Jump to content

Creepin

Modders
  • Content Count

    162
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Creepin

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Moscow

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Recent Profile Visitors

3,708 profile views
  1. Spellhold Studios Baldurs Gate Trilogy (BGT) It is with great pleasure we are announcing latest shiny BGT release, which is another update over recent v1.19, done again thanks to the tireless efforts of CamDawg! This new version contain fixes to reported bugs of 1.19, insight into original developers' intent and leftover fixes from the Big World Fixpack. Changelog: Installation changes Fixed bug where a typo in the 1.19 music fixes could prevent installation of the music pack (thanks to Salk and Lunareon) Incorporated the following fixes from the Big World Fixpack Typo fixes (thanks to Salk) Fixed systematic bug where NPCs leaving the party would often use the wrong dialogue or just not leave, especially when they were leaving due to reputation/alignment conflicts (thanks to Lunareon) Cloak of the Nymph could be sold for 40x its value due to a charge issue (thanks to Lunareon) Fixed bug with Candlekeep missing its patrolling guards (thanks to Skellytz) BGT was following Fixpack's lead in removing Zone of Sweet Air from Jaheira and Holy Smite from Viconia sue to class/alignment conflicts. However, Fixpack has since confirmed with the devs that these are intentional, and as such BGT now leaves them in place (as does Fixpack) Forum Download Please note that hitting Download button will lead you to the choice of downloading BGT 1.20 for Windows, Linux or OsX.
  2. What about tradition, and the decent order, and proper way to do things? :( I have not yet reconciled myself with the idea of not placing tp2 in the root folder of the game, and losing "setup-", well that's just unthinkable!
  3. Creepin

    New engine

    I'll add my 2 cents here so as to not spawn several topics. New RSS feed seem to drag in updates of both public and private forums. At least this is the explanation that came to my mind when I started receiving "Error Code 2F173/K You do not have permission to view this content" on many of topics listed in RSS. Also, there's "open SHS" and "open PPG" tabs at the top of each RSS feed which take me to respective forum root. For G3 same tab of the new RSS take me to this page instead of G3 forum root. P.S. I can't find "preview post" or "go to a full editor" buttons, is it just me or they are gone?
  4. Thank you folks, I haven't hoped for that much knowledge on that short notice! I've also found that opcode 257 (Sequencer Creation) only work with 7 symbols long spells, that's probably what Alien did referred to. So, it's opcode 172 (171 is not confirmed by IESDP actually but they might be wrong?), opcode 257 and scripting actions 160. I wonder if this scope is big enough to keep all my spells named with 7 symbols limiting my options in regard of spell naming or should I generally not care but keep an eye for the spells that might fall to one of these conditions. What would you advise, which is the best practice?
  5. I have some vague recollection that there are some specific cases when .spl file name of 8 symbols won't work, only file name of 7 symbols will do. Is it me imagining weird things or there are indeed some cases where 8 symbols long .spl file name will screw something?
  6. Have you installed Java? NI needs it to run. OP in that SHS thread has a link to download it. Putting NI to game folder, by the way, is not necessary If you have Java installed and NI still don't work for you, just ask in that thread - Argent is pretty active and will have the best knowledge of NI and how to make it run.
  7. The opening topic in that SHS thread is indeed somewhat confusing. To put it short, get the latest stable version here, as could be seen in this post
  8. As per description, "this oil will immediately burst into flame, inflicting 5d6 points of damage (save vs. breath for half)". Were it implemented truly that should mean 5-30 dmg total, with a fractions of 2,5-15 plus 2,5-15. Obviously we don't have 0,5 damage so... In vanilla game it was implemented as 3d6 plus 3d4, or 6-30 total with a damage count of 3-18/3-12. This is almost perfect in the terms of total but has one "half" at 60% and another one at mere 40%. (58% & 42% if consider averages). BG2 Fixpack fixes that by using 3d6 plus 2d6. This leads to exact total indeed, being 5-30, but leaves in place 60% vs 40% allocation of damage, which is the core mistake of original potion, way worse thing than 1 mere point of additional minimal damage. Perhaps it would implement description more precisely if made 3d5 breath plus 3d5 no save, which would result in a slightly wrong total of 6-30 (as in vanilla game) but perfect allocation of 50%/50%?
  9. Multiple forums-wide reaction was perfectly justified by her multiple forums-wide deception. Also, I personally have wasted several evenings to explicitly map her shenanigans and deserved a bit of my own fun as a compensation. Indeed! But don't forget to also account her for: - lying to every single member of the community, simple as that; - intentionally misleading community members to perceive, erroneously, certain mods and modders as being more popular than they really are, this including blatant driving up of her own "helpfulness" meter where such present; - worse yet, intentionally misleading community members to perceive, erroneously again, certain mods as being questioned by a number of different people and certain modders as being frowned upon by a number of different people; - finally, and the worst, avoiding the burden of responsibility for her own previous behavior. I'll elaborate: every member has a right to act as he see fit (within basic limits of what is decent of course), and a corresponding responsibility to deal with how other members react to his behavior. So if you want to be an unpleasant person, it is your right, but also it is the right of others to react to you as to an unpleasant person. Avoiding that, lying to others to make them react to your needs or statements in other manner than they would were they justly informed of who is the person they react to is simply stripping others of their basic right in any civil discussion, and that is what Roxanne did with all of us. See, I'm all for any kinds of a good fun, but see, she was having her fun at the expense of everyone else around, personally at my cost if that reason is clearer for you, and all that without our knowledge, let alone consent. Still think that's an acceptable kind of fun? Considering how it was told multiple times across SHS and G3 that she is not banned I have my doubts about who is the "moran" here.
  10. A small update: a basilisk attack item have 3 effects: paralyze, petrify and visuals. All 3 are hitting against paralyse save of the target. This makes little sense indeed UNLESS it's done as a means to ensure it's either all 3 effects are firing or none. IF that is correct than changing only petrifying attack to hit against petrify save would break the intended effect. It's either all 3 should have their save changed or none. It's just a guess though, but if that is correct then I believe all 3 changed to having petrify save is a better decision lore-wise than leaving all 3 to having paralyse save.
  11. @918 = ~Прежде, чем я соглашусь раскрыть вам больше информации, поручитесь, что сохраните её в тайне.~ @919 = ~Отлично. Заплатите 15,000 золотых, чтобы скрепить сделку.~ I'd be happy to help with @920 as well but I'll be damned if I have any idea how they called Shadow Thieves in a Russian translation EDIT: googled a bit and it seems like I've found Shadow Thieves Russian translation, not 100% sure it's most widespread one though. Anyway: @920 = ~Если вы согласитесь одолеть Теневых Воров, вас будет ждать второе задание, которое принесёт ещё больше добра.~
  12. Hmm, do you think it could be fixed in BG2Fixpack if only for the benefit of BGT (unless they overwrite BG2 basilisk with its BG1 counterpart)? I understood BG1Fixpack died in 2013, so no point bringing this in its thread. Or is it better to ask BGT maintainers (if there's any) to fix it on their end?
  13. I'm not sure if it's a bug or not, and even whether this is the right place to post, but anyway: I've noticed that both lesser and greater basilisk's petrification attack in BG1, BGT and BG2 hits target against targets paralyze/poison saving throw instead of petrify/polimorph save. Is that intended? Is that so because two effects in the same item ability can not attack against two different saves due to engine limitation (just a wild guess, not saying it's actually so)? Is that a bug?
×
×
  • Create New...