pochesun

1 minute ago, Jarno Mikkola said:

Well...

//EE
COPY_EXISTING_GLOB ~.*\.are$~ ~override~	 // 

PATCH_IF (REQUIRE_PREDICATE GAME_IS ~bgee bg2ee eet~) BEGIN
	WRITE_SHORT 0x10 (THIS BOR BIT5) //EE only
BUT_ONLY
END

 

What does that mean?

13 hours ago, Mike1072 said:

By passing it around, you can heal the party fully without using any spells, consumables, or resting (which costs gold or has a chance of encountering monsters).  It makes the world feel a little less dangerous, which I don't like.

Thats true. But its also true that infinite resting abilities without penalties makes the world even less dangerous. 

For what its worth, if i was a modder, i would restrict or prohibit any resting while being in dungeon. Ability to rest is the most broken thing in BG anyway and there is no way to fix it as things stands, as i can see that.

@johncpatterson IR and IRR are extremely hard to be defined as cheating mods. From what i have experienced so far they balance things quite well. 

Also, ask yourself, is potiion that gives your character 25 strength a cheat? Before answering think about potion that gives you 23 strenght. But before answering this try to to answer for 19 strenght. Its all too relative. Some people believe that the game should not allow characters with less than 13 strength to equip a sword at all

14 hours ago, Bartimaeus said:

Yeah, I don't like it either. I think I'm going to make the BG2 version the default. Thanks for making me investigate further, pochesun, .

I am glad i helped. I think i also like BG2 version more, it makes the most sense considering other spell's presence like Breach (as @subtledoctor mentioned) and it makes spells like Spell Thrust more valuable. 

I presume the same change will be implemented for Remove Magic spell?

14 hours ago, Bartimaeus said:

I think you told me there was a weird chat log message when using Cloak of the Wolf? Once you reinstall, let me know if that's fixed - I think the re-stringing change should fix it, but I wasn't entirely clearly on what exactly your message was, so I'm not a hundred percent sure.

Will do.

3 minutes ago, subtledoctor said:

I’m a bit confused by this discussion of Dispel Magic. SRR’s option is for Dispel to be blocked by MGOI... but not being blocked (the normal setup) just means the Dispel can go through MGOI and remove any dispellable buffs underneath the Globe. It doesn't mean the Dispel will remove the Globe itself.

Going through the Globe and Removing the Globe are two different things. If the former doesn’t happen, it’s a bug; if the latter doesn’t happen, it’s normal.

You should not be 

Just a quick recap:

SRR offers dispelling Globe as default

I thought it didnt work as SRR intended in current patch but was wrong

Then Bartimaeus mentioned that in Vanila Globe always been dispellable and said that no-once change it since.

My last post is about EE turned out to have changed it so Globe can not be Dispelled (its not a bug record of proposition to make some changes - its jsut a thought).

@Bartimaeus  an intersiting thing, kinda food for thought. I just tested casting Dispell Magic on Minor Globe of Invulnerability in BG EE 1 unmodded, and it seems that Dispell Magic wont work against Globe, it does not dispell it. Also, dunno how much this thread related to the topic, just in case https://forums.beamdog.com/discussion/60024/cant-dispel-globe-of-invulnerability

As i said, only a food for thought, but its interesting how EE changed some things to make them different from vanilla (many of those very subtle) and people realize it so many years later.  

Cool, great work. Will use it as soon i get to BG 2 with my current run lol. 

37 minutes ago, Bartimaeus said:

so it's kind of a known "problem"

great one!

I think Kahrk is level 13 (according to WIKI) and i casted dispells and remove magic as level 5 or 6 dont remember exactly. But i have heard that there are some enemies that are specifically very resistant to certain types of dispelling effects, and probably Kahrk is one of those (WIKI and Beamdog forum says the same). 

Regarding Spell Thrust, i think you have already done it (according to the commits of the latest SRR release)

@Bartimaeus i guess it was a false alarm  I tested it on BG 2 with console EXP upping and Dispel worked against both globes. I was misleaded in a way by the fact that in BG 1 i could not dispell globe from Kahrk from Firewine Bridge, and now i read about it that he is super resistant to all kind of dispell magic, and with ghost in Durlag's Tower i didnt do many tries. Well... happens.

42 minutes ago, Bartimaeus said:

I wrote: "The vanilla description of MGoI specifically says this at the end: "The globe can be brought down by a Dispel Magic spell.""

In other words, globes have always been dispellable in vanilla. In other words, SR has not made any changes there, and neither has SRR since dispel_globes is defaulted to 1. But if you don't want globes to be dispellable, the option is there.

Yeah thats correct, but then my question from post  n1 still stands: why i can not dispell globe with Dispell or Remove Spell while i have 1 in my ini.settings file by default and i havent changed anything?

1 hour ago, Bartimaeus said:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/s/4e8h6xeb1rbiu4j/InLyY0GAdT.mp4

Haven't made any changes to Globes/DIspel Magic recently, and this is a fresh installation of SRR. Took a few tries, but that's the nature of Dispel Magic.

The vanilla description of MGoI specifically says this at the end: "The globe can be brought down by a Dispel Magic spell." As far as I know, no-one's ever changed it from not being dispellable to being dispellable: it's always been that way. The reason I introduced it as an option was because a user was attempting a solo playthrough and was finding the amount of dispel spam from SCS casters to be absurd, and I believe it was a subtledoctor idea that maybe globes should not be dispellable as a way to at least protect mages.

The latest repository of SRR now has all anti-magic spells' power levels set to 0 in order to always penetrate globes (plus so it's consistent). Normal SR has a mix of anti-magics having power levels set to their correct level and set to 0, and I thought I had tested this to make sure that ones set to their correct power level would correctly pierce globes, but I think what happened is that I only tested other spell protections like Spell Deflection.

Now i am totaly confused. First, Vanilla says can or can not? Second, if its always been indispellable why there is "1" by default instead of "0" in ini.settings file? (latest SRR zip pack) As far as i read it 1 means globes can be dispelled and 0 means can not. 

I got 2 questions. In SRR ini.settings there is "= 1 // set to 0 to make globes of invulnerability not be dispelled by Dispel/Remove Magic".

1) So, presumably, by default Globes can be dispelled by Remove Magic and Dispel but its not happening in my default installation.

2) When Globes became susceptible to Dispell and Remove magic and what was logic behind the change, since I believe in unmodded BG EE Globes can not be dispelled by Dispell and Remove magic. I am not objecting the change, just curious

Any ETA on b11?

13 hours ago, Bartimaeus said:

Confirmed. This is very bizarre: I was working with someone else on github fixing bugs in SR months ago and literally have written notes from when I tested anti-magic type spells to make sure that they always pierce spell protection type spells regardless of level, and yet I test it today in BG2:EE and discover that it is not the case. Ugh. Not sure where I went wrong there. Will fix.

All cool. Thank you. Just curious if any other similar spells (like affecting magic protection ones) works properly. I think its worth checking. I am not sure i will be able to test those for next several days (during daylight i am busy, and evenings i am doing BG run  ). Next week probably i could check those and report if i notice any abberations. But its probably more effective if you check it on your side as well :). 

Also i once wrote about Potion of Absorbstion duration and its discription discrepancy in IRR thread. Just a reminder in case you have not had an opportunity to check it.

@Bartimaeus I know it could sound silly, but i dont understand how Spell Thrust works, specifically interraction with Minor Globe of Invulnerabilty. I am playing BG 1 atm and Spell Thrust wont affect enemies with the Globe on them. Targeting them or dropping near them to make use of radius of the spell covering 20 - nothing works. The Globe just stays there (though, according to discription, Spell Thrust should remove Globe). Experienced it with enemies like Goblin Mage at Firewine Bridge, Ghost in Durlag's Tower. I could be possibly doing something wrong but could you check if the spell works as it should at all? Thank you in advance.  

3 hours ago, Bartimaeus said:

Good presentation: was scared it was going to be super wordy and/or take too long for each one. Nice job, .

(e): Although I'd say it's likely you missed at least a few - like, what about those three friendly monsters, Darryl, Darryl, and Larry that give you an autograph? That's gotta be a reference to something, .

Darryls reference presented in video part number 1

@Bartimaeus

In ini. file i found "celestials                      = 1 // set to 0 if you prefer alternative celestials without SR mucking things up". Could you please specify what it means  The "mucking things up" part confuses me  a bit. If i leave it at 1 would it mess up with SCS behavior? Same for fiends.

2 hours ago, Guest Piquero said:

I'm not agains that, man. Im telling you. But if you are going to make a bugfix optional, what would you think the weidu installer would ask you? "unmade the change introduced in the previous component" or "shapesifting bugfix or somthing". In the first case you have to patch the files twice.

No, you just implement the change to fix the bug and make it default. The optional would be to make manual change in ini.settings file (like substitution 0 to 1 value or something like that) before you start installation.

3 minutes ago, Guest Piquero said:

lol, the default is what it is. the option would have to be to apply the change or not. does´nt matter what you like the most

Sorry but logic fails here  Following this logic one can assume that any patch change should be optional. That does not make much sense. Besides other people on this forum discussed the way to fix shapeshift exploit/bug with extra off hand attack so clearly that's the issue that bothers people. I have not been playing BG for several years and now i am reinvigorated with the urge to explore the game again and do multiple runs with mods, well... when i started playing i found that shapeshifter could do extra off hand attack and i was really surprised. I posted my concern about it here, and i bet other people like me would be truly surpsised about extra off hand attack as well. Thats why i think its much better to try to fix the bug with the solutions like @Bartimaeus introduced. 

1 hour ago, Bartimaeus said:

Hm. Personally, I didn't actually want to do this at all since it doesn't work in non-EE games, so I suppose it wouldn't be the end of the world to make it optional for EE games as well even though it's clearly a bug. Will do.

If its clearly a bug (and it is) why make it optional? I am not digging it  Would it not be better to make optional to allow off hand attacks and make the change you made as default?

@Bartimaeus only judging by the number of commits for the patch it took a lof of time indeed. Good job man!  

GJ 

36 minutes ago, Bartimaeus said:

@pochesun Okay, actually, this inspired me to look into it more. Weirdly, Fallen Planetar seems to work fine, but regular Planetar is just crippled. I'm going to see if I can figure it out...

Yeah, i posted a detailed discription of both planetar's behavior here, probably could help you if you haven't seen it yet. Its the post from Thursday i think.

5 hours ago, DavidW said:

Following this up: In SR, summoned Planetars are assigned their own AI; SCS doesn't change that assignment or alter the AI. So if there's an AI problem here (and actually I couldn't reproduce the issue) it's internal to SR, unless I'm missing something fundamental.

If @Bartimaeus wishes to delve into SR AI - i dont mind. If he does not i guess i will wait till new SCS patch, install with latest SRR patch, hopefuly new IR patch and will give it a run. Will report results.