Jump to content

Constantine

Members
  • Content Count

    130
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Constantine

  1. Wow thanks! Could you write a tutorial on how to use your tool?
  2. Oh dear. I honestly have no idea which way is the best! Let's just keep in mind that you probably won't be needing to insert tons of tiles at once. I was thinking of shipping several BAM (or maybe BMP) files with the mod and inserting them into the certain TIS file during the installation (along with the other necessary modifications to the are files of course). Something like that. Anyways, do you already have a release date yet?
  3. It's for EE. Well, that's a relief. Now if only Sam will provided us with the right code
  4. Thanks, maybe I'll try it out. Please remind me what're the maximum BAM dimentions? I vaguely remember that it can't be of any size you want.
  5. Yeah, turned out it's the only way. Could you please elaborate a little bit, how I can fake a door via a bam? (I don't need a real door really, I just thinking about using "doors" to add interactive content, like the bridge under temple district).
  6. Well, the tutorial is here ... there's ugly weidu code in various mods that add areas one could go and take a look at. And you do really nothing with a door... as it's just a graphical binary element on the map. You need an entrance(&exit) point that transfers you from one map to another. The DLTCEP tutorial is there for that as well. I'm aware of this old tutorials, but they can't patch in the door bitmaps. All other stuff like polygons, entry points etc. are pretty easy to add via weidu. You can modify vertexes, regions and other relevant stuff, but you can't patch in a stupid door
  7. Well, the tutorial is here ... there's ugly weidu code in various mods that add areas one could go and take a look at. And you do really nothing with a door... as it's just a graphical binary element on the map. You need an entrance(&exit) point that transfers you from one map to another. The DLTCEP tutorial is there for that as well. I'm aware of this old tutorials, but they can't patch in the door bitmaps. All other stuff like polygons, entry points etc. are pretty easy to add via weidu. You can modify vertexes, regions and other relevant stuff, but you can't patch in a stupid d
  8. Hi averyone, I wonder if someone got an idea of how to add a new door to the area - complete with new open/closed tiles from bmp or bam files? I know I've asked this question some years ago, but frankly, no one had a working solution back then. I think this matter is important because now if you want to add a door to the game, you should provide the whole new tis file with your mod, and this is obviously a very bad way to go.
  9. yeah it's funny all right, being able to "backstab" a mushroom, just remember that if someone has no actual back for rogue to hit to don't mean that it cannot be backstabbed and vice versa. this is IMO of course. this is why you cannot backstab jellies, they just don't have any vital organs or other weak spots that you can hit, but you can easily backstab golems which don't have any organs too, but may have some weak spots that a rogue can hit. great mod BTW, I m looking forward for other useful creature revisions from you!
  10. Afaik, backstab immune monsters are as rare as talkative Stalkers in this game. maybe you're right, but afair most bosses are immune, and there's really no excuse for a minotaur to be immune, remember that backstab isn't just an attack from behind that by some magical means do an increased damage, but rogue's ability to find the foe's weak spot, thus an increased damage output.
  11. I'd vote against making more generic monsters immune to backstab. rogues are pretty useless in combat already, lets not make them just a walking lockpick/disarm machines early in SOA, because they already are in TOB.
  12. I'm instead with those saying that to be appealing it should be party-friendly. How can it be useful if it heals all opponents? o_O At least, it could be useful for clearing out dungeons full of undead.
  13. You know my mage likes theese anti-thief spells very much, the thieves are a tiresome bunch most of the time Bring it on!
  14. Yes, let's get rid of it. Ridiculously OP spell with a lame concept. Rename it, the closer to Pnp the better.
  15. Yeah, dispel should not be all-powerful at high levels. Don't know how it's working in SR. From my point of view, if dispel goes stronger with caster level, so should the protections. In that case, 20th level mage should easily dispel a meager protections of low level casters, have some difficulty to cancel spells of mid-level caster, but to remove a fellow high level mage's protections should be relatively difficult. +1
  16. So we have two options:* moving the current version to a lower lvl (perhaps I'm mad but I'd say even 1st lvl could be fine, especially with Line of Sight limit) * moving it to 5th lvl as you suggest Let's see what players think about it. I actually like Adranis' suggestion. Worth a try IMO.
  17. As I recall, they already act pretty hostile, the melee classes at least. However, it would be nice to assign the custom script to charmed character according to his class, so warrior could fight in melee (It's the default behavior for the enemy-charmed characters, isn't it ?), rogue backstab, mage cast some spells available to him and so on. I wouldn't recommend to disable control of charmed creatures, that's for sure.
  18. I think it nearly useless for mages as meleeing is almost always worse than shooting good old MM from the safe distance. Enemy mage with Stoneskin but without MGOI?
  19. I'd vote not to touch good old cloudkill at all, it's good as it is. If you can't resist the urge to cheat, it's only your problem.
  20. I don't think I'll dignify that with an answer. I'm shure you don't. By the way, "dignify"? Man, are you some megalomaniac or something?
  21. Let's not turn (a so far rather humorous) discussion into an argument... For the record, SCS(II) mages isn't really DavidW's precious mages, they're precious mages for a whole slew of people. Fine with me. AOT: in case someone's counting, I'm with the players who're thinking that Conjurations should bypass MR.
  22. Only after you'll explain how it's real to "dehydrate" a sword-shaped plane of force with ADHW Since ADHW doesn't exist, and neither do sword-shaped planes of force, obviously it isn't real. I assume you mean "realistic". In which case, I don't recall claiming that it was. This doesn't obviously have relevance to my question. To recall the context: I asked if the proposed change to ADHW is based on realism rather than gameplay. You suggested that it was based on "PnP rules and common sense". I asked how your "common sense" differs from my "realism". I'm happy to believe y
  23. Only after you'll explain how it's real to "dehydrate" a sword-shaped plane of force with ADHW Not to mention that the spell description clearly states it works only on living creatures.
  24. I take it this is a change based on realism rather than balance? (In pure gameplay terms I think it's unfortunate.) I take it this is a change based on PnP rules AND common sense.
×
×
  • Create New...