K4thos

one more question to not waste time testing if it's already known: If I use spell that has Cast Spell effect (opcode 146) with type = Cast Instantly, does the instant spell roll new probability values or does it retain the probability roll from the parent spell?

Thank you so much for this. i used bws recommended setting. so i will do the same installation and try your eet trick. i will let you know how it turns out. thank you again for your kind detailed response.

Yeah, but whose to say that the party is not 3 level 1 chars that you kill with the equipping of the rings ?

LevelGT(O:Object*,I:Level*)
LevelPartyGT(I:Num*)
ClassLevelGT(O:Object*,I:Category*CLASSCAT,I:Value*)

Another option I just thought of: allow EET to pull files from the mobile game folders instead of from a desktop SoD install. Those PVRZ files will already be in the correct format, so there shouldn't be any conversion necessary at all!

are they packed somehow? Can weidu extract those files?

Except wait... I think the mobile version of SoD is a standalone game, rather than DLC for BGEE. (Is that the case? I haven't played it yet.) If that's the case, then I suppose it would be a lot more work for you to make SoD pull files from two separate games instead of just one...

not hard really. A matter of overwriting BG:EE files with SoD ones (that's what Beamdog does with DLC file in steam release)

In the meantime I will make biffing optional (-b weidu flag during installation) and copy all imported PVRZ files into separate directory and list them in text file to make testing Argent's tool easier.

if steam update works like Beamdog launcher update then the EET (and any other mods) are no longer installed. (check the override directory - if it's empty then the game has been restored to vanilla state)

If you didn't use any other mods your EET save will be perfectly ok once you do a new installation (EET saves behaves exactly the same as vanilla game saves thanks to using pre-set TLK range)

If you used other mods in your installation then it's normal that your save may have some wrong strings stored in it if you load it on a different installation (although only when it comes to strings added by those other mods, not vanilla BG:EE, SoD, BG2:EE ones). Exactly the same thing would happen without EET.

Installing mods in the exact same order that you had before may help, but not necessary considering one of the mods may had been updated in the meantime, which may affect the strings order.

----------------

But EET itself has a feature that may help you even in this situation. During setup-EET_end.exe installation you will see message like this:

If you want to use it keep in mind that you should do it after installing other mods that you want to keep in your new installation. This feature cleans up save from stuff that is no longer present in game (which eliminates crashes even with completly different mod selection), updates mod added strings referenced in save using string.tra located in save directory (created during your previous installation) and re-implements worldmap from scratch (using values from your save for areas that still exist in game).

Keep in mind that despite the feature being present for ages in EET I don't know if it ever has been used by anyone. No one ever informed me if it works as indented, so I can't promise the outcome (let us know if you encounter any problems after using it). Make a save backup before using it since this change can't be uninstalled.

thanks for additional information. I feel quite embarrassed that I didn't noticed it sooner Will take the error present in games into account.

I don't think I understand how to use probability1 and probability2 correctly despite messing with this engine for so long.

In game example SPWI620 (Conjure Fire Elemental)

There is a 60% chance that a 12-Hit-Dice elemental appears, a 35% chance that a 16-Hit-Dice elemental appears, and a 5% chance that a 24-Hit-Dice elemental appears.

This spell implements above quoted chance like this:

1. probability1 = 60, probability2 = 0

2. probability1 = 95, probability2 = 61

3. probability1 = 100, parobability2 = 96

How exactly those values have been calculated? (mathematical formula would be useful) I have far more complicated probabilities to implement (simulating dice roll for opcode 67, which doesn't support rolls, on top of already 3 different chances to start summoning in the first place). I don't think I can do it when I'm struggling to understand such easy example. Thanks in advance.

edit: wait a second don't tell me it's a matter of using this formula:

% chance = probability1 - probability2 + 1

It was to give the background... that multiple whole conversion of game assets have been done multiple times, and mostly they got better over that time, too.

 

354 RunAwayFromNoInterruptNoLeaveArea(O:Creature*,I:Time*)

It's unique to EE games though.

Really, cause that table looks off by a mile. It's because all the stat bonuses on 3ed rules are so called divide by 2 and minus -10, while the 2ed rules are way not. Worse is that there's a huge difference betweren stats, and there's so called dump stats. This is originally in the 2ed and so in in BG1&2, cause there needed to be Gods, not just "Avatars of ...".

 

err, what's your point here? You can also add World of Baldur's Gate mod to that list (Polish compilation of mods made by dradiel with IWD2 content ported into vanilla BG2 engine entirely by him)

Not terribly complicated, and level-appropriate, and importantly, not dependent on EET. Don't get me wrong, EET is cool and all, but it doesn't work on my platform and arbitrarily making things require EET that don't actually require EET is some Roxanne kind of thing... EET works with plenty of BGEE mods; it would work fine with a "BP1-in-BGEE" mod.

what platform? EET is compatible with windows, mac, linux. For android you can use Argent's DLC maker (I assume, don't have such device to test it). Did you try it? What makes this mod different compared to other mods that it can't work on a tablet? I'm interested in making necessary changes to make it work there, just need to know what's the problem.

I've discussed in another thread that BP1 could fit fairly easily in BG1 by something like, cut-scene to the first fight upon entering [choose a tavern or maybe upon breaking into some house], remove all equipment, remove all BP1 quest XP. Remove Baeloth from the game upon the start of BP; and remove the abduction/cut-scene upon taking Baeloth into your party. So you can do BP1 or you can have Baeloth, but not both - for story reasons.

implementing it is not a problem. If you want to do it in BG:EE just teleport the party to the starting BP area. Making it nicely integrated with the overall BG story is the hard task here and something that is easily solved by using existing quest in SoA (which also solves Baeloth problem). If I had to choose between Baelth the party member or playing Black Pits I would choose the former. Baeloth is like the most powerful NPC in BG:EE and SoD, so removing him seems wrong to me.

(Similarly, I'd like to import Hobart and TotLM as a standalone adventure in BG2EE. It works fine as a matter of logic and story, and it's level-appropriate, and it would be fun for those of us who can't play EET and thus can't play IWD-in-EET. I think that would be worth a standalone mod release for is sad souls... unfortunately, though somebody already has already done a lot of the work, nobody will let me look at it to see whether a TotLM-only part could be branched off ... )

Porting IWD:EE content is almost the exact same code as EET (which ports BG:EE). Minor changes that have nothing to do with TotLM content. You can go right to github and use whatever you wish (or wait until IWD-in-EET lands on Github).

I'm not interested in doing separate version of IWD-in-EET that only ports TotLM because that would be extra work that I'd prefer to spend on other things - such option would require analyzing which portion of the game is related to TotLM only (scripts, resources, spells, dialogues, art etc.) instead of importing everything that is not present in EET, making on the fly changes if needed.

I'll admit none of these ways are super refined, but I also don't see that they absolutely need to be. I mean, the exposition for the original BP1 is pretty weak as it is. I guess it comes down to whether it's considered more important to have the transition into BP as natural and integrated as possible, or to preserve as much of the BP experience as possible.

I don't understand, doesn't all modding go through override folder? Meaning, if the file is not there, it was not modded?

correct

I downloaded Near Infinity and opened chitin.key in BG2EE folder, searched for MXSPLSRC.2DA, the location is DATA/DEFAULT.BIF. Furthermore, isn't MXSPLSRC.2DA the spell table for sorcerer and not mage?

also correct. Check if mxsplwiz.2da exists in override. If yes do the --change-log on it (see the link in my previous post, just change the 2da name inside it) to see which component modified it. If the file doesn't exist in override then the "easiest" way to solve it would be uinstalling mods one by one and checking it in game (as you mentioned it's not present in clean EET installation). If you're going to do it use backup copy of your installation and let us know which mod is responsible for it.

RC 10.3 is up on Github. Changelog:

• fixed regression in custom kit importation code (only affected NPCs installed on BG:EE that uses custom kit, not sure which RC introduced this bug)
• Black Pits logo no longer rendered on top of buttons in Esc GUI menu
• CONTAINR.2DA importation/patching

Here is a hotfix for Sirene (BG1/SoD NPC) for those using older versions: https://www.dropbox.com/s/xhxm9k6478lwjsh/fixSirene.zip?dl=1

ok, but you've said in your original post that there may be problems with dialogs. Show me an example.

When you're installing a new mod during on-going game all items added to the game will either use string existing in the TLK or will expand the TLK if needed. Same for new creatures added to the game etc. No problems at all. For dialogues and scripts there is absolutely no problem that I'm aware of (they are not stored in save, TLK file is expanded with new strings as it should).

This line of reasoning, just puts a lot of doutb to the fact that you can just naturally continue from where you stopped, in the middle of a game, installing a new mod and then continue from the same save as if nothing had happened.

I've listed problematic stuff in my previous post and why it's recommended to start a new game. But having messed up strings in game is a result of loading save made on a completely different installation (due to TLK file with different string numbers associated to different text compared to what is referenced in save file), not by installing a mod on the on-going game.

As mentioned, when it comes to EET and IWD-in-EET content even this is not the case since we're always using the same TLK ranges for vanilla strings, so all (not modded) BG:EE, IWD:EE, IWD2 content always displays correctly, regardless of installation, just like in vanilla games - but that's beside the point I'm making here.

Let me give you an example – I can start BG2:EE campaign, do tons of stuff and suddenly decide to install one of the Lava’s Colours of Infinity huge quest mods. If I remember correctly in order to start Innershade you just have to buy some book and talk to new NPC spawned by script. The mod offers worldmap save patching iirc since it uses my function for worldmap patching (not sure if Lava decided to enable it by default). As long as you didn’t visit the store that sells the book you should be able to finish the questline without issues (no problems with dialogues, TLK etc.) Of course you, as a player, can't know about these conditions, so even in this case starting new game is recommended or you may end up with unsolvable questline (no way to buy the book).

Very unlikely, as the mod needs to add into the dialog files, which the game copies during the start of "a new game", and saves it at the savegame's file.

1) are we a month or so away from iwd in eet being released or several months? Just trying to get an understanding of the timing, because

no point in delaying your playthrough, it's likely months before a build that can be consider stable is released. Even if beta shows up earlier (can't say yet, I have limited time for modding activity) it will be for beta testers (voluntaries that are not afraid to encounter a bug here and there and report it describing the problem), not regular players

edit: Jarno Mikkola, if in your post you're referring to EET_end component (which does stuff like automatic dialogue merging etc.) there is absolutely no problem with re-installing it during on-going game.

could you please upload weidu.log rather than BWS section? The file has actual component names.

edit: also check if MXSPLSRC.2DA is in the override directory. If yes please use this batch file and let us know what is printed:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/vaf9kietqk3h7rm/change-log.zip?dl=1

Why put BP1 as far back as in the late stages of SoA though? As it's already more or less designed and balanced as BG1 content, this just seems like creating extra work.

 

because of existing quest that in my opinion fits Black Pits 1 implementation. Instead of adding yet another farfetched capture scene without proper context, we’re taking advantage of the existing content, making alternative path in it.

Adjusting creatures that you will face (or applying restrictions like the above mentioned cursed Slave Ring) is a lot easier for me to implement compared to writing a new quest that doesn't feel like junk (I'm not a writer or quest designer, English is not my native language).

If you prefer BP1 to be available in BG1 please feel free to present how you would like it to be implemented. If you can offer designing proper context for it (keep in mind that Baeloth is joinable character in both BG1 and SoD, but not in SoA), and you’re interested in writing dialogues then we can think about it.

I have to question the wisdom in trying to convert assets from a separate system into EET (3.5 and whatever engine IWD2 uses to 2E and Infinity)

it's actually not that hard. Quoting AstroBryGuy:

In fact, IWD2 was originally going to only incorporate "some 3rd Edition rules", while hanging on to many 2E features like kits (including new ones announced for IWD2: Votary, Giant Killer, Arcane Rogue, Aes Dana, Mercenary, etc..). It wasn't until later on that the developers announced the scrapping of kits and conversion to a full 3E class implementation (feats, 3E multiclassing, etc..). So, there's nothing fundamental about the adventure that requires 3E.

 

I find the difference in game play between IWD2 and ToEE to be greater than between IWD and IWD2. Yet, IWD2 and ToEE both use 3.XE D&D rulesets (i.e., they are far closer in ruleset than IWD2 and the other Infinity Engine games).

 

Sure there are feats, multi classing and a bit different spells in IWD2 but at it's core the game doesn't feel that much different

All IWD2 spells are being converted to 2nd edition, cre and items stats altered to follow BG rules, AI and encounters will behave just like in IWD2 (if Bubb succeeds with implementing his lua script expansion functionality). While I can't say for sure since the work has not been finished I think the overall gameplay feeling of IWD2 portion of the mod should be similar to IWD2 (unless the balance will be ruined after the conversion - we will see).

I would love to do the conversion the other way around (EET content in IWD2 engine), but that won't happen unless IWD2:EE is released.

btw. most of the stuff unique to IWD2 has been implemented one way or another via BG mods - e.g. subtledoctor's and Grammarsalad's work. With gui local variable reading things like feat selection probably could be even implemented directly in the GUI rather than using workarounds. Although it's outside scope of this project, at least for now.

Should I update and just reinstall my modlist?

no, I will PM you the exe file. I think it will be safer if you continue playing on patch 2.3 executable and just do the transition on patch 2.5 engine.

I've just installed the same Tweaks Anthology and EET Tweaks components and this time I was able to test it localy just fine.

I've managed to reproduce the issue with duplicated Golden Pantaloons showing up in the k#import bag of holding. This code in AR0602.BCS:

ActionOverride("Picture1",CreateItem("MISC47",0,0,0))

should be changed to:

ActionOverride("Picture1",TakePartyItem("MISC47")

but the only thing in it were the golden pantaloons. No other items that are listed to be imported or created in k#telbgt.bcs

 

 

see yourself:

What game version you're at currently? There was an issue on patch 2.3 described here that has been fixed in the latest patch, which may explain what happens in your game if your BG2:EE executable is still the old one. Let me know if this is the case.

Just got to SoA. When I got to the duergar table, there was a bag of holding (k#import), but the only thing in it were the golden pantaloons. No other items that are listed to be imported or created in k#telbgt.bcs. I'm trying to figure this out, any ideas?

 

From what I see your Quick-Save made before the transition has just a few items in your inventory, among them Ring of Koveras stored in a (gem) bag of holding. Are you sure it's correct save? There is almost nothing to import there.

I've added more items that are normally importable by default via console (Golden Pantaloons, Helm of Balduran) and they are imported just fine alongside Ring of Koveras in my game (pantalons can be found behind the portrait in Golem's room, helm found in a room close to the portal).

You've mentioned duergar table, so I assume you meant a problem with "Import party items to SoA" optional EET Tweaks component? After installing it all of the remaining items can be found in the Illych's table and the additional import bag of holding is empty (as it should be in this case)

Could you please upload a save made in Irenicus Dungeon? (the auto save is made before item importation happens, so the one made later manually is needed to analyze it).

edit: additional save is not needed, the one you've uploaded is fine, I'm checking it out.

edit2: the reason why I can't see your items is due to the fact they are stored in several bag of holdings added by mods (those with C! prefix). Do you know which mod added these bags? If no, please upload weidu.log. Without this mod I can't test it locally. Something indeed went wrong here.

please upload save file right before the transition, I will take a look what's up.

don't worry, there are backups. And once there is something playable there will be github repository

Nope, there won't be an option to install IWD:EE portion of the mod without IWD2 content. And the IWD2 stuff is not ready yet.