Fouinto

I don't know the answer of your question, but I have a workaround for your problem : put all the stuff in a container..

I am pretty sure that Roxanne helped someone on SHS that had the very same symptoms...

I can't find the thread

Edit :

Google is my friend : http://www.shsforums.net/topic/58601-gromnir-dead-no-mellisan/

Hope this helps.

Edit 2 :

LOL... I also had the problem once That's probably why I remember of this thread

Idea : make the card game against Aesgareth fair (I mean something close to randomness).

In 3rd round, he always draws the card "Wheel" and win...

IIRC the deck itself (if you acquire the item) is 'stacked against you' . You can't draw the best cards unless you have previously made a "bad" draw. I've always thought this was a stupid nerf (presumably added for "balance") that went against the randomness and luck-of-the-draw nature that is the deck's essence. I'm not sure either (or even both) of these warrant a new tweak component, tho. A global un-nerfing tweak would be awesome, but it would be quite a bit of work and there would never be a consensus on what should be included.

I have not mentioned that I am pretty sure that I won (at least) once (in BG2 not EE). But, due to his nature, I can understand that Aesgareth cheats...

I've just hoped that making this more random was simple, if it's not the case, I can live with it

BTW, I tried to read the DLG and I have not seen where the "random" are

Idea : make the card game against Aesgareth fair (I mean something close to randomness).

In 3rd round, he always draws the card "Wheel" and win...

I know it isn't exactly what you want, but in case you are not aware of it, this mod has a "Always win against Aesgareth" component.

Indeed, this is not what I was looking for, but I didn't know this mod (always interested by discovering new mod )

Idea : make the card game against Aesgareth fair (I mean something close to randomness).

In 3rd round, he always draws the card "Wheel" and win...

BTW, I forgot to test "textbook on item creation" (Expanded Mage Stronghold) and it doesn't seem to work :

1. I read it, it gives me a "Special Ability",
2. I click on this ability, an animation as if I cast a spell, then nothing (no text, no item, nothing...),
3. tried close to the forge (AR0412 AFAIR) or far... nothing

First, I don't know if you can import your party at different part of EET (just try to get sure).

IF it works, as Jarno said : continuity in MANY aspects (at least, everything based on var (global...)).

In fact, AFAIK, it's quite simple : if you import your game in BG2EE part of EET, it's similar (not exactly the same though) as you do it without EET.

But to be sure, someone will have to TRY or probably K4thos could confirm (or not).

Ouh amazing, now we can have a max attacks per round of 1, hurray! This is a-mazing, so what if the eyes sting a bit.

As long as you can choose to install this component or not, where is the problem ?

If there is demand for such change than external mod with self explanatory name like "SoD-be-gone" (installed at the beginning of installation so other mods could detect it and refuse to install if needed) would be a better idea, imo. If someone would like to create it (I'm to lazy to write readme file and not really interested in endorsing/hosting it) than all that need to be done is using this code:

COPY_EXISTING ~BDSODTRN.BCS~ ~override~
    DECOMPILE_AND_PATCH BEGIN
        REPLACE_TEXTUALLY ~StartMovie("SODCIN01")~ ~~
        REPLACE_TEXTUALLY ~MoveToCampaign("SoD")~ ~CreateCreatureObject("K#TELBGT",Player1,0,0,0)~
    END
BUT_ONLY

I will give a try to this code ! sure ! I thought it would be so much harder (increasing chapter several times, "tuning" NPC, who know what's more...).

l will give feedback (in this thread) if people are interested, and may even try to write the readme and host the mod (if others are interested).

At least, if someone is interested...

SoDBeGone.zip

Oops, 2 weeks, and I had already forgotten this thread

No problem, I was pretty sure it was something about store and it was not a blocking bug.

BTW, you have really kept the spirit (fun part) of the mod (and remove the end).

 

Expanded Mage Stronghold

This is a tuned down and balanced extract from the abandoned Planar Sphere mod. It ressurrects the extra stronghold quests from that mod but removes the overpowered items and spells and the excessive XP gain. The final quest (blowing the planes apart, killing half the gods of Faerun and getting 33 level 9 spells and 1mio XP) has been replaced by a more adequate ending, In addition, the mod no longer overwrites files. It should be compatible with all stronghold mods and tweaks, the additional contents starts after the vanilla tasks for the stronghold are finished.

I hope to play with it soon... I DO NEED vacations

Hi,

I also used "Expanded Mage Stronghold" in my current run and I have encountered a little bug (sorry I don't know where to post).

When I speak to Vortel and choose "I'd like to see your services", I got a CTD each time.

Everything else was perfect

Thank your for making "Expanded Mage Stronghold" in EET possible !

MOD COMPATIBILITY LIST FOR EET

[..]

2. Mods that can be installed after EET main component on BG2:EE

[...]

• Unfinished Business v27alpha (alpha version with native support needs to be tested, Older UBv26 is also compatibile but requires Big World Fixpack patches)

Tested and it install fine (in my EET + ~15 mods).

I am just a the beginning of BG1, so it is a long road until I can check if it works

Expanded Mage Stronghold

This is a tuned down and balanced extract from the abandoned Planar Sphere mod. It ressurrects the extra stronghold quests from that mod but removes the overpowered items and spells and the excessive XP gain. The final quest (blowing the planes apart, killing half the gods of Faerun and getting 33 level 9 spells and 1mio XP) has been replaced by a more adequate ending, In addition, the mod no longer overwrites files. It should be compatible with all stronghold mods and tweaks, the additional contents starts after the vanilla tasks for the stronghold are finished.

I hope to play with it soon... I DO NEED vacations

I have made a patch to make Expanded Thief Stronghold mod available for EET.

Hey, I love this mod !

Well thank you, I will include it in my next run for sure

To be true, I have no example... but AFAIK, it's because most mods was for BG1 part or BG2 part... some was for both (with or without BGT) but mostly tweaks/tactics...

but now that EET is a reality with BG1EE+SoD+BG2EE i would be surprised if Sandrah stay the only one mod with content across the whole EET game

I know that modders can take into account that SoD has been skipped, but it's more work just because few players don't want to play SoD...

In other words, I understand Roxanne's choice.

I will give a try to this code ! sure ! I thought it would be so much harder (increasing chapter several times, "tuning" NPC, who know what's more...).

l will give feedback (in this thread) if people are interested, and may even try to write the readme and host the mod (if others are interested).

already tested. You can check it out with save appended to this post (it's made with SCS installed but it shouldn't really matter).

I kept my savegame from october before moving to SoD : It works ! thank you I can continue my run !!!

It's obvious that this "SoD be gone" mod would be technically incompatible with any mod having SoD content (such as Sandrah). This mod should be installed very early. BWS could tags mods incompatible and such.

Honestly, I will probably never install a mod with SoD content, even if this mod seems excellent... Each time I try SoD, I give up.

NO. Sirene-BG1 and Sirene-SoD are separate components in the same package that can be installed individually. The only thing the mod requires is a post 2.0 version of the game because of some of the 2.0 dependent content, and versions 1.5 and below are compatible with 1.3 and completely playable. I ask that you at least do some research instead of making assumptions or brushing things off because most of us do consider this stuff.

You are right ! As Roxanne and K4thos explained above, it depends on the way the mod is done : it will cause problem if you are supposed to do something in SoD that is mandatory in BG2EE part.

No offense.

For myself (and I have), I would code it as an unobtrusive dialog option, that equates to "skip sod".

Well, of course ! but I am not a modder

I use NI times to times to check/correct something... I can try to read a tp2 files (code from K4thos above seems obvious, but it's rarely the case)... but patch an existing dialog is quite harder for a noob !

All : please don't use this thread to polemic on SoD/Beamdog (there are tons of these already elsewhere).

I don't know if you consider to make a new version of EET Tweaks one day.

of course it is planned ("soon"). Current version was created with patch 1.3 in mind. On current patch many tweaks don't work at all. To be honest I should have made this mod offline long time ago before changes are made - in current state it's a mess.

Take all time you need, you've already done so much for players with EET !

Can you add a component to EET Tweaks that "restore" this behavior ? or something that add a dialog to Imoen at the very beginning of SoD-prelude that skip SoD ? IMHO, a component like this could fit EET Tweaks.

technically no problems with that (other than awkward blank pages in journal between chapter 8 and 13) but I'm not sure if adding it to EET_Tweaks is a good idea. Reasons:
- such change may conflict with mods (example: Sandrah). Considering EET_Tweaks is installed at the end this could break someone's game.
- people usually don't read readme files (I'm guilty of it too) so may install such tweak by mistake
- there may be people that never played SoD but influenced by user score on metacritics decide to skip it. I'm not entirely familiar with the controversy itself so I can be wrong but from what I've read the score may be influenced by GamerGate, so it's possible that it doesn't really reflect common opinion regarding the expansion. Personally I find it better than any BG mod that I played (which is not really surprising considering it's paid content) so I think everyone should give it a chance at least once.

you convinced me (to be true, all your 3 points did)... I was totally wrong... EET Tweaks is not the good place. This "SoD be gone" component/mod should be very early in the installation process.

If there is demand for such change than external mod with self explanatory name like "SoD-be-gone" (installed at the beginning of installation so other mods could detect it and refuse to install if needed) would be a better idea, imo. If someone would like to create it (I'm to lazy to write readme file and not really interested in endorsing/hosting it) than all that need to be done is using this code:

COPY_EXISTING ~BDSODTRN.BCS~ ~override~
    DECOMPILE_AND_PATCH BEGIN
        REPLACE_TEXTUALLY ~StartMovie("SODCIN01")~ ~~
        REPLACE_TEXTUALLY ~MoveToCampaign("SoD")~ ~CreateCreatureObject("K#TELBGT",Player1,0,0,0)~
    END
BUT_ONLY

I will give a try to this code ! sure ! I thought it would be so much harder (increasing chapter several times, "tuning" NPC, who know what's more...).
l will give feedback (in this thread) if people are interested, and may even try to write the readme and host the mod (if others are interested).

SoD-be-gone will come sooner or later (it is technically trivial). The issue of such a mod will be the game AFTER the skipped part. The consequences will be unforeseeable (and I am excluding Sandrah from it, she will not be affected at all).

Any mod would need to take into account a SoA+ToB campaign with or without SoD instead of a single established baseline. Instead of populating SoD with additional mod contents (like IWD-in-EET) you need to consider it as an exotic side-track. SoD is far better than I ever thought, I have so far discovered at least six (+variations) mayor different ways to go through the campaign (compared to two - otriginal - options to go to Brynlaw).

My only point here is - let that function not be part of EET Tweaks. This mod should clearly be one to support the ideas/concepts of EET and not have options that sabotage the isea.

It's obvious that this "SoD be gone" mod would be technically incompatible with any mod having SoD content (such as Sandrah). This mod should be installed very early. BWS could tags mods incompatible and such.
Honestly, I will probably never install a mod with SoD content, even if this mod seems excellent... Each time I try SoD, I give up.
I have never said that SoD is not better than BG1EE+BG2EE for some peoples... The more I play SoD, the more It feels boring to me. It's just that, nothing more, nothing less.
K4thos has already convinced me : not in EET Tweaks, now, it's evident for me too...

And then we can have skips for every taste
- enter the Nashkel mines via the backdoor (how many times did you clear those upper levels already?)
- hire a druid when leaving Tazok's tent that gets you to Cloakwood mine (Who needs the rest of Cloakwood?)
- Bribe the guardians at Cloakwood mine to bring you directly to the boss (how many times did you clear those upper levels already?)
.......
You say this is against *canon*? The EET canon should be BG1 - SoD - BG2 - ToB (+ IWD optional).

To be true, I have never used "Dungeon be gone" or "Skip Candlekeep"... I am not interested in skipping any parts in BG1, BG2 or ToB.

I understand your point of view. Mine is also simple : I don't play EET anymore since EET require SoD (I made a single full run to be true).

And yes, before you ask, I prefer EET to BGT, because I love most of EE : I repeat : I have NOTHING against the work done by Beamdog on BG1EE or BG2EE.

I am not sure to understand your last sentence (sorry, as you can guess, English is not really my mother tongue). I also agree if you say that EET should stay BG1EE + SoD + BG2EE + ToB ( + IWDEE if you want as long as it's not mandatory when playing in the path from BG1EE to ToB).

Above, K4thos gave me everything I need to be a happy man a new

Thank you both for your "constructive criticism" , and special thanks to K4thos for the code : it's just like Christmas twice a year

Hi,

Short :
I don't know if you consider to make a new version of EET Tweaks one day, but if you do, I wish you add a way to go from Sarevok death to Irenicus's Dungeon (without playing SoD part).

Long :
Maybe you already read here once that I don't like SoD (I don't remember the thread, but... who cares...). I don't say SoD is bad, but I don't like it (I don't really wish to argue/polemic...).
Since EET requires SoD, I started few times EET from the begining and stop each time around Chapter 8 (sometimes even sooner...). I wish to continue BG2EE part, but I am not in the mood to go through SoD .

I don't ask an EET version that doesn't require SoD (It would require far too much work for only few people*... Anyway, I bought SoD, so I still have it, so I can use it when installing EET ).
I don't ask you to spend hours to make something story-wise but something that is the most simple for you to make/support.

As an example, in my very first EET run (this forum did not exist yet... SoD was not available...), I remember that when you have killed Sarevok you were directly teleported to Irenicus's Dungeon (no picture, no text). Can you add a component to EET Tweaks that "restore" this behavior ? or something that add a dialog to Imoen at the very beginning of SoD-prelude that skip SoD ? IMHO, a component like this could fit EET Tweaks.

I hope you can do something about this, but I would understand you don't : your time is precious and it seems it's not worth* a modder do something about it. There is already a "Skip Candlekeep" and a "dungeon be gone", what about a "I bought SoD but I don't want to play it anymore :)" ?

*I sometimes read here or there that I am not the only one to dislike SoD (moreover, not always for good reasons...), but I also know it doesn't happen very often...

Edit : See this post

Edit : See this post

 

Final BG1EE fight bug : Sarevok unkillable

 

 

 

Yet another old bug ? well, this time I don't think so.

 

Reminder : I play with SCS, so, I need to kill the 4 mates before being able to kill Sarevok.

In, the old bug, you just had to CLUA 1 (or 2) of the missing mates, kill the 4 mates, and then kill Sarevok.

 

Here, everything goes as it should until the very end :

- first time I hit Sarevok, He says he is invincible thanks to his 4 mates : "Oh, my foolish <PRO_BROTHERSISTER>... You have no power to harm me. Do you think I chose to confront you in this place through some sense of theater?"

- as soon as I kill, one mate, he says I understood but it remains 3 mates : "A predictable ploy, <PRO_BROTHERSISTER>. And impressive, as well, but ultimately futile. I have three others..."

- as soon as I have killed all 4 mates, he says "Does it end here, then, <PRO_BROTHERSISTER>? You have taken my acolytes, taken my shield from harm. Am I not to become a god?"

 

But after that, I should be able to kill him ! I am not

I think one "Action" is missing in the last dialog : there is only "SetGlobal("DMWWSarevokFight","GLOBAL",4)"

 

But I've checked, only SAREVOK_.bcs is using this var :

IF
    Global("DMWWSarevokFight","GLOBAL",4)
    !GlobalTimerNotExpired("castspell","LOCALS")
    HasItem("potn07",Myself) // Potion of Storm Giant Strength
THEN
    RESPONSE #100
        SetGlobalTimer("castspell","LOCALS",ONE_ROUND)
        UseItem("potn07",Myself) // Potion of Storm Giant Strength
        DisplayStringHead(Myself,278836) // Quaffs potion of storm giant strength
END

Well... nothing that will make him killable.

 

I would be glad if someone could help me

 

 

 

Edit : probably a SCS bug... but could not find something similar in SCS forum

 

BG0125.ARE (renamed from AR0125.ARE in BG:EE) is the final BG1 temple area in EET.

 

In BG:EE, that area script (AR0125.BCS) has a block that triggers Sarevok's final death:

 

 

IF
	HP("sarevok",1)
	Dead("galdor")
	Dead("diarmi")
	Dead("semaj")
	Dead("tazok")
THEN
	RESPONSE #100
		Kill("sarevok")
		SetGlobalTimer("DeathOfSarevok","GLOBAL",3)
END

 

 

SCS #7250 (improved final BG1 battle) does not change that area script.

 

So, after you saw the 'You have taken my acolytes' line, you had satisfied the 4 deaths condition and that block should finish him off once you lowered his health to 1. Removing the monhp1 amulet should not be necessary.

 

Since that didn't happen, can you check what script is associated with BG0125.ARE in your game and see if that block is there?

 

BG0125.BCS is the script associated with BG0125.ARE in my game, but, it has not the line you posted.

According to change-log there is no mod that have changed BG0125.BCS (no mod in BG1EE part before EET no mod after EET).

Edit : To be more clear, as Roxanne suggested, the bug is caused by an other file/change.

I wish a mod "SoD be gone" for EET (just like the "Dungeon be gone", but for the whole SoD )

It already exists - the name is BGT.

At least, this made me laugh

Well, I don't want to polemics, i have just mixed this forum with my X-Mas wish-list... (may be a limited wish could help here )

I wish a mod "SoD be gone" for EET (just like the "Dungeon be gone", but for the whole SoD )

Very good idea !

monhp1 :
- 4 DLG but nothing to do with this bug,
- 11 BCS (plus mine modified) but nothing to do with this bug neither.

Found nothing in the BigWorld Fixpack about it...
Maybe a "true" bug in SCS...

Indeed... he has MONHP1.ITM in amulet

Thank you

I have added this at the beggining of SAREVOK_.BCS file and it works :

IF
    Global("DMWWSarevokFight","GLOBAL",4)
THEN
    RESPONSE #100
    DestroyItem("monhp1")
    Continue()
END

Another workaround is CLUAing SCRL9W (Energy Drain) and casting it on him when he is low HP.

Final BG1EE fight bug : Sarevok unkillable

Yet another old bug ? well, this time I don't think so.

Reminder : I play with SCS, so, I need to kill the 4 mates before being able to kill Sarevok.
In, the old bug, you just had to CLUA 1 (or 2) of the missing mates, kill the 4 mates, and then kill Sarevok.

Here, everything goes as it should until the very end :
- first time I hit Sarevok, He says he is invincible thanks to his 4 mates : "Oh, my foolish <PRO_BROTHERSISTER>... You have no power to harm me. Do you think I chose to confront you in this place through some sense of theater?"
- as soon as I kill, one mate, he says I understood but it remains 3 mates : "A predictable ploy, <PRO_BROTHERSISTER>. And impressive, as well, but ultimately futile. I have three others..."
- as soon as I have killed all 4 mates, he says "Does it end here, then, <PRO_BROTHERSISTER>? You have taken my acolytes, taken my shield from harm. Am I not to become a god?"

But after that, I should be able to kill him ! I am not
I think one "Action" is missing in the last dialog : there is only "SetGlobal("DMWWSarevokFight","GLOBAL",4)"

But I've checked, only SAREVOK_.bcs is using this var :

IF
    Global("DMWWSarevokFight","GLOBAL",4)
    !GlobalTimerNotExpired("castspell","LOCALS")
    HasItem("potn07",Myself) // Potion of Storm Giant Strength
THEN
    RESPONSE #100
        SetGlobalTimer("castspell","LOCALS",ONE_ROUND)
        UseItem("potn07",Myself) // Potion of Storm Giant Strength
        DisplayStringHead(Myself,278836) // Quaffs potion of storm giant strength
END

Well... nothing that will make him killable.

I would be glad if someone could help me

Sarevok BCS and DLG in needed : https://www.sendspace.com/file/ifzx61
weidu.log :

Edit : probably a SCS bug... but could not find something similar in SCS forum

Oh ! a VERY old bug

In my game, I can't get to chess area (Durlag's Tower).
When I check The 4 Area, I see that BG0507.ARE-BG0510.ARE has the same BCS file (which seem to be logical...).

DMWWFissionBurn has never been set, so, the code below (from BG0507.BCS) can't be fired :

IF
    Dead("AIRASPEC")
    Dead("KALDRAN")
    Dead("PHOENIX")
    Dead("jellspa")
    Global("DMWWFissionBurn","GLOBAL",1)
THEN
    RESPONSE #100
        MultiPlayerSync()
        ActionOverride(Player1,LeaveAreaLUAPanic("BG0506","",[449.721],E))
        ActionOverride(Player1,LeaveAreaLUA("BG0506","",[449.721],E))
        ActionOverride(Player1,SetMasterArea("BG0500"))
        ActionOverride(Player2,LeaveAreaLUA("BG0506","",[509.772],E))
        ActionOverride(Player3,LeaveAreaLUA("BG0506","",[559.807],E))
        ActionOverride(Player4,LeaveAreaLUA("BG0506","",[381.686],E))
        ActionOverride(Player5,LeaveAreaLUA("BG0506","",[328.646],E))
        ActionOverride(Player6,LeaveAreaLUA("BG0506","",[613.857],E))
        MultiPlayerSync()
END

I can't find DMWWFissionBurn in any other BCS file...

Workaround : use CLUA : C:SetGlobal("DMWWFissionBurn","GLOBAL",1)

Change-log of BG0507.BCS (EET part) :

Mods affecting BG0507.BCS:
00000: ~STRATAGEMS/SETUP-STRATAGEMS.TP2~ 0 1000 // Initialise mod (all other components require this): v30 BWP Fix

Change-log of BG0507.BCS (BG1EE part) : Nothing

Hmmm... I remember having this bug so long ago...
Just a well-known SCS bug (I post this here, just in case...) : you can find it in every forum about BG

it's unrelated to EET and the same thing would happen on vanilla BG:EE. This should be reported in Tweaks Anthology topic linking to this post.

Done.