jastey

Very appreciated.

- If someone else would integrate the NTotSC translation, please go ahead.

I hope I'll have time for updates in the not too distant future.

That's great because I have no idea how the quest works without going through the files.

I saw your more general report on BeamDog's. Could this be a missing write permit on your OS? Windows is usually very protective in the C:Programs folder.

If you haven't done already, try copying the whole game folder somewhere else and mod the copy. It Is generally advised to do so for several reasons.

Whoa, leave Lava out of this, this was only me.

I agree to the attitude thing, that was not appropriate. I was just stumped. - Not an excuse. And I didn't see the official thread for the launcher.

I was referring to this list I linked to in the first post. Maybe it's not the current / active one? Because I see more things in there (I criticised) than you seem to be aware of.

I see following NPC mods after Grey:

Other things:

-I already listed some things in my posts above you chose to ignore?

c#grey - Is it still in there or is it my browser not updating? I don't know what this stands for, it has my prefix but I don't have a mod that uses this name (Grey is c#greythedog).

c#brage is my Brage's redemption mod. It has crossmod with, for example, bst and bg1ub, which on the list come later. This is also true for c#brandock.

You said you listed mods several times to indicate that there is components to be installed later. For my NPC mods, you could do that to indicate that the crossmod components (or, in the case of I4E, the SoD components) should be installed later. Or you could move the whole NPC mods after all quest mods.

On 10/12/2023 at 6:58 PM, subtledoctor said:

2) Are we looking at the same document??

The first 52 lines is just GUI, fixes

Apparently not. The list I linked to includes I4E on line 9, and quest mods afterwards. What is the mod_order.txt then?

IF ~~ THEN BEGIN RejectebecHarpers
SAY ~Well i shall find someone else.~
IF ~~ THEN DO ~EscapeArea()~
EXIT
END

ok, if you were referring to an invisible creature doing the actions then yes, that is the best solution. I jumped at the ActionOverride()s.

1 minute ago, Jarno Mikkola said:

the create creature in the same dialog command, and also it's destroying

This refers to when using an invisible helper creature, do not forget to destroy it when it's done, because the engine can only handle x instances of it in an area. (I guess this is not as relevant any more for the EEs. still it's better to clean up afterwards.) And it definitely still applies to invisible creatures that uses clear fog of war, because the engine can only handle 8 of them in one area, with 6 being the full party).

@Jarno Mikkola like I pointed out, using ActionOverride should make the transactions more stable but it doesn't help with items falling to the ground out of full NPC/PC inventories, so "best solution" is a relative term.

How does the full transaction look like? Did you test for empty / full inventory?

Unfortunately, I found the "TakePartyItem() DestroyItem()"combo to be frickle if done by party members, too. I fear if you want to make sure it works in all cases, using some script / invisible cre will be the way to go. - In a script, you could check who has the item and let it be destroyed without having to take it first.

One could also say that if adding another DestroyItem() works for you, then go with it. But like I said, if the inventory is full, this item transaction always bears the risk of the item in slot 1 being dropped to the ground. Since the whole transaction is done silently without the player being aware of the technicalities (and without giving a warning in the text box), I prefer to go the save way in my mods. - That's just IE engine for you.

For a character outside of the party, the sequence TakePartyItem() DestroyItem() works usually.

Also as a sequence done via ActionOverride - the sequence will be executed one after the other if the character it refers to does not change, i.e. ~ActionOverride("scriptname",TakePartyItem()) ActionOverride("scriptname",DestroyItem())  ActionOverride("scriptname",GiveItemCreate("NWAMULI2",Player1,0,0,0))~ should execute uninterrupted [caution with ActionOverride() as it can lead to all sorts of other problems in scripts, especially cutscenes].

For NPCs executing TakePartyItem() DestroyItem() I also experienced the problem that the taken item was not destroyed after the dialogue ended. In my case, this was usually the case when actions that were meant to be executed by a non-joinable character were transferred to an NPC due to an added interjection (i.e., I_C_T for a mod added NPC that transfers the transactions to that NPC). I then got bug reports that e.g. Breagar snatched an item that was meant to be taken by Thalantyr or similar.

For me, I solved these cases by adding a definite ActionOverride() to the actions, so the transactions would stay with the non-joinable quest character. To me that was also a good solution, because the "TakePartyItem()" could lead to an (other) item pushed to the ground if the NPC/PC doing the action has a full inventory, which is usually a great PITA for players who should not have to check for ground piles after interactions with quest characters.

- I am not sure this is an option for you. I have to admit I didn't really get your first post regarding Player1 talking to Player2.

If nothing helps, you could spawn an invisible cre that takes and destroys the item.

But in principle, the sequence TakePartyItem() DestroyItem() should work.

Disclaimer: I'm not an expert in how the engine processes transactions, with some being processed instantly and others later etc. I am only writing out of experience.

Woops, sorry. I didn't pay enough attention.

If you have the mod on GitHub, you might want to check out AL|EN's Infinity Automated Packager. Once set up, it's very comfortable as it attaches an all-OS zip and the .iemod for PI automatically to all releases you tagg.

2 hours ago, subtledoctor said:

It would be nice if these mods very explicitly stated, in Readme and/or .ini files, clear statements about install order.

25 minutes ago, subtledoctor said:

Dude. I cannot dive into the documentation of every update of every mod on the off chance that it might have new or different compatibility information.

27 minutes ago, subtledoctor said:

If you had clicked through to the link I posted, you would see that Grey is the single last NPC installed in my game.

Quote

~C#GREYTHEDOG/SETUP-C#GREYTHEDOG.TP2~ #0 #0 // Grey The Dog NPC: 8
~SKIECOST/SKIECOST.TP2~ #0 #0 // Skie: The Cost of One Girl's Soul - New quest for Baldur's Gate 2 EE: v4.7
~SKIECOST/SKIECOST.TP2~ #0 #1 // Skie: The Cost of One Girl's Soul - Allow Skie to return as a joinable NPC: v4.7
~SKIECOST/SKIECOST.TP2~ #0 #3 // Skie: The Cost of One Girl's Soul - The Return of Eddard Silvershield (quest & a joinable NPC v4.7
~SKIECOST/SKIECOST.TP2~ #0 #5 // Skie: The Cost of One Girl's Soul - Add brand new SoD-oriented items to BG2: v4.7

27 minutes ago, subtledoctor said:

You would rather keep your knowledge close to the vest, and browbeat others? I have already said I am completely receptive to corrections and improvements. Wtf more do you want?

Listen to the points I'm raising, bringing the list into an order that does not violate the basic order (Fixes - GUI - quest mods - npc mods - yaddayadda) would be a start.

Anyway, I tried to phrase my concerns - it seems you took it as an affront, apologies for that. As it is, this discussion doesn't seem to lead anywhere.

1 hour ago, subtledoctor said:

I originally had separate lists for both BGEE and BG2EE, and then had to merge them so that it would work for EET as well, but still also work separately for each game (not to mention standalone versions of SoD which do not contain BGEE.) The way it works is, the app only displays mods that are currently in your override folder, which means only mods that are relevant to the game you are installing on. So some BG1/BG2 stuff looks jumbled, but becomes clearer when you use the app with any given set of mods in any given individual game.

That explains the chaos, but the list is not good for players who look for an install order list for EET. The list as a whole violates the basic rules of IE modding install order with regard to mod categories. And even with this explanation, bg1ub and bst are after BG1 mod NPCs, for example.

You also did not take all info into account in the list. Example: docs of I4E states that SoD components should be installed after quest mods (which is admittedly, a newer info which came with the a recent version including all SoD content). Compatibility component with Alternatives and Saerileth should be installed after Alternatives (this info is older). Grey's readme states to install Grey as late as possible after other NPC mods (also, older info).

What does c#grey stand for, btw? It's on the list as well. (Grey the dog is c#greythedog).

If this list is meant as a "worked for me without crashes, but not an ideal mod order for crossmod and general compatibility", at least make it clear. Maybe I'm missing it, but I didn't see a readme in the project repo.

The way it goes, people see this, and take it as a functioning mod order from an experienced modder. Noone will read your statement above to see what they are getting themselves into.

@subtledoctor reffering to this install order list here.

The order is not ideal. It mixes quest mods and NPCs mods in what seems random order. UB is pretty late, there is ninde_eet in there besides ninde (what for?), amber_eet - the Roxanne filth where the authors of Amber explicitly asked to take it down.

Also, it seems all mods get installed as a whole, no splitting of components (e.g. installing of crossmod components of NPC mods at a later time).

The list needs an overhaul, this is not recommendable.

Firstly: It is the normal ending of the SoA part of the romance that Keldorn gets cold feet and breaks it off. (There is still ToB  .) As long as he gives the PC the ring, everything should be fine. (And make sure to rest soon when in ToB (*wink*) )

What I don't understand and makes me suspicious:
-You mention that he gives the PC the ring and mentions after that that she loves another. Can you quote that line? Because he should mention before giving the ring that she has another (and not give the ring).

Also: that the AnomenRomanceActive variable resets to 2 no matter what you do. This shouldn't be the case and sounds like a game script going berserk. In case you have the time to debug this, I am sure it would give insight into what script is looping here. The Stutter Debug Tool would be the tool for that.

-That the Anomen romance sets its AnomenRomanceActive variable to 2 in the first place if you chose reply options that should end it. The Keldorn romance mod integrates the fixes for the Anomen romance listed here. You don't happen to recall which reply options you used for his romance?

Yes, the .inis are for PI. It never occurred to me that these infos could also be pulled / used elsewhere automatically and I'm repeating myself that I think this is an awesome idea.

2 hours ago, 4udr4n said:

Are you interested in pulling compatibility info from .ini?

That is a magnificent idea.

Thank you, too. I rephrased it in all the relevant NPC readmes (locally), so for next versions I hope it will be more clear.

I think you have to be in IE modding. no room for lazzez-fair.

How would I phrase this better? "...needs to be included in your install (independent of install order)" might be more clear.

@Mordekaie Yes, that's badly phrased.

Install RtD as a late mod, i.e. after Brandock.

The Brandock mod uses trigger variables from RtD, but for this, the install order is of no consequence. This is valid for all NPC (my) mods.

Please note: new guest post in between here.

Yay!

3 hours ago, zelazko said:

-Brandock comments on Yago spellbook but does not mention Yago's book of curses before starting Birabella's quest

Brandock reacts to "BOOK70", that is Yago's book of curses. (@1501 = ~Could I have a look at that book? Oh... oh, yes. This is... nothing I will make use of myself, thank you very much.~ [c#ablank]).

3 hours ago, zelazko said:

-Brandock does not farm spellbook from Vay-ya in Low Lantern

Indeed. Thanks for hint.

3 hours ago, zelazko said:

-this one is more of request which can be disregarded - % chance for brandock to learn a spell when he plagiarizes others' spellbooks

I see where this is coming from (it would make much more sense if Brandock would learn more spells from other mages' spellbooks), but implementing this would be a nightmare. - The Lore increase was the compromise I came up with so I wouldn't have to deal with this.

@Grandcaster sorry for late reply. Is this fix included in this PR here?