Jump to content

Bartimaeus

Members
  • Posts

    1,885
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Bartimaeus

  1. 6 minutes ago, Graion Dilach said:

    Sorry, I was wrong there, the ubsetup.tra file is from BG2 UB (it even exists in my current EE location, hah). I still don't know IR(R) at all, but is it possible that IR(R) tries to load BG2 UB strings based on detecting a component?

    Though I could find no suggestion in the IR install files that this could happen, I installed all of Unfinished Business before-hand but still did not run into this issue. I'm really at a loss as to what would make IRR try to call ubsetup.tra. If Hubal is able to install the main component at the end of the install order without error, the only thing that I could then suggest is then uninstalling all the other components up until the exact point that he originally attempted to install the IR main component and then try again right there. If it then inexplicably works...

    How do you know it's not an automated install, by the way?

  2. 2 hours ago, david76321 said:

    Hi all!

    Anyone else getting get a thing where, with the 4th level wizard spell 'Protection from the Elements', where when you cast it, the menu pops up to display which element to pick but the menu is blank?

      Reveal hidden contents

     

     

    Just seen this spell for the first time - this is a fresh install of 2.6.6 with SR V4 Beta 18  only.

    (Expected is I suppose when you cast it either  'fire', 'cold', 'electricity, 'acid' are displayed on the menu bar as the description says)

    WIll continue to search what it might be with Near Infinity!

    Thanks!

    EDIT: Just saw SRR, going to play around with that too, thank you!

    EDIT2: Yep SRR fixes it, thank you!

    Yes, I genuinely thought the official version had already fixed it as well because I thought I reported it years back, but it sounds like grodigues has fixed it for the official version, with that new version of SR to be released in the near future, so there is that. Funny that it's come up twice here in such a short time after years of not being noticed/mentioned.

    19 hours ago, subtledoctor said:

    Well, Chaos seems to cause a range of mental effects, whereas Prismatic Spray causes more physical effects. If it was up to me I would accentuate that difference. Maybe:

    - Chaos: sleep, feeblemind, panic, or confusion

    - Prismatic Spray: fire, acid, electric, poison, maze, blind, or... dunno. Stun? seems mental, but what the hey. 

    Yeah, I think feeblemind probably fits in the best with the other Sphere of Chaos effects. I guess that'd be my pick, ultimately.

  3. 1 hour ago, Hubal said:

    It found Zero in 3605 files

    Thanks. If you install IR/R's main component right now at the end of the install, does it still give that error?

    7 minutes ago, Graion Dilach said:

    This isn't an automated install, although it has some issues with ordering for sure (EET Fixpack is trash btw).

    Note that BG1 Unfinished Business is installed to BG1 and migrated from there on EET installs. If IR(R) expects the bg1ub mod folder in the current installation, that can cause the issue.

    Can you explain more? I get the idea of installing BG1UB and then having EET migrate it over, but I don't understand why it would specifically affect IR/R in such a manner as to create this install error.

  4. 3 hours ago, Hubal said:

    Sorry I was busy. Weidu attached.

    WeiDU.log 29.92 kB · 0 downloads

    This looks to be an automated install? If you would be so kind, could you install Notepad++ (if you don't already have it installed, or something else capable of doing a similar complete content search) and perform a complete search of your item_rev folder for "ubsetup"? Such an unusual error unfortunately requires unusual investigation. I'll make an example video right now:

    https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/s/narzdmi8z32nk4w/zhJTPnOAPU.mp4

  5. 2 hours ago, subtledoctor said:

    Preferring more diverse effects (and Berserk is already kind of similar to Panic), I would vote for Blindness. 

    I'm not sure what I prefer - I kind of like the idea of including feeblemindedness in a smaller way like this, since it's kind of an under-utilized effect as it stands, whereas blindness is already used for...uh, let's see here...Chromatic Orb, Color Spray, Prismatic Spray, Unholy Smite, Sunscorch, False Dawn, Sunray, and Holy Word. Okay, wow, that was a lot more than I expected. Huh. ...Why aren't I using feeblemindedness in Prismatic Spray? Hmm. That might be better than the silly maze effect...

  6. 1 hour ago, Guest Obtuse User said:

    I get a similar error (with latest github commits):

    [item_rev/languages/english/item_descriptions_ee.tra] LEXER ERROR at line 6844 column 1-6
    Near Text: :
            invalid character [:]

    [item_rev/languages/english/item_descriptions_ee.tra]  ERROR at line 6844 column 1-6
    Near Text: :
            Parsing.Parse_error
    ERROR: parsing [item_rev/languages/english/item_descriptions_ee.tra]: Parsing.Parse_error
    Stopping installation because of error.

     

    Let me know if I can provide anything else.

    This affects the special "EE-ized descriptions" option only. The issue is that there's a random "Weight: 0" in between description entries, which can actually be deleted entirely. Somehow must've accidentally inserted it when I was adding weight lines to everything. Fixed it, thank you!

  7. One could replace the berserk effect entirely with feebledmindedness, blindness, or stun. I'm unsure which I prefer, though I'd probably favor stun the least given that hold is already a possible effect and that's too similar.

  8. 7 hours ago, Hubal said:

    @Bartimaeus Newest Version has parsing error

    ERROR Installing [Item Revisions by Demivrgvs], rolling back to previous state
    Will uninstall  29 files for [ITEM_REV/ITEM_REV.TP2] component 0.
    Uninstalled     29 files for [ITEM_REV/ITEM_REV.TP2] component 0.
    ERROR: Parsing.Parse_error
    Please submit a report regarding this problem, including the information contained in SETUP-ITEM_REV.DEBUG and look for support at: Bartimaeus in the IR Revised thread at forums.gibberlings3.net
    Automatically Skipping [Item Revisions by Demivrgvs] because of error.
    Using Language [English]
    weidu_external/lang/english/ubsetup.tra file not found. Skipping...

    NOT INSTALLED DUE TO ERRORS Item Revisions by Demivrgvs

    E:\BGT\Baldur's Gate II Enhanced Edition>

    ERROR: parsing [item_rev/languages/english/item_descriptions_ee.tra]: Parsing.Parse_error
    ERROR: Parsing.Parse_error

    Uh...I do not know what "ubsetup.tra" (Unfininished Business setup?) is nor can I find any reference to it after doing a complete file search of every single file in all of IR. What game are you attempting to install on? (e): According to your game folder, EET. I just rolled up a new EET game and everything installed fine. What's your weidu.log look like?

  9. 1 hour ago, subtledoctor said:

    The IESDP suggests that opcode 3 only affects party members in the pre-EE engine. But, the IESDP is not the most accurate thing ever written...

    At any rate, I can think of a reason to stick with opcode 3 (if it works, of course): it is removable by opcode 4. Opcode 247 is not. There might be spells (Exaltation, Chaotic Commands) that rely on that. 

    Nope, it's right, that opcode don't do squat against enemies in a ToBEx game. No yellow circle, no bum-rushing. How annoying!

  10. 1 hour ago, polytope said:

    I installed the version 18 Beta yesterday to check compatibility with my own mod, I noticed a couple of things:

    Protection from Elemental Energy (Spwi422) the 2da it depends on is not copied to override folder, on the original BG2-ToB engine anyway, perhaps EE installs do things differently.

    In the new "Chaos" (Spwi711 and Sppr709) the berserk effect - opcode 3 - does not affect creatures outside the party, you need to use opcode 247 for that, opcode 3 is also inconsistent regarding the controllability of those who are berserk, i.e. there's a good chance that you actually can micro them rather than watching them attack randomly and the saving throw is made with a -6 penalty, not -4 as in the description.

    Didn't realize that bug with Protection from Elemental Energy was still around, thought that got fixed with the last hotfix. Must not be a spell that's used very often by players even though it's so much more convenient than the old individualized spells, I guess.

    Chaos: Are you a hundred percent sure about it not working outside of the party?

    https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/s/zcpczrgqs507aky/SWYUYbctvh.mp4

    No opcode 3: Phlydia just keeps casting her spells. Opcode 3: Phlydia (and the tutor...) bum-rushes me instead, although when she gets a chance to cast a spell, she doesn't interrupt her own spellcasting even if she goes berserk in the middle of it. ...Amazingly, even with the -4 saving throw (SRR), Phlydia somehow resists it several times here.

  11. 45 minutes ago, polytope said:

    Looking at Spell Revisions v4 Beta 18 - which I installed yesterday - the SR version of SPWI513 use power 5 on the 146 to cast SPWI513B and SPWI513C, and also uses a power level of 5 on each shell spell; the spell's power level, like magic resistance, should surely only be checked once, with the initial spell and associated projectile. Have you changed this locally?

    In regards to power levels: if the base spell is set to a power level of 5 and gets absorbed by e.g. a Spell Deflection, the secondary spells never fire anyways since the opcodes casting them effectively get deleted - no secondary spells are ever cast. If the base spell isn't absorbed by a Spell Deflection, then...it doesn't matter, since they won't get absorbed since there is no Spell Deflection. If there are multiple magic resistance and saving throw checks, that's a different matter, but that doesn't seem to be the case. I'm trying to think of what possible risk there might be in keeping sub-spells at the same power level as the base spell, but I'm failing to come up with anything...whereas I can think of a specific problem off the top of my head that might arise if you change the power levels for sub-spells, although it's admittedly a rare edge-case to do with AoE effects and spell level immunities which wouldn't apply in this specific example of Breach.

  12. 30 minutes ago, subtledoctor said:

    I meant spells that set stats - they are analogous to these items. There are several spells like Strength that have the same issue as the unmodded Gauntlets of Dexterity etc. IR addresses these items by changing them to simple bonuses; but SR does not address the problem. Maybe it should.

    I know, but I directly quoted Lianos in a two sentence reply directly under his quote block, and we were on the topic of IR items (specifically Gauntlets of Ogre Power) and flat-setting vs. +x bonuses vs. a mixed-mode approach, and I said changing that for IR would probably be better suited for a mini-mod, especially given that different people will want different things (as this thread clearly demonstrates), so it might make more sense for a mini-mod. So saying "no, actually, making a mini-mod for that is overkill, just put it in SR" doesn't really...you know, make a whole lot of sense as a direct reply to and contradiction of me.

  13. 22 minutes ago, Lianos said:

    IMO this is only the case for strength because you can combine gauntlets and girdle and weapon. For all other stats there are too few items which gives significant bonuses resp. there are better in-slot alternatives. I find the IR philosophy of "+x bonus" MUCH more balanced and would opt for it any day over the vanilla behavoir.

    I use 3E-style stats (where the +x style is the only thing that makes sense), so I definitely have no intention of going back. As for the other idea, if it is possible in the EEs, it seems like it'd be more suited to a mini-mod.

  14. 5 hours ago, Guest Alkaid said:

    Has IR considered adding entirely new (to BG) named items into types that are underrepresented or have few good options? Or would that be outside its scope?

    Not really - the only thing it does really straight up add is The Flail of Submission +2, and I can only surmise that was because there was no unique +2 flail in the game (and the only unique +3 is the Flail of Ages).

    9 hours ago, subtledoctor said:

    Vigorously disagree. Low-magic settings are hardly “un-AD&D.” Dragonlance, anyone? Dark Sun? Any of the green-book “historical” settings? And even high-magic settings pale in comparison the the absurdity of the BG campaign, which both figuratively and literally spits magic items at you as if from a vending machine. Even if you erase every generic +1 and +2 item from the game, you still end up with more magic items than you could ever actually use, less than halfway through SoA

    It might change the balance of the very early game a bit (before you get Varscona), so I deem masterwork items to be crafted from special and exotic materials that are less prone to breaking and can harm creatures like vampiric wolves. A simple balance fix, while keeping real enchantments a bit more special than the stuff you can buy at the Nashkel Corner Store. 

    Not saying IR should do this. Just saying it can work perfectly well and actually improve the flavor of the game’s magic economy. 

    Yes, I'm primarily considering BG2 which is obviously a *very* high magic setting and where it would be...very difficult to turn back the dial. Even if you start erasing all the +1/+2 items, there are still tons of other unique items. For BG1, what I said earlier about stores literally wouldn't even apply, because no stores sell +2 items to begin with (...I think?), so there would be no need to introduce +1 items back (if they were even there to begin with), so that'd be fine.

  15. 26 minutes ago, Lord_Tansheron said:

    The biggest argument against stat-setting, to me, was always that they make items not only useless but DETRIMENTAL to anyone who already has a higher stat.

    Same with the spells that do that.

    Such a bad feeling, imo.

    If there was a way to only apply the stat-setting if the stat was lower, you could do a "mixed mode", where e.g. with Gauntlets of Ogre Power, you set the stat to 16, then you also increase it by 2. So like, if your character has less than 16 strength, it's set to 16 + 2 = 18, business as usual; but if your character already had 17-18, the 16 wouldn't apply and instead you only get +2, so 19 or 20. That would probably be how I'd want to do it - make those items still useful for high strength characters, but still maintain that...you know, that kind of classic idea of a random peasant boy finding and putting on the gauntlets and becoming as strong as an adult ogre. But...I don't think you can do that kind of mixed mode like you can with AC - the strength (and other stats) effect doesn't allow for setting it and ignoring it if it's already higher.

  16. IIRC, you can cut and paste the game directory to your e.g. C:\Users\(Username)\Downloads folder and install there, then move it back. Don't quote me on that, though - I've never had to do this personally, since it double doesn't apply to me as I use a registry tweak to fully kill UAC and auto-run everything in admin mode PLUS I always install my games on a secondary drive.

  17. 7 minutes ago, subtledoctor said:

    +1 everything becomes masterwork everything. Weapons, armor, everything. I think the concept is great - actual enchanted gear becomes rare and powerful. Just need to change the “+2” in the strings so that it doesn’t imply a missing “+1.” (My mod does exactly this -  and, not for nothing, there is a version that changes +2 items into masterwork as well...)

    This is the worst possibility for me. Just have a nice shopping trip to Diagon Alley and decide whether you want socks +1, socks +2, or socks +3. Puke. The commodification of what should be sublime. 

    Well, that's a different situation entirely from IR/SCS' masterwork/fine weapons stuff. Your situation is very...un-AD&D and not really what I want in a high magic world either, but at least there's some sense and consistency to it. But I'm just imagining stores having all the different +1 and +2 armors and shields, then masterwork and +2 weapons while +1 weapons are just inexplicably missing and for some reason it's just impossible to find anything +1.

    What do your masterwork shields and armors even get in comparison to +0/+1 anyways?

  18. 54 minutes ago, subtledoctor said:

    I see no problem with simply removing all +1 weapons from the game... 😛  

    I hate it from a conceptual standpoint. All minor magical weapons from the entire universe just disappeared, but +2 weapons and +1 armors/shields are all still around? Weird as hell. So I would keep with the IR/SCS behavior of having the original item replaced, but then...

    1. Mildly reduce the prices of the masterwork weapons - it'd be good for the game economy anyways, given the mass influx of easy gold in especially BG2.
    2. Do a mass scan of all stores that sell any generic +2 weapons and patch in the separate +1 weapons before them (so masterwork, +1, and +2 weapons could all be available for sale, making it so that +1 weapons aren't mysteriously missing).
    3. Hand-pick some appropriate replacements for some creatures, quests, and areas that were previously +1, with an intent focus on where it actually makes sense to have enchanted weapons.

    This would be what I'd have to for me to consider using it myself. +1 weapons must continue to exist, just in much lesser quantities and availability compared to the current situation of these games. I'm not sure exactly how far SCS goes with it...

  19. 2 hours ago, subtledoctor said:

    (Ditto for Prismatic Shield - how can something be prismatic if it is invisible?)

    If you are invisible, then so are your protections...and enemies can't hit you anyways. If you are not, then they are not. If you are invisible and an enemy can see through your invisibility, then they can attack you, but those protections would also be visible to those enemies but not to others. That's how I think of it, and any other logic starts getting messy awfully quick when you start thinking about other spells and how prominent their graphical effects are or aren't. There are "attack back" items in IR like Casiel's Soul that have no graphical effect that have identical functionality to something like Fire Shield - are you saying that if there were no graphic effect associated with Fire Shield, you then would be fine with it not breaking invisibility?

    As an aside, Blade Barrier and Globe of Blades obviously should break invisibility, because they have ongoing hostile effects that directly target enemies, as opposed to something like Fire Shield or Mestil's et al., which require enemies to attack you in order to have any effect.

    I would personally say no to the exceptions for Obscuring Mist and Gust of Wind...but I'm not that invested in it. If a pure divination spell like Know Opponent breaks invisibility (something that conceptually literally has no effect on an enemy and is supposed to be purely consequences of the knowledge that the caster now has), then something that creates an actual manifested physical change like a mist or wind not breaking invisibility would seem very strange indeed.

×
×
  • Create New...