Salk

Agree with Andrea.

Got it!

Thanks, weigo! 

Hi @Weigo!

Just wanted to report that Near Infinity reports 140 corrupted WED files after the installation of the latest version of BGGO (on BGT). It is better than the version before that one though when the corrupted files were over 200. Perhaps it is something you are aware of?

Cheers!

Perfect!

I will keep you updated.

Sorry that the work on the .wed is annoying and time consuming, weigo.

Hopefully it'll be worth the effort.

Solution b is the way to go. I guess what we need is the night .WED then...

But I thought Jarl has been missing for quite a long time now. Am I wrong?

Also, if I am not mistaken the last version of BGGO has already incorporated some of the torch / light additions made by Jarl, right?

Cheers! 

Hi TotoR!

3 hours ago, TotoR said:

I have use both in my previous intall and I haven't seen any bugs. It was with bgoeet (previous version of bggo); if nothing as changed since, it should also work with last version.

Cheers

Thanks for the information. But perhaps the current BGGO has been adding material that makes that part not fully compatible. Weigo said he will take a look at it. 

That would be great!

Thanks!

Hello, @Weigo!

I was in the process of installing BGGO before my local version of Jarl's Adventure Pack and I discovered that those .WED changes made to the Gnoll Fortress and Nashkel (AR3700.WED & AR4100.WED) might actually come from Jarl's Tweak Pack.

The ReadMe says:

        - new Searchmap and Wallgroups for Nashkel (now you can enter the graveyard).
        - new Searchmap and Wallgroups for Gnoll Fortress (now you can enter the lower wall ring).

So my guess is that those changed .WED files allow the player to enter an area of the map that previously was not accessible. So, my question is: what happens if I install BGGO and then use Jarl's modified .WED files? What could happen?

A follow-up question: if it's recommended to not use those modified .WED files with BGGO, does it mean that the Searchmap part of the code for those areas is not needed? What I am trying to ask is: is there any point for the searchmap changes in those two areas if the .WED files are not changed too?

Thanks!

Thank, argent77.

I'm afraid the source doesn't help me much.

I know I have found the following:

++ @0  = IF ~~ THEN REPLY @0

+ ~Trigger~ + @0 = IF ~Trigger~ THEN REPLY @0

but there must be plenty more.

Cheers!

Hello!

I tried to look for a place that would list all of WeiDU's shorthand syntax for .d files but I couldn't find it.

Any suggestions about where to look?

Thanks!

59 minutes ago, Bartimaeus said:

think I would like to upgrade these shadows to wraiths (43 HP and 4 AC instead of 34 and 7 respectively) just for a little more staying power...and exempt them from the summoning limit, which just means changing their gender from 0x6 (summoned) to 0x20 (no limit summoned)

Sounds like a good idea to me.

Thanks, jmerry.

In this particular case, I don't think there should be any kind of problems, but I wanted to make sure that ChangeAnimation() was going to do what I suspected.

Personally, I'd go for the first solution if the intention is to keep the Dark Swarm name.

Hello!

Quick question: does this action actually destroy the current creature calling it replacing it with another one?

I'm asking because I am checking some code and I see the following:

ChangeAnimationNoEffect("JA#KEELX")

This is in the override script of JA#KEELO.CRE. This creature is spawned regularly at install time while JA#KEELX.CRE is not.

Thanks!

The "dark swarm" ability sounds cool enough but perhaps the quality of the summons should be reconsidered.

Thanks for the advice, jmerry.

If it's not too much of a problem, could you please tell me if this couple of lines are all I need to change the sale markup to 140 (originally 150)?

COPY_EXISTING ~STO0703.STO~ ~override/STO0703D.STO~
	WRITE_LONG 0x14 140

Thanks!

Hello!

I was wondering if there was some way to trigger a permanent or even one-time price change in a store via dialogue.

I thought it'd be nice to open up to such possibility as storekeepers might want to give a discount or raise their prices as consequence of some actions taken or words spoken by the Player.

Thanks!

As part of Improved Dialogues we have Jondalar's Fix.

I took a look at the code and at the original .dlg file but I'm not sure I understand what's been done there. What was the problem? 

But was there not a valid reason for the original concept of making it impossible to cast spells at invisible enemies?

The problem with the non-SCS enhanced AI could be solved if SR dealt with updating the spellcasters AI in that specific case.

Well, then I'd say the situation is unfortunately critical and worse than l ever imagined initially when I opened this topic.

But the dispel spell would have a chance to fail while haste and slow would cancel each other every time. Or that's how I thought it'd work. Additionally they would be a little less powerful against each other.

I have always been a disappointed optimist. 

Things like this one don't help my condition. 

Just now, subtledoctor said:

I suppose SR could implement it on the old engine via some extra subspells - the same way SR fixes Spell Shield itself. Hmmm…

That would be desirable for classic game players like myself.