Jump to content

grodrigues

Members
  • Posts

    173
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by grodrigues

  1. The best option is to use a case-insensitive partition. See https://www.gibberlings3.net/forums/topic/28516-the-linux-users-guide-to-installing-mods-on-the-enhanced-editions/
  2. @BartimaeusNew, fixed PR is up. Tested and seems to be working now. Do note that accompanying the PR there is another PR with some more fixes, and without it, install will throw warnings -- by design.
  3. @subtledoctorPut up a refactor of subtledoctor's pr on the break invisibility and / or hostile spell flags. The original PR is in the master branch (always make a new branch when submitting PR) and does not allow edits by the maintainers. Did some minimal testing and everything seems kosher; at any rate, check at Refactor of subtledoctor's pr
  4. PR is up. Tested installation and spell in NI, but as always the more eyeballs on it the better.
  5. Finally getting around this. For now will defer to using SRR version with the numbers proposed by subtledoctor; the issue is thorny and without testing we cannot go forward, so might as well release an interim version, satisfy SCS and then if something better comes along change it. The next release does not have to be perfect, it just has to be better than what we currently have. @Bartimaeuslooking at your implementation, I have some questions: You have one Use Eff [177] with Cast Spell on Condition [232] but then this is repeated as the last opcode of the main spell. Why the duplication? What am I missing? Wouldn't it be better in the subspell that delivers the effects to protect against the subspell itself and not the parent? Presumably the second Use Eff [177] is to prevent self-stacking. But then, why the extra indirection via Use Eff and not use 206 directly in the main spell? No modify proficiencies [232] opcode. Can we be sure that SCS will pick this up? Do we have to insert this opcode or something similar to instruct the AI note(s): after getting this out, and refactor-ing subtledoctor's patch, I think we are ready for a public release.
  6. I have this vague memory that it was decided to replace con bonuses to a bonus to max hp precisely because of this exploit. Either I am remembering wrong or the replacement was not sweeping and complete.
  7. It is Arzol (not Anzol), a bodyguard in the central arena. As soon as the meeting with the game master Dennaton is finished and you are teleported to the central square he aggros and goes after you. This should not happen and basically guarantees a game over. Only IR's main component besides some UI mods, to be precise LeUI, EEUITweaks and Hidden gameplay options. On linux, in a case-insensitive partition. More info needed, just holler.
  8. In doing some high-level spell testing for SR, I fired up Gladiators of Thay and noticed that Anzol (or whatever the heck he is named) aggro's making the campaign unplayable. I have traced it to the main IR component; this does *not* happen if instead I use IRR. Has anyone traced this or even better, knows where exactly the problem lies?
  9. @subtledoctorcomments on the PR are in the PR itself (having problems posting to G3).
  10. @BartimaeusMissing AUTO_EVAL_STRINGS so as not to have to intersperse EVAL's everywhere. But if I turn it on then the main component no longer installs barfing somewhere in the code that sets spell schools. Putting the PR on draft until I go over it again.
  11. Just to put the discussion along the PR. But I can also just link it here, so no problem, do whatever's more convenient for you.
  12. My knee-jerk reaction was "then memorize Break Enchantment" as I definitely do not like the idea of making petrification temporary. It cuts on some of the danger factor, that is, it is a threat vector that the party *must* account for. Unfortunately, my response does not quite work because as you pointed out one cannot leave the area -- or at least one would have to expel the party member before leaving (if at all possible, I think it is but do not quote me on it), which has its own complications. Sigh. As with imprisonment, I do not have a good solution for this.
  13. @BartimaeusThanks for reviewing. Fixed the lack of neutral charm and the missing ".eff" extension. The duplicated opcodes should be fixed as well (typo in the argument to CLONE_EFFECT). Any other comments, holler in the PR itself please. As far as the 324 opcode, that is most likely the doings of kreso_eestatSR.tpa. The PR itself does nothing in that regard. The idea is I presume, to block spell if target is under Chaotic Commands.
  14. The PR: Refreshing, non-stacking is up, fixing some (egregious) bugs in the patching code for EE. Since it does extensive surgery on two files, more pairs of eyes on it would be great.
  15. PR is up. Dire charmed not covered because I am not convinced it should be neutral, but we can always revisit it later on. Since implementation is tricky, more pairs of eyes on it would be nice.
  16. Finally getting around to implement this, but need some help. We need to filter for hostile and non-hostile (= neutral and ally) via Use Eff to account for the different save on the charm according to whether the creature is hostile or not. The relevant filtering is via ea.ids. My question is: are GOODCUTOFF (30) and EVILCUTOFF (200) enough?
  17. Actually it is not as bad as it looks, as all patching is done with WeiDU code, so most of the work was shifting things around and make another pass through spell to uncover any mistakes -- and sure enough, some were caught.
  18. As Bartimeus said. SCS AI compatibility is one of the priorites and restoring the immunity to magic weapons +3 is pretty much the consensus around here I think. The issue is what exactly can we add to make Prismatic Mantle a real option (for the players) instead of just defaulting to PfMW -- I can only speak as a player, but it is what my party mages always do, including bards/fighter-mages that go melee. Have to think about this, but the conundrum Bartimeus raised is fair: as a rule, if you are using protection against weapons spell it is because you do *not* want to get hit. Since retals occur regardless of damage ocurring, the problem becomes in the prismatic mantle effect itself. We could prevent shield stacking to help balance -- this is probably a good idea anyway independently of what exactly we do with prismatic mantle.
  19. The current SR implementation of Prismatic Mantle has dropped protection from any sort of magic weapons and has put in a retaliation. While the concept is good there are several problems: the implementation has several issues not the least the fact that there is left over cruft suggesting that the spell does protect against (some) magic weapons. It ends up gimping the AI and is bound to confuse SCS. If you are a mage, you do *not* want to get hit and with PfMW at level 6 why would you even waste a level 8 slot on such a spell? Maybe, maybe a fighter-mage or a similar frontline fighter would want to cast it to augment his dps, but I doubt it. Given this the proposal is to reinstate the protection against +3 weapons (inclusive); to compensate, nerf the retaliation to only happen once a round. One advantage is that SRR already implements such, so we can just shamelessly pilfer the implementation. If you prefer what SR currently offers, present your argument. If you have any experience with SRR and its implementation of Prismatic Mantle, could you share your experience with the spell? Is it balanced, the AI (and by AI, I mean SCS AI) does the sensible thing within the constraints of what an AI for the IE engine can do, etc.
  20. All the spell fix PR's are up (and many have already been merged); I still have to open a couple of RFC and submit a few more PR's, then I will declare this first stage done, do some install testing and roll out the next public release.
  21. The problem applies to any spell cast at point via a projectile. Is this a mechanic people want do away with? In itself and separate from any other considerations, I do not see anything wrong with it. Then there are the several ways we could go about it: (1) instead of targeting a location, target a creature and maybe bypass invis (2) increase aoe -- but then we have to look at other aoe spells and my general impression is that some of them, namely Glitterdust, maybe Grease, definitely need such a buff independent of this specific problem (3) reduce casting time and/or increase projectile speed.
  22. That is settled then, and by this I mean: implement neutral charm with different saves for hostiles and non-hostiles (numbers as laid out by Bartimeus). I am still undecided on Dire Charm; it is just the oddball. One thing I would like to ask is some kind of blurb, hopefully lore-friendly, to stick in the spell descriptions for this behavior as I intensely dislike opaque (to the user) mechanics. @subtledoctornot tied to this RFC, but currently there is a small issue blocking the merge of your nwn spell deflection patch. Could you please fix it? I could do it myself, but it is better to do it at the source.
  23. Right. As far as parsing my proposal, start with what I actually want to achieve: I imagine there are several ways to go about it, but making the "best charm" = non-hostile have only a middling save, and save the best save (pun intended) for the not-so good charm = "hostile at the end" was a good compromise. In this way, there is something of a risk in the casting the spell, which I think is a Good Thing (tm). But maybe I am looking at things the wrong way and it is just better to have to unlock content safely.
  24. So let me take stock of the situation (have not yet read Bartimeus' latest post, so will not take it into account here). 1. The charm line of spells should be changed to allow unlocking content (mostly, or all, in the BG1 portion of the saga). Several NPC's deliver special dialogue lines when charmed, so it is desirable to be able to charm the target while not turning them hostile at the end of the charm. 2. There is, or seems to be, agreement that Charm Person and Charm Person or Animal should implement this and that Mental Domination and Domination should not. The only contention seems to be with Dire Charm. Bartimeus favored treating Dire Charm like Charm Person on grounds of consistency; I favor the contrary but I find it difficult at the moment to articulate exactly why so I am deferring the decision until I have a clearer grasp of the issues. 3. The non-hostile charm should only work with targets that are non-hostile to begin with; to make the difference even clearer we can give a penalty to the saves for a non-hostile charm of a non-hostile target. The difference in saves, as proposed by Bartimeus is 4, so for example if the base save of the charm is at +2, trying to non-hostile charm a non-hostile target is at -2. The implementation is via Use Eff (to filter for allegiance) -> Cast Spell with the save put on the Use Eff. We will need two subspells, one with hostile charm and another with non-hostile. Assuming the above is a fair assessment, maybe we can do even better. Everything with hostile targets remains the same, but for non-hostile we can introduce an hostile charm (with the stronger bonus to the saves) and a non-hostile charm, the "better charm", with a save bonus between the base save and the non-hostile charm. The implementation would then change from: Use Eff (non-hostile, save at base - 4) -> Cast Spell (non-hostile charm) to: Use Eff (filter for non-hostile, no save) -> Cast Spell (subspell, no save) Subspell: Cast Spell (non-hostile charm, save at base - 2) Use Eff (block next spell by giving protection to it, save at base - 2) Cast Spell (hostile charm, save at base - 4) The exact numbers on the saves are subject to revision, what matters most at the moment is whether the core idea and implementation are sound: this introduces a degree of uncertainty which I personally find good and would prevent douchebaggery as with 1-3 as they stand, trying to charm non-hostiles is essentially safe, the worst it happens is that you loose a spell slot. But what say you? If you do agree with my tentative idea, please also provide a good blurb for the spells to have an in-game as-accurate-as-possible description as I am not very good at writing this kind of stuff.
×
×
  • Create New...