Graion Dilach

13 hours ago, jmerry said:

Vanilla Centeol has absolutely no items, and the only condition on her dialogue is the charmed option. These mods could not possibly be causing the problem on their own.

7 hours ago, ktchong said:

I looked into Centoel's creature file, CENTOE.CRE.  It only had an "ANTIWEB" amulet and the Wand of Frost.  Her inventory did not have anything else.  So, no other mod had moved contents of the nearby container into Centeol's inventory. 

Vanilla Centeol has all those items in fact and they exist outside her inventory, so indeed 9999 is responsible here.

Yes, 9999 also functions as an anti-spilling component via directly equipping contents from outside the inventory. Keep in mind that oBG1 and BGEE are full of CRE files with "spilled" items like this (Look at Joia for an extreme case, her inventory after 10000 was the reason why 9999 works like this) and currently I don't have a way to filter out the vanilla cases against the items spilled out due to mod results (nor am I actually interested at writing such, I'd say this should be resolved in an earlier step of the installation). I'd say the "duplication" itself is a "by-design" issue, but not an RGT bug.

AFAIK the only "spilled" items BGEE deleted from oBG1 are actual garbage data taking three additional item slots on Gorion. Which implies to me that Beamdog at one point looked into this but only cleaned up what was 100% junk.

Also, I don't touch the containers at all and installing 10000 on it's own without 9999 should still introduce the "duplication".

I do acknowledge 9999 shouldn't equip cursed items as a bug and I'll fix that when I find time. EDIT: v1.13 no longer equips cursed items.

There is one way how this could turn out though - but RandomGraionTweaks Bag of Spilling fixes that silently and I don't think @ktchong has that.

I've seen the chain-randomization setup breaking on random items when they lack the ITM file and that's one of the reason why I set up a dummy ITM file to all random items during Bag of Spilling. (they would also otherwise can turn out to be an immovable undroppable object). I think (although it's been a long while I've looked into this) SCS scrolls lacked the ITM file last I looked, notsure if this was changed.

Wow, this is a level of entitlement based on nonsense. I mean, feel free to criticize the SCS system, but atleast know the original system along.

In obG1/oBG2, the amount and type of random spell scrolls are fixed. Excluding the direct Identify scrolls from the basic random treasure, the vanilla dedicated random spell scrolls are limited in scope and even distributed messily in oBG2. So for example, yes, you wouldn't ever receive a level 4 scroll from a random treasure in oBG1 either. Sure, the BG2 scroll cap is lower than the maximum level of a spell you can get in vanilla, but considering that oBG2 just substituted some basic scrolls with high level counterparts on a whim and kept the BG1 system along otherwise, I'd shrug that off.

And yes, the SCS component wides the selection, because it takes all the scrolls available in the game (even the ones added by other mods) and offers equal chance between all of them instead of limiting the overall selection to what, ~30 scrolls. I haven't looked at v35, but in v34 it definitely increased the chance of random scrolls appearing, because it substituted a few slots on the generic random treasure generations occupied by non-scrolls with it's scroll tokens to increase the distribution, because the scroll treasure itself isn't really commonplace enough on it's own anyway. But then again, jmerry did confirm that this is still in.

The only technicality why this might seem different are caused by content mods when those content mods end up using the oBG random treasure names on Trilogy games, because both BGT and EET rename the oBG1 counterparts, which means these content mods accidentally introduce the BG2 level random treasures which can be rolled into higher levels of scrolls during the BG1 segment with SCS. (EEEE did this for a while, that's why it resulted with so many level 4 scrolls in the Gnoll Stronghold at one point.)

Yes, the original game is THIS stingy and that has nothing to do with SCS.

If you want more scrolls and a more "even" distribution, you can also take any/many of the RandomGraionTweaks scroll components along, because that introduces a parallel system.

@ktchong @jmerry Re: inventory - Yes, I'm not doing any reorganization beyond equipping from (outside the) backpack. Lolfixer did, and one needs to make too many assumptions about the game's state for doing so (f.e. I never equip a weapon to offhand, simply because I didn't want to check against BG1 avatars or validating dualwield options against IR/Scales dualwielding rules). My goal was to partially free up more inventory slots incase someone finds the Bag of Spilling too immersion-breaking and attempt ensuring that enemies benefit from the additions of more forgiving item-mods (even if this makes some amusing results, like Joia gearing up from a leftover Bioware inventory she doesn't have access to in vanilla).

@DavidW While I appreciate the documentation, for the time being, I have little interest at modding (I do look forward to see how the end of this month turns out though). That being said, I think your system works with the scroll components out of the box, atleast I don't see a reason why they wouldn't (I actually don't check the last two characters of the filenames nor do I test against spell.ids itself, so your namespace extension should pass).

8 hours ago, morpheus562 said:

The creature changes introduced in MiH have multiple downstream impacts the owner publicly stated he doesn't care about.

Stop lying. The downstream impacts are actually downstream bugs and MiH was doing those changes right. You got blocked because you acted like a jerk and refused to accept that it wasn't a MiH bug. You just proved that the decisions was right.

For the record, he's pissed that installing MiH earlier than SCS will break the Ulcaster wolves and DavidW himself acknowledged that being an SCS bug. morpheus threw a fit for an entire hour on Discord about this. Feel free to look it up on G3 #mod-discussion.

That door isn't trapped in my GoG oBG install. It's likely an overvigorous BGT restoration.

EDIT: It isn't trapped in BGT 1.22 either. Where's that trap even from?

You have a variant of Spell Revisions. 

Only daggers then (indeed, this was changed by EEs), darts lack strength bonus in all versions I checked.

1 hour ago, subtledoctor said:

As far as the EEs adding STR bonuses to thrown weapons: it seems ridiculous to me that they made such a large and arbitrary balance change to the games. I can’t see any reason for it, and at the very least they should have undone oBG2’s weird half-measures like throwing daggers with double base damage. 

Actually, almost all classic thrown axes/hammers has the strength bonus flag enabled on their ranged attack, EE's only balance change on these is that they disabled providing the THAC0 bonus via splitting the flag into two. (While Azuredge and the AX1H05 throwing axe are missing the flag on their ranged attack in classic, these are fixed in BG2 Fixpack and also got the str damage flag set in EE).

I just turned it into a standalone mod (it only needed a header pretty much tbh), but incorporating that requires a reinstall.

For all we know, this could even be SoD still being around and DLCMerger missed out from the install list.

On 11/17/2023 at 10:30 PM, Holden said:

bandits will not use their bows and will only use melee instead.  That one ambush where you're surrounded by bandits with bows, they all close in with their swords instead.  It's always something with this game...

 should have been installed before SCS but after IWDification.

No, it should be extracted against the mod in a way which overwrites the files within the mod's contents with the ones included in this package.

SCS doesn't change the concentration logic. SR can, (notsure if concentration changes were ported to SRR) and Skills and Abilities certainly does.

Install https://github.com/FunkyFr3sh/cnc-ddraw/releases/tag/v6.0.0.0 into your game. That should fix it. You don't need the Widescreen mod, because cnc-ddraw has better scaling modes, but you might want to play with selecting a resolution which suits best for you.

It won't. PnP Fiends break 2.6 Aec'Letec.I had a hack to combine the two, but I couldn't resolve this incompat yet, also ToToR's ongoing update is of better quality (but last I seen, it doesn't touch this either).

Yeah, I see it now, apparently OH_IMPORT02 is also used to generify the importable artifacts. I'd be willing to accept the compromise that for the additional unique artifacts handed out for mod-added kits, this functionality would be lost. (Vanilla stuff can be added during the EET import step as well and there we coulda also expand the OH_IMPORT values respectably to similarly degrade the added items in story.)

I'm really not sure what to do here. k4thos's intent is fairly clear now that I've looked into this and my second proposal is in line with his vision, but it is somewhat fragile due to the additional factors thrown in. Your solution is against k4thos's vision but it wouldn't change the current status quo. It's really the moral dilemma what sounds like the hardest take here and not the technical requirements.

Okay, I am starting to understand this and why this breaks. EET's underlying idea is that instead of allowing to fall back to the defaults for import, offer a customization on the imported items via pulling them from the ToB starting package and then letting the import tables attempt to import something out from it.

The main issue with this is that this setup option is undocumented. I presume your test character (which is the sole piece missing from this report) is a character whose ToB starting armor isn't part of the import01 list.

This wouldn't really break OH_IMPORT from what I'm seeing. If I read this right, OH_IMPORT actually tries to override the defaults, so the EET customization bypassing it is intended behaviour.

I'm a bit conflicted on this part, because I see two ways to resolve this:

• drop the logic altogether via restoring the default import rules to the import tables and forcing the BG1 starting equipment as you propose
• document the customization option in Modder's Notes and write a step into EET_End so that it goes over 25STWEAP.2DA and adds all the armors it can't find to IMPORT01.2DA (and maybe similar steps to the other two IMPORT tables)

I'm not sure which should be the path taken.

mkdir ./tmp

chattr +F ./tmp

Sounds like you're trying to chattr /tmp, which is in the root folder. You shouldn't mess with that one. Reasons like this are why I always do my sysadmininstration with the . always explicitly specified.

Yes, the EET Tweaks component doesn't affect standard import rules. In fact, that component nor EET doesn't change anything regarding the importing rules.

What that changes is the stripping at start of BG2. Vanilia BG2 strips and every item lost this way is lost forever. EET without this tweak moves all the items which would be stripped to an inaccessible container. EET Tweaks just expose the aforementioned container.

I think some of the confusion comes from slingshots. Slingshots are visually similar to slings in many ways, but they are indeed simpler and weaker and personally, for a long time I even thought that every time something refers to slings, they mean slingshots.

Yeah, sorry about it, I just rechecked what I edited locally on this a good while ago and turned out that besides implementing the wingfix locally, I also set it up so that it leaves half-orcs and gnomes on BG2 sprites, just to provide more visual variety. So yeah, never mind me on this.

Doublecheck what languages you installed EET with. It sounds like you ended up installing EET with the wrong language.

And glad to see taht this issue already got fixed at a point within the codebase.

He already did.

Great job though. The wingfix is cool. I'd favor if dualwielders would also stay on BG2 avatars but you do you.

Huh, could you retry that with master from https://github.com/Gibberlings3/EET/archive/refs/heads/master.zip ? It's as if your M_K#TBL.2DA lost the escape backslashes from some of the strings for some reason and I dunno if this is something already fixed.