Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by DavidW

  1. @Angel: the only caveat I should give is that I have tattered shards of my own rewrite locally, so might not be able to incorporate third-party fixes very directly. (This is what happened for v31/v32 of SCS: CamDawg put together v31; v32 was built on v30 code with some manual incorporation of things from v31.)

  2. Yes. (It reflects the fact that the party are teleported in without warning, so it's implausible for the chess pieces to prebuff.)

    This is externalized to stratagems\mage\override\[bg1/bg2]\boolean.2da. Setting the Boolean DoNotPrebuff turns off buffing. You'll see that in BG1 it applies to the chess pieces, to a couple of dopplegangers, to Silke in Beregost, and (iirc) to a couple of adventurers you can meet abruptly in Baldur's Gate.


  3. Don't overestimate SCS's AI. It's not clever enough to do a relative-armor check on spellcasters. Mostly it's working with a class-based priority list: if for the particular attack we're dealing with that priority list has cleric>bard, clerics will be prioritized. 

    If you think that's anomalous, and it would be better to do bard>cleric, I can tweak it. (Sometimes, e.g. when we're explicitly targeting mages, it's that way round already.)

  4. No need to talk to me. I don't know the ETA for my project, and in any case there's no reason not to have multiple versions of an idea - people can choose which one they want to use, different people may have different preferences, and the same person may want different things in different playthroughs.

  5. Dialog: Different people have different tastes. (Some people love the dragon dialog, some don't.) If you've concrete feedback on the dialog, I'd be interested to hear it. I'm reluctant to break up the component - I wouldn't rule it out 100% but this is a niche request and every time I do this it adds install complexity and the possibility of bugs.

    Treasure: I'm not much moved by the lack of treasure on the dragons: they don't live there, they've just turned up to attack, why would they be carrying treasure? (There is a case for them having scales, as has been pointed out before; that might make it into v34.)

    Rope: I'm not thrilled with this, to be honest, and might muck with it at some point. The underlying problem is that Abazigal's lair is just not that plausible in the first instance. Yes, it's silly that CHARNAME has to go back to Amkethran for rope; is it more silly than his only being able to make progress in the first place because the monk just happens to have some rope? But it's over a decade since I coded this, and perhaps it's time to think about it some more.

  6. On the general proposal: for the most part I don't think this is realistic as stated, basically for the reasons qwerty1234567 gives. One of the key features of IE modding is that multiple mods can compatibly edit the same game files, and the better-written mods go to great lengths to try to do so. For instance, SCS modifies something like 1,000 .spl files (including pretty much every player-usable spell), 4800 .cre files, 100 .dlg files, and 160 .are files (and much more besides). But most of those modifications are minor things that should play nice with other modifications. Flagging any other mod that alters any of those files as potentially conflicting with SCS would be massive overkill and generate mostly false positives. Designing a syntax that allows more fine-grained flagging of modifications sounds an incredibly difficult task (something between 'would be a good PhD topic in CS' and 'is AI-complete'), and in any case would create a prohibitive amount of work for modders.

    (There is a closely-related technical issue: compatibility doesn't just depend on *what* is modified but *how* it's modified. (Ascension 1.4 and Ascension 2.0 modify very nearly the same resources relative to an unmodded install, but 1.4 does it by blanket overwrites and 2.0 is much more subtle.) And writing compatibility-friendly modification code is often hard, even with modern tools, so that different mods manage it to different degrees - and many modders are borrowing not-fully-understood code from other sources and aren't fully reliable about how compatibility-friendly their own code is.)

    There might be a happy medium - something fine-grained enough to be of some use but not so much so as to be unmanageable. But it's not obvious to me that it is, and in any case I think the devil would be in the details - someone would have to design it, in detail, and mark up a bunch of the big popular mods to see how well it worked in practice. (I appreciate SCS is an extreme outlier in the scope and systematicity of its editing, although Tweaks Anthology isn't so far behind.)

    On the specific point of the Lanthorn quest clash (I assume you mean the clash between Kish's Lanthorn component and my 'restored Lanthorn' micro-mod? - if there's a clash with Wheels of Prophecy, I'm not aware of it): Even a casual read of the two readmes should make it obvious that they clash, so I'm not sure what's to be gained by an automated system in this case. I'm strongly of the opinion that it is a very bad idea to install IE mods (or any software, really) without at least a casual look at their readmes, so I'm not keen to do anything that encourages people to do so.

    There's perhaps a broader point here: many mods tend to be under-documented or plain undocumented. That's understandable - modding is a hobby; writing documentation is dull; updating SCS's documentation is usually my least favorite step in a mod update. But it's a problem precisely because it makes installation and compatibility hard to judge, at least for the (I assume) majority of end-users who don't spend ages perusing the forums for the latest instructions. I'm not sure I wouldn't rather encourage people to document their mods and keep that documentation up-to-date, rather than introduce what's probably going to seem like another dull chore. (Of course I could be persuaded otherwise by a sufficiently well-designed flag system.)

  • Create New...