jastey

Thanks for the interesting discussion!

I can only repeat myself that I don't see a problem. BGII with I4E is the same situation like BG1: you know you should go / could go to some place eventually - in BG1, it's first the FAI to meet Gorion's friends, then the Nashkel mines, etcpp but there is no real reason to, no pressure (other than NPCs complaining and the game not progressing). BGII with I4E is the exact same situation. The PC knows there is this place where they could go eventually, but there is no rush if they want to go exploring first.

As I said, I don't see a "motivation problem" with I4E installed. And:

1 minute ago, Lightbringer said:

I don't think the abduction can occur before that and preserve the intent of this mod.

This.

Completely understandable! Yes, ANSI is correct for German tra files.

Ah, I see. Using Sakphul should be alright. But it's what I wrote above, better change the whole sentence to one of my alternatives. As it is, it's a direct translation from the English original but it doesn't really make sense in German. Or just leave it as it is now since the whole mod should be proof read if possible. I'm in the middle of Fading Promises that has similar issues.

The green lines look very good. Some things:

@294: Sakphul legen ihre Hände nicht an Drow.

I'm unhappy with this sentence. "Hände an jemanden legen" is not correct German. Better change this to "Sakphul lassen ihre Hände besser von Drow." or "Sakphul fassen keine Drow an."

Minsk is written with a "k", this needs to be corrected at some instances (e.g. second instance at @241).

And more things: du, dir, dich, dein with a small letter if it's a casual "you" and not a formal form of address. This would need to be corrected in the whole document.

"weiß" with "ß", not "ss" (e.g. @168)

@35 = ~Wow! Ich liebe es, in der grossen Freiheit draussen zu sein! Versteh mich nicht falsch, ich mag die Stadt und alles, aber hier fühle ich mich frei. So richtig frei.~

-> großen, draußen

I guess there is more of these things, unfortunately I don't have time to poof read it currently.

I got the last proof readings back, thanks to @Brokenkatana . I need to integrate them and run a quick test concerning compatibility with Transitions mod. I'm on it but no ETA.

Hm, Aran mentions something. But if the group is already with Aran, they already decided to pay and go with the Shadow Thieves to Brynnlaw.

I appreciate the suggestion, but I don't think I can make it work as a main motivation to set sail.

Thank you very much, @Austin and yota13!

There is a working alpha but some quests are not finished yet, so nothing for betatesting yet. No ETA. Thank you for your interest!

9 hours ago, Endarire said:

@jastey
Motivation suggestion: Imoen believes Spellhold (the structure, the island, etc.) is harmful to its inhabitants.  Revenge is one part of visiting Spellhold and hurting Johnny.  Freeing prisoners who were placed there likely due to wrongful convictions or dumped there like the Dark Souls Undead Asylum to let them rot away forever is another seemingly noble cause.

As much as I agree that this would be in character for Imoen imho, you have one error in your train of thoughts: with I4E installed, neither Imoen nor the PC know any details about Spellhold, the Asylum, and the way the people are treated there before they get there.

Thanks @Endarire

 for drawing my attention to this.

@Austin
In case you haven't yet, please also include a (detailed if possible) changelog.

@Austin Did you take the version 1.7 from SHS into account for your changes?

LT23 is a wakup dialogue and will only happen if EDIT: in the rest dialogue before (LT22):

-the PC encouraged Dynaheir to persue the idea of echanting items with magic although it's forbidden to Hathrans.

-AND does not succeed in distracting her from the temptation to do it. This means either that the PC just goes to sleep or his constitution is lower 13.

Talking her out of it, not talking to her at all, or constitution higher than 12 plus agreeing to help Dynaheir distract herself from the idea will skip LT23.

You need to install NPC mods before EET_End. exe. Deinstall EET_End, install Aran, reinstall EET_End.

21 minutes ago, Daeros_Trollkiller said:

Is this issue related to SoD 2 BG2EE or another mod?

I don't think so. This is BG1NPC.

@LukeSolas do you mean the BG1 or the BGII variant? They are quite different in design.

The unidentified / check whether it's identified is a neat trick, if it works.

But @Lauriel you also want to make sure the player is aware of what the note says, so I'd leave the "NPC reads it aloud" in as a failsafe.

Have fun!

I have no experience with the automatic converter.

This is what I wrote in a hidden forum before with regard to making old BGII (NPC) mods EET compatible. For BG1 mods it depends whether it already covers the "Crossing the Great Divide" (back in the day between BGT and Tutu, but the principle is the same between BG:EE and EET) or not.

Quote

My Ajantis BGII mod is an example for BGII mod with own SoA -> ToB transition (meaning it does not use the Adding support for NPC transition system function provided by EET. I'm not sure it's a good example, though, as it also has to consider the BG1 Ajantis with the according fate spirit entries EET contains, etc.

The short, quick and dirty way to make a BGII:EE NPC EET compatible is the following:

The EET Contiuous Chapter System you'll need always. Changes for this: the addition to the tp2 ALWAYS block, changing the chapter numbers to the according OUTER_SPRINTs %bg2_chapter_x% and adding the EVALUATE_BUFFER to the compilation commands of the relevant files in the tp2.

Then there are two ways to proceed from here for the ToB transition (for a BGII-only NPC).

1. Using the EET_NPC_TRANSITION function AND disabling the following for EET:
   1. summoning via fate spirit dialogue (FATESP.dlg)
   2. the disabling of the possibility to summon via fate spirit if NPC is in party upon soA-ToB transition (usually done by setting the variable in AR4000.bcs)
   3. creation of NPC if called via fate spirit (AR4500.bcs)
2. Not using the EET_NPC_TRANSITION function. In this case, the summoning of the NPC has to be added to FATESP.dlg, the possibility to do so has to be disabled if the NPC is in party upon SoA->ToB transition, and the creation of the NPC in AR4500.are has to be provided by patching AR4500.bcs. In addition to this (and this is new), the change of the override script from the SoA to the ToB one has to be done by hand in AR4000.bcs if the NPC is in party, as it will not be done automatically.

Apart from that, for a BGII NPC you should be fine. Care has to be taken if the mod was developped on BGT with all the BG1 ressources, as EET uses own filenames for the BG1 files that share names with BGII files, but that shouldn't be an issue for most BGII mods.

Theoretically, EET provides much more possibilities for the continuous NPC summoning in ToB etc. It does, for example, distinguish between "NPC was in party", "NPC was never in party" (-> will not be available for summoning in a continuous game), and "is dead" (-> summoning is available but NPC will not spawn, obviously).

For the "old" BGII NPC, the continuous system is a bit dangerous, though, as it will move the BGII NPC to ToB as (s)he was left in SoA - in case that was in chapter two, the NPC will be level 7/8/9 and the player might be a bit piqued if there is no script added to boost the XP a little.

Addition to that: PIDs need to include "IsGabber(Player1)" into the trigger, then EET automatically adds triggers to the SoA part so it doesn't block the ToB dialogues.

@Bertle Not in the readme, but in the folder "docs" is a file "romance_notes.txt" which states:

Quote

Q: Who is eligible for romance?
A: Different players have different ideas of the kind of woman that could have a successful relationship with Keldorn. With that in mind, the player can choose the romance match conditions. All require that the PC be female.

If you believe that Keldorn would only be drawn to a PC that will satisfy his long-term need for a like-minded help-mate who shares his devotion to goodness and (reasonable) lawfulness, choose LG/NG only. This option is strongly recommended, as the romance has been written with this in mind.

PnP says that paladins cannot ally themselves with neutral party leaders for more than an
adventure or two, but it makes no mention of chaotic ones. If you feel that the romance shouldn't bother with it if the rulebooks don't, choose LG/NG/CG.

If you believe that Keldorn could well find contentment with a LN PC, choose LG/NG/CG/LN.

If you think that Keldorn could be happy with a druid, choose LG/NG/CG/LN/N. With that in mind,
Keldorn is not likely to be swayed by pleas to maintain the Balance. He wants the good guys to
win.

32 minutes ago, Angel said:

To be honest, my modding is rather haphazard, I do what seems to be a good idea at the time.  Too much planning makes it too much like work, and unless Beamdog wants to hire me as well I prefer this to remain strictly a hobby with no obligations. ^^

Very well said. +1

@Jazira Thank you!

The mod updates to v6 with compatibility to Transitions v0.4 beta.

If the mods are hosted by an active site, the admins / moderators would be the ones responsible for updates. In general, technical updates, compatibility updates and bugfixes will be accepted. You could ask before hand to make sure the mod is not being worked on, and afterwards offer your update in the official mod's forum.

If the mod is not connected to an active modding site, you could still make an update and offer it at one of the bigger modding sites, preferably as close to where the mod was hosted/discussed/already updated before. This was also done for very old mods, the updates were offered at SHS "Mod Resurrection" section or also at BeamDog's. Important is that you explicitely state that it's an update, keep the author's name and credits, and list the changes inside the mod package - and are ready to take it down if requested.

A no-go is uploading at an own modding site with an own attached forum and proclaiming that's ok because "mod was abandoned". Also, we are talking about technical and compatibility changes and bugfixes. Closing holes as I did for NTotSC is borderline - I only did it because many people already put effort in this revised version and adding a functioning journal system and closing dialogue holes seemed like a "fix" to me. Adding new content or changing / removing content because you don't like it is going too far.

@Lightbringer Wow, I never replied to this. @Endarire thanks for the bump.

First off: I do like this idea very much from a story telling/ingame motivation POV to pursue Irenicus. The reason I will not use it for Imoen4Ever is rather simple: the mod aims at taking the pressure out of chapters 2&3 - completely.

That's also the reason why I didn't come up yet with a good solution to the requested "make Imoen's early return optinal through an ingame choice so I4E could be installed in all installs without having to play the content" - the moment I put anything in the game that makes Imoen suffer after the escape from ID for which Ireniucs has to be pursued as fast as possible the feeling of the story is back to what I wanted to change with Imoen4Ever. If it makes sense.