Jump to content

Salk

Modders
  • Posts

    3,119
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Salk

  1. No, I do want SCS to handle all combat scripts except for 3-4 cases for which I created custom scripts for a few NPCs. Since they are not generic combat scripts then there should not be any compatibility problems after what you told me. Cheers!
  2. Thanks, DavidW! It is useful information. Is there a place inside SCS I can look for that list you mentioned?
  3. Hello, DavidW! I don't know if it might have escaped your attention but I asked you a question here about SCS and I would be grateful for an answer, if possible. I might add another question: is there a way to manually exclude some specific CRE scripts from being changed by SCS prior to installation? Thanks! EDIT: One last curiosity. It seems the size of SCS increased with 30-35% since v33. What's the cause?
  4. Ultimately I think that what Bartimaeus said makes the most sense. He'd need someone that played with both the original IR and the current IRR to point out possible issues or flaws in the latter. Or simply give a reason why one or more of the changes made in IRR aren't "right". Personally I enjoyed discussing and brainstorming with Bartimaeus both here and in private tackling different aspects that we both felt needed improvements. I think IRR came a long way now and, despite what Bartimaeus himself says about his own attitude, I find him to be quite open to suggestions and capable of reverting some of his own changes if a valid argument is being made.
  5. A question, DavidW. If I modify some creature's original script(s) and/or swap the original script(s) with a new one(s) before installing SCS, what does SCS do when it comes to it? I'm asking because I customized a few combat scripts for some BG1 NPCs and was wondering if they'd be affected. Thanks.
  6. Not the way I see it. DavidW kindly produced that particular .ini setting quite a few years ago for my own benefit and for a few others' that did not like the fact that the AI was capable of opposing a strategy that benefits of the perfect knowledge of the party's protective items. My view was very different. The AI should only be allowed to learn about protection against spells only after being unsuccessful. This is how it is for the Player and I felt it was only fair that it should be so for the AI as well. Since v32, the AI became less effective at detecting the party's protective items (unless the AI_Is_Omniscient flag is set to 1). They would now need to fail once in order to stop using an ineffective spell. That is a good compromise overall. But the reason for a spell to fail may well lie in the target's successful saving against it. A spell could be ineffective because the target simply resisted it or because of a temporary buff. I personally still prefer keeping the AI oblivious to protective items because of that. Despite "crippling" their strategy, I found that the SCS AI is still way better than the original's. Especially in the BG1 portion of the game when playing BGT.
  7. It's PROFICIENCYGUN, but isn't that the same for all people installing SCS on classic BG2 or BGT? I mean, if it was indeed the culprit, wouldn't we have the SCS Forum full of reports about those nasty parse errors?
  8. Hello @Luke! Thanks for the assistance. I was convinced that the problem came from the .ini setting I (and few others) use to prevent the AI to detect protective equipment but If that is not the case and the issue comes from the different named stat #109, is there something I can do on my side to remedy it?
  9. Oh okay. I thought it was an easy change in your SSL code. I do think it's harmless like you say but it's a bit annoying to have almost 300.000 parse errors during installation. Thanks for v34!
  10. Hi DavidW! I read to the change-log for v34 but I didn't find any mention about this issue. Is there something that can be done about it?
  11. Thanks, CamDawg. I suspected that much but I needed some confirmation If anyone does know of pertinent changes, I would be grateful for additional information.
  12. Hello! I am in the process of working on an updated GTU for the classic BG2 game, using the BG2:EE revision's own GTU as base and reference. I would like to know if someone could point me to a detailed list of major changes between the two games that might affect the game text. For example, difference between classes. When comparing the description for the Wizard Slayer class there are substantial differences: the cumulative chance of spell failure for successfully hit target is 10% in the classic and 25% in EE and the magic resistance is reported to be 1% / level in the classic while it is 1% up to level 19 and from level 20 onwards it alternates between 1% and 5%. Thanks for your help.
  13. I personally do not like any possibility of turning any neutral character hostile by attempting any kind of charm spell. It would only lead to reload.
  14. I appreciate the effort of demonstrating how effective the weapon is against undead, Bartimaeus. Thanks for that. I made the mistake of assuming that Azuredge had no THAC0 bonus like in the original version but I see IR(R) made it much more powerful so I take everything I said back.
  15. Could you make so that a Dominated creature is immune to Charm and Dire Charm then even if they use the same opcode?
  16. In my opinion, if the defining property of a weapon is underused (and if it is triggered as rarely as critical hits or worse I would say it is) then I'd say the implementation is not very successful. Even if Azuredge is obtained early in the game, its original save modifier was -4. I agree that is too much but a nerf of 4 points seems a bit too harsh. -2 or possibly even -1 would be preferable. The effect is indeed powerful but if the chances of triggering it are very low then who would choose a weapon that has no THAC0 bonus even for fighting Undead when there are other weapons that make landing a successful hit substantially more likely? I guess the Mace of Disruption has had the same treatment when it comes to that? But in this case, there is a +2 THAC0 bonus that statistically should help hitting more often thus giving more chances to score a vorpal hit.
  17. Bartimaeus's proposed change seems pretty much spot on to me as well.
  18. Hello, Bartimaeus! And I guess that means I no longer need that BGT Tweak component if I install SRR...
  19. I use one of BGT Tweaks' component called "Disable hostile reaction after charm". I consider it a must-have.
  20. I remembered the lady's name starting with C... (Carsa is her name) I still maintain that it's perfectly in character for a panicking person, driven half insane to make first contact. Even if SCS does alter encounters in order to make them more challenging, I wouldn't wish for it to make structural changes to developers' intent unless supported by very strong arguments. There are none here other than considering that in some cases insane people do tend to avoid interacting with other people. You say that good game design trumps characterization. Well, I would argue that removing Carsa's initiative in approaching the party would be bad game design (characterization is part of game design, isn't it?). You'd sacrifice something that is not only more than acceptable but obviously what the game's developers wanted for that encounter only to make an already very challenging fight in the original game, made too hard within SCS, return to be "reasonably hard". I cannot buy the argument that "since SCS is already changing the difficulty for this encounter then it is perfectly fine for it to also alter other aspects of it because it is a mod, after all". The right thing to do for SCS, if anything, is to just remove the permahaste effect from Kahrk. It'd not be the only case where David W removed some unjustified power from an NPC in order to make the fight fair. I guess we'll agree to disagree on this one.
  21. I think the lady initiating dialogue is actually the correct design for this encounter. She is borderline insane and she wouldn't just stay where she is waiting for someone to approach her. From a level design point of view, I never really much bought the "since it's an optional challenge, everything goes" reasoning. Even the toughest challenge should, in my opinion, be internally consistent with the difficulty level chosen (if there is one to choose) by the player or, in lack of it, with the general game difficulty. When it comes to metagaming (something I pretty much loathe in principle), I can much more easily accept it if it is something that is sort of required through the whole game rather than once or twice for "special"/"optional" encounters. I agree with subtledoctor about Kahrk being justifiably a formidable opponent. But there should be some limits. If I want to play at a Core (or easier) difficulty level then it should be completely possible to defeat that enemy even if the party is not properly prepared for the battle.
  22. It seems that Drizzt's scimitars (sw1h15.itm and sw1h16.itm) can be used by Beastmaster while they shouldn't. Same problem with MISC75.ITM (Dagger of Venom).
×
×
  • Create New...