Roxanne

Please don't force us to complete Nashkel or any quests. Please just let us go to IWD by default in Chapter 1 pretty please.

I think nobody intends to force anything. EET lets you do things as you want. If some mod wants to connect/integrate IWD deeper with the BG main story it may require some conditions to be met before IWD makes sense. In this case the mod will tell you about that approach and you can decide to install or not install it.

The In-game reason to go to IWD proposed and discussed in this thread should be understood as an option.

PS - the fact that some mod (IWD is a mod in the EET context), task,or plot becomes available at a certain stage of the game is not so unusual, it is rather the norm in Baldur's Gate.

 

 

Thank you very much for the info, Roxanne =)

 

I can't wait for the day when I can play though all of EET + IWD + tons of other mods, and all with Sandrah by my side ^__^

I still wait for this http://gibberlings3.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=27741&page=13&do=findComment&comment=246214 to release the mod.

 

At least NTotSC is essential.

 

IWD contents would install like any other mod if Sandrah finds it during the own installation process.

 

 

I'll most likely have to wait until everything is install-able via BWS, anyway

 

Do you have an updated README for Sandrah yet? I'd love to check it out!

 

IWD in EET will not conflict with any other mod available or planned for EET (the only candidate would be NEJ which recycles IWD areas and characters on large scale - NTotSC has unique areas and NPCs - there is no idea to make NEJ compatible with EET, the mod's author is a flaming enemy of EE).

The readme was on SHS until their recent loss of data, here is a copy (reflecting what is available today).

Sandrah NPC for EET_Readme.pdf

Thank you very much for the info, Roxanne =)

 

I can't wait for the day when I can play though all of EET + IWD + tons of other mods, and all with Sandrah by my side ^__^

I still wait for this http://gibberlings3.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=27741&page=13&do=findComment&comment=246214 to release the mod.

At least NTotSC is essential.

IWD contents would install like any other mod if Sandrah finds it during the own installation process.

Issue with worldmap

When I left worldmap from BG4600 during chapter4, I realised that Athkatla City Gates area was displayed as reachable. Tested it and I could access other town areas from there.

I inspected my other saves and found it was available in all chapter4 saves. Sadly I have no earlier saves, so I cannot say at which point in the game it became accessible...I am definitly sure that it was NOT available from the beginning as I did multiple checks with and without BP-BGT WM installed.

I did some further tests with a new game (City Gates is NOT accessible) - incremented chapter global by and by , visited a number of areas, including mod areas that add to worldmap etc. I could not recreate the situation.

So no idea what to do about this report.

Issue with worldmap

When I left worldmap from BG4600 during chapter4, I realised that Athkatla City Gates area was displayed as reachable. Tested it and I could access other town areas from there.

I inspected my other saves and found it was available in all chapter4 saves. Sadly I have no earlier saves, so I cannot say at which point in the game it became accessible...I am definitly sure that it was NOT available from the beginning as I did multiple checks with and without BP-BGT WM installed.

Not sure if this is EET or vanilla bug

In BG4600 in the Laurel quest to kill gibberlings, the Global("Gibberdead","BG4600") is not set regardless how many gibber.cre you kill. So the mimiquest never gets finished. Also, far too few gibber spawn to reach a value of 11 in the first place.

Not sure how this was intended to work but I think that gibber.bcs need somethink like

IF

Die()

AreaCheck("BG4600")

THEN
RESPONSE #100

IncrementGlobal("Gibberdead","BG4600",1)

END

Edit - tested my proposed code and all works as intended.

In a number of discussions earlier this year this topic was elaborated. The outcome of the discussion was that (currently) EET itself would not provide this *glue* but it was up to modders to do so. See http://gibberlings3.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=27783&page=2&do=findComment&comment=243963 and surrounding entries.

There is also a mod developped that adds IWD specific banters and reactions to your Sword Coast company during IWD.http://gibberlings3.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=27760&page=3&do=findComment&comment=246035

Is there any news on these mods (last things I found was: under construction) for EET compliance:

- The Vault

- Northern Tales of the Sword Coast

?

Back to topic *strongholds and Baldur.bcs triggers*.

Having looked into them once more, there is a potential way for each of them to delay the stronghold quests and actions until ToB. As long as you start the related main quest during SoA you can go back at a later stage to finish it, become owner of the stronghold and do the corresponding quests in ToB (if that makes sense or not is something else, but EET would allow it).

In this case you would need those baldur.bcs triggers in baldur25.bcs as well.

 

 

About additionnal triggers first, the Pocketplane only allows going to Saradush and where you came from during Saradush (beginning of chapter 20 but not all of chapter 20) so the blocks with !chapter 16,17 and 19 (example l 126) need to have Saradush added to them. On a side note, it would make sense story wise to allow the player to leave Saradush and go back to Amn during the Saradush episode since he can use the Pocket plane to do so, there would be no reason not to. It could be explained by CHARNAME not having good control over his powers though so it's up to you.

There are some areas that should be added to these checks but I haven't done all of the ToB personal quests, I did Dorn's recently and it wouldn't make sense for these npcs to arrive in Lunia like they did when I loaded my save in unmodded BG2.

 

I think the Bodhi/Aran blocks can be safely removed (l 176/200).

 

I'm not sure about the rest.

Those can surely go:

• Bodhi/Aran
• Jaheira
• Montaron
• Genies
• SpawnTanadv
• Habib

The others depend on how you want the strongholds to work in ToB, e.g do you want to keep the occasional quests active or just have the money coming in? Do you want to return to the playhouse and druids or do you anticipate that you have done the contents during SoA?.

There may also be an issue about doing the Nalia quest as late as ToB (theoratically you could do that, right?) although the original idea of the quest probably was to get money before going to Spellhold?

Edit

I think the others can go as well, the ToB Nalia, Cernd, Haer'Dalis etc to trigger the strongholds will not do that in ToB, i.e. you can only continue the strongholds you had but not get new ones.

 

Some comments why each of them should be removed would be very useful considering I'm not that familiar with the content. For example why Genies code should be removed if someone didn't do Trademeet questline? (it's completely optional area in SoA). Montaron's and Xan's side quest isn't necessary to progress through the story, so not sure if it's good idea to not include it in Baldur25.bcs. No idea who is Tanadv and Habib, so can't make a decision without spending tons of time looking at game resources and analysing scripts and dialogues.

 

In other words following format would be preferable if someone already knows context of these events:

- Bodhi/Aran - not needed since these is stuff that triggers only before going to Brynnlaw

- Ust Natha - part of the storyline, you can't go back there after finishing it

etc.

 

edit:

I think the others can go as well, the ToB Nalia, Cernd, Haer'Dalis etc to trigger the strongholds will not do that in ToB, i.e. you can only continue the strongholds you had but not get new ones.

 

but what about situation in which CHARNAME didn't get any stronghold during SoA? Notice that in EET JOIN dialogue files are automatically merged at the end so technically you could still get them during ToB unless there is some code that triggers it in Override script or some filters in vanilla scripts and dialogues that would prevent it from happening.

 

e.g. you need Cernd to reveal the druid grove...but Cernd destroyself if you did not start the plot before ToB

See Cernd.bcs and initial dialogue

About additionnal triggers first, the Pocketplane only allows going to Saradush and where you came from during Saradush (beginning of chapter 20 but not all of chapter 20) so the blocks with !chapter 16,17 and 19 (example l 126) need to have Saradush added to them. On a side note, it would make sense story wise to allow the player to leave Saradush and go back to Amn during the Saradush episode since he can use the Pocket plane to do so, there would be no reason not to. It could be explained by CHARNAME not having good control over his powers though so it's up to you.

There are some areas that should be added to these checks but I haven't done all of the ToB personal quests, I did Dorn's recently and it wouldn't make sense for these npcs to arrive in Lunia like they did when I loaded my save in unmodded BG2.

 

I think the Bodhi/Aran blocks can be safely removed (l 176/200).

 

I'm not sure about the rest.

Those can surely go:

• Bodhi/Aran
• Jaheira
• Montaron
• Genies
• SpawnTanadv
• Habib

The others depend on how you want the strongholds to work in ToB, e.g do you want to keep the occasional quests active or just have the money coming in? Do you want to return to the playhouse and druids or do you anticipate that you have done the contents during SoA?.

There may also be an issue about doing the Nalia quest as late as ToB (theoratically you could do that, right?) although the original idea of the quest probably was to get money before going to Spellhold?

Edit

I think the others can go as well, the ToB Nalia, Cernd, Haer'Dalis etc to trigger the strongholds will not do that in ToB, i.e. you can only continue the strongholds you had but not get new ones.

SoD added generic versions of magic items to prevent duplication of unique backgrounds. If it makes things easier on technical side, then you have my blessing to use a single filename for duplicates. I personally don't care any bit at all about backgrounds, as I never read those walls of text Do make sure to check the scripts/dialogue for filename references though, as some may have those being checked for.

This checking can be made for vanilla contents - but what about mods? The removal/replacing/renaming of vanilla resources has been a modder's nightmare in old BGT. It should not be repeated in EET. Even if currently you find no script/dialogue which uses the references, you may not know about each mod that uses them. You can easily create bugs for others by fiddling with such resources. In the end you will create incompatibilities just to gain cosmetic adjustments.

I'm also thinking of trying to make a lore friendly and non abusable teleport spell by examining how the pocket plane works, I have literally 0 experience with this though so it's really a shot in the dark.

You may want to wait with this project. The Sandrah for EET mod (to be released as soon as k4thos makes NTotSC available for EET) contains such a feature already.

 

The intro to chapter 9 (of SoD) plays instead of the one to chapter 9 of ToB when I reach Amkethran (chapter 21).

 

Is it the same for others ?

 

https://www.dropbox.com/s/dquyzwfwpeixvdk/000000106-bug%20intro%20chapter%2021.7z?dl=0

 

Same. Also the chapter screen is missing.

 

It does exactly what is currently in ar5500.bcs

New RC up on GitHub. Thanks to all of the awesome feedback from you guys the mod should feel much more polished now.

 

Version 1.0 Release Candidate 5

- Fixed MAJOR regression regarding NPC SoA continuity system caused by engine changes in patch 2.x

- Fixed problem with not working NPC Override scripts after SoD->SoA transition (damn DisableAI command, wasted too much time before finding the obvious cause)

- Fixed random tables item quirks (mod now uses old 2da files and the same names as BGT)

- Added new function that can be used by modders to easily patch BG1 random tables dummy item names. Supported platforms: BG1, BG:EE, Tutu, BGT, EET

- Fixed water layers via argent77's code (this time for sure)

- Day/Night movies no longer shows up in interiors

- Kicked NPCs won't try to initiate post dialogue after spawned again

- Fixed regression in EET_modConverter 'Chapter_patcher.tph', also added support for commands written with whitespace between commas

- Fixed support for 'Story mode' (needs testing)

- Fixed vanilla BG:EE bug - duplicating Rasaad GAM entries

- Fixed problem with spawning Rasaad too early in Trademeet

- Changed vanilla code that for whatever reason sets Aerie's BeenInParty flag even if she wasn't in party at all

- Implemented auto biography GUI feature depending on the chosen campaign (workaround for the vanilla system that doesn't work when engine_mode = 1)

- SoD GUI now supports High Level Abilities selection

- added scrollbar to SoD GUI kits selection menu

- Removed SCRL1V importation - Dimension Door scroll no longer exists in vanilla BG:EE. EET now copies version of this file from patch 1.3 to Override in case some mods still use it

- Updated 'EET_functions.tph' - also included in updated BG2:EE NPC compatibility patches (no other changes)

- Resolved compatibility problem with mods that use Player initiated dialogues system

- Resolved compatibility issue with Margarita NPC - please re-install setup-EET_end finalise component if you have it installed

- All vanilla BG1 and BG2 areas added to console menu (if there is a reference for BG:EE and BG2:EE areas than let me know)

- Added XP adjustment after spawning NPC in ToB

- Thieves Guild time limit disabled when you return to old areas

- EET no longer uses HANDLE_CHARSETS - all TRA files have been converted to UTF-8 without boom to solve the issue with M_EET.LUA file (if the game crashed on you with non-English language than this will fix it).

 

Known problems:

- Fate Spirit in ToB don't acknowledge Dynaheir, Khalid and Yoshimo death if they have not been really killed during game. The dialogue checks for STATE_REALLY_DEAD - what is the best way to give them this state? The easiest way would be using Kill("DV") but this action triggers the death scream even if they are outside party in completely different area...

- auto biography GUI feature doesn't work with multi-class characters yet

- HLA menu in SoD GUI uses BG2:EE GUI art. As far as I know SoD variant of the art doesn't exist. Looking for help regarding this task

- and yeah, those SoD links still didn't make it. Soon...

No update pack for those with RC4 + all intermediate patches (understandable when looking at contents of RC5)

Does it still make sense to report issues on RC4 + PidFix + Hotfix + some local fixes for NPC spawning issues (given that the issue is not on the RC5 list) or is it better to do a new install?

!AreaType(BG1AREA)

Will be ready for next RC, thanks for report. Finally that additional flag added to all imported areas is useful for something

 

Probably IWD should be treated the same (when it becomes available).

 

Some of the BG1 areas are unattainable without losing the thief guild due to time constraints. Shouldn't there be a way to tell renal "yo i'm going on vacation"?

what is the time limit for thieves guild? Is there similar functionality in other strongholds? Didn't think about that.

 

btw. since you're already in SoA - do not go back to SoD areas. As mentioned in this post they are not ready yet for returning parties and I've just noticed that one of the links still connects them with rest of the world. Once you travel there you won't be able to go back. This will be fixed soon.

 

It is six days - controlled via Baldur.bcs (actually up to 11, after 5 you get a reminder and have the time to return before you loose the guild)

This is the only stronghold with such a function - you have to pay regular tribute to the shadow thieves to keep the guild.

PS - you can see that this is disabled already for the chapters when you are in Spellhold and Underdark and thus unable to return frequently to the Docks.

I'll test a bit later but indeed the behaviour you described is the correct one.

 

I've never had this bug on non-EET but if it's not an EET bug it could still be included in the EET fixpack.

I think it must be considered for EET.

@k4thos - suggest to add condition Global("OHRCUT01","AR2000",1) to the two blocks in ar2000.bcs that spawn Rasaad

 

I think you're supposed to wander in Trademeet, then see the cutscene where he beats them and then find him down the street and have the talk with him. An option in the talk includes "I just saw you fighting [...]" which means you're not supposed to be able to recruit him before the cutscene.

 

It is part of his quest but the order in which things happen is messed up.

 

Edit : see in this video

This makes sense.

In this case, the spawning of the recruitable Rassad must be delayed after the cutscene has played, e.g. the blocks to spawn Rasaad should have additional condition Global("OHRCUT01","AR2000",1).

 

OK - I have tested my proposal. With this global added to ar2000.bcs it seems to work as intended.

Edit

If you want to try,

1. Add Global("OHRCUT01","AR2000",1) to the two blocks in ar2000.bcs that spawn Rasaad

2. start from this save - Rasaad should not be in Trademeet when you enter.

I think you're supposed to wander in Trademeet, then see the cutscene where he beats them and then find him down the street and have the talk with him. An option in the talk includes "I just saw you fighting [...]" which means you're not supposed to be able to recruit him before the cutscene.

 

It is part of his quest but the order in which things happen is messed up.

 

Edit : see in this video

This makes sense.

In this case, the spawning of the recruitable Rassad must be delayed after the cutscene has played, e.g. the blocks to spawn Rasaad should have additional condition Global("OHRCUT01","AR2000",1).

It's probably getting out of subject but I was thinking of something like having the Fist and an important figure arrive at the temple once Sarevok and his companions are dead(I don't like how the fight stops when sarevok falls) and let you loot the place then when you're done, you talk to the important figure and move on.

 

Important figure would be the living dukes from the palace attack and if both are dead then a flaming fist officer or another duke maybe.

If we continue in this direction, we will be back almost to the former BGT transition where you went back to the ducal palace to report your success and transition started by talking to Duke Belt...

Here, I lagged IRL I guess. https://www.dropbox.com/s/alddmsse1kna0yo/000000073-rasaad%20bug.7z?dl=0

 

Thanks.

I have played from your save a couple of times now in different variations and I think the bug is no bug but intent.

As a personal opinion, I think the transition to SoD could use some work anyway, It felt very abrupt.

code in BDSODTRN.BCS that triggers SoD expansion. It moves what lays on the floor to that area,

I have done some work and tests on this already.

Currently

It is a minor issue to delay this immediate moving, give the party some time after Sarevok has died and start the transition when they pick up some specific item (e.g. some document containing a hint to his followers in the SoD dungeon). Also, it gives you the chance to pick up other stuff, heal etc. (My own NPCs also have some dialogue here commenting the consequences of Sarevok's death.) Once you found the item, the (unmodded) transition script is triggered. If a specific NPC needing an artifact from one of Sarevok's companion is in the party, this delay is exceeded until the NPC has the item. The exit from the temple stays locked, so you cannot go back into BG1 at this time.

Technically this is no big deal, contents-wise it made more sense to me than finding the items in a pile in the SoD dungeon. At this moment I am not sure whether this addon makes sense (i.e. improves the game) or not.

You can actually pick up the sword in SoD. At least if you have the new loot UI activated, strange bug.

1. I do not think it is a bug but in some cases you may call it an exploit as you can grab items from a small distance (even hidden behind some object) while picking them up normally would expose you to enemy fire. However, it is up to the player to use it this way or not.

2, The sword may be considered more of a plot item than a weapon (even if you could use it).

Anyway, those topics may not be EET related.

Then I shouldn't be able to keep it but there's no point giving the weapon to take it back immediately, so it might as well not be on Sarevok's body unless I'm missing something.