15218 réponses à ce sujet

[Alesia_BH]

Let Wraith back into the party. Keep playing.

 

I'm not inclined to view this as a bug, exactly, but I don't think we need to view it as a bug to justify bringing Wraith back.

 

Within the world of the game, Wraith is alive and well. Within the world of the game, Wraith wants to rejoin the Phantasmics and the Phantasmics want him back. 

 

Modifications are permitted- including in run modifications. You should make a modification to permit the mechanics to reflect game world reality.

 

Achieve that end however you see fit. 

 

Best,

 

A.

 

 

Btw.

 

 

SCS v30 has clearly broken the original developer intention of the Cernd encounter (which he always wins when not in the party in vanilla).  If that change had been to a position where it was a fair fight that would have been understandable, but changing it so he always loses is not reasonable.  

 

When mods are used it's the mod author's intent that is relevant. I suspect that David deliberately changed the Cernd/Faldorn behavior here. I'm not inclined to view this as a bug.

 

 

Although the position on party kick-outs is less clear it's arguable the developers did not intend that behaviour in general (though there are some specific instances where it is appropriate, such as personality and reputation conflicts) and just forgot to give multi-player characters the kick-out scripts provided to NPCs.  

 

The multiplayer system in BG was underdeveloped. There are a lot of things that don't work quite right. The lack of dialogue options here seems like an oversight, if not a bug. 

[Gate70]

Sorry to hear about the recent losses, and congratulations Alesia on your earlier success.

 

I did a bit more with Kaxir today and came to regret it. After dealing with the mephit portals, duergar and doppelganger he went to deal with a vampire and a group of assassins.

 

A clouded aura meant the vampire escaped at near-death, then the mage cast horror. Kaxir stumbled off towards the doppelganger room and for a while he appeared to be safe as only one thief was attacking him. Then he returned to the mage, collected a brace of Melf's Acid Arrows and saw an incoming Chromatic Orb. A save of 20, then another spell saw him put his hand up (red foot-circle indicates a failed save against charm or domination). Back to BG:EE when time allows...

 

 

Re Faldorn, imo the SCS outcome is more realistic than Cernd easily defeating the Great Druid without player assistance. Re Wraith disappearing, did you get the "goodnight and goodbye" dialogue and could you avoid this in future by encumbering them and booting out of sight?

[Alesia_BH]

So Alexander died, basically like this:

 

Step 1: Buy shield of Balduran

Step 2: Walk up to Beholders

Step 3: They snatch it with SCS snathc option and insta stone me with a ray still following me.

 

Condolence, Golden28.

 

 

I wanna try beastmaster solo :S, without maximum animal summoning cap of 5 which seems rediculous especially for a beastmaster and IWD hp on level up. An it wont be a total solo because I allow myself 1 npc per quest, like yoshimo for shadow thieves and Torgal, Keldorn on Unseeing eye, Valygar on Planar sphere, etcm but solo as much as possible.

 

I realise this will probably be a very short run but heck.. 

 

Best of luck with your beast master!

 

Beast masters are pretty capable, actually. The weakness of the class is over stated.

 

Wooden weapons are fine. Bracers of AC 3 + studded leather permits you to work around the armor restriction.

 

Any character that can use potions, shield, and missile weapons has a chance. 

 

Fear effects are a vulnerability. Rangers can't cast Remove Fear and beast masters can't wield Dragonslayer. Stun can be an issue, too in some installs.

 

I've run two solo beast masters. The first fell exactly the same way Alexander did: blindsided by Shield of Balduran theft. The second was insta-killed when I neglected to return the Rift Device at the end of the Unseeing Eye quest. IIRC, they had completed all or most of the Chapter 2/3 quests when they fell.

 

I let the second beast master continue her run outside of the challenge and she did successfully soloed SCS/Ascension. I can definitely see a beast master making it.

 

The summoning limit always seemed sensible to me. Summons are overpowered otherwise. At the same time, the beast master's summons won't help you much in really tough fights. You could remove the summon cap, if you like, but I'd probably pass on that.

 

If you want to tweak the spell system to increase your beast master's chances make Remove Fear a druidic spell. In tough fights, you'll get more mileage out of that change, and in easy to moderate fights it won't be unbalancing. Druids can cast Remove fear in vanilla BG1. Without the fix pack, Jaheira can cast Remove Fear in BG2. It's a plausible, subtle change that could help a lot. 

 

Best,

 

A.

[Alesia_BH]

 

Re Faldorn, imo the SCS outcome is more realistic than Cernd easily defeating the Great Druid without player assistance.

 

I agree. I like this change.

 

Best,

 

A.

[Alesia_BH]

 

I think one would be putting a massive amount of faith in developer intent to assume this was intended behavior. 

 

The key phrase is "unambiguously subverts developer intent." We can speculate, but we can't really know what was intended.

 

If DavidW showed up and said "Whoops! Torgal's innate shouldn't scare your armor off- especially not under Potion of Clarity or Remove Fear. Will chase." I'd see it differently.

 

Best,

 

A.

[realmuzzy]

I agree, since developer intent is essentially unknowable, I think the key is what you said to Grond0: does a behavior/event subvert the reality of your game world.

 

On topic of reality of our game worlds, I also think Faldorn should be a very tough challenge.

[corey_russell]

Grond0 - I believe you should bring Wraith back - I agree that the developers clearly intended for Cernd to win on his own, but the fact that he doesn't is the only reason you recruited Cernd - in this case, I don't see any problem consoling Wraith to get your party back.

[Alesia_BH]

I agree, since developer intent is essentially unknowable, I think the key is what you said to Grond0: does a behavior/event subvert the reality of your game world.

 

The phrase "unambiguously subverts developer intent" was deliberately chosen in the interest of creating a relatively strict standard.

 

It places the burden of proof on the individual seeking a reload. If there is any doubt, we take our lumps and get on with our lives.

 

The bug reload rule was created for situations where something has obviously, unquestionably, majorly gone wrong- not for situations were something seems strange or not to our liking. The current standard serves that end. When it errs, it under identifies bugs rather than over identifying them, which is for the best.

 

Grond0's case is different from Adele's, which is why the language differs. We're permitting Grond0 to modify the game's NPC management system. We've long distinguished between character management issues and combat mechanics.

 

Best,

 

A. 

[Alesia_BH]

Grond0 - I believe you should bring Wraith back 

 

Agreed.

 

Grond0 - I believe you should bring Wraith back - I agree that the developers clearly intended for Cernd to win on his own

 

 

Grond0 is using SCS, and I strongly suspect that that behavior is intentional in SCS. Faldron is suppose to kick Cernd's butt, I believe.

 

I'm not inclined to view this as a bug reload case but, rather, as a game modification case.

 

Remember CKT's Hell Trial's incident? Remember how we decided that he should be allowed to Keeper Sir Gawain back to lawful good? That's the relevant precedent here. Modifications are permitted. The modification standard is liberal in cases of character management and or role playing preference outside of combat.

 

Best,

 

A.

[Blackraven]

Hey Golden, condolences, but good luck with your Beastmaster. Great class, I remember my Beastmaster Serene with fondness, and I agree with Alesia that they're fine as a kit. If you chose the kit out of masochistic a tendency then I think a Half-Orc Kensai would be a better pick.

 

Alesia, you said you were considering doing a similar character (as in similar to Adele). Have you considered a Shapeshifter? I saw you have SCS Improved Shapeshifting. Another option would a Cleric/Ranger. Your last attempt with one wasn't what it could have been.

 

Grond0, I'm with the others on Wraith. I know you're the zen master of no-reloading but for the purpose of your current challenge it makes sense to get Wraith back. Wraith isn't an NPC with reputation issues. Wraith never wanted to leave the crew. 

[Alesia_BH]

 

Alesia, you said you were considering doing a similar character (as in similar to Adele).

 

I'm thinking about a dwarven F/C, actually. 

 

This is a new install, I think it may be wise to go with a shorty so that I'll be very nearly guaranteed to see the entire adventure.

 

I may return to Adele after the F/C.

 

Thank you for your interest.

 

 

 Have you considered a Shapeshifter? I saw you have SCS Improved Shapeshifting. 

 

 

I have the SCS option which created tokens. I don't use the Shapeshiter Rebalancing Tweak.

 

In my install, Shapeshifters as still meh, assuming you don't abuse the tokens.

 

 

Another option would a Cleric/Ranger. Your last attempt with one wasn't what it could have been.

 

Yes. That was a busted install. Oodles of buggy things happened. I basically lost interest on account of all that.

 

C/R can't cast high level druid spells in EE, correct? I think that's for the best, really. I long refrained from using C/Rs because I felt their access high level druid spells was an oversight.

 

Best,

 

A. 

[Grond0]

Re Wraith disappearing, did you get the "goodnight and goodbye" dialogue and could you avoid this in future by encumbering them and booting out of sight?

That's a good thought, thanks.  A quick test shows that that works, although if the booted character is not encumbered they can both home in on the PC (ignoring sight range and invisibility) and even jump back out of a house to have their final dialogue.

 

 

Grond0 is using SCS, and I strongly suspect that that behavior is intentional in SCS. Faldron is suppose to kick Cernd's butt, I believe.

I note your view, but I don't share it.  To me the main theme underlying SCS is to get things to act more intelligently.  In v30 Cernd's AI has been nerfed to a ridiculous extent so that he has essentially no chance of winning a contest that he would have a decent chance in if he acted sensibly.  As noted earlier I wouldn't object at all to Cernd fighting on even terms, even with only one chance at the fight (essentially offering a random chance of success like with Melicamp's resurrection).  However, to force him to be recruited into the party to give any chance of completing the quest makes little sense to me.  If David had actually intended that, then why not just change the script to make it clear that he must be part of the party and not provide a trigger to allow him to fight on his own - thus avoiding him acting so stupidly it seems painful to me (and I'm sure that must be even more the case for David)?

 

 

Thanks everyone for the comments.  Although you can see above that I still don't think the Faldorn encounter makes sense I seem to be in the minority in that.  Accepting that, I'll count the run as over here.  Thinking about it I'm sure that I would in any event feel bad about continuing and probably die quickly.  Even if that were not the case and miraculously they triumphed over Melissan I wouldn't feel satisfied that it was a real success ...

[Blackraven]

I'm thinking about a dwarven F/C, actually. 

That's a very resilient class, so probably a good pick for the purpose of getting far. (Useful for me as well, with my new EE installs which kind of mirror yours.)

 

 

I have the SCS option which created tokens. I don't use the Shapeshiter Rebalancing Tweak.

 

In my install, Shapeshifters as still meh, assuming you don't abuse the tokens.

I use the same mod, and no Rebalancing.

 

C/R can't cast high level druid spells in EE, correct? I think that's for the best, really. I long refrained from using C/Rs because I felt their access high level druid spells was an oversight.

That's right. I think they go up to spell level 3 (the spell level that Rangers normally have access to), but it can be tweaked in the baldur.ini file.

[Alesia_BH]

That's a very resilient class, so probably a good pick for the purpose of getting far. (Useful for me as well, with my new EE installs which kind of mirror yours.)

 

 

Yes. The danger with a dwarven F/C is that I might get bored. But since my install is fresh, there's a good chance I'll see the run through.

 

At the very least, a F/C would be a good scout for Adele. I really enjoyed Adele's character. I do intend to return to her.

 

 

I use the same mod, and no Rebalancing.

 

Noted. I think that's the way to go.

 

I sympathize with the objectives of the Weimer shapehifter rebalancing component, but it's over the top. The Greater Bearweres are ridiculous. 

 

 

That's right. I think they go up to spell level 3 (the spell level that Rangers normally have access to)

 

That's exactly how it should be, in my opinion. 

 

Best,

 

A.

[Alesia_BH]

I note your view, but I don't share it.  To me the main theme underlying SCS is to get things to act more intelligently.  In v30 Cernd's AI has been nerfed to a ridiculous extent so that he has essentially no chance of winning a contest that he would have a decent chance in if he acted sensibly.  As noted earlier I wouldn't object at all to Cernd fighting on even terms, even with only one chance at the fight (essentially offering a random chance of success like with Melicamp's resurrection).  However, to force him to be recruited into the party to give any chance of completing the quest makes little sense to me.  If David had actually intended that, then why not just change the script to make it clear that he must be part of the party and not provide a trigger to allow him to fight on his own - thus avoiding him acting so stupidly it seems painful to me (and I'm sure that must be even more the case for David)?

 

Forcing a player controlled druid to face Faldorn makes the final confrontation a tactical challenge rather than a probabilistic event or a foregone conclusion. That could very well have been intended. I suspect it was, based on the version history.

 

In earlier versions of the fight (ex-v15), Cernd retained his invulnerability, but the battle was scripted in such away as to discourage the player from taking that approach (the fight took forever). 

 

Later, only a player controlled druid could win and pre-buffs were dispelled (I've been told).

 

In the current iteration, only a player controlled druid can win and pre-buffs are not dispelled.

 

To me, it looks like he's been tweaking the encounter over time to get the behavior he desires.

 

Leaving the dialogue unchanged strikes me as a sensible, conservative move. 

 

I like the way it works now. I think David has it right. He may think so, too.

 

 

 

Thanks everyone for the comments.  Although you can see above that I still don't think the Faldorn encounter makes sense I seem to be in the minority in that.  Accepting that, I'll count the run as over here.  

 

As mentioned earlier, I fully support continuation. I believe everyone else has supported continuation as well.

 

The issue is the multiplayer kick out system. David's intent regarding Faldorn is irrelevant to my mind. 

 

Further the issue isn't whether this was a bug that justifies a reload but, rather, whether, you can make a modification, intended to meet your role playing needs, to rectify something that happened in an out of combat situation. We tend to be liberal in those situations and intent is not relevant in those cases. Recall Sir Gawain's case.

 

Please do feel free to continue. The run is not tainted.

 

Within the world of the game, Wraith is standing by the ring, awaiting Cernd's battle with Faldorn. Let's let the mechanics reflect that. 

 

Best,

 

A.

[Alesia_BH]

@ Grond0. In then end, we all agree that Wraith should rejoin the party. Our justifications just differ. 

 

I'd really like to see the Phantasmic 6 continue. I'm sure I'm not alone.

 

Best,

 

A.

[realmuzzy]

The phrase "unambiguously subverts developer intent" was deliberately chosen in the interest of creating a relatively strict standard.

 

Sorry, I didn't mean for my view to sound wishy-washy on reloads. It's just the phrase "unambiguously subverts developer intent" is confusing because I don't see how you can unambiguously show something subverts something you don't know.

 

@Grond0 Gl if you continue, don't die immediately!

[Alesia_BH]

Sorry, I didn't mean for my view to sound wishy-washy on reloads. It's just the phrase "unambiguously subverts developer intent" is confusing because I don't see how you can unambiguously show something subverts something you don't know.

 

It's clear enough, although I understand your reservation.

 

Intent standards are commonly used in legal cases. The simplest example would be the elements of a battery case:

• an offensive touch or contact is made upon the victim, instigated by the actor; and
• the actor intends or knows that their action will cause the offensive touching.

 

Deducing intent is often a challenge, and if the legal system only had a brief phrase to rely on, then judges and juries would have insufficient guidance. But over time, the details of whether or to what extent intent can be deduced in a given situation are fleshed out by case law. We use a similar case law based system here. Some recent examples:

• In an EE playthrough, the PC and all NPCs -including hostiles- mysteriously vanished from the map. All PC and NPC portraits were deleted. The game over screen appeared. This was an unambiguous subversion of developer intent. A reload was allowed.
• In an earlier version of the SCS Shade Lord encounter, glitchy LastTriggers cause shade transformations that should have been applied to summons to be applied to the PC instead, chunking the PC. This was an unambiguous subversion of developer intent. A reload was allowed.
• In one of my recent play throughs, I discover that the Level 10 version of the Sunfire was erroneously coded as level 3 rather than L5. The other versions of the spell were coded correctly (ie- Sunfires cast by level 9 or level 12 mages were treated as L5 spells, whereas those cast by level 10 were treated as level 3 spells) This is an unambiguous subversion of developer intent, as stated in item descriptions and implied by the entries in the SPL file. A reload could have been justified, if it were necessary, at the player's discretion.  
• Distinguish: In one of Serg's recent play throughs, we discovered that the disintegration effect of the spell Sphere of Chaos ignored magic resistance. This was a difficult call because some of the effects ignore magic resistance by apparent intent, while others do not ignore magic resistance and still others ignore magic resistance when they perhaps should not. We suspected a subversion of intent -and still do- but we did not feel that the evidence was sufficient to warrant a reload. The incident was later reported to the G3 team for consideration as a bug.

I could go on, but I'm sure you get the idea. Intent standards are common. We use one here. Intent is often clear. Where it is not clear, we don't consider reloads justified.

 

Best,

 

A. 

[realmuzzy]

I guessed the meaning would be law inspired, it sounds like a phrase that would be in use in the legal sphere. (I'm a mathematician to clarify where I'm coming from

 

I'm sure this is taking things too seriously, but suppose someone said "Grond0 I think that characters becoming unrecruitable if you dismiss them at inopportune moments is a reproducible, non-exceptional behavior of the game that can be explained in game; not knowing it would happen is not a reload reason so you should not reload." Would that just be a dissenting opinion for him to consider or would he be expected to not continue, like in real court where unanimity is required.

[Alesia_BH]

Would that just be a dissenting opinion for him to consider or would he be expected to not continue, like in real court where unanimity is required.

 

We prefer to decide things by consensus. We like everyone to agree before we proceed on any issue. Bug reloads are no exception.

 

That's not always, possible but usually it is.

 

In bug reload cases, the player is the final authority. Players are encouraged to seek consensus, and they are encouraged to abide my majority decisions when consensus can't be reached, but the ultimate decision lies with the player.

 

Usually, the player and the community reach the same decision. I, personally, have never observed a conflict. While I've been here players have always gone with the consensus (or, in absence of consensus, the majority).

 

Best,

 

A.

[Alesia_BH]

@Everyone. As a reminder, technically speaking, Grond0 wouldn't need to reload an old save. He could just mod the game so that Wraith is waiting in the Druid Grove, or the Copper Coronet, or wherever.

 

Personally, I see no reason to make him jump through that hoop. Loading his auto-save and using Gate70's workaround achieves the exact same end in a more expedient manner.

 

This is not a bug reload case. It's about the player's right to modify their game, mid run. Player's have that right.

 

Some post hoc modifications are potentially problematic, but in this case -where we're redressing an out of combat outcome, attributable to a problematic multi-player mechanic, to accommodate a player's role playing needs- I see little reason for discomfort. 

 

@Grond0. If putting Wraith back into the party doesn't feel right to you, perhaps you could do what Serg did when he lost Cassia: introduce a replacement. Baring that, why not continue with 5? 

[realmuzzy]

Thanks for being helpful! This was a digression probably suited more to the helper thread but I was curious and this stuff is useful to know for newcomers. No more derailing from me.

[Grimwald the Wise]

@Baring that, why not continue with 5? 

 

What has nakedness got to do with it?

[Alesia_BH]

What has nakedness got to do with it?

 

With Grond0's situation? Nothing. With Adele's? Everything.  

 

Best,

 

A. 

[Grond0]

I'm sure this is taking things too seriously, but suppose someone said "Grond0 I think that characters becoming unrecruitable if you dismiss them at inopportune moments is a reproducible, non-exceptional behavior of the game that can be explained in game; not knowing it would happen is not a reload reason so you should not reload." Would that just be a dissenting opinion for him to consider or would he be expected to not continue, like in real court where unanimity is required.

That would be a reasonable line to take.  To continue the legal analogy I would probably reflect on the requirements for a jury to convict.  In civil cases around the world that would tend to be done using some sort of majority system.  In Britain (civil and criminal) a majority of 10-2 is required and that would seem about right as a test.  As Alesia has just posted though the final arbiter should be the player themself - using people's opinions as a guide.

 

Just as a final word on my last monks run it may be worth reflecting that my general approach to reloading (or modding to achieve the same end) is that I would not expect to do this as a consequence of a game mechanic I knew about - irrespective of whether that behaviour was the result of a bug or not (so in my mind developer intent is not the main criterion).  You could think about it as the game mechanic being an undesirable element of a mod - you might well introduce a mod that has aspects you don't like, but accept those as a reasonable price to pay for aspects you do want.  One problem with that approach is that my memory is poor, so I can't necessarily remember whether I knew something ...  

 

Thinking about it after the event it was clear that I had known about the MP kick-out mechanic even though it's a long time since it was relevant to me (as if I were running a full MP party I would never normally recruit an NPC anyway).  Hence the reason why I said earlier I would not be happy to continue.  The reason why I even thought about the possibility of reloading originally was partly I hadn't remembered the MP kick-out issue initially, but also the interaction with the Faldorn fight and the need introduced in SCS v30 to recruit Cernd in order to complete the quest.  To that end David's intention did seem relevant to me at the time.  It still seems unlikely to me that he would have deliberately introduced a situation where a character's AI has been nerfed to such a degree without documenting this.  However, as noted above I no longer think that behaviour could justify a reload (irrespective of intent) as I previously knew about that behaviour anyway ...