15228 réponses à ce sujet

[Alesia_BH]

@Blackraven. I'm sorry to hear about Glory'dd.

 

I'm going to refrain from sharing my opinion on what you should do, since my fragile heart couldn't bear contributing to the end of another Glory'dd run. 

 

I'll note that we have had a number of occasions when characters have fallen for the same reason. Gate and Grond0 may want to comment on how they handled those situations. 

 

In the end, it is up to you. It's a bug, but there are some bugs that we just grow to accept as part of the engine mechanics. It's your call. 

 

Best,

 

A.

[corey_russell]

Alesia_BH said...

 

it would explain a number of odd deaths that have occurred in the challenge over the years.

 

 

 

Translation: Lots of Grond0's solo runs' deaths. I'm like Alesia_BH, I try to keep my saves very negative, including things like potions of invulnerability, so I rarely encounter this (rarely solo too). Perhaps Grond0's PnP background was a disadvantage in this case - he thought if he had the saves and was playing PnP with a human dungeon master, they would have been fine, and so assumed the computer would be as good as the human DM - apparently it isn't. : )

[Blackraven]

I'll accept it as a game over then. Glorydd seems cursed: first the auto-pause issue ending her run, now this saves miscalculation by the game engine. I think the latter had to happen to me once to make me aware of this risk in my own runs. Will apply a margin from now on.
I should have waited (maybe she would have survived. She had Arbane's Sword, so no Ghast Holds, and she stood a fair chance at not being paralyzed with fear again).

Time to dust off Dagny, or to tempt the no-reload Gods once more with Glorydd...
 

[Alesia_BH]

We respect your decision, Blackraven. Just do me a favor: keep Glory'dd in the "deserves another chance" category.

 

Best,

 

A. 

[corey_russell]

I respect your decision, Blackraven. I would like to note though, that Glorrydd I don't think is cursed. As has been mentioned before on this thread, regardless of a player's install, the one requirement for a successful trilogy is concentration. So many encounters to properly handle, so many dialogs. And if you are solo, the margin for error is less, and even less margin for error if you have a tactical mod like SCS (which is what you have).

 

Picenon has failed 5 different times, but I haven't given up on him - I don't think you should give up on Glorrydd either.

[Blackraven]

"deserves another chance"

That's what I saida few days ago. And where did it get her?

I've also thought doing a duo run with Dagny and Glorydd, but I usually enjoy the game more with NPCs than with custom chars. 
Another option would be a Fighter/Mage/Thief (or perhaps a Gnome Fighter/Mage/Illusionist). I saw that Saros took one through the Trilogy, but there's no info about that run anymore, except that he played with Improved Anvil (a mod I've never tried).

[corey_russell]

I'll accept it as a game over then. Glorydd seems cursed: first the auto-pause issue ending her run, now this saves miscalculation by the game engine. I think the latter had to happen to me once to make me aware of this risk in my own runs. Will apply a margin from now on.
I should have waited (maybe she would have survived. She had Arbane's Sword, so no Ghast Holds, and she stood a fair chance at not being paralyzed with fear again).

Time to dust off Dagny, or to tempt the no-reload Gods once more with Glorydd...
 

Blackraven, according my research, the "despair" effect of mummies is actually a short stun - so if you use Mazzy's sword you would be unaffected (in theory anyways).

[Blackraven]

I respect your decision, Blackraven. I would like to note though, that Glorrydd I don't think is cursed. As has been mentioned before on this thread, regardless of a player's install, the one requirement for a successful trilogy is concentration. So many encounters to properly handle, so many dialogs. And if you are solo, the margin for error is less, and even less margin for error if you have a tactical mod like SCS (which is what you have).

 

Picenon has failed 5 different times, but I haven't given up on him - I don't think you should give up on Glorrydd either.

I've become more willing to recycle NPCs instead of rolling new ones. I have long list of character files, so maybe Serene will always be my Beast Master, Norgath my Bounty Hunter, Thani my Wizard Slayer, Dagny my Cleric/Illusionist (even though Scintilla was more successful), Gloryd my Fighter/Thief, etc.

[Blackraven]

Blackraven, according my research, the "despair" effect of mummies is actually a short stun - so if you use Mazzy's sword you would be unaffected (in theory anyways).

I think the key is PfFear. At least in my aTweaks-modded game. The paralyzation is the consequence of fear. A potion of clarity will always work. (Used them before with my Elven Bounty Hunter Nymand, and he never got held/stunned, even by Greater Mummies.)

[corey_russell]

I've become more willing to recycle NPCs instead of rolling new ones. I have long list of character files, so maybe Serene will always be my Beast Master, Norgath my Bounty Hunter, Thani my Wizard Slayer, Dagny my Cleric/Illusionist (even though Scintilla was more successful), Gloryd my Fighter/Thief, etc.

I may start doing that too - I have a starting save for almost every character I would want to play.

[Alesia_BH]

I've also thought doing a duo run with Dagny and Glorydd, but I usually enjoy the game more with NPCs than with custom chars. 
 

 

Understood.

 

Someday Norgath and Alesia should do a multiplayer run. Or may be Glory'dd and Alesia.

I saw that Saros took one through the Trilogy, but there's no info about that run anymore, except that he played with Improved Anvil (a mod I've never tried).

 

 

Improved Anvil is very different. It's almost like another game. When I did my Improved Anvil v3 solo, the spell systems and ability systems were similar, although with significant differences. Since then the differences have grown substantially.

 

Improved Anvil is perhaps worth trying, but it is no reload unfriendly by principle of design. The designer severely disliked Saros's no reload runs and with new editions made significant efforts to prevent Saros from repeating his success. Additionally, IA canalizes your gameplay options: a number of party configurations just won't work.

 

I also find the gaming culture surrounding IA unpalatable. Closed, authoritarian, and elitist are words that come to mind. The Tzar can be unpleasant to deal with as well. I prefer open egalitarian communities, populated by people who don't take themselves too seriously. The IA world isn't for me.  Note well though: I'm sure there are awesome people in the IA community, too. The norms just aren't to my liking.

 

Best,

 

A.

[Blackraven]

Interesting Alesia! 

A multi run with you would n doubt be lots of fun (and increase my chances of success)

I didn't know there was such a thing as an IA community. (Thought the mod had become more or less obsolete.) 
Either way, like you I prefer more open, tolerant and diverse communities, such as ours, where I'm free to decide on my case, where different game setups are treated with equal respect, and where the positive vibe rules.

[Alesia_BH]

Interesting Alesia! 

A multi run with you would n doubt be lots of fun (and increase my chances of success)

 

You might rethink that after actually playing with me. I spend an insane amount of time buffing, checking my inventory, checking my saves, checking my resistances, etc. It would probably end up being a nightmare. That's the main reason why I'm reluctant to try it: anyone who played with me, would soon hate me, I fear.

 

 

 (and increase my chances of success) 

 

Maybe. I don't know. Multiplayer is pretty wonky, from what I've heard. I have zero experience with it.

 

 

I didn't know there was such a thing as an IA community. (Thought the mod had become more or less obsolete.) 
 

 

I can't comment on the current status of IA or its community. I freely acknowledge that my observations may be dated and that things may have changed. It has been 8 years since Alena's IA solo.

 

The last I heard, the mod was only available to paying members of the IA forum.

 

Best,

 

A.

[Blackraven]

You might rethink that after actually playing with me. I spend an insane amount of time buffing, checking my inventory, checking my saves, checking my resistances, etc. It would probably end up being a nightmare. That's the many reason why I'm reluctant to try it: anyone who played with me, would soon hate me, I fear.

You could play a Paladin or something, less buffing Wouldn't hate you either way (that would be such a waste of energy).

It's true that multiplayer is wonky. I did a few sessions last year with some people on the Beamdog forums, until the party disbanded.

[Alesia_BH]

The save vs. spell issue is just weird all around. My testing also showed that -1 guarantees success against a -2 penalty, yet apparently -3 isn't good enough against a -4 penalty. While I think it's clearly a bug, it's a really unfortunate one. It seems to be an engine issue so it can't be easily fixed and while there are ways around it, they may not always be feasible. Tough call on how to handle it.

 

 

That's really weird. But that would reconcile Grondo's experience with mine.

 

Minimally, I keep my save v spells at at least -1 and then add a Potion of Stone Form or Potion of Invulnerability if I may encounter a -4. As a consequence, I've encountered unmodified save v spells at at least -1, -2s at at least -4, and -4s at at least -4. That's why I've never encountered the problem.

 

When you first mentioned the issue, I had wondered why I had never failed a save against -4s at -4, given that Grond0 has failed unmodifieds at 0. Now I know why, perhaps.

 

Regarding the Balthazar recruitment options, I wasn't meaning to accuse anyone. I just spent a fair amount of time on the spoiler write up so I figured I may as well share it.

 

I didn't feel accused. And I'm happy you decided to share. Very helpful!

 

Thanks again!

 

Best,

 

A.

[Alesia_BH]

Btw. Can anyone replicate Grim Jim's findings regarding saves? I haven't tried yet, though I intend to.

 

It would be good to have replication.

 

@Grim Jim. Did you confirm that the spells themselves weren't bugged? Did you check the save modifier fields in Near Infinity?

 

Best,

 

A.

[corey_russell]

Btw. Can anyone replicate Grim Jim's findings regarding saves? I haven't tried yet, though I intend to.

 

It would be good to have replication.

 

Best,

 

A.

Good question. I'm at work, so will have to wait on that. I hardly think we need to replicate the -3 failing vs. -4 penalty spells, Grond0's runs have given us a good number of that case.

[Alesia_BH]

It would be great if you could replicate, Corey. It would be nice to have confirmation of all three cases. 

 

Best,

 

A.

 

Btw. Aasim did some testing to demonstrate that 1 should be sufficient against unmodifieds, -1 against -2s, etc. However, he used Web for his tests. Web is a -2. If Grim Jim is correct about the inconsistencies across the modifier types, then that would also reconcile Aasim's experiments with Grond0's experience.

 

As weird as Grim Jim's findings are, they do seem consistent with our experiences. I'm still not sure what to make of this. 

[Alesia_BH]

@Grim Jim. Have you done any testing with Malison applied? 

[corey_russell]

It would be great if you could replicate, Corey. It would be nice to have confirmation of all three cases. 

 

Best,

 

A.

 

Btw. Aasim did some testing to demonstrate that 1 should be sufficient against unmodifieds, -1 against -2s, etc. However, he used Web for his tests. Web is a -2. If Grim Jim is correct about the inconsistencies across the modifier types, then that would also reconcile Aasim's experiments with Grond0's experience.

 

As weird as Grim Jim's findings are, they do seem consistent with our experiences. I'm still not sure what to make of this. 

Is it possible that it depends on the specific spell? That is, what if Symbol: Stun, while description says save at -4 penalty, is actually -5? That would certainly put a monkey wrench in our tests if this is possible.

[Alesia_BH]

@Everyone. Are we sure we've controlled for fatigue? Was Glory'dd unfatigued? Were Grond0's characters unfatigued? Were your characters all unfatigued in experiments, Grim Jim?

 

And your tests were conducted in non-EE, correct, Grim Jim?

 

Best,

 

A.

[Alesia_BH]

Is it possible that it depends on the specific spell? That is, what if Symbol: Stun, while description says save at -4 penalty, is actually -5? That would certainly put a monkey wrench in our tests if this is possible.

 

It's possible that the save modifiers are set incorrectly on some spells. That's why I asked Grim Jim if he had confirmed the modifiers on the relevant spells in Near Infinity.

 

If the spell purported to offer an unmodified save in Grim Jim's test was actually a -2, that would explain why he needed at least a -1 to make his save.

 

I often see fatigue on the portraits of Grond0's characters. Fatigue should work like bad luck. It should effect saves without changing the numbers on the character record.

 

This is my alternate working hypothesis to the wonky roll theory: that the apparent anamolies we've observed may be explainable by the combination of simple SPL file bugs and working game mechanics.

 

Best,

 

A.

[Blackraven]

Tireless Glorydd was unfatigued.

[corey_russell]

@Everyone. Are we sure we've controlled for fatigue? Was Glory'dd unfatigued? Were Grond0's characters unfatigued? Were your characters all unfatigued in experiments, Grim Jim?

 

And your tested were conducted in non-EE, correct, Grim Jim?

 

Best,

 

A.

Jim specifically said SCS v.30 non-EE.