Jump to content

Hurricane

Members
  • Content Count

    73
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Hurricane

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Mods Worked On
    Contributed to BG1 Unfinished Business, BGT, BG2 Fixpack
  1. Could you give me an example where this is the case? Â Â Yes, I just want to see the strrefs. But can I see them without starting the game? Can I somehow go through them systematically, say, with NearInfinity?
  2. @Jarno: I don't know the text, though. I can't search the tlk because I don't know what text to search for. I'm only guessing from the shape of the button in the .chu file that there should be text displayed on it, but the .chu file doesn't tell me which string is used. The example strings I mentioned I only found out by looking at buttons in-game. So far I've already been doing what K4thos described. But I want to go through ALL buttons systematically. I can't do that in-game. Instead, I want to go through the .chu files. So maybe I should rephrase: How are strings assigned to GUI buttons? And where are the respective strrefs stored?
  3. I am looking at .chu files. A .chu file can define a clickable button in the interface. I am interested in those buttons that have a string displayed on them, e.g. the buttons in the main menu saying "load game" (strref #13729) or "cancel" (strref #13727). My question: Is there a way to find out the strref associated with a button of a given .chu file? The strrefs don't seem to be stored in the .chu file. I don't want to modify anything, I only want to know the respective strrefs.
  4. Another item for the to-do list: The Fixpack causes Nalia to have one less spell slot than she should have. File: NALIA13.cre (Nalia at level 12) Without the Fixpack, Nalia has too many spells memorized. The Fixpack corrects this by removing the excess memorized spells. However, in doing so, the Fixpack also erases her 6th-level spell slot. That means Nalia is missing one 6th-level spell slot at level 12 if you install the Fixpack.
  5. Congratulations to you and CamDawg! What started out as a mod has now made it onto the list of official Infinity Engine games. (Look, it's on Wikipedia!) That is amazing! Even if IWD:EE ultimately went beyond the original mod and did a lot of other things as well, you guys must be incredibly proud of this "successful completion of the project". CamDawg, after only being able to poke at resources or ToBEx, tell us how good THAT felt.
  6. DeadSomething, try to follow my instructions here. Only replacing the setup.tra file is not enough. You need to re-run the Fixpack installer (setup-bg2fixpack.exe) and choose to [R]e-Install the "BG2 Fixpack - Fehlerbehebungen" when you are asked what to do. Did you do that?
  7. This is already fixed in the current alpha version of v11, as reported by CamDawg who committed the fix.
  8. There are two more problems that need to be resolved in v11. First, the detection of BG:EE doesn't work. The Fixpack currently uses the following code to prevent installation on BG:EE: REQUIRE_PREDICATE NOT FILE_EXISTS_IN_GAME ~oh3500.are~ @27 // not needed for BGEE I'm not sure anymore why oh3500.are was initially chosen in the REQUIRE_PREDICATE checks. Suffice to say, there is no file called oh3500.are in BG:EE. Players can currently try to install the Fixpack onto BG:EE (it fails of course). To resolve this, how about we use one of the Black Pits files? REQUIRE_PREDICATE NOT FILE_EXISTS_IN_GAME ~oh9360.are~ @27 // not needed for BGEE Secondly, v11 should make sure that players do not accidentally try to install the Fixpack onto BG2:EE either.
  9. You might be right about SoA, but I really don't know since I've never experienced BG2 without ToB. As for BGII:EE, REAVER.itm is still undroppable, so there is no reason to change it in BG2/Fixpack. When you say that EE "adds it back in one form or another", that's because Overhaul created a new, separate copy of the Unholy Reaver (now called OHREAVER.itm) and properly modified that item to meet the standards for being a weapon available to the player, including a comprehensive description, new name (Ir'revrykal), lore value, its own unique icon etc. This version is obtainable now in EE, and that's probably what you have heard about. Nonetheless, this doesn't change the status of REAVER.itm in BG2/Fixpack. Ah yes, sorry, I didn't even think of this as an issue. Two known cases of inconsistent melee vs. missile damage in vanilla BG2 are Azuredge (AX1H10.itm) and the Dwarven Thrower (HAMM06.itm). In both cases, the Fixpack changes one of the damages to match the other one, yet not because they are inconsistent but because the descriptions demand it. With AEGIS.itm, it's different because we don't have a case for either 2d4+5 or 2d4+7, since there is no valid description to go by for that item. Therefore I also suggest we leave it.
  10. Quick review from my side: The description for AEGIS.itm is incorrect because it is the description for AEGIS2.itm, the version available to the player. However, since AEGIS.itm cannot drop, it does not matter that its damage is at odds with the text, because the player never sees it. The Fixpack generally doesn't alter unseen descriptions. About the enchantment level: I agree that both versions of the weapon should receive appropriate enchantments. I also agree that AEGIS2.itm should get +3 and AEGIS.itm should be +5, because that's exactly what the description says: The weapon is more powerful in Wulfgar's hands, and is merely +3 when picked up by the player. Also, +3 and +5 match the thac0 bonus of AEGIS2 and AEGIS, respectively. Agreed, the enchantment level should be corrected to +5, not only because of the description but also because the sword is one-handed. All other +6 weapons in the game are exclusively two-handed. Since this is only a cosmetic error, you may have to convince Wisp to fix this in GTU Light. Agreed, even though it's only an omission. For what it's worth, elemental damage on other weapons is usually labelled as such. Plus, the description in BGII:EE now does specify it as cold damage as well. Agreed, this is an error. BGII:EE now mentions it as well. Needs to be corrected via setup.tra for all language versions, and added in GTU Light as well. I think you've misunderstood the description. It says it "does not give any bonuses to the base armor class", but the base armor class itself can very well be AC9. BGII:EE has also added AC9 to the description now, so we might as well go that way. AC9 should be added via setup.tra for all language versions, and to the GTU and GTU Light as well. The inaccurate description does not need to be altered because the sword is flagged as undroppable from the one creature that has it (see GITH03.cre in Near Infinity). I mentioned the +5 damage vs. good-aligned creatures myself earlier, but CamDawg clarified that these things do not matter if the item is not available to the player. Agreed. BGII:EE also lists it now. Should be added via setup.tra for all language versions, and to the GTU and GTU Light as well.
  11. Hehe, I just discovered the forum being down and was wondering what happened ... good to see an official anouncement. Happy bot hunting!
  12. Alright, no one else has been voicing any support for Option #1 after several months. Given that Option #2 has been more supported in this discussion, and seeing that Option #2 is also less intrusive because it only expands the druid's armor choices instead of reducing them, I conclude that the favored way to go is to allow druids to wear all non-metallic armor. The previous consensus about archers and beastmasters has remained uncontested as well. Unless someone else likes to make a different case, I therefore think we can now wrap up this topic. Here is the current outcome: 1. Archers and beastmasters are restricted from wearing the Ankheg, Red Dragon, Blue Dragon, and Ashen armor, as per the vanilla implementation. The Fixpack mustn't change this. Both kits only need their descriptions altered to reflect these restrictions, i.e. "May not wear armor better than studded leather". 2. Druids are able to wear the Ankheg, Red Dragon, Blue Dragon, and Ashen armor, as per the underlying rule system. The Fixpack needs to change the vanilla implementation where necessary: Blue Dragon armor is already made usable, but Ashen armor is not. Additionally, the Fixpack should extend the druid's description to correctly reflect this, i.e. "May not wear any metal armor". 3. Given the expanded usability for druids, the Fixpack then has to restrict avengers from wearing the Ankheg, Red Dragon, Blue Dragon, and Ashen armor. Currently, this is only done for the Ankheg armor. 4. By developer intent, the White Dragon armor is usable by all classes except mages, monks, kensais, shapeshifters, and avengers. Accordingly, stalkers are able to wear it, as per the vanilla implementation. The Fixpack mustn't change this. 5. The decisions made here need to be carried over to both BG:EE and BGII:EE as well. As far as I can tell, the state of the Enhanced Editions regarding usability is basically Fixpack v10. Therefore, necessary changes include at least the archer flags, the White Dragon armor's stalker flag, the Ashen armor's druid flag, the avenger flags, the archer's description, and the druid's description.
  13. Basically yes, although the exact reduction depends on the usage: If you use Azuredge as a throwing axe, the additional 1d6+4 is dealt as missile damage by AX1H10B.eff, and the Skeleton Warrior you are fighting has 60% resistance against missile damage, so the additional damage is reduced accordingly. If you use Azuredge as a melee weapon, the additional damage is dealt as slashing damage via AX1H10A.eff, but Skeleton Warriors also have 40% slashing resistance. So as you can see, the damage is working as intended. As a general rule: no, because the way it is set up in vanilla BG2, most weapons with additional damage against certain creatures have their extra damage reduced by damage resistance, so we kept it this way with Azuredge as well. Both of these observations together give you the answer: Every time you actually see the result of a creature's saving throw, it means that the saving throw was successful, but the number doesn't actually help you in any way. Every time a creature fails it's saving throw, the throw is not displayed. The feedback is confusing that way, unfortunately. For what it's worth, that Skeleton Warrior's required saving throw against death is 5, so in the screenshot, it presumably rolled a 9 and ended up exactly at the threshold with the -4 penalty. If it rolls 8 or lower, it fails the saving throw due to the penalty and gets destroyed. As you can tell from the thread you linked to, we have had that discussion. There are all kinds of reasonable interpretations regarding the weapon's base thac0 and damage, including your own. However, none of them matter because only the Fixpack's current implementation is unambiguously supported by the weapon's values and description at the same time. This trumps any deviating considerations because those will always be subject to the personal judgment of what might be the "most reasonable" alteration of the weapon. That's why we decided once and for all to stick with the unambiguous values.
×
×
  • Create New...