Jump to content

AWizardDidIt

Members
  • Posts

    88
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by AWizardDidIt

  1. Welcome back @K4thos :)

    Figured you got burned out. It's so easy to happen in modding. I'm working on a big BG1 quest mod and 3/4 of the way through I'm feeling the struggle to get back to it.

    When the IWD portion gets to the point where it's playable and needs testing, let me know. I might want to revisit some of my writing for that (it's been ages since I wrote those interjections...) while I also test. I'm also much more experienced in modding so I might be inspired to do some more in depth things like character specific quests in IWD. No promises, but maybe!

  2. First of all, thank you so much for the help. 

    Since you're copying an existing area into override though, would that still possibly cause conflict with other mods (say, if they both tried to add a new travel point to that same area)?

  3. I'm currently doing a mod where I'd like to add in some new areas but link them to existing ones in game. I wasn't able to really find too many tutorials or walk-throughs on area editing, so this is all a bit of trial and error on my part, but is the only way to add a new travel point in an existing area to edit the .are file directly and export that into the override folder? I feel like that's just a big no-no and wouldn't play well with other mods at all, but I just can't for the life of me think of another way to do it. 

    Thanks!

  4. I didn't see this multiclass combo in the readme anywhere, but it looks like when combined with the Monastic Orders of Faerun, I got the option to create a Monk/Druid. It makes for crazy good shapechanging with some minor issues which I suspect stem from this combo not seeming like it's officially supported by either mod (and those issues seem to be really on the Monastic Orders mod since they involve the 'monk' side of the multi). Just kinda wondering if this was even intended to be permitted. 

  5. 17 hours ago, subtledoctor said:

    Don't get me wrong, I fully approve of that.  It's a question of choosing between several very nice options.

    I can't use this anyway, without some serious tinkering.  I'd love to have access to the code, so I could start that tinkering now, and be able to actually play it sometime within my lifetime... but that doesn't seem likely either.

    I think we are all feeling that one :( 

  6. 1 hour ago, subtledoctor said:

    My preference would be to scuttle IWD2 and just have IWD1 concurrent with BG.  But alas, that seems like it won't be possible...

    Also fair :p

    Although in this case I think the way I wrote the transition for Kathos was a sort of spell to relive the events of IWD rather than literal time travel. I'm not sure if that's still the case since I've not been involved in this project for a while but I thought it was an elegant way to handle it that avoided most of the pitfalls of time travel in fiction.

  7. While IWD is itself removed enough from BG that IWD-in-EET could easily just change a few names and handwave that it's set contemporaneously as BG, IWD2's plot is too interwoven with the events of the first game set several decades later for the mod to do the same with both. My preference has always been to have the plot of IWD1 be a time travel scenario while IWD2 is set during the events of BG. It makes the most sense with the least amount of rewrites needed.

  8. Just speaking for myself but when I wrote for this I did it out of a sense of love for the game and not for any expectation of payment. I'm kind of with Kathos on this, it would be weird to accept donations at this point. I cant imagine a few dollars is going to move the project along any faster anyway.

  9. I'm glad to see how things are moving and it's good to see you back K4thos :)

     

    Shoot me a message once the beta for IWD2 is in any kind of playable state. I might be interested in writing more dialogue interactions for party characters if you still think that would be a good addition.

  10. Tamoko is a character who has a really strong conceit that personally resonates with me but she's so barely sketched beyond it it gives you a lot of freedom. I of course always would encourage you exercise creative freedom to do whatever else you want with her because there's going to be just about nothing in the game to contradict you. The Yoshimo-sister angle could be interesting but it also doesn't really add anything to her character so since it sounds like you consider that non-canon, I think ignoring it is perfectly fine.

     

    However, to make the new mod as compatible as possible with modded EET and since

    I plan to give her a tragic end anyway

    ,

     

    I'm glad for that.

    I'm a bit of a sucker for tragic endings. I'd like her to find some kind of redemption but I think it would be most impactful if it came at the cost of her life.

     

     

    I think it also makes sense to add in a conversation with Sarevok in ToB where you reveal what happened to Tamoko and have that reflect on Sarevok in some way. Maybe a conversation earlier on while he's still Chaotic Evil where he dismisses that connection but if you alignment change him later on he admits guilt and a sense of responsibility over it and possible realization that she was the only person who showed actual true love towards him in his life and that was part of the reason he pushed her away. (just an idea anyway :) )

  11. I wouldn't worry about it. IIRC IWD-in-EET is essentially already done, he was just waiting to see if there were any code changes in the 2.5 patch that would break anything before releasing it. Assuming nothing broke, it should be pretty simple to just push it as 1.0 and go and finally K4thos will be free of this huge project he undertook :p

×
×
  • Create New...