Salk

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.

21 hours ago, Guest Morgoth said:

I don't think the text you are mentioning warrants a revision. You are taunting viconia a bit with that line of dialogue.

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.

7 hours ago, Bartimaeus said:

Well, its effect was increased from base SR as well, IIRC - from 2% per level (maximum of 40% at 20th level) to 10 + 2% per level (maximum of 50% at 20th level...but more importantly, when you obtain this spell at 9th level, it goes from a mere 18% to 28%, which I felt was important for making it more effective against e.g. dragons at relatively lower levels). So it was an all around upgrade for the spell, really.

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!

The original BG hammer for Bassilus was Ashideena. 

And that was a great weapon for Baldur's Gate 1.

BGT players tastes can vary drastically when it comes to what they'd install so it's difficult for me to suggest a list and at the moment I am not playing the game.

About the 2DA tables, yes, that is what I meant with my suggestion.

I honestly don't see myself adding any more feature to WTP Familiars in the future. I consider it done, but I think code optimization is still very desirable.

I never tested the EE version so I can't know how well it worked on BGT.

Truth to be told, my series of testing was focused almost exclusively on the BG1 part of BGT.

About code optimization, I am quite sure it'd be possible to create an array for the level up process similar to how Bioware does with kits but my WeiDU knowledge is practically non-existent so I never dared delving into it.

A pleasure knowing that some other people enjoy this modification, @artyfox

I am sure there is lots of space for optimization in the code. Originally, it was not my intention to be the coder and I am sure there is vast space for improvements. I doubt @flamewing will work on his fork again. He's been quite unresponsive and didn't pop in here again for a long time now.

So for what it is worth, I would be glad to let you maintain the EE version, if you like.

I did make a few changes to my local version of WTP Familiars but it's only about small revisions to the familiar dialogues.

Thanks for the suggestions, y'all!

This has been done. 

Good job, artyfox. 

Thank you for helping with EE support.

Please Endarire do not spread such blatant disinformation. It's the second time you post to write that Tome&Blood include this modification or something similar.

It's completely false.

Not to mention the author is myself and it doesn't seem like I'm so inactive.

The guy in charge of the EE port has not been active for quite some time.

I am the author of the original non-EE version and never met that kind of issue during my testing but I am not even sure what you mean with "In BG2:EE this problem doesn't offer". You mean it happens in BG:EE but not BG2:EE?

Hello, Daulmakan!

8 hours ago, Daulmakan said:

Is it a vanilla item or not?

It's a duplicate of a vanilla item (AMUL13.ITM).

I created a container and put it into it so perhaps I don't need to add any additional flag to this duplicate item of mine?

Well, I noticed that the container added by the EE has the "EE: Don't clear" (6) flag, which I cannot obviously set for the classic game.

Does anyone know what happens if I proceed without it?

I found an example in the WeiDu documenation about how to add a container to an .ARE file but I am a bit confused by some of the required parameters:

INT_VAR fj_loc_x to the X coordinate

INT_VAR fj_loc_y to the Y coordinate

INT_VAR fj_trap_loc_x to the trap launch X coordinate

INT_VAR fj_trap_loc_y to the trap launch Y coordinate

What's the difference betwee the first set of X, Y coordinates and the second one?

Thanks!

Well, I didn't check this in-game, jastey,

I simply opened the BG:EE .ARE file in Near Infinity (AR4300). The three bodies are listed as "Actors" and have no inventory. The item (Amulet) instead is in a container classified as "Pile". One other class for container is "Body" . 

And that was exactly what I was hoping for. To make one of the three body the container for the amulet.

From what I can see inside NI, I don't think that is what Beamdog did. Or am I wrong?

Hello jastey!

Just now, jastey said:

Can you elaborate, or give an example from the game? I don't fully get what exactly you mean.

Yes, of course.

I mean that players can use TAB to highlight map areas that are interactable, including containers. There are many such examples in the game. It could be a particular area from a bookshelf, for example. By clicking just there the inventory for that particular area would be displayed and the player would find a book there.

Or it could be a hole in a tree in the forest. You click on it and you find a hidden ring of wizardry... 

@Daulmakan,

thanks for the advice. If I cannot find a way to go for the best solution (see above), then I guess I could follow your advice but the item is not magical. The current flags are: droppable (2), displayable (3) and not copyable (5).

I want to make it a plot item so that it wouldn't disappear if spawned but at the same time, for narrative reasons, it cannot be made unsellable. So perhaps there is no possibility this way. 

Well, I installed BG:EE to check how they did things there with the Colquetle's Family Amulet and apparently they spawned three dead corpses representing, Mr Colquetle's son, his wife and their child. And they added a container on top of Mr Colquetle's son's body.

I think a much more elegant solution would be to make Mr Colquetle's son's body the actual container; we have several examples of something similar being down by Bioware. But unfortunately I have not the skills to implement via WeiDU so if anybody can help me out with this, I'd really appreciate it.

Thanks for the advice, Graion, but I am working on the classic engine.