Salk

Here's a zip file containing all the .tra files (18 out of the original 20) that need replacing in the English folder . WoTEngLang.7z

The GTU has been updated (1.1) to fix an original VO issue with two NPCs.

Thanks for the info, TotoR! I have been updating the text of the WoP because some part of it were quite messed up (mostly the text taken directly from Ascension). Let me know if you would like to use those updated .tra files (assuming you play in English).

Thanks for the recommendation, polytop! I actually spoke about your nice polyvorp modification with IRR's author ( @Bartimaeus) and he also appreciates it and believes that IR(R) and polyvorp can actually co-exist. With the obvious caveat of the Ravager weapon, of course. The vorpal mechanic itself could easily be used by Item Revisions items that include a vorpal effect, after all, right? Cheers!

Hello! I installed this nice modification of yours and I discovered it overrides the Axe of Unyielding's, the Silver Sword's and the Ravager's item description. Since I am a Item Revisions Revised user this cause a rather big compatibility problem, especially with the Halberd's properties because Item Revisions (Revised) removes the Vorpal effect from it. For the next version, could you please take this in consideration? Thanks!

Hello! I was installing The Wheel of Prophecy v8.5 on BGT and I got a bunch of parse errors compiling dw#balme.baf because STATE_IMMOBILE and STATE_DISABLED were not found in state.ids. My suspicion is that the modification needs to append the state.ids with the new states for the classic games. The installation completes successfully though. I have attached the weidu.log up to that point in case it may be of any use. WeiDU.log

Hello, Cam! Great to hear that! I don't know if what I wrote might have come through as a complaint but that was not my intent. I think it's fair and acceptable that IE modders' focus lies now on the EE versions. It has to take priority for obvious reasons. I will be glad for the day I will see update to some of my fav modifications like the BG2 Fixpack, of course. In the meantime, I wish you godspeed for all you are currently working with. I know your plate is always full. Cheers!

Hello, Guest Morgoth. Your question does not annoy me at all. The answer is yes. I did change two things in that dialogue. One is an outright bug (it is mentioned there). I quote myself: @27524 = ~How could I refuse your wish?~ No matter what solution we go for, there is still a line that needs fixing in the English text. It is string 27530: @27530 = ~I do. Come to my arms out of view of prying eyes...place your hand against my darkly trembling heart and I will show you the boundaries of passion as only I can...~ "I do." needs to be removed because this line can be spoken after reply 27524. Eventually both #27524 and #27530 were changed slightly: @27524 = ~How could I refuse your wish if that is what you truly want?~ @27530 = ~It is. Come to my arms, out of view of prying eyes; place your hand against my darkly trembling heart, and I will show you the boundaries of passion as only I can...~ I also changed the contested line as announced there: @27512 = ~It sounds like you're asking for more than simply my company tonight.~ My reason to change was principally due to the fact that I believe that Viconia's reaction to the original line is out of character and that the original line itself (if it was meant to be a heavy taunting) would color the protagonist's personality in a way that would be, in my opinion, too prominent/heavy. I went for a more neutral attitude that pretty much naturally invites Viconia to tell more about her intentions. This is one of the very few arbitrary changes I made to the game text but while I understand the objection of "purists", I operated under the principle that what I eventually believed to be a clear improvement over the original dialogue could be an acceptable change. I repeat again though: such instances are extremely rare (I think we can talk about less then 5 among literally thousands of lines). Unfortunately due to the fact that I have also made a myriad of small punctuation changes (they are by far the most number of changes in the GTU), I never documented each and every one change I made because it was honestly a massive work I didn't feel for doing, considering that this project has pretty much been a one-man job. I hope my answer (if not my decision) was satisfactory.

Hello! I have decided to release to the public the work I have been doing on the game text for the classic Baldur's Gate 2 game. I have in the past done a similar work for Baldur's Gate as well as part of the scarcely known BG1 Fixpack project (which unfortunately could never be properly polished due to how little popularity it gained, leading to lack of feedback). While it is my hope that this game text update will become a third alternative inside the next version of the G3's BG2 Fixpack, I realize the focus of the maintainers have been, is and will be producing modifications for the EE versions of the Infinity Engine games. This means we have no idea when a new version of the BG2 Fixpack will be out. So until that time comes I am making this available to the public. I don't expect much popularity and visibility for it but it is nice to have it completed and ready for use for those that still enjoy playing the classic Baldur's Gate 2 game. There are two components: The main component replaces every string of the original BG2 dialog.tlk file. It requires the installation of the G3 BG2 Fixpack. An optional component (which will eventually be included in skellytz's Infinity Sound) adds additional voice overs for three NPCs for which there is strong indication Bioware originally intended to provide voice for. Three actors were hired to record those lines. The NPCs in question are: Mateo, Countess Santele and Captain Samand. They are actors in Saradush's quest "Betrayal at the Gates". The first component tries to remove every game text typo ever reported by the community and then some. At the same time it tries to introduce several appreciated stylistic elements introduced in the BG2 EE game off which this game text update is based. Bartimaeus here at G3 is offering support for this GTU in his master versions of IRR and SRR modifications (the latter requiring at the moment to set spell_description_style to 2 in the settings.ini). Installing other modifications for the classic BG2 game that introduce new text is of course going to cause an inevitable stylistic clash. Mostly noticeable when it comes to items and spells text format. Unfortunately there is not much I can do about it (although locally I started adjusting the text of few such modifications which I personally use to be stylistically consistent with the GTU). It would require an update from the original authors or current maintainers. While this is a possibility, of course, much depends on what kind of popularity this GTU will gain and honestly I don't expect it to be much. And now, without much further ado, here is the link to download it. Link removed pending probable imminent change. Feedback is always appreciated and I will be available to answering questions, if there will be any. Cheers!

Oh okay, lynx. I was afraid it might return a negative number if it exceeds the slowest speed value...

Hello! Does anyone know if there are values we can use to decrement the attacks / round in the wspatck.2da table? And also, if we introduce a speed malus (let's say +2) into the wspecial.2da table, would it cause a problem for weapons that already have the slowest speed (I think it's 10)? Thanks!

It was supposed to be a joke...

French and Italians have historically always understood nothing about romance. Almateria certainly is right saying we're missing the forest for the trees.

Thanks for the heads up, Bartimaeus. I found and read his farewell message now. He did have some good and inspired ideas but I understand he wasn't the easiest modder to talk to.

Hello Tenmix, one question: is this modification very similar in concept and execution to the old Ding0's Tweak Pack component "NPCs/Summons Set Off Traps"? Thanks.

Hello, @CrackBaby. This is something that does not seem to happen with the original non-EE port which I created and maintained. The best thing is to open an issue at the EE port's github page.

Hello again, Jazira. Yes, a small edit for the 27518 string similar to what you suggest would be helpful if we don't touch string 27512. With your change, Viconia is at least somewhat addressing the (heavy) "taunting" before insisting with her eager plea for not being left alone that night. I still feel like "I can think of nothing less appealing." should make Viconia furious but on the other hand it is conceivable to think of her as truly desperate at that point. I thought of a perhaps rewrite of my former proposal which would still make the node a bit more balanced: @27512 = ~It sounds like you're asking for more than simply my company tonight.~ // neutral / inquisitive @27516 = ~I am not interested in laying with you, Viconia.~ // negative @27517 = ~All right... I will stay with you, if that is what you wish.~ // neutral / positive And if the player chooses @27512 then the next reply set sounds consistent with the previous choice: @27522 = ~I came here to comfort you, not to spend the night. I shall sleep by myself!~ @27529 = ~Viconia... not like this. Not because you are desperate... It isn't right.~ @27524 = ~How could I refuse your wish?~ No matter what solution we go for, there is still a line that needs fixing in the English text. It is string 27530: @27530 = ~I do. Come to my arms out of view of prying eyes...place your hand against my darkly trembling heart and I will show you the boundaries of passion as only I can...~ "I do." needs to be removed because this line can be spoken after reply 27524: GTU means Game Text Update, by the way.

It would be very uncharacteristic of Viconia to completely ignore such a taunt and continue pleading for CHARNAME's company, if that is indeed how we're supposed to interpret that line.

Yes, I noticed the improvement and I am much in favor of it. I meant that I'd rather see the base value change from 10 to 20 than have the spell be an AoE spell. But again, it's just a matter of personal preference.

Well, I'd be in favor of making Lower Resistance a slightly more appealing spell but rather than doing it by changing from single target to AoE I'd upgrade its single target effect. But it's just a personal preference. I'm not sure if perhaps SCS uses this spell in combat but I'm quite positive vanilla AI doesn't.

Hello, Bartimaeus! I noticed that now SRR forces an AoE for Lower Resistance and I was wondering why since it was originally a single target spell and I was personally not planning on playing with the optional AoE version of it.

I think what you pointed out has merit, Jazira. I don't really know what the intention was with "I can think of nothing less appealing." but it does sound and feel completely off. Just changing the "less" with "more" doesn't sound like a good solution to me either though because at the next reply node CHARNAME can firmly dismiss Viconia's proposal and that would be in direct contrast with what the revision you suggested would imply. I think that the best alternative is to introduce a reply which prompts further elaboration from Viconia. It would not really be needed but since CHARNAME needs to say something I believe that would be the less damaging possibility. Inside the GTU revision for BG2 I have now tentatively changed that string to something quite different: @27512 = ~What kind of night are we talking about here?~ If someone has a reason/explanation for keeping the original one please intervene.

Understood. Thanks for explaining the situation in detail.

I don't think it'd be fair to remove the winding for enemy Berserkers, although it would be obviously great if the timing for when their rage is activated during the battle could be further perfected. I am not particularly bothered by their drinking a potion or stopping the attack to do anything else. Player-controlled berserkers can do that, after all.

I second the sentiment of Cahir and probably many others. I noticed you have been releasing two very interesting tweaks in the SCS section and while it's very commendable that you produced them I do think they would fit wonderfully in a new version of your Polytweak. It also seem like the most natural thing ever to add new tweaks to an already released modification of yours that is just about that. Please consider updating your modification here, polytope. Thanks!