bob_veng

You haven't read my post earlier on this page where I consider these questions.

If charname and tno are separate characters, i don't see how any kind of story resembling PS:T can proceed. The main quest makes no sense for someone outside who isn't experiencing what TNO is. Why would the Bhaalspawn look for a way to enter Ravel's maze? Where's the emotional impact of any of it when seen from third person? What about Deionarra? You'd just watch a cutscene where TNO talks to her? That would require someone make that cutscene, and do a similar thing at very many places. I don't think anyone will ever do that because it's so unappealing to turn an interactive media into a passive media. All the interactions where TNO remembers something don't work which affects more than half side-quests too. Actually just auditing the whole text to account for such incompatibilities would be a titanic effort. I could go on and on. Basically i don't just think it would a bad idea to just tack PS:T onto BG and have CHARNAME colonize it for the sake of a merry "interplanar adventure", i think it would be a travesty 

1 hour ago, Endarire said:

Like with Leeux, the simpler approach treats PST as a separate campaign from IWD Saga/Bhaalspawn Saga that's playable within EET; hence, the ability to reach Sigil early within EET from BG1/BG2/ToB depending on where the player started the game.  

That's not what Leeux meant. A separate campaign which you start from the campaign menu is not the same as your idea of PS:T as a side-quest that you solve as CHARNAME. Under the separate campaign you would play as TNO, but he would be a creatable protagonist (you pick sex, race, class, appearance...). 

1 hour ago, Endarire said:

@bob_veng My explanation for PST-in-EET was much simpler:

A portal to Sigil opens early in BG1, such as near the Friendly Arm Inn.  You can find The Nameless One and Morte (likely an inseparable pair) in or near Sigil's mortuary and proceed with the PST story as normal

I don't understand - how would you proceed with the story? would you be saying TNO's lines?

so good! looking at the credits i suspect it's been a long time coming. those rabbits won't know what came their way!

i noticed it doesn't "convert" punctuation according to the orthographic and stylistic rules of the target language, so that certainly needs a manual pass.

If the general idea is to splice together the ending of Bhaalspawn saga with TNOs origin story, and make PS:T act as BG3 with TNO = CHARNAME, there's a much easier way to do it (than making a big content mod where you scour the planes, arrive in Sigil etc, before PS:T even starts).

The final state of a CHARNAME that has not ascended and the origin story of TNO are not in any major kind of conflict. The major missing part needed to flesh this out can be a slightly reframed Heart of Winter which conveniently shares one of it's themes and a vital character with PS:T. Below is TNOs origin story from a wiki and how it could be relatively simply adapted to match existing elements:

In conclusion: no new areas have to be created and only Morte has to be developed and some additional dialogue written (less is better imo), to formally connect the games in a pretty coherent way.

The big problem comes aftwerwards: if the continuation will play just like PS:TEE with shrinked assets - why do it? The above might as well stay headcanon. 

The biggest promise in this would be the possibility of greater freedom of travel through portals and across planes (something the original PS:T was meant to have in much greater abundance), but it doesn't seem that the expanded world of EET can be used to further this without major new content. During BG2, you shouldn't be allowed to travel to PS:T areas using the Planar Sphere. It makes no sense to "pre-cannibalize" and spoil them. A dozen centuries have passed, The Sword Coast is transformed, old characters are dead. Probably the technology is different at this point. So enabling travel to existing FR areas from PS:T areas doesn't make sense either.

The only new quality would be the purely mechanical freedom, more spells and classes, etc. Maybe starting from a lvl 0 or 1 tabula rasa character with flat attributes and as you level, you gradually regain your earlier powers such as attributes, known spells, proficiencies, skills, while having some freedom in how you reshape your character. So for example, instead of gaining extra WIS in dialogue you only regain those attribute points you already had. 

There could be references to the earlier course of the Saga. Maybe those references could be really strong and well developed. If you could interact with traces of your former followers in the form of ghosts, zombies, sensory stones, books, descendants etc, and learn their NPC endings, in an immersive context, and not by reading from the screens, that would be decent.

6 hours ago, Endarire said:

What sort of writing would be desired/required?

nobody knows. an overarching design is needed first - how to connect the two stories together? - who is the protagonist: does CHARNAME become TNO? when... how... why...

thanks, that would be a good layout if i wanted small skirmishes with normal-sized groups, but i precisely wanted a larger scale battle that would work without SCS AI 

imho, orcs, with leadership, and being at their most numerous and strongest in the North, should be able to have good enough strategy to act in a coordinated way

in BG1 random encounters, creatures may spawn literally next to your characters, so the element of scouting ahead, avoiding encounters etc doesn't exist in these games (maybe it should; it's how ranger tracking could work for example)

Orc encounter is in HoW. I chose it to be a big orc battle, because orcs are one of three most important races in the North (with dwarves and giants), and they're completely downplayed in IWD-HoW. I compared this battle (mentally...) with a battle in SoD composed of mostly SoD grunt orcs numbering ~15 (on highest diff.) and added 2-3 tougher enemies. The areas are the same size as in BG, and it's easy to fit 20 or so enemies into the field of view of a 6-member party (edit: well not in this case, some are intentionally outside):

pls comment on the current encounters; they're grouped in the following order IWD1, IWD2, IWD1 (pt. 2), IWD2 (pt. 2), HoW, global, ship

1) yeah, spontaneous seems much better 

2) third option, analogous to shaman seems the best.

3) i think spontaneous casting should be a class/subclass-level, not a kit-level feature. btw "avenger" as a term doesn't jibe with spontaneous casting for me. avenger would have to do something like bonus elemental damage to justify that name

thanks, good to hear, i've started adding coordinates and tweaking the numbers a bit

first something important for your work on areas: two areas have been slightly altered to make them more spatially coherent

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/ptwy3ogtmr4ouz8/AAC-pzCHNbjD1fyK6UvcVHNMa?dl=0

encounter ideas: aurilite hag sounds great. 

i don't have any ideas for a peaceful encounter other than something cheesy like travelling merchant. we can probably think of something cool and easy to implement.

Clues idea would constitute a whole quest. Those would likely have to be one-time encounters, and having in mind the linearity of IWD and randomness of the encounters i think it might not be feasible. 

I'm a bit of an opponent of level based anything. basically i'm looking to avoid even a perception of progressing difficulty (can't be avoided practically tho), but I was thinking for a story-driven "scaling" encounter on top of specific ones described above like global 5% chance of maybe hobgoblins before the attack on kuldahar, and after that 5% neo-orog.

i almost started with barbarians but i figured i don't want to spoiler HoF creatures in IWD1 before their sprites appear in the course of the campaign. i think it's better to keep the "reveals" of various creatures where they belong.

edit: also updated the ship area by switching the background to standard bg water background and flattening the middle so creatures can move around (very minor change if you've already done the ship Fluke)

here are some IWD1 main campaign random encounters i've been thinking up, i'd like someone to state an opinion on them before i start doing the coordinates.

edit: now also IWD2, HoW, and ship travel; the coordinates have been done as well (not included here); updated table: 

it's awesome how you resolved the ST issue

here are some of my miscellaneous nitpicky observations, on the matter of repeating unique items

00BWLX04 - repeating unique BG item; needs a generic (general crossbow) description
DAGG0500 - repeating unique BG item; it would be good to switch back to vanilla IWD2 description
SWDS0400 - repeating unique BG item; needs to be replaced by generic short sword +2 (SW1H09.ITM BG2EE)
00BWHX04 - repeating maybe-unique BG item; maybe remove 'The Guide' from the name and description and leave the rest

i noticed that HAMM0400 = IWDEE HAMM03, but where in IWD2 it does +1d4 elec. dmg, in IWD1 (and BG) it does +1 elec. dmg. Being called "Warhammer +2" it probably shouldn't do so much bonus elemental damage; or it can get a unique name.

btw. it's neat how we can have those IWD1 items present in IWD2 now without conflicts... I see they are actual IWDEE items

can random encounters between IWD1 areas spawn creatures only present in BG1&2EE - since an IWDEE-based IWD-in-EET won't include many BG1&2EE creatures. 

also how should random encounters when travelling between BG areas and IWD areas be handled? can you ensure that from whichever BG location you travel to any IWD location, you can have a random encounter? Also, what should the habitat be in those, should it always be the snow areas, or a mix of existing areas and new ones?

Is this the kind of information you'd need to create a random encounter:

IWD1 encounter #1, any chapter
area: gorionar 5
Kuldahar <> Vale of Shadows (AR2100 AR3000)
WOLF.CRE - Wolf x10

ah i see. makes sense. 

I understood the following:

Quote

The AI is not going to be able to make intelligent use of tactics, and the party often has a numerical advantage, especially if it is bringing summoned minions. To compensate the computer receives considerable extras.

as extra spawns for some reason... what are the extras?

@Luke (tldr design ruminations)

- - -

update: improved template files for compatibility with bam conversion

How do i delete attachments? I've edited a post with an attachment by "deleting" the attached file and putting up a new one. But the old attachment is still on the site and downloadable in 'My Attachments', which doesn't have a control for deleting.

Seems pretty good. Could you tell me a little more about extra spawns? Will additional higher level enemies such as mind flayers spawn too, or casters?

This is a purely Photoshop tutorial.

The attached files: Spell_Icon_Resources_v01.zip

...are intended to serve as a help to modders who include new spells in their mods to create new BG1-style spell icons in a streamlined process, or improve spell icons in their existing mods.  

Basic overview: New spell icon designs must be created first. They are then inserted in bulk in the Master Template, correctly positioned in the grid and and relative to the scrolls, and exported into corresponding color BAM-derived PNGs. C, A and B are created in this same way, in that order. The PNGs are then divided and exported into 32x32x files from which BAMs V1 can be made. 

Detailed instructions, also included in the package; i recommend not reading them on their own:

P.S.: Sorry if you don't have Photoshop and/or aren't starting out with a basic understanding of layers and masks. The intent here is to completely skip BAMWorkshop I&II, and to make as many icons at once as possible. I've read the relevant IEDSP page and Erephine's developer resources. It seems that in the case of spell BAMs at least, the majority of that technical knowledge can be eschewed in favor of some straightforward shooping. If you think there's room for improvement, find the instructions unclear, or can't get good results, please let me know. 

@subtledoctor you've shown an interest in spell icon creation lately 

1 hour ago, Mike1072 said:

...

You hit the BG1 style quite well for most of your icons, especially on Lutzaen's Frequent Jaunt and Banishment.  Some appear closer to the BG2 style, like Vipergout, Aegis, and Snakebite.

i figured out how to accurately produce the bg1 style with overlay blending on a rugged rock surface in ps. unfortunately i don't have the assorted uniquely shaped and textured png rocks to go the extra mile and do it the "real" way. it's really weird how they chose to do it that way originally, must have been a major pain for them as well, as evidenced by subsequent degradation in bg2. i emulated it by just adding noise and some gradients...

green icons are flatter looking. basically i tried to follow the existing prevailing visual characteristic for each color. IWDEE green C icons aren't of terribly high quality so i went sort of half way there. i'll try to improve aegis.

i'm mostly glad that the designs aren't unsatisfactory... as i've been doing this and started looking at icons from up close it now pains me how uneven the quality of icons (in IWDEE basically) is. 

32 minutes ago, K4thos said:

@bob_veng, I like the results a lot. Doubt there is any new player that could point to one of your icons in spellbook and say that it's a mod added content.

 

tx that's really encouraging.

farie fire doesn't seem to produce any kind of fire but manifests itself as just a glow, so i think a representation of a big flame is a little misplaced.

updated previous post

didn't make ball lightning yet because i saw this thread and thought how you might use Gedlee's from there, and maybe repurpose my "gedlee's" for ball lightning

i had a bit of difficulty matching the green color because it's all over the place in iwdee. i'm not 100% satisfied with it but it's probably good enough

@Mike1072

there's been some progress with icons

EDIT (updated pic)

these are open to criticism and not yet final. help is still needed.  (probably not anymore)

15 hours ago, bob_veng said:

it doesn't work with the current game version.