CrevsDaak

Same, and I think these mods would fit very nicely into it as well. Would be glad to see them packaged up into one, particularly if it entails a polytweaks update.

That might actually be it, looking at the changes that ToBEx introduces to op232 (in particular it enables you to set a custom trigger check frequency) it's likely that it may be the cause of this bug. I would say the bug's deterministic enough to reproduce that if it doesn't occur within a couple of minutes of testing after disabling this certain patch, then that's certainly it. When any two creatures protected by Fireshield hit eachother, and they were standing close enough, it creates an infinite damage feedback loop. Might not always happen (in fact, it rarely ever does in actual gameplay), and it might not even happen in your install, but it did on my last BG2:EE install so I wrote the fix (in part Graion mentioned that it would happen with mod-added Fireshields, so my aim was to cover each and all Fireshield-like spells by going off how they actually work, and it turns out that this works really well and if you install it late enough, there's a net 0 chance of Fireshield damage loops ever occurring).

Sorry for the late response, and no, installing this effect fixer over the spell one does not cause any problems (it might even do nothing since the EE opcodes on spells have already been removed). In fact I recommend the newer, universal one but usually it's only spells that have EE opcodes left-over so you might already be fully covered. I didn't check your WeiDU log so I missed that, but I posted it because of the BB/GoB fix, which fixes (unless the spell filename isn't static) Circle of Bones as well. If it misses it because of a spell filename mismatch I'll get to it, have been meaning to write something to abstract away from spell filenames for a while already. The Fireshield fix is for every game *except* BG1/PsT, the exclusion and lack of documentation is quite misleading, I'll probably add a note about it. But what's the issue is that there's some opcode mismatch between those games and what the intended action on my mod is. I'm not sure where OG IwD1 stands but I imagine I would've excluded it if it didn't apply. You should be perfectly fine installing anything from my fixpack mid-playthrough as all it does is remove or add effects from existing spell files, so it's completely isolated from anything that interacts on saved game information.

Yeah this bug is pretty nasty, happens sometimes with BB/GoB as well. Main reason why I wrote this https://github.com/CrevsDaak/c7-fixpack Though this can be blocked via op201 as jmerry suggested in some EEFixpack thread, no need to switch off op232 (though you may still get the associated slowdown + text spam (Caster- Blade Barrier) from it) to prevent it from instagibbing.

I agree, the second method (though using op146 once per round instead, and with the 0-duration fix) is what I use on my modded installs and I quite like it, but wouldn't suggest it as fixpack material. Writing this here to remind my future self: it'd be nice to check on all spells using op232 set to once per round for ANYONE, on a duration and with have a subspell that deals damage, then with the compiled list of subspells, apply the 0-duration fix to them (or do it when they are found, makes no difference but using the list later makes the code less ugly). Fireshield feedback loop fix code already does this. Sure, download the attached file, drop it into your game's folder, and install it by copying and renaming some other setup-MODNAME.exe into setup-c7bbfix.exe and then running that. c7bbfix.tp2

Yeah, this is what I did. Works well enough, although the way in which spell deals damage varies a bit gameplay-wise. It gets applied on an exact timer instead of when creatures enter the area, which can lead to potentially dealing less damage in some weird cases, but it makes it more reliable and predictable in general (in fact, you actually deal more damage vs. multiple targets moving in and out of the effect's range, because the area check on opcode 232 has a full round of cooldown). However, this difference in behaviour can be remedied if desired (I wouldn't bother), by adding a 6 seconds immunity to being hit again by it, and making it go off every second, but that's just pointless I think, since it'd make the spell deal way more damage than in vanilla. I need to polish it a bit more before it's comparably as-good as op232, but it definitely solves the Haste-related issues (and the infinite op232 application while paused bug I was getting on wine'd BGT). Particularly, I need to prevent it from stacking with multiple casts of itself (although due to addition of the op206 effect suggested on the OP this shouldn't be an issue anymore, at least in how stacked casts would impact gameplay), but I think putting the opcode 146 effect pile on a secondary spell (only real way to prevent this spell from stacking with itself via a self-targeted op206 without killing upcoming ticks) is a better idea either way. This came up on the topic that spawned the OP and I've already mentioned this, not because I like that it works this way, but because I'd rather the game's consistent in how visual effects match the effects and gameplay actions that occur. So, the main issue with letting it run amok during TS is that the BB graphic effect itself freezes, even when active on the Time Stop caster themselves.

ToBEx's opcode 318 is quite peculiar as it's the only new opcode it introduces, and what it lets you do is set some new stats with it, for example, a percentage per-type damage bonus, which to my knowledge haven't been used much, or assign specific new stats that are just "a number" held by the opcode 318 structure and that can be checked via scripts. And that's rather largely used AFAIK, which is really nice, because it's very, very powerful. You cannot, however, set many lower number stats which are hardcoded and managed by the engine itself. You can, however, check ALL of those in scripts. And Assign()/Eval() in ToBEx's scripting capabilities let you do some pretty ridiculous stuff. For example, simple relationships among different counts on certain variables (eg. the way Factions' favours and Alignments work in PsT) can be done and taken to even more intrincate forms, like taking into account the "gold cost" of summoning a certain creature or something not as easily determinable (I wish you could target Items and check their price in-game so that, using the random gear tables, you could randomly generate equipped mercenaries for example, and charge for them a fitting price) by regular means, and also being able to assess more parameters associated with creature data to determine an according value (eg. Hiring Mercs in D2, it has an algorithm to it, even if it doesn't match the gold gained in the difficulty progression of the gameplay, but that's kind of the aim as well, to be able to, even if it's incredibly expensive, have it be quite cheap). You can also charge a standard rate, and use the fact that some gear tables follow a normal distribution to your favour when it comes to creating drop tables and thus, a gambling system. Which is huge because it makes Gold a much more interesting mechanic. Same goes for using it as the summoning cost of very powerful spells (let's be real, if there was a gold cost associated to summoning Planetars we'd all still be using them about as much by late ToB). And it's even more particularly interesting to me that you can develop this in both engines, but the way in which it would have to be done is just different. (Sorry for walltexting, but I am indeed looking for modding ideas and these are some of the better ones I've come up with to give as examples of what can be done with the systems already in place) Yep, this is exactly it, there's spells worth defending against in every school, and more aggressive "card deck" rebalancing (eg. ToF* moving PW spells into Enchantment) could even leave more spells on the side of justifying being purposefully blocked with some SI subspell variant. *I don't know if it isn't present in SCS already because I've played a total of one hour of non-ToF ever since ToF came out, and I've played particularly little of post v34 non-ToF SCS as well.

Yep, ToBEx implements multiple engine changes, and its opcode 318 has some pretty good potential to be exploited as well. Yeah, this is the reason why I use Remove Magic multiple times even on many BG1 fights, getting rid of potions and some kit ability effects or low level protection spells can completely turn the fight around. There are multiple others, although several are just file-level changes on the EE itself, as in, Slow having a projectile, etc. It used to be the case that the AI would do things that would absolutely destroy your party (3x Skull Trap sequencers), and was usually buffed with every anti-dispel spell known to man, but after wizard per-school spell selection system got revised recently, they get stuff that's more varied, and often that makes some fights tactically more challenging as well (not knowing what spells to expect in some particular encounters makes you fuck up by doing what would've been a good strategy otherwise), so I'm not against it at all, I just think more mages could use SI:Abj, however, I've had a better idea ever since then which is to use all of the good SI subspells on mages that do not have SI:Abj. Even if SI isn't made universal, and it's not actually all of them, this would already almost exponentially increase the possible variances in gameplay. The way it impacts gameplay for the player is by limiting which of their spells will work, which is a huge power loss, and maybe even an entire round wasted. In particular, not being able to plan on which spells to use after dispelling the opponent, nor know which ones you won't be able to use before that, simply because you don't know what the mage's school of wizardry is, makes the game so much more complex than them being standarized on SI:Abj. The way I see it, it's like knowing how different decks work in collectible card games. SCS is far from giving spells that have as much of an insane level of relevancy as some have in those systems, but rather, the case is that those systems are simpler, and thus the "wizard school" division that BG has occurs over the decks, which are used over a single match. Now, an encounter against an enemy SCS wizard, I think it's pretty similar to a card game. At least that's what I think would be fun.

Only Chant buffs Luck, the others just give similar bonus to basically all relevant stats (saves, to hit, damage), which when stacked together is just too OP. It was fully invariant and had very little intra-party positioning conflicts, but the EE changes that which makes it "work nice" walking you through the Slums corner but if you have your party re-order facing the opposite direction, it takes 10 seconds for them to stop bumping into each other. All in all, a worthless change to acommodate for lazyness while also ruining delicate positioning. Not to mention the stacking nonsense, that's a bug of epic proportions on its own right. Yeah I put too much on Spell Thrust, should've mentioned Secret Word as well, but really what shines is the combination of all those spells hitting before the enemy wizard can re-buff. Spell Thrust ignoring higher level protection spells is fairly positive because it guarantees that SI:Abj will be removed if that's present, and there's a few other things that you can implicitly target with it. I don't really remember what the fundamentals for the procedure of debuffing an SCS wizard are on paper, but rather just work on muscle memory alone to do it, it's a really effective heuristic. And when in doubt Spellstrike the opponent a couple of times (or just use IA+Vecna+Wish to throw like 15 RRoR at a single enemy before they can get a single spell off). Yeah I don't think that's bad, the issue is that 3x Remove Magic sequencers/triggers become invariantly the superior strategy. I think SI:Abj should be rather uniformly more present, many Mages in the current version will go 100-0 on a single round because of no SI:Abj/Spell Shield. Different party sizes will have different strategies that are ideal for them, but you DO get more actions per round. I think it doesn't matter anymore once you can chain cast them all on a single Mage but until you can do that, it's strictly superior, however you need a higher average level, and thus way higher XP gained, to fully buff a 6-man vs. a 4-man party. Having a full buffed party is basically a binary check for "Do you take any damage?" and when the answer is no you basically just steamroll every enemy you come across. With Entropy Shield, any caster class is undispellable or requires to be targeted with single-target dispels which are inefficient for the AI and will never fully dispel a party memeber. Meanwhile if you have party members that can get dispelled/hurt, having to waste potential offensive resources on healing/re-buffing them makes an encounter harder compared to how a 4-man party would perform (you CAN make them sit the fight out in some cases, and in many cases, at least early on, this is actually ideal. So yeah, not harder, just inconvenient at times). I think the current version has definitely lost out on some of the difficulty the more standarized spell choices had, however it is infinitely more fun, but I think the issue might be that there aren't any alternatives to cover some defensive aspects, so spell variety directly damages the ability enemies have to defend themselves. It has the issue of not being entirely deterministic, so if you see the enemy mage pop up an Alteration casting effect, I just go "Oh shit" and obliterate that fucker before he gets any funny ideas about actually completing their Time Stop. Meanwhile if the enemy mage's buffs survive my Remove Magic bombardement, it could be game over. Yep, that's the true power of Spell Thrust.

I don't think it's a stupid question, I've already considered recoding interruptions, but uhh, it's just a ginormous amount of work, since those work on a by-area basis and have several kinds of checks, probabilities etc that would all have to be simulated on script *for every area in the game*. So, even if doable, it's not practical at all. And dreams I think there's just no way around them, maybe I'm wrong but at best you'd just play them after the rest, I actually don't know very well what exactly triggers them.

Yeah, that's what the ToBEx change + solely imposing a save. vs. death on Cloudkill achieve, the issue is that you can still stack Cloudkills and reduce enemy saves, so if the damage potential is higher they'll most likely end up taking more damage on the Cloudkill abuse case situations that I wanted to remove as an option for the player to use against enemy Mages. 1d10 isn't normally going to interrupt most Mages given the ToBEx concentration check algorithm, but it WILL eventually kill them, even faster if there's a chance they take a lot more damage. I do think it's probably a good idea to change Cloudkill to only deal damage on a failed save, but more damage on the spell doesn't seem necessary to me, no need to compensate the nerf. While that's true, those get absolutely destroyed by Spell Thrust, and RRoR which even bypasses SI:Abj (which is also fairly lacking on many SCS Mages under the current version), on top of that you can time your spells to hit the enemy wizard in an ordered sequence in a single round, and if they are casting basically anything not immediately useful to remedy their buffs situation, they immediately die to melee attackers or some high damage spell. So an extra layer, or at least an extra layer as far as removal priority goes on enemy buffs, helps the AI plenty. That'd make the level 5 spell pick situation waayyy worse for enemy casters. Letting it stay at lv6 makes it more useful to them as they can cast it alongside SI, Spell Shield and other lv5 spells that are much more necessary to AI survival than memorizing a lot of Improved Hastes which is normally what puts GoI on the "would never bother using" category. Yep, it's absolutely busted as a spell. Sucks that the IWD concentration check speed reduction thing reduces potential usage of the spell by so much, I wanted to implement it and other (Recitation and Prayer) spells as sort-of an aura that'd go away if the concentration check is failed, but then it might just not be worth casting, and I'm not sure how to implement this without it being extra wonky. But Recitation+Prayer+both Emotion buff spells is too broken of a thing for it to be allowed to exist as-is. At some point I'll manage to come up with something interesting to change them into. Aaand this is the biggest reason out of all of them (fake UI clicks aside actually, that's actually way more annoying) that makes me rather play BGT over the EEs. I can't take it when I order my party to just move a little bit, and it takes ten seconds for them to stop bumping into each other. I don't care if they can't go around the corner in the Slums, I can see and micro-manage the situation to solve that. But if the pathfinding is going to actively make my party get stuck during combat and act in a way that makes my micromanaging less efficient, yeah, that kindof ruins the game for me, though it does put me at a level closer to the AI that can't do all the movement nonsense as precisely. But it's just really annoying (not to mention the "stuck on top" bug requiring one to be using the console basically hourly).

Right, I forgot about this. It's honestly great, because now I don't have to write any code for it.

I think the 4HD instakill isn't much of an issue in SoA already, and in BG1 Cloudkill is quite rare and by the time you can cast it, against anything that could survive it, you'd be better off casting something else. But 4d6 would be way too much damage, on a high roll that's 24 damage, per round it's 12 on a mean average distribution. For SoA, now the spell is even more busted because you can get Saves penalties on enemies and this would rapidly kill them as the spell is basically dealing over twice as much damage. I think making it have a Save vs. Death and keep it dealing 1d10 might also work as a nerf though, since fully disabling the useful properties of Cloudkill against higher level targets is kindof what's intended with this change, though it might be quite severe of a nerf (save. vs half won't save casters' asses without ToBEx's casting interruption tolerance changes).

If you can that'd be an insanely good find, but I don't think even GUI modding can get that far, I fear it's on the realm of engine fuckery. However just being able to limit the XP you can level up at per chapter is already huge, as there really are no working systems to implement this idea by otherwise, and it would very closely resemble how the game's own XP works.

That is true though, and it is in fact only partially and temporarily stopped, and not as an effect; but rather because it has an associated projectile that gets Timestop'd, and since it DOES get applied and DOES hits its targets, it just does it when the Time Stop effect ends. This is why limiting it to only hitting once per tick works so well, because all the damage hits won't all be applied when they finally hit you. This method doesn't fully disable it from applying while time is stopped, it only lets it deal damage once. This has made me realize that, in order to make it work well without SCS' save for half tweak, I would have to also make it check for a Save vs. Whatever since otherwise we'd be applying it when damage is not applied.