Will these mods make for a good game?:

Remove all ads!

To those who are interested in this topic: please don't be frightened when you notice the length of this post. It has a lot of inserted quotes. I did my best and tried to summarize my points, to provide as constructive suggestions to Fixpack developers as possible.

Absolutely. Such changes affect the game slightly or not at all, the player practically won't notice anything. CamDawg played with words again when he posted that I said he had wasted his time. If someone checks my post, it can be seen that all I expressed is that working on another project with more visible signs in the game is more useful in my opinion. Of course if he enjoys it and thinks it to be right, I don't have any objections, I just think it makes less sense than any other modding activity.

Fixpack's development tends to follow the principle of "Let's find more and more things that we can fix in some way". Blucher pointed it out that it would be better if the research (or bug-hunting) would focus on finding *significant* bugs. It's more difficult than spotting meaningless (and usually ambigious) things, for two major reasons:
1. Most of these have already been found and fixed, obviously
2. It requires much more time and more complex methods to search for such issues in a systematic way.
Even CamDawg admits it on the Gibberlings3 forum:

Again, I don't say "Stop modifying things that have meaningless effect on the game", but I think that on the long run, it's better if the development concrentrates on finding obvious and major bugs, slowly but continously. If there aren't any, it's okay to search for cosmetic, meaningless issues, but since most of these aren't obvious bugs, it would be important to put them to a different component than strict fixes. The Fixpack was promoted as "The fixes of Baldurdash. Plus a few hundred more.". I think this is nice, but the real goal shouldn't be to change its second sentence to "Plus a few thousand more".

CamDawg says Fixpack is an open project (which is true in a certain meaning), but he (and the core team) makes the significant decisions (e.g. where to put a new change). I think this is okay, this is why a Core team should be set up. On the other hand, the team consists of people and thus these changes are subjective, and if they're put to the same component as strict, obvious fixes, it may result in the disagreement of several players and modders who think about the same issue in a different way. Let me provide two examples.

The first is the above discussed pirate alignment matter.
CamDawg wrote:

Now ister's words:

And a quote from Mongerman:

We can see three opinions here. I feel my approach closer to the latter two. Let's see some valid points from them.
Someone involved in illegal activity doesn't have to be evil necessarily. Perhaps you are forced to do it (Blackmail, or you can't feed your children. Only a Lawful Good character would let his children starve to death if there is no other choice). OK, they are pirates, so the latter cases are not too probable. But again, perhaps they just escaped from the prison and they're innocent, but meanwhile they lost their families and everything they had, so they became pirates and thus involved in slavery. The prison changed them, they hate people and world. But their conscience might not be so clear while doing their activity. And as everyone who is desperate because of being revealed, they attack the intruders of their lair. Does all this have to mean such a radical Alignment change? Illegal activity may affect Reputation only, but not Alignment. As istar said, you can kill innocent people and then donate to a temple to raise Reputation. This is developer intent, and you Fixpackers said you try to suit that. Furthermore, it's also possible that as Neutral Good characters, they strive for balance. They don't do it because they agree with it morally. Instead, they do it because they feel its required for the balance. Perhaps the slaves they trade are from a place/city which did the same with their families long ago. Revenge. Minsc is Chaotic *Good* in BG2, do you think he would spare the life of someone who killed or tortured a friend of him? All in all, I think a creature's Alignment can't be always reliably judged based on the current activity he is doing in the game.

My second example is a "stronger" issue, where CamDawg explicitly states that it's a totally objective and obvious fix.

I'll talk about the component issue later. Now, the interesting is "Irenicus-as-demon in the finale spouting ogre lines". We all remember in his Slayer form, Jon Irenicus is using an ogre's soundset (damage sounds, "I will crush you to goo" etc.). I personally found it cool, though I don't doubt that many players might feel "crush you to goo" irrelevant and incorrect. But this is only a part of the players, even if it's the majority. So the picture is not clear.

The picture is not clear, because other players (such as me) might want to keep it while enjoying the strict fixes. To keep it just because I like it, for no logical reason. Or let's be a little creative: Irenicus is a high-level magic-user, and in the battle, he might have decided to change his voice magically to something more powerful and frightening, such as an Ogre Berserker. Many users might ask me now what nonsense I'm speaking about. Perhaps it's nonsense, but not necessarily to everyone. It was just an example that things that are marked as "clear bugs" might be not as clear as a grammar error in a BG2 dialogue.

So CamDawg and the core fixpackers always found some logic always when adding a change as a fix to the Core component. But it's subjective, according to their viewpoint and mentality. CamDawg provided reasons to mark them evil such as being involved in illegal activity, slavery, and attacking people who enter their lair. I've provided counter-examples above. In the present world, slavery is illegal and despised by the society. On the other hand, in the old ages, it was often legal, and accepted morally as well. I don't want to say that it's necessarily an accepted activity in BG2's world, I just want to say that sometimes when we consider something to be obvious, usually it's because we judge it according to what we learnt and seen in our life and education. Other people e.g. from a different culture (or from a different age) might not think (or might have not been thinking) in the same way. In a similar way, players having a higher imagination might consider the Ogre sound of Irenicus as the effect of magic. (While others clearly consider it as an annoying bug. To each his own -- it's subjective, isn't it?)

I quoted this again to introduce my main point. And it's game-centrism. I believe that a modder should be game-centric, and not mod centric. This means that playing experience is more important than what lies in the mod files. Especially if the data in the files have no visible/meaningful effect in the game. I think CamDawg and many in the fixpack team are typically analyze these processes from a technical view, from a modder's view. It's nice, and I think that such things should be fixed if found AND unambigious. (Such as the BG1 issue of Delainy having Male gender in her file, which I spotted accidently, and forwarded it to CamDawg in case G3 plans to support an extended BG1 Fixpack in the future.) So again, I don't discourage this kind of fixing. On the other hand, if it becomes too dominant, it's not good because then it becomes the primary activity of the development, the tempting, quick tool of the "let's find as many issues as possible, big or not" principle. Furthermore, as I said: "unambigious". So if it's an alignment change or anything that is similarly arbitrary/subjective, it may be preferred by certain players while disliked by another, and thus the best way is to separate them from the Core, strict fixes. (As a side note, the exaggerated technical approach will also limit constructive, creative aspect. The example I provided for Irenicus using an ogre soundset is far from perfect, but I think it illustrates my point.)

Now about components. You reject my suggestion to make a separate component for the "subjective fixes" by arguing that then many people would request "clear fixes" to be moved from the Core (due to personal preference), and that other optional things would be requested. As I clarified it earlier, one additional compoent would be perfect as a golden mean. (I might have written "three components" earlier. By that, I meant three major component 'groups': Core+TextUpdate, Optional-But-Cools, and the new one for the "subjective fixes".) You will never know if you don't give it a try. To tell the truth, I think there will be very few players (in fact, probably no one) who would dislike the new component. I'll provide some details of this concept below.

1. Core Component. For obvious, strict fixes such as:

• Strings
• Skalds Not Receiving Their +1 THAC0 Bonuses
• Crom Faeyr Should Kill Ettins
• ... and many more.

2. Game Text Update -- separate component, OK

3. Additonal Fixes -- I don't mind if you insist on calling them 'fixes', hence the name I suggest here. While I prefer strict definitions of Fix, I respect that you define certain things as "fixes" which I would call "tweaks" instead. The main point is to add any things to this component which are not *obvious* fixes that are added to the Core component. A good basis for a definition for "obvious" or "clear" fixes can be the following: something which specification/intepretation does not, or only very slightly depends on developer subjectivity, and where the output (= the fix) is trivial, or has more options but only one of them is unambigiously or trivially true. The Crom Faeyr or the Skald fixes above are good examples for these *strict*, *core* fixes. Note: the mentioned fixes determine the quality/experience of the gameplay as well, unlike e.g. changed pirate alignments. Someone could now argue that "if it's a meaningless change that can't be seen in the game, why the big hassle about them?". Well, the force of habit. Players don't like "invisible" changes, changes behind the scene. "But issues like that of the pirates worry me." They like the good old way the game works, if the change is not trivially and strictly an obvious fix.
So to this component, here are examples that could go in:

• Give Triple Multi-Classes Unique HLA Tables -- I remember Felinoid had a different optinion about these. If I'm wrong or if it has been sorted out meanwhile, I apologise. It doesn't change on the main point anyway.
• Dogs at de'Arnise Keep Going Hostile -- do dogs have to be neutral to the party who came to free the Keep? They might attack everyone, as they might have "got the staggers" (who knows what trolls did with them), or just became hostile for *any* other reason (like dogs may do, generally).
• Creature Alignment Corrections -- I find it possible that a certain number of these is quite trivial, but as I clarified it above, it's hard to determine a creature's alignment reliably in every case based on its activity/deeds in the game (unlike Reputation, which would be a more direct mirror of these deeds). This is what you write it on your site: "We change the creature files to the alignments we believe make most sense for them; as there are inevitably judgment calls involved, please feel free to discuss any of these changes in the forums." You admit they may be inevitably subjective, but I think these are too many fixes to be discussed separately. And anyway, it wouldn't help any to the players who prefer the minimum set of strict fixes. Its existence in the Additional Fixes component would perfectly solve this.
• And everything that is not trivial, and thus the output may be subjective.

I think this component would do no harm. It would satisfy players who like these fixes, and would also give a chance to those who want only strict ones. Such as istar who said "As a user I'm mostly interested in a true "minimalist" set of fixes.", Sikret, or myself. And probably many many others. In the description of the "Additional Fixes" component, you could write something like "These are also recommended fixes by the Fixpack authors. Since they are not so trivial as the ones in the Core Component, a certain level of subjectivity is unavoidable when interpreting and fixing them. Consequently they are available as a separate component [by the request of certain modders or players.][etc. etc. etc.]" The parts in brackets are optional. Well, it's just an illustration, of course I don't mind if you write any other description (even if it's different content-wise), as long as this component is created and added.

4. Super Happy Fun Lucky Modder Pack -- separate component, OK

5. All Optional-But-Cool components. OK.

What do you players (and everyone else) think of this? Would you prefer this additional, optional component? (Only theoretically, as I don't know if Fixpackers will support it. I hope they will.) Since its developers say that it's an open project, I think this is good opportunity for everyone to express their opinion. The more people react, the better picture the Fixpack team will get IMHO.

Edit: grammar.

[ October 12, 2006, 23:21: Message edited by: Baronius ]

 

I must be mad to waste my time in this way. When you don't admit the most obvious things, there is no reason for us to waste our time on other issues which may be really controversial.

Of course, I understand why you didn't accept our arguments. To agree with us would mean to exclude Oversight mod's logic from the fixpack and this is not what you are willing to do. After all Oversight mod (no matter what wrong-headed and invalid logic it follows) is hosted at your site.

 

Only when taken to a strawman extreme. Adopting kittens or donating money cannot make up for the sheer weight of evil deeds Irenicus has performed. You can't grind alignment like an MMO skill (well, reputation, but not alignment). But the pirates...what do we really know about them? Only one thing, and a rather broad thing at that, since specifics aren't terribly important in this case and so weren't included.

While the "Jaheira bandits" certainly seem like a mistake (you'd have to stretch pretty damn far to get a explanation for why LG characters would hold up someone for money), the LN paladin is rather questionable (I think there was something recently about naming conventions for 'paladins' of other alignments?), and the NG otyugh is just plain wrong (as a monster it has a specific alignment in the MM), that doesn't mean you should go around changing every single creature file to the alignment you think it 'should' be.

Especially when some of them actually make a modicum of sense the way they are. Change the big stuff, the things you've got actual info on. Change monsters, things with class-required alignments, NPCs with actual personalities, but when you get into the stuff where it's just someone who attacks you with no reason, I'd err on the side of caution. Now, making those pirates evil is still a good change, and certainly deserves to be in the mod, but as a fix? Nah.

Also, I have to say I'm curious why you're so averse to making more components. I mean, EoU has 40+ components IIRC, and from the documentation page it seems like the BG2 Fixpack is much bigger than EoU. And yet having more than 3 or 4 components would be trouble? It's probably just something I don't understand as I haven't actually coded WeiDU, so could you tell me (and surely others here also curious) the reasoning? Surely the "slippery slope" argument you put forth before can't be all there is.

EDIT:
Something occurs to me. Can the changes be differentiated when looking in the override folder? That is, if a gamer personally found certain creatures to have 'wrong' alignments, could they simply find and delete those specific changes if they wanted? Ignoring for the moment additional changes to same creatures possibly made by other aspects of the mod. (Though that could be solved with the application of SK to change alignments, couldn't it?)

[ October 13, 2006, 00:56: Message edited by: Felinoid ]

 

We also suggested that the alignment changes shift to the "optional" installation field. In that way, they could keep their Oversight mod active in the fixpack project without compelling it to all players who want to install the fixpack. I can't understand why even that suggestion was rejected.

 

Of course, and I know no one's arguing for that. (Well, OK, Blucher might be.) My point was that the argument of 'put subjective fixes into a new category' will not resolve the issue, ever. It'll placate Baronius and Sikret, sure, but everyone's going to have a slightly different place (more or less conservative) where they'd draw that line. ister, Mongerman, and you will likely have different divisions over which you'll find something as not a fix--hell, we have stark divisions even amongst the team itself--and someone like Blucher won't be happy until we have something substantially less than Baldurdash. We can go through the progressions of finer and finer gradations but it will quickly become unmanageable.

As an example, BG2 Tweaks has 100+ components and I can assure you that the maintenance and testing required for every release and component scales exponentially. I'd rate Fixpack as orders of magnitude more complex (just writing the documentation took me a week,and I'd still describe many sections of it as sparse or vague) which is why I'm personally so reluctant to even take that first step--it's a zero-sum equation. If Bar thinks we're wasting time not fixing anything of significance now, just you hold on until we start breaking it up.

That being said, I refer to Nythrun's excellent I *HATE* this fix! thread, where we explain how to remove and change fixes you don't like and our commitment to assisting you in that process. (Nythrun also offers more detail of why breaking down the Fixpack is not as simple as it seems, so I suggest a good read even if you aren't interested in actually hacking apart the Fixpack. If only y'all got to deal with her eloquence instead of me and my steafast logic. ) The alignment section is very straightforward as we code 'modularly' for ease-of-maintenance. A creature may be patched many times for different fixes--removing/changing the alignment patching won't affect other fixes for the creature. You can alter it to your wishes or remove it entirely and still take advantage of the rest of the pack.

 

I'm not sure I understand what you mean when you say it will be unmanageable if you're going through more and more "progressions of finer and finer gradations". There is no need to constant work. It's only a few more components. Did you read my post? I suggested one component to collect all such "subjective" stuff. However, I would like to add that it's okay if certain things are added to separate optional components. Even with these, I don't think it will result in any management problems. Obviously you shouldn't create a new component for every change the users find to be "subjective", this is why I suggested the "Additional Fixes" component.

Well, I think we can at least what a strict fix is. My quasi-definition (which was meant to be just an initiation) helps I think:

It perfectly applies on all fixes I could quickly check. The examples I provided for strict fixes were: Strings, Skalds Not Receiving Their +1 THAC0 Bonuses, Crom Faeyr Should Kill Ettins. Can we interpret these in any other way than bugs? No. Can the output be different? No. So it's definitely a fix. For the subjective, "additional fixes", I mentioned more, here is two: the dogs of Arnise Keep, and the Alignment changes. These cases are not so simple, are they? The hostile dogs may be specified as a normal phenomenon as well as an unusual (like you did). The output is that they are either changed or not. How are they changed, if they are changed? Well, like you did, you made them neutral. But as I've explained in my previous post, actually it isn't surprising that dogs may attack all people under these circumstances. As far as the Alignment fixes are concerned, well, we've seen enough different opinions in this thread. Many outputs, most likely one of the three Evil alignments.

Sorry if it appears to anyone that I was repeating my previous post above, I just want to make sure that everyone will see the point. So I think that with something similar to my above definiton, it's actually not so problematic to agree when we all draw our "comparator levels" for fixes/tweaks. If someone refines it or knows a better definition (well mine could obviously be rephrased/refined), it would be a good idea to share it. All in all, I think that if optional component(s) are available, everyone will be happy.

You said there is a problem with the documentation, as it takes a LOT of time. I believe this, however, moving certain things to *ONE* new component doesn't really need too much time. Even if a few more components are made (I wouldn't prefer it, but if it's what people want, so be it), I don't think it will mean any additional burden in documentation. Writing a few descriptions, that's all I can see.

"Exponentially" is meant to be an exaggeration, that's okay, but why does it take that much time at all? If a new component is added or an existing one is changed, it's a few tens of LOC. Or do the components have dependencies? Except you make a full revision on the code (which does not happen too often obviously), I can't imagine why it requires so much time, if you just extend it each time. Since I don't know the project, something probably escapes my attention.

Its maintenance would be catastrophic if you weren't developing a project of that size modularly.

Edit: now that I have checked the "*hate* this fix" thread, I start to see your problem. I think we've misunderstood each other. The thread (also )talks about dividing various fixes to smaller elements, which could result in thousands (= or place any high value here) of components indeed. But this is not what we ask. At least I assume Felinoid also doesn't want you to divide the Alignments to more components. They should be moved to a separate component altogether. Just like other subjective fixes. So I don't say that if someone has problem with one particular element of a fix, then *only* that element should be moved to a new component, no! The whole fix, i.e. the Alignment changes, for example. A fix is a logical unit, so their elements are of the same type, and if one of them is "subjective", then the whole fix is "subjective" as well. E.g. the Alignments, as I've already mentioned earlier.

Note: also, I use(d) the "change" in a different meaning than you, so you might have misunderstood those parts of my posts. By "change" I meant a whole logical group, i.e. something that you call a "fix". I used the word "change" instead of "tweak" to remain neutral. (So "change" can mean both a tweak and a fix, in the meaning I used it.)

 

This is not a practical definition--it would exclude fixes for clear bugs such as Viconia's missing pips, mentioned above.

As for the dogs: they are neutral. They only go hostile when they respond to the nearby shouts of the otyugh, yuan-ti, or trolls--the only place in the game (that I know) where shouts of unrelated creature groups affect one another. If the dogs were meant to be hostile the devs probably would have coded them as such, as they did with every other hostile creature in the area.

 

Actually, that was what I was thinking, but not very far. The idea being that the main stuff, like "monsters, things with class-required alignments, NPCs with actual personalities" would stay in the core fixes, but the more questionable & trivial stuff like the SB pirates would be listed as Additional Alignment Changes, probably being part of one of those divisions you were making. And naturally all would still be up for change discussions (if you think someone should be a different alignment) as part of the open process. Then past that, we leave it up to individuals to tweak how they like on their own, using the "Hate this fix" thing or something like that.

While I do see the logic of uniting fixes into solid blocks, I think some are simply...too big. We're talking about hundreds(?) of alignment changes, which range wildly on the objective-subjective scale. IMO, things like Irenicus not being good or a definitively TN monster being TN don't deserve to be lumped in as subjective just because there are other alignment changes that are subjective. And yes, it probably would be a battle about where the line is drawn, but I think once the dust clears it'd probably be an improvement.

So give a choice. When I had to pick which pip to give Safana in my BG1 NPC Remix, I just made four (or was it three?) different versions, because I imagined the end users would appreciate being given the choice (I know I would). And from what I've seen when installing WeiDU mods, making more choices than just install/don't seems quite possible. Given, it's probably a little bit more space for BG2 CHR files than the BG1 files, plus there are more choices of where to put it, but I don't imagine it'd be prohibitively large to do it that way, when compared to how big it is already.

EDIT: Nuts. That would require a separate component, wouldn't it? Nevermind.

RE: de'Arnise dogs
This is one of the places where I think a more important question than "Is this a strict fix?" is "Who wouldn't want this?!" Screw whether it's a fix or not, it's just plain not fun to have to chase those damn things (it wouldn't be half as bad if they attacked you instead of running away). And especially for SoA-only players who would have to scour that wall for where the dog meat dropped. Come to think of it, maybe it should be a part of EoU.

 

As originally written, it was meant to be a starting basis, a guideline. It can be extended or changed. Furthermore, is the lack of definition better than an "incomplete" definition? The definition indeed excludes certain changes, you are right, but the set of "undefined" fixes is still smaller, so there is only a few left. And I emphasize it again that a definition could serve as a guideline when making decisions, if it's not accurate enough in a matter, or if developers think that the matter should be an exception. Otherwise, if there is no definition or guideline at all, then we're there again: subjectivity, and unique examination for every change of every fix.

Well, just because they would be among Additional Fixes, it doesn't mean they are subjective.

I think we start to over-discuss this matter. If certain questionable strict fixes are added to an Additional Fixes component together with their stricter "companions", it won't do any harm. Those who want to install all just have to press one more Y (or I) than earlier. On the other hand, players such as me could also use Fixpack (if I start playing BG2 again some day), not choosing to install the Additional Fixes. But this is my opinion only.

If you mean alternate choices (i.e. only one can be selected from more options), no it does not require more components. There is a WeiDU element called SUBCOMPONENT. If one component has more subcomponents, the player can choose only one.

To tell the truth, I don't think it would be so immensely much work to divide e.g. the Alignment Changes, or any other stuff. Although this is relatively a big mod project in its category, it can be extended and changed dynamically and effectively if the structure and dependencies are correctly managed and coordinated. Even a much much bigger could be correctly maintained with the appropriate method.(CamDawg didn't give an answer to my question in my previous post, where I asked what escapes my attention when I see that it shouldn't be so hard to extend/manage the BG2 Tweaks he mentioned.)

On the other hand, I understand that often, even little work can be felt as a burden. The Fixpackers are involved in other projects, so their free time is limited. However, since e.g. CamDawg seems to deal a lot with it (while still having time to participate constantly in threads such as this), I suppose that he has enough time "allocated" to Fixpack development (I.e. Fixpack has higher priority among his projects).
Additionally, and this is the most important, the Fixpack is improved continously. It is often promoted as something which constantly includes newer fixes if something is found. In the light of this fact, I really find it unbelievable that optional components or fix divisions can't be done due to too much work. If new things can be added, then changes and refinments are also possible. Only intention is needed, nothing else. (I think that refining the fixes should also be a primary task, not just adding new and new fixes. Refinements increase quality.)

You could return to the original matter if you say things such as "Who wouldn't want this". Because it can apply to other "subjective" or non-trivial fixes. On the other hand, I've never denied that player experience is the most important (hence why I say the Fixpackers should tend to be more game-centric), so it's a good change with the dogs, but not a strict fix. It's a comfortability function. Like infinite bags or similar, in EoU (or somewhere else. I don't know the details of such mods). (E.g. the dogs are already stressed and strained, and the start of the fight is what eventually makes them totally mad, so they become hostile and start to flee.) You're right, and I have no problem with this change, but if you support additional components for certain fixes, I think that the Arnise Dogs should definitely be moved from the Core.

[ October 13, 2006, 15:57: Message edited by: Baronius ]

 

We already have a working definition: bug determination is based on whether something reasonably works how the developers intended. I.e. the keep dogs: no other creature groups respond to other group shouts, and they're coded as neutral. Is it reasonable that the devs wanted them to become hostile because the party attacked a troll outside of the walls? I don't see any way the answer is yes. It's more reasonable that, if they wanted them hostile, they would have simpled coded them as such. Did the developers want enemy mages to target lightning bolts at themselves? We can not know that for sure, but reasonably the answer is no.

The definition itself doesn't matter all that much because someone will always claim it's being interpreted too conservatively or liberally. (Yes, it's been argued that Bioware intended for enemy mages to fry themselves because the mages aren't perfect and can 'make mistakes.') Like as not, there have to be judgements of the nature This Is A Bug And Shall Be Fixed Thusly. The team approach is, again, designed to ensure these are correct and reasonable decisions, with the open process allowing anyone to point out errors.

Fixes for identified bugs is also based on developer intent, but we don't omit fixes in the case of ambiguity of how to fix it (missing pips). The Pending Fixes forum is full of heated team, uh, discussions where we're unable to decide the best fix and the issue has simply been left open for the time being.

Each SUBCOMPONENT is, itself, a component--so yes, the range of choices for Viconia would require a new component for every possible selection. I really don't want to think about Anomen's missing four pips or (gah) Jan and Imoen's missing thieving points.

As for maintenance complexity, components of BG2 Tweaks interact with one another. The addition or change of one component means I need to vet it against all possible combos of other Tweaks with which it may interact. (In a few cases, I also have to check those components with their own dependencies--you can see where this is going.) One component = one check, two components = three checks, three components = seven checks ... n components = ((2^n) - 1) checks.

Given that more than two categories won't really change the number of people who are happy with the categorizations, the smaller number means we can produce new releases on a faster time line.

@Fel
As I mentioned, I'd love for someone to put these under the microscope.

 

Cast Holy Smite in the Sea's Bounty and tell me that the pirates alignment has no effect on gameplay.

And I think that calling all alignment changes "subjective" is questionable. A LN Paladin is about as close to something that's objectively a bug as it can be. For me the fix/bug standard is set by asking "is it plausible that the developpers wanted it this way?". And if I apply the rule (that I made up) my judgement is
-LN Paladin - bug
-De 'Arnise dogs - bug, CamDawgs argument is compelling
-SB pirates - tweak. I can easily picture that the developers wanted them to be neutral.

 

Yes, but that would still mean separating the Viconia component out from Core fixes as a separate choice.
"Install Core Fixes?" "Yes"
"Which proficiency do you want Viconia to have?" [Choices]
Probably not that big a deal, but when applied to thieving skills...*shudder*

Oh, BTW, I was going through looking for other examples for 'tweaks' in the core fixes, and I found more typos. Thought you might want to know, Cam.

And now, some things I have questions on...

Assuming this is related to the "Valygar who?" response and not the other (which doesn't look malformed in my game), what makes you think that wasn't intentional? Getting attacked for saying the wrong thing, even if you're telling the truth, is hardly a new thing for this game (especially when dealing with Saemon), and the first response option does allow for a non-violent solution if you haven't been hired by the Cowlies.

Just a question as to what it looked like before. (I've never taken the ranger stronghold.) Was the image really causing problems with the game, or was this just an aesthetic decision?

Actually, I always found that rather appropriate for her. She does seem like the interrupting type.

I don't have a problem with the other two, but I see this one similar to the Old Man's Lucky Coin in Morrowind.

Spoiler

It's given to you by an 'Imperial veteran' in Ghostgate, and you gain an ability at the same time (which does not require you to have or even get the coin to use, but is given alongside the coin). Now, this is a pretty unique item, but a second one shows up in the Bloodmoon expansion if you build a Smith instead of a Trader at Raven Rock. (And you can swipe it right under the shopkeeper's nose without rebuke.)

They make for good souvenirs. I think the same applies to the potion, and in this case with the original being consumed, that makes the duplicate all that much more valuable. Of course, it could be argued that Bioware might not have added nostalgia as Bethesda did, but I still think it's a addition, even if unintentional.

EDIT: However...after a thought and upon some digging, the potion from Festule costs money. So it could be looked on as an exploit to get the potion for free. Objection withdrawn.

Mmmmm...that's getting a little questionable. Why would a summoning spell banish carried weapons? I can understand things like Wyvern heads or wolf pelts, as they're part of the creature, but inorganic stuff...I don't know. Remember, summoning spells don't actually create the creatures, they just yank already existing creatures from somewhere else to where you are.

Then again, I suppose it comes down to the question, "Are they still holding them when they fall?" *frowns* This'd be a lot easier to solve if dead creatures were treated like containers, so you could grab stuff off of them before they disappeared, or else it was gone with them, but... *continues frowning* Could go either way, really.

The two put together combined with the uniqueness of the item make it seem intentional. Especially seeing as a +2 dagger that was unaffected by PfMW would be pretty handy, while a plain +2 dagger would be downright worthless when compared to the other options from your apprentices...

Um...does that mean they could and now they can't, or they couldn't and now they can? Same question on "Trap in Neb's Home Can Not be Disarmed" (though I can guess the answer to that one) and "Shield of Harmony Effects Could Be Dispelled". All it would take is an extra sentence on each (or more specific wording) to make it crystal clear.

Mmmm...that's a matter of taste. Personally, I'd say it was just the description that was wrong. After all, no other two-handed swords use a d12, do they?

That seems like more of an Optional But Cool thing. After all, what effect does it have on the game except for cheaters? I'd say it ought to crash the game.

They can't be different? Even ignoring the possibility that they meant for it to be different, diversity in graphics is typically a good thing.

This is included in this already too long post mostly as a reminder for me to look into it next time. Because this is taking too long already as it is. Though pre-emptive defense of each item would be appreciated, the rest of this will be long enough for you as well and I don't expect it.

Unless you've got some sort of confirmation from David Gaider or Bioware, this is VERY suspect. What point would there be in their changing these in the first place if they didn't want it to happen?

It also lacks the description of such a requirement. And the only other crossbow that also lacks such a description (Heavy Crossbow of Affliction) also lacks the requirement as well. I don't think this is a mistake.

And finally, a contribution of my own. Those damned undroppable Ice Arrows that show up in some containers (mostly in ToB). It wasn't hard to change my own game so that they were droppable, but that's only for me, plus it still causes two different stacks of Ice Arrows. At the very least something for Optional But Cool.

 

There seems to be a lot of focus on a group of TN pirates. I think it is a strange thing to argue over since I've seen no real attempt to defend that choice of alignment beyond "Not all pirates are evil!" This might be true, but ignores not only this group's actions but the actions of pirates in general. However, it is for the fixpack to justify any change and, to that end, I written down my thoughts on the matter*.

In the vast majority of circumstances, piracy is an evil activity. If piracy is evil, those practicing it are also evil. I’m sure that there are some instances where piracy can be used for non-evil, or even good, purposes, but these are the exceptions. I am also sure that there are non-evil pirates that, for whatever, reason have found themselves part of an evil pirate crew. Again, these are exceptions. Pirates are also part of a crew; they work together and follow orders. Within the crew they are organised, they have to be, to be successful. The exceptions in this case are likely to be in either charge or mutinous.

Without any evidence to the contrary I think it is acceptable to assume pirates to be lawful evil, this is not a court of law.

So, should we fix non-LE pirates automatically? No, we shouldn’t, but we should look for an explanation. If the pirates are evil, the lawful-chaotic axis can probably be ignored, unless a pirate’s actions very strongly lawful. If the pirates are non-evil; their behaviour merits closer inspection.

In this case, a group of TN pirates attack you and there is no opportunity to avoid the conflict. In the game world I would expect a non-evil character to open a dialogue and give you the chance to leave**. It might be unfortunate that the PC can go around attacking people without warning, but this imbalance is part of the game (and, I believe, part of the reason for the creation of Virtue). In the game world, I expect non-evil characters to require provocation, or give warning, before trying to kill me. There is no indication during the game that there is a Robin Hood of pirates hanging around with his crew of Merry Men, and they are not marine druids. IMO this group of pirates is evil and the most natural form of evil for pirates is lawful.

*This is not the official position of the Fixpack team.

**I’d accept a scripted reputation and alignment check before attacking but I don’t know of any instances of this, and it certainly doesn’t occur here.

 

Ooh, fantastic! Thanks Fel. Typos fixed and docs updated, now on to the good stuff:

• Valygar's Ranger Friend Derrick No Longer Erroneously Attacks - In the other similar reply ("No, I'm nothing of the sort!") Derrick behaves based on whether the party has been hired by the CWs or not--it seems reasonable that the "Valygar who?" reply should have the same conditions set to it. This one also has a special consideration in that it's been in Baldurdash for so long that we may get a number of player complaints when it seems Derrick's behavior changes radically ("he never attacked me before!").
• Bad Moon Dog Avatar - I've added a before and after image to the docs--original on the left, replacement on the right. The original is horrifically pixelated.
• Lady Delcia Interrupting Dialogue - Yes, interruption is definitely her style. However, an interrupting dialogue can trick the engine into thinking the original dialogue is still open which can, in turn, prevent being able to save.
• Summoned Creatures Shouldn't Drop Items - While it does cause normal stuff like halberds and short swords to not drop, the focus is really more of an exploit fix as the party could farm their summons for some fairly decent equipment. The biggies we wanted to stop: kobolds drop fire arrows; ogre magi drop Bastard Swords +1; winter wolves drop their pelts; wyverns drop their heads (an old BG holdover); and a few drop a random treasure item which (though unlikely) could result in a Small Shield +1, Medium Shield +1, Plate Mail +1, Chain Mail +1, Splint Mail +1, or Chain Mail +2.
• Dagger of <CHARNAME> Not Flagged as Magical - The dagger is created by the apprentices as an exercise in teaching them how to enchant items--if that's not magical, I'm not sure what would qualify.
• Effects of Claw of Kazgaroth Can Be Dispelled, Trap in Neb's Home Can Not be Disarmed, and Shield of Harmony Effects Could Be Dispelled - I see what you mean. The docs have been updated to make these more clear.
• Carsomyr Issues - If we can't trust the description to be dev intent, what can we trust? If the information was missing, I could see it being open to speculation but this seems about as straightforward as it gets.
• Faldorn's Summon Dread Wolf Can Crash Game - Heh, fair enough. There are a couple of places where we edit non-used game files, typically because we have the exact same patch already coded for another item or when we get ahead of ourselves and code something before we realize we're fixing an unused resource. In this case, both Faldorn and the various copies of Elminster have this spell in memory and it wasn't until we looked a bit closer that we realized it was unused.
• Spells Using Old Flame Strike Animation - Flame Strike is Flame Strike, and shouldn't look different when cast by the party or by an enemy. Imagine, by way of comparison, an enemy mage casting a sparkly red globe of invulnerability.
• Stores Have Infinite Magical Items - Ooh, we had a good fight on this one. Give that thread a read first, but I'd love to hear your thoughts as well.
• Infinite Gold Store Exploit - I'll just quote Dorner on this one: "It resolves an exploit whereby her buying price for items was far too high (appears to have been a typo of putting the decimal representation of the standard buying percentage in the hexadecimal field)."
• Firetooth Missing Minimum Strength Requirements - Hmm, I think we need to look at this one again. When we discussed this devSin pointed out that 'Items that modify an attribute have no requirement for that attribute' but looking through the files I don't think that's strictly correct, or at least not consistent enough to be held as a standard (Shield of Balduran still requires 12 str, for example). It's certainly true for items like Crom Faeyr that *set* attributes as it would make no sense that a hammer that sets strength to 25 would require 9 strength to wield. With the exclusion of the Crossbow of Affliction (from which they were probably copied) this left the Firetooths (Fireteeth?) as the only two crossbows without a strength requirement.

arow09 and arow16 are both Arrows of Ice. The latter are undroppable, but I can not find them used anywhere in game or on the random treasure tables, nor can not find any occurrences of arow09 where they've been flagged undroppable. A little more help finding this one, please.

 

Note also that the description and damage are correctly matched for the +6 file.

Would I be wrong in guessing that you can potentially charm or dominate her and crash the game from there?

Even with our changes, Athkatla remains constructed entirely from unenchanted spears. I'm still sulking over this.

Notably also, the file is not coded explicitly to say "buy for more than you sell for". Loosely, it's coded to say "keep the ratio small"--the fact that charisma exaggerates this into the exploit is largely unforseeable.

Please at least keep this in OBC, since even if not a bug, the unexplained lack of strength requirements is silly enough to be worth changing somewhere prominent.
If it doesn't already, the Crossbow of Affliction should probably require strength 2 higher than other crossbows. Not really a fix, but sensible.

 

Ah. The removal paradox. Still, one of the blessings of the original Baldurdash (pre-WeiDU) was that things could be downloaded separately. So if you didn't like a component... But this can't. Which is a good reason to be more conservative, IMO. Nonetheless, with even arguments about why it could be either way, I doubt we'll be able to convince each other on this one, though I do think it'd be great for an Additional Fixes component with some of the more questionable alignment changes.

Ow ow ow. Well, I suppose I got what I asked for, didn't I? Objection SHREDDED and BURNED.

Ah. Yes, I think the devs would have changed that too. Objection withdrawn.

Mmmmm. Exploit closing over realism. Meh, wouldn't be the first time, and it's not strict rules anyway.

Yes, but a greater item would that which can fool things that check for things being magical. Not unlike the 2e Amulet of Proof Against Location and Detection, except with a more localized effect for a different result. With the number of mages that use PfMW (it's a great spell in this game), it could be quite a help, but a plain +2 dagger...you'll be positively tripping over them by ToB.

The only good argument I can come up with against is the likelyhood that they just copied from a plain dagger (since that's what it looks like IIRC), and simply forgot to make it magical. But I'm still not convinced they didn't mean it to be that way.

Hardly convincing when weighted against the multitude of two-handed swords and the possibility of typos (present in other places). But combined with this...

...you'd have to stretch pretty far for justification. Objection withdrawn.

Depends. I can't see what that FALDORN_PANTHER spell does to her, so she might be immune to it. Anyone able to clear this up?

To be perfectly honest, my first reaction when I read that was "Ooh, cool!" A red Globe of Invulnerability would be pretty cool, and might even help distinguish friendly spellcasters from enemy spellcasters. Or, possibly just good from evil. Getting back to Flame Strikes, I can easily imagine a good god's fiery wrath looking significantly different from an evil god's fiery wrath.

First for Sim: Keep in mind that spears (and short swords) are THE most popular weapons in the D&D world. And that's not talking about player choice, that's talking about the actual world they're in. If you go to some a$$-backwards hamlet just building their first well, nevermind a smithy, you are still guaranteed to be able to find a spear (and short sword) somewhere within its confines.

Now, getting onto the items themselves...yeah, this looks a lot like the alignment issue. Some things clear, some things not so clear.

• Arcana Archives - Slightly Questionable. It might be intentional, given that it's a defensive spell, and a low-level for ToB. But given the number of scrolls and this is the only one that's infinite...I don't know.
• Shadow Thief Fence & Khan Zahraa - Questionable. FR is very magic-heavy, and by ToB you'll be positively swimming in +1 weapons. Heck, by just an hour into the game you may not even give a rat's behind about non-unique +1s anymore, except for selling them.
• History of the Fateful Coin - I think it's intentional. An homage to your quest in Beregost for Firebead Elvenhair. (Honestly, a rep boost for a FedEx quest?) Not to mention...what's it hurting? It's just a book.
• BERNARD2 - Doubtless. Infinite Prismatic Spray scrolls in SoA? I don't think so.
• Gorch - Infinite +2s would be questionable even in ToB, and in SoA that'd be idiotic.
• Karthis al-Hezzar - Doubtless. Some of my PnP background kicks in when I see a +3 non-sword. You're damn lucky to find one, much less infinite. Even in FR that's a bit off.
• PPSTOR01 - Unless there's a stack number, I'd leave this one alone. Why can't a single merchant (especially one in a one-time area like Brynnlaw, judging from the PP prefix) have an infinite amount of one type of enchanted ammo? Not a lot of sense reality-wise, but game-wise that might be one of those Easter Egg things for the dedicated archery buff.
• Rings of Animal and Air Control - No doubt. Even in a magic-heavy world, no wizard is going to be churning those things out non-stop.
• Potion of Agility - Slightly questionable. Now, I'd say leave it alone, but being in more than one place speaks to negligence. Then again, that two of those are both Ribald...I really can't say.
• Ribald's special stock - Definite yes on the uniques, and the two-handed sword by extension, but the Freedom scrolls...I've got this niggling feeling it's to account for the two demi-liches in the game. Especially the one right in the city.
• Waukeen's Wares - Hmm. Is Holy Water drinkable as a potion? This might be infinite to keep people from screwing themselves accidentally on that little series of events in that case. Otherwise, screw it.
• SHOP03 - See PPSTORE01.
• SHOP07 - Ummm, they're unenchanted Large Shields. Unless there's proof (stack number), there's no sense to this.
• Anvil of the Right - If it's in ToB (or a one-time SoA area), I'd look on it as a replacement copy for Ribald and take and leave things as with the AM. If it's in SoA, I'd look at it as a pure copy mistake.
• TYPE2 - Yeah, what's the point? Not only are these minor items, but the store isn't accessible.
• Harbinger +3 - No doubt. That there's even one held by someone AND one in a store somewhere is a bit fishy. Though that could be used as an argument that there could be more than one, and thus infinite, there's common sense to be applied here. And if I may quote someone whose name I have forgotten, "You gotta love a weapon that has a name. Because you know there's not another one in the world like it."

Okay, a question I'm currently kicking myself for not thinking of earlier... Do you still get more for stuff there than other places and are charged less for stuff there than other places? Or did you set it to the same as every other store?

Like Additional Fixes components methinks...

Actually, they were AROW15, which is also Ice Arrows in addition to the two you mentioned. The first example that springs to mind is at least one container on the WK elemental level, because that's the first place I ran into them (that level of annoyance leaves an imprint). The other one that pops to mind is something I memorized to make sure it didn't happen again (before I made the decision to fix it myself). Entering the prison filled with vampires in Saradush from the street with the key from the Priestess of Waukeen, the table right in front of you has some. That's AR5006, container "Container 4". (Having Infinity Explorer helps when talking about this kind of stuff. )

EDITed for typos

[ October 14, 2006, 06:11: Message edited by: Felinoid ]

 

Arow15 isn't Ice Arrow. It's Arrow +3 and it's a droppable item.

Only if you have an SOA only installation of the game, Arow15 is undroppabale Ice Arrow.

Arow16 is Arrow of Ice and undroppable; but it seems to be intentionally undroppable. It shouldn't be found in any container or treasure chest in the game.

[ October 14, 2006, 10:05: Message edited by: Sikret ]

 

Not for me. I just tried taking my fix out of the override, and I ended up with undroppable Ice Arrows again. Though it would definitely make sense for it to be +3 Arrows rather than a duplicate of AROW16, that's just not how it is on my patched ToB installation.

Unless anyone else has had this problem, perhaps this would be better as a personal fix. Anyone willing to send me the file?

 

What's the item file of +3 arrows in your game, then? Don't you have +3 arrows in your game at all or does it have a different file name?

If it's the latter, export it by an editor, rename it to arow15 and put it in your override folder. But if you don't have +3 arrows at all, I will send the correct file to you.

EDIT: If you have +3 arrows with a different name, the best thing to do is to open both items in an editor and to edit arow15 page by page and make it completely identical with the +3 arrow. This is better than the renaming way I suggested above.

[ October 14, 2006, 11:36: Message edited by: Sikret ]

 

Ah, interesting. It's moments like these that I'm glad I maintain so many different BG2 installs. In SoA, arow15 are indeed undroppable Arrows of Ice. They're not used anywhere though.

However, patched ToB changes them with a file in the override to make them (droppable) Arrows +3. These are referenced in containers throughout WK and Saradush but I'm not seeing any undroppable flags. There are two places you can make items undroppable--in the item file itself (not flagged) or when they're listed in a container/creature. None of the containers have them flagged as undroppable either.

Keep in mind that these are apprentices taking their first crack at item enchantment. Every time you give them something a little difficult to do they end up killing themselves.

IMO it fails the reasonable test. I don't find it reasonable that the devs wanted Flame Strike to look different based on deity and/or caster because no other spells look different for those reasons. Keep in mind that party priests of any alignment or kit will all cast the same Flame Strike with the same animation. (There's one other technical reason why I think it's intentional: updating the Flame Strike animation, unlike other animations they updated, was not just a simple file replace. It required changes to the spell files as well and it really looks like they simply forgot to update the more obscure copies of the spell.)

For the store markups, stores usually sell items for ~140-155% of their listed value in the item files, and buy at 30% or less. The two stores changed sell at 110% and buy at 80%. Only two stores have lower sell markups: Bernard after you've freed Hendak and the Amketheran smuggler's 'special store' which you can only access once under special conditions. Bernard's 30% buy value, though, means he doesn't lose money by selling and re-buying items and the smuggler's store is a one-shot deal. As for buying at high rates, only a handful buy at > 30% and the highest buys at 60%. Keeping in mind the devs probably wanted these stores to be friendly (as they're the only shops for a while) they get changed just enough to remove the exploit, to 120% sell and 50% buy. These are both fantastic rates taken individually, but combined make for a very friendly shopping experience.

edit: Store feedback is long. Let me go get some work done, and I'll return to the thread.

[ October 14, 2006, 15:43: Message edited by: CamDawg ]