Jump to content

Istfemer

Members
  • Posts

    104
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Istfemer

  1. Regarding IWD1 content in post-SoD world: I think Limited Wish is simply not powerful enough to be up to this task. Wish, on the other hand, might just be able to resolve the existing plot conundrum. Moreover, there may be no need to let the player do the wishing part. A wish could be forced on Charname by *others* instead, as part of an IWD1/IWD2-related quest; forced to suck Charname into a full blown Wish-scale adventure "like no other". With Wish, you can let a hostile/neutral character like a powerful follower of Belhifet or someone otherwise closely connected to him attempt to alter the status quo with a specially crafted Wish of their own.
  2. If Charname visited Easthaven in the 'timey-wimey' timeline it wouldn't make sense to not also have Easthaven on the worldmap in the current timeline. And since this is EET, if it's on the worldmap it should be explorable unless a *really solid* justification exists to the contrary. Regarding Kuldahar and similar overlapping areas: I don't know if the engine of EEs supports the (temporary) removal of known areas from the worldmap. Probably not, but if it does some day: remove IWD2 Kuldahar -> replace it with IWD1 Kuldahar and keep it so until the 'special adventure' ends -> remove IWD1 Kuldahar & restore IWD2 Kuldahar. Shouldn't cause continuity problems, should it?
  3. No. Well, I guess this approach of yours does avoid the hassle of rewriting dialogue etc. in order to make those areas compatible with the 'normal' EET timeline. However, it creates a noticeable issue: you'll have many more areas on the worldmap that'll read 'DESTINATION UNREACHABLE' and I have no idea how you're going to justify all that. *Why* should Easthaven be suddenly unreachable in current timeline? Such unexplained unreachableness will stick out like a sore thumb.
  4. How are you going to handle IWD's areas if your plan is to let Charname tumble down the time travel hole? Will those areas still be accessible from the world map when Charname and the player finish their 'special adventure' or not? I'm talking primarily about areas that are unique to IWD1.
  5. Hmm. "Belhifet's book" as a framing device... for a side adventure. For some reason, this suggestion reminds me of certain "role playing game" one can play in Watcher's Keep.
  6. Please, no time travel. Or at least no time travel of any conventional kind. Those things are too hot to handle. They tend to blow up in spectacular fashion sooner or later.
  7. From non-EE dialog.tlk for BG2 (with GTU Light v13 installed): pro-Northern direction: (1 mention) --- pro-Northwestern direction: (1 mention) --- pro-Western direction: (3 mentions) ----- So: a) 3 out 5 sources imply that Temple Ruins are to the west of Imnesvale, 1 out of 4 implies they're to the northwest and 1 out of 4 implies they're to the north. The one that now implies that Temple Ruins are to the northwest of Imnesvale (first half of Tombelthen's Journal) used to say that Temple Ruins were located to the east of Imnesvale, but GTU Light at some point patched that item's description to say 'northwest'. b) Temple Ruins are definitely somewhere out in the Umar Hills region. c) As far as my work is concerned, SoA's vanilla map is totally bonkers in both original BG2 and BG2EE. However, even the vanilla map shows Temple Ruins as lying much more to the west of Imnesvale than to the north (or even northwest) of it. I'd like more consistency in this matter. Personally, I'd much prefer it if BG2 Fixpack (and BG2EE as well!) chose the western direction, but I can live with the northwestern one being chosen.
  8. My suggestion for Wisp's GTU Light: please change 'north' in A Note from Mazzy Fentan and 'northwest' in Tombelthen's Journal (1st half) to 'west' OR change both to say 'northwest' and edit the lines of the inhabitants of Imnesvale + quest entries in the Journal. I'm working on a new worldmap for EET and I'm trying to fix/tweak area placements on it. I've run into conflicting sources regarding the position of Temple Ruins. Does anyone know if BG2EE standardized Temple Ruins' location in and across dialog.tlk? Is it west, northwest or north of Imnesvale in BG2EE?
  9. I need advice on how to handle Small Teeth Pass. Small Teeth Pass is SoA's most peculiar area. It's placed in the Tethir Forest on the worldmap, but it's also called Small Teeth Pass as if it belongs in the Small Teeth mountains. It actually belongs in Brynnlaw. If you look closely at Brynnlaw's worldmap icon, you'll see that it has a curious series of waterfalls in its lower part. These waterfalls are the same terrain that is found in the area of Small Teeth Pass. They match up perfectly. Brynnlaw & Small Teeth Pass also share vegetation: palms & other tropical trees. Brynnlaw had a true wilderness area early on in its development, likely placed between Brynnlaw proper & the Asylum. This is also corroborated by monster spawns: early versions of SoA had shadows, shadow fiends, wraiths & vampiric mists spawn at night in Small Teeth Pass (which had already migrated to the Tethir Forest by then). The Asylum (AR1500) still includes these creatures in its nightly spawns. Incidentally, Brynnlaw's present worldmap icon has these waterfalls in the wrong place. (south/southeast of Brynnlaw proper) So first, a suggestion for someone who's better at GIMP/Photoshop than me: Split those waterfalls off Brynnlaw's icon and use them as a new icon for the area of Small Teeth Pass. (currently STP has the same icon as the Forest of Tethir area). The remaining part of Brynnlaw's icon will require some fixup work though, so that it can look nice again. --- Second, what to DO with Small Teeth Pass that received (or didn't receive) a makeover? This area, as it exists in BG2, has nothing to do thematically with either the Small Teeth or the Tethir Forest. It has a misleading name. However, STP was placed in the latter region in the original game and it remains there in BG2:EE. Moreover, there are quest mods out there some components of which touch this area somehow (Weimer's Tactics definitely does this). It means I probably shouldn't move it to Brynnlaw. What should I do with Small Teeth Pass on this map? Do I just leave it alone? Possibly move it somewhere further south?
  10. The map loads fine and the rest of your instructions look straightforward enough. I'll send you the file when I'm done with my "first draft".
  11. Only one problem: I don't have the EE games, only the originals. I suppose I need to install EET first, too.
  12. BG 2: Throne of Bhaal 1. Watcher's Keep (AR3000). I'd put it northwest of the Omlarandin Mountains and south of Shilmista, due south of the Shining Stream close to where it begins to flow south in a straight line. That is, I'd put WK in county Morninggold in easternmost Tethyr. It'd make WK feel much more like a proper part of ToB than it is now and would still preserve geographic continuity with SoA. That pier in AR3000 need not automatically imply that WK is located anywhere near the sea. 2. Forest Valley a.k.a. ToB North Forest (AR6400) should be in the northeastern, not the northwestern corner of the Forest of Mir. It's supposed to be somewhere south-ish of the Siege Camp area and not very far from it. Remember, In ToB you need to pass Forest Valley on your way to the Temple in Mir. 3. Marching Mountains area should be located in the southeasternmost corner of the mountains of the same name, in the sweet spot between a field of brown rocks & the edge of the Mir forest. 4. The Oasis area on this map is located far too deep in the Calim desert. CHARNAME has no business going that far in that direction. Better to put it where Sendai's Enclave is placed on this map. 5. Amkethran area should be east of the proper Oasis area (that is, east of Sendai's Enclave on this map), somewhere in that field of brown rocks. Remember, in ToB you need to pass the Oasis first to get to Amkethran. And you need to reach Amkethran first to be able to get to Sendai's Enclave & Abazigal's Lair later. 6. Sendai's Enclave. Oh, I'd put this area right into the triangle formed by a rocky extension of the Marching Mountains and two streams that converge into the Calim River further south. 7. Abazigal's Lair. I'd put it where the Marching Mountains area is on this map. 8. I'd move Clearing (Neera's quest's map; OH6400) further west, close to the tiny forested blotch. Or even better: put it beyond that spot; put it on the plain between two rivers just northwest of the Forest Of Mir (north of Forest Valley on this map) to cut down on all that empty space. 9. Deepstone Clanhold... I wish I could advise better where to put it. Anyway, I'm convinced DC definitely shouldn't be located in the southern parts of the Alamir Mountains. Perhaps migrate DC to the northern parts of this mountain range?
  13. BG 2: Shadows of Amn 1. Definitely put Trademeet in its proper place on the Trade Way road south of the Small Teeth mountain range (west of Helmite Camp on this map), away from its present baffling position southeast of Lake Esmel. 2. Druid Grove definitely shouldn't be in Shilmista! It should be someplace not too far away from Trademeet. I'd put it northwest of where Trademeet should be, in a small clearing in the southwestern corner of the Small Teeth range (in Ommlur Hills, as that's where one would expect to find swamps/floodplains in the Small Teeth region). 3. Put Umar Hills in the northeastern foothills of the Small Teeth. Southeastern foothills won't work well for this area in my opinion. 4. Temple Ruins shouldn't be too far from Umar Hills. I'd put Temple Ruins near the tiny forested blotch southwest of where Trademeet is located on this map. 5. Windspear Hills are placed way too far to the east. According to this map they aren't even in Amn! I'd put them south of the Troll Mountains, in the area where Umar Hills are on this map. 6. I'd put Underwater City north of that huge peninsula (Dragon's Neck Peninsula); put it north of its northern tip, actually. 7. I'd put Underdark southeast of the proper Underwater City area and to the east/southeast of the aforementioned northern tip; in the sea but very close to the coast. On the present map there is a looong gap between Underdark and Underdark Exit. 8. Underdark Exit is placed too close to the Trade Way road. I'd move this area west of it and onto the Dragon's Neck Peninsula, closer to Underdark proper.
  14. The attached map doesn't look at all cartoony to me. It looks pleasant and topographically ACCURATE for once, unlike the original SoA & ToB maps or this EET map. I don't agree with the placement of several area icons on this map, but that's a problem I have with *all* maps made to date for SoA/ToB/BGT/EET. ----- My (possibly subjective) criticisms & suggestions: BG 1: Tales of the Sword Coast & Siege of Dragonspear 1. Balduran's Isle area isn't on the map. Which one of the islands west of Baldur's Gate should be Balduran's Isle?
  15. I sort of agree with the first quoted sentence, but the last two somehow make no sense to me. Huh? What do you actually mean? Whose 'unfair advantage' are you referring to? That of the human player or that of the AI? Who'd be doing the exploiting job in a hypothetical mod according to you? The human player or the AI? As for me, I think none of them would be as they both would be on even footing then. Don't you get the same kind of instant intel as I do when AI wizards/priests begin casting their spells? Don't you consider it an unfair advantage to the human player that the AI cannot benefit from the same kind of instant intel when it's the player's wizards/priests who do the casting? You realize you can't simply erase this knowledge from your memory once you've received it, don't you? The game *forces* it on you; forces you to exploit it whether you like it or not. As long as you are the sole recipient of the aforementioned instant intel, you are definitely NOT 'playing and winning within the system'. My goal is to close exploits, not introduce them and that's what my suggestions are meant to be a guide for. Yes, BG games are 'realtime with pause' games. I'm not convinced that rebuilding IE as a true realtime/turn based hybrid would necessarily improve gameplay or, say, make the system any closer to P&P. Aren't there a few enemies in SCS (Vongoethe?) who can be given items granting casting time reduction at install time? Anyway, it shouldn't take long (no more than a round) for an experienced enemy caster/wise non-caster to figure out that a PC has such items, which are very rare by the way, and make adjustments. (I liked how IR nerfed Robe of Vecna/Robe of Larloch or whatever it's called these days.) Casting times *are* a concern, but they aren't a showstopper. For pure casters? Yes, pretty much. And in my view, choosing to wait with spells (and do something else useful in the meantime, e.g. switch to ranged weapons instead, even for just half a round or change position on the battlefield) is a legitimate tactic that ought to be extended to the AI. It's not an exploit. Not even close. Pure warriors & rogues usually don't need to wait for anything as they seldom have & use (non-prebuff) spells. They only need to know such things like whom to engage in melee, whom to avoid in melee, on whom to focus ranged fire, when to retreat and whether to use certain potions/wands/scrolls/thief skills/special abilities when they see a spell of a certain school being cast by the enemy. (yeah, I'm probably oversimplifying here but not by much) Multi-classed casters (except wizard/priest multis) are the most versatile when it comes to reacting. They may cycle between either approach quite freely depending on how the battle goes. No need for enemy spellcasters to use this tactic every round. Make it so they have a random chance of using it every round and vary the length of the "waiting window". It may be a good idea to force spellcasters to use this tactic more often and wait longer if they can detect that their human opponent spams this tactic constantly, trying to outwait them all the time. Unfortunately, it's probably very difficult to write code that properly detects whether such abuse has, in fact, occurred. As I said before, it's not *only* about countering the slow-casting spells of your enemy with the quick-casting spells of your own (offensive, defensive or otherwise). Other actions can and should be taken if the situation at hand calls for it.
  16. So you're arguing that the magical symbols that casters draw in the air as they cast their spells shouldn't be affected by invisibility because those are external to casters. Is that right? --- 'As you can't cast without vocals' And that's a problem. I hold that you should be able to if you're affected by Vocalize. --- I'm not familiar with Doctor Strange, only with Doctor Strangelove. Fair enough. I think simple gestures/actions would suffice for calls for help, as it should be relatively easy to get your buddy's attention in a threat-rich environment, which a great part of BG1/2-era West Faerun is. Advanced information transfer is tougher to justify, but we can assume that the group in question uses a robust, pre-agreed sign system (like military squads & SWAT teams do). And if they aren't ('cause they're too green/careless), they can be expected to learn to use one after they stumble upon an encounter that is specifically designed to test their cooperation skills and it ends in disaster for them. Yeah, yeah, that encounter doesn't have to be specifically designed to test anything. It could be totally random and totally not a DM's decision. Yep.
  17. The big problem with this approach is that it doesn't make much sense. It is too far removed from P&P (in general, not just 2E/2.5E). I *could* see it work but only in some bizarre 'homeruled' equivalent of a 'wild magic zone', and even then probably not in the Prime Material plane of Toril. I mean, WHY should my single casting of Friends cancel out *all* enemy Fireballs being cast in my vicinity in that particular moment? What's the justification here?
  18. I forgot to account for Blindness & Deafness in the above paragraph. Opcode #74 (0x4A) State: Blindness Opcode #80 (0x50) State: Deafness --- I can't recall offhand the names of mods that tackled the (many) issues with visibility & audibility in BG games. Major issues like 'Casting animations/sounds giving away positions of casters deep within the fog of war' (ubiquitous in vanilla) and 'Lingering/permanent spell/item animations/sounds giving away positions of invisible creatures' (vanilla PfNM & Spell Trap were the most glaring offenders; there were probably others). IIRC, TOBex provided the means to block some (instances) of these issues but not others and some mods (SCS?, SR?, IR?) took advantage of that. I'm afraid it would be too much work for little gain to consistently block non-static animations and sounds (including casting ones) depending on whether creatures are able to see/hear things or not. One has to deal with mass vision & hearing somehow. It's the same problem that party infravision presents: some creatures in a group may not have it but others may have and, presumably, be able to convey what they see to the former, unless they're incapacitated themselves. I think not even Silence should prevent them from doing so. Same logic applies to calls for help. Yes, they're called 'shouts' but they don't have to be 'spoken' or even audible to attract attention. Sign languages exist after all.
  19. These effects are reverse ones, so if you do this, they get their VOCALS BACK. As you can't cast without vocals. Which is by-the-by the same effect that reverses the invisibility during casting. Isn't Opcode #47 (0x2F) Cure: Invisibility the one that specifically reverses (non-improved) invisibility during casting? Vocalize is #48. Or did you mean something else?
  20. I have. Original Saga edition with Baldurdash fixes (BG1FixPack v1.1 & BG1TOSCGameTextUpdate v1.1 by Kevin Dorner), 16 replacement .mus files and nothing else. 10 or so years ago I made a (nearly) complete playthrough with that configuration. Since then there have been several brief excursions into several select BG1/TotSC areas. Nothing major. Why? What does it have to do with this topic? I'm seriously not getting what you're getting at.
  21. I very well might be. I'm not as familiar with it as I'd like to be. I'm curious to know just how much I am overestimating here. Simpler? Yes. Simpler does not necessarily mean better. I have this advantage as a player and I'm convinced that the AI should have it as well. Having it as a *mutual* advantage/disadvantage would make for a better, more tactical game in my opinion. Setting every spell to use the same casting sound and animation would make the game look less colorful and sound more monotonous. Now, disabling some casting animations (just those displayed during a spell's "charging up" phase) for improved-invisible/sanctuaried casters is an interesting approach. Same goes for disabling casting sounds for casters affected by silencing spells AND/OR Vocalize. In the latter case Silence does this by default. I don't quite remember how Vocalize deals with various 'shut up' effects. Vocalize appears to only override opcode 0x26 (State: Silence) with opcode 0x30 (Cure: Silence), so it looks like we require a separate opcode that would only block the casting sounds and nothing more. Were these tweaks actually implemented as a "simpler solution", Improved Invisibility/Sanctuary + Vocalize (+ SI:Divination/SR's Non-Detection) combo would only gain in value for enemy casters. It would give most of them a special advantage of surprise in spell combat that they never had before, and thus make life harder for player's casters.
  22. 1. From a gameplay point they are; from a narrative point they aren't. And if it would be hard to implement these abilities, it would be not for the reasons you stated. Change my mind if you disagree. 2. 'not 6 casters, definitely not.' WHY not? Why having 6 casters in my party (whether arcane or divine, pure or multi) should inevitably break the game for me? I understand why having 10 in a party may break it, but 6? I can also understand why having 6 dual-classed casters is bound to break it, as the very concept of dual classing in BG games is badly broken and has been broken for more than 20 years. I'm not aware that EEs changed any of that. Also, I don't like to rest until completely healed. I prefer adventuring instead. BG games are too lenient on consecutive rests for me. Am I playing the game wrong? Hardly so. 3. Yes, it's supposed to be far more. No argument here. Funny that you should mention sequencers & contingencies, as I'd prefer Limited Wish & Wish to work in a somewhat similar manner, kinda like the vanilla sequencers & contingencies did. Like this: Make LW & W belong to the Universal school. You memorize LW/W then cast it or you use a scroll. No djinni appears, but you gain a *pre-spent* innate with the same name (modify the spell to display an icon with a charge counter pre-set to 0). You'll have to rest first to actually gain LW/W as an innate. When you do that, you'll be able to summon a wish-granting djinni normally. Your innate will then disappear. If you re-cast the spell now, you'll simply re-gain your pre-spent innate & thus waste your spell slot/scroll. This method partially blocks the 'Wish>RegainSpellsWithoutResting>Wish' exploit. I think letting the whole party regain spells in this manner is giving them way too much power. Letting only the caster do it would be enough. I don't know if SCS mages make use of this exploit though. BTW, I happen to like 'Multiple sequencers/contingencies for enemy mages' or whatever its proper name is. I'm totally okay with that approach. Enemies' LWs/Ws could use the same treatment. Some high-level enemy mages could even be given several uses of Limited Wish/Wish per day. 4. 'Yeah, what would you use your time for then?' Suppose I'm leading a squad of battle-hardened fighters & assassins against a particularly rude adventuring party that dared to break into our cozy compound. I'd be able to see then that that particular enemy wizard (Conjurer?) over there, yes, the one in red robe and with a weird accent is beginning to cast a *necromantic* spell. He may be casting a damaging spell or not; at us or not. Being a fighter/mage by profession & based on my extensive knowledge of battling casters, I'd be able to guess that the spell he's casting is very likely to be revealed as 'Skull Trap' or 'Abi-Dalzim's Horrid Wilting' when it goes off and is totally not going to be revealed as 'Flame Arrow' or 'Rabbit Horde' or some other dandy *conjuration* spell. I'm sure I'd appreciate this kind of battlefield intel and be able to think of appropriate response -- like taking sensible precautions & ordering my squad to rapidly scatter in organized manner, to regroup later just as rapidly in another spot on the battlefield. It might turn out to be *not* ST or ADHW but another necromantic spell, like Animate Dead. It's up to me to take the risk or not. I choose to play it safe this round. *I* know my fighters' & assassins' skills. They can take down a Skeletal Warrior or even 2-3 of them. Yes, they might be forced to waste a round running back to SW's summoning point and engaging it, and the Red Wizard will undoubtedly respond with something equally nasty afterwards. I understand that. I also understand that my underlings stand no chance as a fighting squad against a direct hit by a very probable ST or ADHW. Getting mass casualties (even without any deaths) from either would compromise if not cripple their fighting ability that even large quantities of healing potions would likely not be able to restore in time. Moreover, getting badly bruised in the opening stages of our battle would only bode ill for the battle's ultimate outcome. (from my point of view)
  23. Obviously, the farther my (hypothetical) party of 6 to 10 casters gets into the game(s) & the higher the levels its members attain, the harder it would be for enemies to predict-on-the-fly the spells my party might use against them. So, in case SCS doesn't presently have this feature, how feasible would it be for enemies to gain such abilities? Would it be a genuinely good idea? Would it make enemies behave smarter & make them more challenging in a fight? How difficult would it be to introduce this functionality into SCS? Can it be done with the assistance of Tobex or perhaps EEex? Or is GemRB the only thing that can potentially offer a solution here?
  24. Which is fantastic, yes. However, even if they can & have done so, it's all post hoc detection. My enemies failed to notice the schools of spells my party had been casting earlier in that round & guess the most likely spells I had tried to use against them in their & my particular circumstances. They lost precious seconds that could've been better spent. I don't know whether SCS has something like 'hostile spell prediction trees'. I suppose it doesn't, but only DavidW can answer that. Of course if a spell's casting time is short enough (say, 1, 2 or 3) then even if my enemies detect its school in time, it is likely they won't be able to act on their knowledge before my mage finishes casting that spell. Some or even most of the time. And that's perfectly fine. However, if a spell's casting time is sufficiently long, I think my smarter enemies should be able to detect its school properly, restrict in their head that spell to a sufficiently small list of probable picks & react adequately based on that info. e.g. Adjust their plans for their next round's spell & try to squeeze that one into the current round OR interrupt my mage's spell with fast damaging/disabling spells if they believe my mage is casting something *really* hideous OR set up emergency defenses of their own OR use escape items/innates OR try to melee rush my mage OR fall back & switch to ranged combat at safe distance OR do an in-depth tactical retreat). Not sure I'm following you very well, Jarno. How do the instant version of Time Stop & Dispel effects figure into this discussion? As potential responses enemy casters could make? Time Stop/Limited Wish/Wish spells aren't in inexhaustible supply for most enemies. Besides, I'm more interested in raising combat intelligence of the low-to-mid level spellcasters & non-spellcasters (especially those from BG1 & early/mid SoA) than combat intelligence of the multi-9th/7th level spell & multi-HLA wielding Ubercaster crowd. *In this way*, at least.
×
×
  • Create New...