argent77 Posted January 5 Share Posted January 5 The probabilities of hostile rest encounters have been greatly reduced in IWDEE compared to oIWD. It looks like this was a systematic change since all encounter probabilities were reduced to 20 percent of the original value. @CamDawg Do you know whether (or why?) this was intentionally changed by BD? Should it be reverted to the original values by the EEFP? Comparison of rest encounter probabilities (oIWD and IWDEE): Spoiler AREA IWD_DAY IWDEE_DAY IWD_NIGHT IWDEE_NIGHT AR1200 6 1 6 1 AR1201 15 3 15 3 AR2000 40 8 70 14 AR2001 30 6 50 10 AR3000 25 5 25 5 AR3001 20 4 20 4 AR3501 25 5 25 5 AR3502 30 6 30 6 AR3503 30 6 30 6 AR3601 50 10 50 10 AR3602 60 12 60 12 AR4001 50 10 50 10 AR4002 10 2 10 2 AR4003 50 10 50 10 AR4005 50 10 50 10 AR5001 35 7 35 7 AR5002 40 8 40 8 AR5003 45 9 45 9 AR5104 40 8 40 8 AR5202 35 7 35 7 AR5203 40 8 40 8 AR5204 20 4 20 4 AR5301 50 10 50 10 AR5302 50 10 50 10 AR5303 50 10 50 10 AR5304 15 3 15 3 AR5402 50 10 50 10 AR5403 50 10 50 10 AR5404 20 4 20 4 AR6001 15 3 15 3 AR6002 10 2 10 2 AR6003 15 3 15 3 AR6004 20 4 20 4 AR6008 10 2 10 2 AR6009 10 2 10 2 AR7004 40 8 40 8 AR7005 30 6 30 6 AR8001 40 8 40 8 AR8003 35 7 35 7 AR8005 35 7 35 7 AR8006 40 8 40 8 AR8007 40 8 40 8 AR8008 40 8 40 8 AR8009 35 7 35 7 AR8011 40 8 40 8 AR9300 30 6 70 14 AR9400 40 8 60 12 AR9500 33 6 33 6 AR9501 60 12 60 12 AR9502 60 12 60 12 AR9601 30 6 30 6 AR9602 40 8 40 8 AR9700 33 6 33 6 AR9709 33 6 33 6 AR9710 33 6 33 6 AR9711 40 8 40 8 AR9712 40 8 40 8 AR9713 33 6 33 6 AR9714 40 8 40 8 AR9716 40 8 40 8 AR9717 40 8 40 8 AR9718 40 8 40 8 AR9800 n/a 8 n/a 8 Quote Link to comment
CamDawg Posted January 5 Share Posted January 5 Looking at my IWD-in-BG2 install, this is from the original converter. I'm going to ping @DavidW as well--I can't remember any reason for this change offhand. Quote Link to comment
DavidW Posted January 6 Share Posted January 6 IIRC the oIWD and oBG2 engines interpreted the rest probability field differently (or at least I convinced myself they did). I'd suggest testing directly in oIWD here to see if that's correct. Quote Link to comment
jmerry Posted January 6 Share Posted January 6 I checked the IESDP to see what that bit of crowdsourced wisdom had to say ... ARE v1.0 applies to all games under consideration. The info on the rest encounter substructure claims that it's a per-hour percentage chance, with no mention of any variation between games. Which ... testing in BGEE ... seems plausible, at least for the EE engine. If it was true for original IWD with the larger numbers above, that would make it essentially impossible to ever rest in most of those areas, given the eight uninterrupted hours needed. (Outdoor wilderness areas in BGEE tend to have that rest probability field at 3 or 4.) Quote Link to comment
CamDawg Posted January 6 Share Posted January 6 Right, but oBG and oBG2 use the same area version but infamously use different spawn point calculations. We may have found something different in rest spawns between oIWD and oBG2 and forgotten about it, or we could have just been wrong. Quote Link to comment
jmerry Posted January 6 Share Posted January 6 Exactly. Another round of BGEE tests - increase the numbers to 13 for an area in a save, try to rest ... eight successful rests out of twenty. So it's eight independent rolls on the table to get through a rest successfully. If you fail, the monsters show up and no time passes regardless of which roll it was that failed. The oIWD numbers look like a much more intuitive "this is the chance of encountering something in the entire rest". And there's no easy conversion between the two systems. So, three possibilities: either oIWD and IWDEE use different rest encounter calculations, the oIWD numbers are badly out of whack and that change was made so that it was reasonably possible to rest in the wilderness and dungeons (more than a 98% chance of an encounter for a region with a "40" probability such as daytime AR2000), or oBG2/BGEE uses a different calculation to oIWD/IWDEE and the changed numbers were a mistake. Testing the system in both IWD and IWDEE should clear this up. Quote Link to comment
DavidW Posted January 6 Share Posted January 6 Looking back through my code archive: I can't actually find where (if at all) this was implemented in the last released version of IWD-in-BG2 (which means nothing, the code for that is a tangled mess). It's explicitly in the converter I gave Beamdog (which was the baseline on which IWDEE was built), but the comments just say 'basically Cam's code'. I *strongly* suspect this just passed into IWDEE without Beamdog QA really seeing it. In which case we're relying on Cam's personal QA (in which case we are probably okay) or my personal QA (in which case we are probably in trouble). Quote Link to comment
argent77 Posted January 6 Author Share Posted January 6 It looks like encounter probability is indeed calculated differently in oIWD. Based on my tests the reduction to 20 percent is a good approximation - maybe even a bit low. 22 or 23 percent would be closer to the original spawn rate. The oIWD calculation seems to distribute the rest encounters more evenly, but that's not something we can control. I have also noticed that the number of spawned creatures appears to be calculated differently. In my test setup I got between 1 to 3 instances of a creature type per rest encounter in oIWD. The same setup in IWDEE would always spawn a single creature. I don't know if this indicates a bug or just a different spawn number calculation. Quote Link to comment
CamDawg Posted January 6 Share Posted January 6 Interesting, I wonder if the rest spawn scaling has the same 100x scaling as the spawn points--oIWD has more in common with the oBG engine after all. If so, we may need to look at BGEE rest spawns since they didn't get the same scaling as spawn points. Quote Link to comment
jmerry Posted January 6 Share Posted January 6 (edited) BGEE rest spawns definitely aren't using the same scaling as BGEE spawn points. My test referenced earlier used the xvart village with a full party at the campaign cap (sum of levels 51), and got ten xvarts (power level 4) whenever that rest spawn (difficulty 2, maximum number 10) triggered. If that were running on the same scaling that the spawn points use, it would have been one xvart (51*2/100 total power, divide by 4 and round up to one enemy). Most likely, it just isn't using that factor of 100 in the calculation. So that's ceiling(51*2/4) = 26 xvarts, truncated to 10 by the secondary cap. Working as apparently intended. Edited January 6 by jmerry Corrected an omitted detail Quote Link to comment
argent77 Posted January 6 Author Share Posted January 6 I agree with jmerry. The rest spawn calculation in IWDEE seems to be correct. It's looks like oIWD calculates the numbers differently. The secondary cap (offset 0xa4) appears to be used as some kind of multiplier. I also didn't notice a change in the number of spawned instances when I increased the power level of the creatures. In any case, I think the rest spawn works as intended in IWDEE considering that the calculations have changed quite a bit. Quote Link to comment
Bubb Posted January 7 Share Posted January 7 oIWD rest interruptions are indeed simpler: If [+0xA6] is 0 rest interruptions are disabled. Roll [0-99], if this roll is ≤ the relevant probability field (day – [+0xA8], night – [+0xAA]) the rest is interrupted by a single spawn pass. If [+0x98] or [+0xA4] is 0 the rest interruption is cancelled. Time is randomly advanced between 0 and 7.5 minutes. A random CRE resref + feedback string is selected using rand[0–[+0x98]-1] The number of spawn attempts is max(1, [+0xA4] + rand[-2–2]) + (bHeartOfFury ? 1 : 0) If the position randomization ends up putting a creature in an invalid spot the creature can be dropped. Quote Link to comment
lynx Posted March 21 Share Posted March 21 Do I understand correctly that iwd spawned a random amount of the same resref — the randomization was only done once (not per attempt)? Quote Link to comment
Bubb Posted March 22 Share Posted March 22 3 hours ago, lynx said: Do I understand correctly that iwd spawned a random amount of the same resref — the randomization was only done once (not per attempt)? Correct. Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.