the mod's G3 page - would that be acceptable?  

[morpheus562]

1 hour ago, LichDiet said:

@morpheus562, regarding your wish to not have a link page to your wonderful Tactics Remix mod on the Fandom BG wiki - perhaps I can help, or at least lobby for it.

As a fan and player of this mod, as well as others offered via G3, I'm personally happy to tell other players about your mod.   And have done so on Reddit and a few other BG related discussion boards.  Such is the nature of players and being social.   We've even chatted on Reddit a few times.

Rather than try and sway you to change your mind about your view of Fandom and monetization (it definitely does get revenue through advertisements), I can certainly try and resolve this issue for you as I'm a volunteer editor over at the Wiki.

How would you feel though, if another article page, or pages that has content that is related to your mod actually mentioned it?   Would that be OK in your book?  For example, if an article about the Docks district and the storehouse mentioned your mod's Lich in the Docks component - and then linked to the mod's G3 page - would that be acceptable?  

I want absolutely zero association with your fandom/organization. All revenue generated from visits to the page you created verbatim with my work needs to be donated immediately to G3.

[mickabouille]

That's...

You certainly can express desire to have nothing to do with them.

What you're asking is that someone doesn't talk about what you do.

Better just to ignore them completely, I'm not sure you'll obtain what you want

 

I mean: there would certainly be reason for grief if they redistributed you mod, of if they copied verbatim parts of it, but (and I'll admit I haven't gone to see what there is on the page) that's probably not that is it?

Edited August 11, 2023 by mickabouille

[LichDiet]

@morpheus562  Understood.  Sorry you feel this way, but I respect your concerns and making them known.  No hard feelings, I hope.  I enjoy your work and the mod you developed.  So, thanks for doing that, as a fan of the game and a player.  

I have no influence or any connection with any business side of Fandom.  I'm merely a content editor related to BG games.  I'm unpaid and have no hidden financial incentive to link to a mod.   It was all about info for the reader and fan to alert them to an available mod.

Peace.

[morpheus562]

Just now, mickabouille said:

That's...

You certainly can express desire to have nothing to do with them.

What you're asking is that someone doesn't talk about what you do.

Better just to ignore them completely, I'm not sure you'll obtain what you want

A complaint directly with wiki fandom had someone above the BG fandom step in and remove the page.

[mickabouille]

OK, I hope that'll stay this way then.

[Guest Hazif]

@morpheus562 You talk a lot about the horrible behavior of the wiki's "moderators", so why don't you link to some actual evidence, like this thread where most of the discussion took place? https://baldursgate.fandom.com/f/p/4400000000000128485

 

[jastey]

Thanks for linking to that thread, Hazif, since it gives background info.

I'm not sure it"s helping your cause, though. I take it that you really do not get where you (and other wiki folks) went wrong.