919 réponses à ce sujet

[Shadooow]

hey shadoow, i have a few more bugreports, and also fixes for you.
i have been looking at the doa ground models in CPP, and found some odd things with them.
the thieves kit and the cloak ground model use vanilla textures, which have horrible "rainbow discoloration" (odd green and red sparkles, where the color should be an even skin color for example). i was able to fix this with gimp.
i modified the texture of the belt to give much better results with the odd texture mapping.
and last i found the vanilla texture that healers kit is based on, and was able to replace the doa texture with the high res texture. this also got rid of the red cross, which i think makes it more consistent with how the inventory icon looks.


on top of this, i found some more bugs with hem, that i were not able to fix:
the thieves kit and bracer model has very odd triangles in certain places and the texture mapping of the belt and key are absolutelly horrible. would be nice if someone with mesh skills could look into those

Cool, pm me link for files - I haven't noticed this myself (expect the red cross of course), however what I find bit odd is that some ground models such as boots are weird positioned - this can be seen when you click on them to pick them. The model is not centered, the center position is at the edge of the model. However - these are not the issues I am good at fixing so I wasn't pay too much attention to this.

 

Oh and btw, it seems there is no easy way to fix the pauldron on the ogres. Unlike bone golem, the pauldron makes one object with the arm. The bad rotation is caused by animation they uses, the animation really rotates their left arm by 90° from some reason. Perhaps intent or not, I guess its not worth to fix this. To me at least since I don't possess the skills to do this. Pstemarie does and he said the same as it would took too much time for such small issue.

[Shadooow]

I am sorry for wasting your time

I was sure that those saves (the "passive" named ones) had the passive AI bug occurring again...

I reinstalled the 1.71 latest Addons (v3) as you suggested, so far it seems to work fine.

 

 

I got a long list of suggestions and potential bugs, if you could please take a minute to read and consider them:

 

1. Could henchmen/companions be changed so that they always prioritize buffing the player's character instead of themselves?

I always find it kind of a waste for my Cleric henchmen to first buff herself with all those nice buffs (like Bull's Strength) - and then she does not have more to also buff up my Barbarian/Fighter/Weapon Master character (who can make much better use of the buffs)

 

I suppose the AI should first cast party-wide buffs (that affect everyone at once) and then just cast buffs on the player's character - and skip buffing themselves completely, so they have more spell slots for other spells (like spontaneous casting/healing).

 

Honestly it seems that those spell-caster henchmen (cleric, sorcerer/wizard, bard) should always FIRST buff the player's character (unless the player is a wizard/sorcerer who does not benefit from most combat buffs like Bull's Strength).

In fact, it is probably better if the henchmen ONLY buffs the player (and not themselves) - and leave the remaining spell slots for casting other spells (like spontaneous healing from cleric).

Well, in HotU you can ask a henchmen to cast a spell on you before battle. I don't think that this feature you want is so clear. There are a situations where this wouldn't have a sense such as that when character is caster himself. And to condition these exceptions would be quite a hard job. I fear we could end up in situation where other players come in here asking for the opposite.

This would need a new option in the tactics conversation - which unfortunately is not in the scope of this project. But it could be possible to add the "Cast a spell on me" conversation tree from HotU.

 

 

2. I see two (locked) chests in a room.

I approach and click on the first and it says "locked" - my henchmen runs over to that (first) one to unlock it or bash it.

At the same time i run over to the 2nd chest and click on it (says locked) - my henchmen interrupts his own lock picking (or bashing) of the first chest to run over to the 2nd chest (where i am) to try and lock pick that one, thus wasting a ton of time...

It would be much better if the companion insisted on finishing the (first) lock pick he was already very close to completing, instead of abandoning a near completed job...

 

Could you please make it so that when a henchmen/companion/pet starts doing Lock Pick (or bash) they will not interrupt it unless their master directly orders them something like Guard Me or Attack Nearest?

Also if the master manually orders a new "Pick Lock" command (radial menu) while the AI is already in the middle of a pick lock or bash, the companion/henchmen can be forced to abandon his current lock pick (or bash) and try to lock pick (or bash) the chest the master is the closest to (or the chest the master is trying to bash or lock pick).

Tricky. Possible to do if he would be picklocking I think, but not seamlessly possible if he would bashing the chest. What would be easy to do is to ignore any automatic "handle lock" calls while he is working on one already but I can imagine a situations where this would be bad idea. I will do this and tomorrow you will come with a request to do the opposite because you want your henchman to automatically stop the current job if he can't bash the chest at all.

 

At any way, why are you doing this at all? I don't see this as something that would be broken, it seems to me as if you wanted your henchman to be more intelligent than yourself .

 

Sh1tload of work and I don't see any actual gameplay advantage. If you don't want to henchman skipped his current picklock job, just click on the chest by right mouse button where you can see its locked in in such case bash it/unlock it yourself.

 

3. Could the companion/henchmen AI be forced to hug (in melee) his master when the AI is planning to cast party-wide buffs as well as buffs that should be cast on the master (like bull's strength)?

A lot of times at the start of a fight my companion will immediately start buffing - while my melee character is running ahead to fight the enemy.

So when my henchmen finishes casting her buff, i am usually either out of range or behind a corner/wall...

 

Forcing a henchmen to approach it's master FIRST and then attempt to cast a buff would help a lot... especially if the henchmen will try to approach the master before EVERY buff to insure that they all properly reach the master.

I understand the intentions but this has so many potentional issues that you don't realize. AOOs from moving, AOOs for spellcasting in close combat. Buffing in melee is terrible idea. Nobody ever yet introduced a system like this to handle positions for sophisticated buff casting in way to target all allies and keep outside of melee. Next to impossible. Project on its own really.

 

What I see possible is to check master position when casting an AoE buff like bless, however that wouldn't work for you anyway since before hench finish casting you will be gone out of reach.

 

 

4: Not in my skills. What resolution do you play anyway? Since you are reporting so many issues with it, wouldn't be easier to play in smaller?
 

 

5: This shouldnt happen, its already coded in - if you spot this report it with all details you can. "Think" is not enough.
 

 

Also certain very weak buffs (like Virtue) are just not worth a spell slot and would be better if the companion never wasted time to cast them, and instead saved the spell slots for healing or other more useful spells.

Theres a problem. I cannot change their memorised spells. I can stop them from using them via AI, but what they have memorised is controlled by a module builder. Though, in case of OC henchmans, their levelled up versions are in core game resources so it would be possible to change it. You would have to help me with that though. PM me for instructions.

 

As for spells like virtue. I could indeed block this spell from casting if the target is level 4+, however this more a fault of the henchman designer, I don't think this is good idea because you have to realize that this AI change affect all modules you play (unless those with custom AIs) and in certain modules the Virtue spell might be modified to give better benefit etc. Unlike other AIs out there, I always have to think about custom content as thats the aspect that vanilla AI excels. Though the Virtue spell specifically might deserve this handling...

 

6. The Whirlwind attack seems to work a bit strange:

It seems to sometimes automatically cancel my previous "attack" command, meaning that my character will stand still (passive) after performing the Whirlwind - and that is horrible in a big fight...

Sometimes after doing a Whirlwind it will automatically queue an Attack command on a certain creature around my character, and if i want to do more Whirlwinds after the first Whirlwind i have to manually cancel that automatic Attack command in the top-left corner.

Overall the Whirlwind attack seems to be plagued by some "automatic adding of an attack or cancel-attack" bugs, where it will sometimes either add (or cancel) an attack command for no reason...

Whirwind attack is known for issue. Its entirely broken on linux for example locking your actions so you cant do anythign after. At anyway, so you prefer to whirwind attack not adding the new normal attack command automatically? Because I remember how you wanted to make some combat attacking automatically before . I think I can do this but then you end up flatfooted not doing anything after WW unless you queve another WW or attack manually. Is this what you want?

 

 

7. A minor bug that is a bit strange and it will not always happen.

When i use the W keybind (move forward) to go through a zone (loading screen), my character will do a 180-degree turn once he "zones in", meaning that if i press W again i will walk back through the same "portal" that i just came through!

My camera is set to "top down" if it is of any significance... anyway it is a minor bug, but kinda annoying when i press W and end up walking back through the zone "portal" that i just came out of - meaning i gotta load the previous zone, and then again load the new zone i wanna go to >.<

I believe this is caused by a bad area transition design. Imo this 180turn will happen even if you use mouse for trigger area transition. Nothing I can do - common on PWs too, I always suggest builders to bind transition with waypoints and not area transition to area transition (which is this case). Would be sh1tload of work to redesign all area transition in OC campaigns. Worthless.

 

 

8. Is there a way you could make consumable things like First Aid Kits and potions be purchased in big groups of 5 or 10?

Either some new way to buy them in groups, or just to very quickly buy them 1 by 1, or perhaps if the vendors themselves could sell them in groups of 5 (or 10)?

Not without modifying OC campaigns which at this moment I choose not to (mainly because I have no campaign injector so I would have to package full campaign file which would enormously increase a patch file size). I can only suggest you to use a numlock. You know if you open any radial menu, you can trigger each choice via number on numpad. 8 for 12hours, 9 for 1.5hours, 6 for 3hours etc. Thus move your mouse on the goods you want to purchase, click right mouse button and press num6. repeat, quite quick unless the goods is in a certain position where radial moves your mouse...

 

 

9. NWN wiki says that barbarian Mighty Rage can be stacked with the regular Rage (or Greater Rage) if casted in a specific order:

"one can use mighty rage then barbarian rage to get the effects of both."

That honestly seems like a bug - it should either stack regardless of casting order, or it should never stack at all.

Did the CPP perhaps fix this double-rage issue in any way?

Of course. Please report things you see in game and not things you read on NWN wiki. NWN Wiki doesn't support neither acknowledge the CPP. They decided not to inform that CPP fixed this or that - mostly because they doesn't see things like barbarian rage to be a bugs. They even intentionally ignore all the new knowhow I found out such as hidden classes, but thats their own problem. I was helping there editing but now I m done with them. NWN Wiki is not an open project.

 

10: This should be in a place.

 

As for dispel, that needs a better handling, currently its categorized as offensive spell or something like that. This part of the AI needs rewrite, but seriously I can't dedicate to AI that much - I can do much better things with NWNX . Need someone to help me.

 

11: He can't see enemies. Non-PCs have usually shorter vision. Also outside of the combat, AI reacts usually only each 6 seconds - this is workarounded by a silent shouts that tell to attack but the problem is that PC isn't shouting these. Which will be probably your situation. Send me a savegame with this exact situation. I can see what can I do.
 

12: This is already there. Send me a savegame where this doesn't work, I will see whats causing it.
 

 

 

13. When fighting creatures that can turn invisible, my character behaves strangely:

I am fighting a clearly visible Imp in Melee.

The imp casts invisibility, but i never lose sight of the Imp (he becomes transparent, but i still see him).

For some reason, my character stops attacking and goes into the "passive" mode!

I click to attack again... when the Imp's invisibility expires (goes away), my character again goes into the passive mode (stops attacking)!

I click yet again to attack... if the Imp again recasts Invisibility, my character will again stop attacking - even though he can see the Imp!

 

It seems to me that the act of becoming Invisible or losing Invisibility makes player character (or perhaps all characters) lose their "attack" command...

It seems like a minor bug, but really annoying... especially since i can see the damn imp the entire time in melee!

Yes this is intented. Otherwise it would be possible to track the invisible creature(player) that is running away. As for cancel when the creature loses invisibility, thats something I dont believe. I play this game for a long time and never seen this. Are you 100% sure about that?

 

14: Re: first paragraph. (Though certain PW admins could be against adding such choice to summoned creatures (PM Doom Knight) I don't think such PW admin would be using CPP in a first place. And, summons can be excluded from this feature anyway, but I think its a good idea.)
 

 

15. My camera controls are behaving rather strange since i installed the 1.71 CPP and it's v3 addons and the NWNC/NWNCX Loader (also the hyper gore and 50%/75% empower/maximize addon you made).

My camera zoom is either extremely fast or very slow - same goes for my camera turning/rotation (both with middle mouse button and by moving cursor to any edge of the screen), it is either very fast or very slow!

I tried changing all the camera speed and camera mode options in the NWN settings but nothing has helped

I think the camera work fine if i play NWN without any mods/addons/patches.

Think is not enough. CPP itself is not even able to change this. NWNCX could possibly alter this (though its weird because I haven't altered that intentionally) but I don't think its the case. Might it be caused by other plugins in NWNCX? Don't know.

 

First run game without NWNCX. It this still happens, rename override folder to _override (which will effectively disable any overrides+1.71addon) and try again.

 

Also, to track down that something is (not) the CPP fault, what I do is to rename x2patch.key to 171_xp2patch.key and rename xp2patch.key.bak to xp2patch.key (if you installed with installer then you should have this backup). That will effectively disable CPP 1.71 final. If you run the game you will imediately notice this as you won't see the CPP new GUI screen.

 

16: Too hard for almost no gain - for example, I as an experienced player can recognize every spells cased on casting visuals.
 

 

17: Yes, the code for "running" into trap is written a bit stupidly. Ive seen this when incorporating changes before - but haven't found a motivation to change it, to code this is a bit tricky, vectors and such ...

 

 

Anyway, please. Always try to consider alternative point of view on the changes you are suggesting. Try imagine what would say a player playing on PW about this or a module builder, or whether this wouldn't be different in high-level modules etc. etc. Some could have different opinion about the changes you are requesting.

Also, next time please try post in short batches. This took me more than twenty minutes to reply . Rather post more frequently than this .

EDIT: I wasnt even allowed to post so many quotes. Had to edit whole post.

[Shadooow]

 

Currently, in my working copy the switch system works this way:

- when a switch is set, the switch value is saved also globally into vanilla database (database name is CPP)

- when a switch is read, first, value set on module is retrieved - if the value is not zero its this value that is used AND as a special case if the value is -1 then its substituted for 0 / FALSE in order to ensure that scripts written like this ' if(!GetModuleSwitchValue("some_switch")) ' will behave correctly as if the switch was disabled

- if the switch isnt set in module, then a value from player's database is retrieved and used

 

Thus. If builder want to enforce some switch to be disabled, all he need to do is to set this switch at value of -1. (Plus possibly overwrite the PC Widget convo to disallow player to overwrite this switch.)

EDIT: crap, that -1 feature won't be backwards applicable again. dammit *thinking hard*

 

Ok I made up a new mechanism to do this. The old code would consider value of -1 as a TRUE, so this needs a workaround and I have found it. Instead of setting value -1 - to enforce given switch disable, builder will have to set the switch as a string with value of "0". This will be possible to do only in toolset in module variables - the SetModuleSwitchValue function won't allow this as I don't think its needed and it could mess with the normal way this works.

 

Some more features I need to help decide.

 

Im trying to incorporate the new_polymorph package into 1.71 addon, I see 77 downloads there, have anyone looked into it? Do you see there any issues? Would you made this differently? Im still not confident with this code as its extremely difficult to read and its quite a mess over there. Anyway, I tried to revisit a bit and had this idea.

 

When I was writing this code I haven't yet made the NWNX plugin to fix the ability decrease itemproperty issue with immunity. So I tried to handle this in the polymorph code itself. Because undeads and constructs has the immunity to ability decrease on their skin and adding a merged ability decrease makes them nonfunctional. I managed to workaround this but it make the whole code a lot messy and confusing to anyone but expert scripters. Removing this workaround would make the code simpler. Which would be an option since this is now handled by the NWN©X plugin. Or should I try to provide this fix even for those who aren't using it? Suggestions?

 

Some more ideas I need to help decide.

 

1. I found that it is possible to input an area into game. This area won't be seen in a toolset but will be accesable in DM client. I called it Limbo for now though this is probably a bad name as Limbo is already there in DM Client (not accessable area where you can send monster you don't need now but you want summon later). The advantage of this area would be that there could be "engine" placeables needed to provide certain functionalities. At this moment I am creating them at the Starting Area if they aren't preset by builder and these placeables are invisible and not useable but still... BTW I made this area to be 1x1 in Microset tileset.

Worth it?

 

2. I had this idea about casting spells in stealth/insibility. I think I could be able to keep stealth mode on when a player cast a defensive spell silenced (or spell that has no verbal component - though these shouldn't exist - to support custom content). Also, maybe I would be able to temporarily reveal a casters position if he is casting a non-silenced spell in invisibility. This could solve so many AI exploits as AI is not able to hear this and react to this even if you are standing invisible next to enemy creature.

 

3. dispell persistent AOEs (clouds) upon respawn?

 

4. Gruftlord, you had a right idea with randomizing the "ground" casting. Imo it could be done not only for silent but also implosion or perhaps other spells (though I cant recall more like now). As for implosion, it sometimes happens and they are casting it on the ground but I think this is rather because of the issue that they cant see player in certain times exactly after spawn. But this could increase an usage for a player skill - which is imo always good in this autolose/autowin game

 

5. Teach AI to react on AOEs. Quite silly that NPC is standing still when you are spamming AOEs such as blade barrier next to creature from invisibility. (Though I guess this would have to be only a HIGH_AI feature as I see that certain PW admins like this behavior

[Gruftlord]

I also experience odd mouse behavior. sometimes the amount and speed i can rotate at with the mouse (when pressing middle mouse button) drops drastically (factor of 2 maybe 3). I haven't been able to pinpoint when this happens, and when it stops (i.e. is the change based on the module i load, or a certain area there in). It is rather weird at times and comes and goes.

I think i have it long enough to rule out cpp. I never experienced it on an old single core winxp laptop without nwncx. So it may be related to either multiple cores, win 7 or nwncx.

Btw: it looks like i will not get around to write the new text i promised. Too much rl today. Hopefully next weekend. Sorry

[MannyJabrielle]

I have downloaded the polymorph addon, but I haven't had a chance to try it out yet.  Not sure when I would be able to either..... day 3 of updates and reboots for updates and various stuff after a hard disk reformat O_o.

[Bogdanov89]

Thank you for reading and replying to my big post

I will keep it much shorter in the future.

 

Two small questions about AI:

 

1. I am playing on the very hard difficulties, and my henchmen tend to cast AoE spells that also hit me (due to full pvp settings enabled).

 

Do you think it would be a good idea for the AI to check are there any friendly targets near his targeted enemy BEFORE he unleashes a potentially deadly spell, or some very powerful paralyze/daze/death magic that can stun/kill his own master?

Lately i am more afraid of my henchman's spells than i am afraid of any enemy moster i fight xD

 

2. I notice that the caster henchmen like the bard girl have the "Combat Casting" feat - but they never use the Defensive Casting Mode that is needed for the Combat Casting feat to be used at all!

 

Also, whenever my henchmen try to cast spells in melee with enemies, they get heavily wounded from enemy Attacks of Opportunity - and their spell usually fails.

Could you please make the companions/henchmen properly use the Defensive Casting mode (which would also make use of their Combat Casting feat) whenever they are in melee with an enemy?

 

I do not know how the recent "combat mode lasts until canceled" change interacts with the AI using combat modes (like defensive casting mode), but it would be a GREAT improvement if the caster henchmen used Defensive Casting Mode to actually be able to cast in melee (and use their Combat Casting feat) instead of them losing 80% of their total health from AoO and failing their spell.

[Gruftlord]

I have no idea about the polymorph engine. It way over my head. But i see no reason why the feature shiuld be doubled in nwnx and the polymorph engine. Simpler scripts sound like a good option.

Re switches: i personally see no reason for the disabling feature to begin with. But i'm pretty certain i could work around it anyway, if i ever encountered a mod where i disliked a setting. So i do not care either way. The main question is: is there even a sp module builder around who is interested in this? I might be interested in his oppinion. Maybe i'm missing something here.

Point 1 sounds intriguing. But does it solve anything a cpp dm widget couldn't?

Re 2: no preference really but to me it sounds like something people would want a switch for.

3: i do not understand the bug. Is it supposed to simulate passage of time before resurrection? Or arw we talking about payer cast spells? In the latter case im pro, former case no prefference.

4: it's my idea, what's not to like? :-D

5: i like that idea, definatelly support it.

Main reason for post: i'll upload the ground models tomorrow. The way it looks atm, i'll package project q models where available. They are really way above the doa ones. This includes a spot on model for healers kits, a model for boots that do not have the problem you mentioned (i hope), and improved models for amulets and rings.
On top of it i'll send the updated zextures for thieves kit, cloak (both vanilla resources that fix other problems, too) and belt.
I will also send a basitem.2da. The q models have different file names and i also thought it would be nice to add shieldmodel 011 as base model for shields instead of bags.
Everything is optional of course, so will also send tje improved texture for the old healerkit

[Shadooow]

Thank you for reading and replying to my big post

I will keep it much shorter in the future.

 

Two small questions about AI:

 

1. I am playing on the very hard difficulties, and my henchmen tend to cast AoE spells that also hit me (due to full pvp settings enabled).

 

Do you think it would be a good idea for the AI to check are there any friendly targets near his targeted enemy BEFORE he unleashes a potentially deadly spell, or some very powerful paralyze/daze/death magic that can stun/kill his own master?

Lately i am more afraid of my henchman's spells than i am afraid of any enemy moster i fight xD

Hmm, this is tricky again because this behavior is not needed on lower difficulty settings and also not in case of monsters who has immunity to the spells of others. But I can understand that this gets riddiculous with for example a high level sorcerer henchman. Will see what I can think up.

 

 

2. I notice that the caster henchmen like the bard girl have the "Combat Casting" feat - but they never use the Defensive Casting Mode that is needed for the Combat Casting feat to be used at all!

 

Also, whenever my henchmen try to cast spells in melee with enemies, they get heavily wounded from enemy Attacks of Opportunity - and their spell usually fails.

Could you please make the companions/henchmen properly use the Defensive Casting mode (which would also make use of their Combat Casting feat) whenever they are in melee with an enemy?

 

I do not know how the recent "combat mode lasts until canceled" change interacts with the AI using combat modes (like defensive casting mode), but it would be a GREAT improvement if the caster henchmen used Defensive Casting Mode to actually be able to cast in melee (and use their Combat Casting feat) instead of them losing 80% of their total health from AoO and failing their spell.

This is something I added there already, however it is available only for a creatures with high AI, which normally aren't any (the HIGH_AI level is not used in official campaigns and rarely anywhere else, mainly because in vanilla there are no extra functionalitiies over normal AI - but CPP changed this).

 

Maybe I could give every henchman this high AI level. Or probably better, I could extend this feature to henchmans automatically. Still, the current code uses defensive casting only if the skill rank is over 22 (aka autowin situation) as it uses if before the AI decide whether she casts any and which spell. And also because you can actually fail the check and cast nothing. I need a suggestion how to deal with this because this feature won't work in your case anyway - OC henchmans can hardly possess such high concentration rank.

[Shadooow]

I have no idea about the polymorph engine. It way over my head. But i see no reason why the feature shiuld be doubled in nwnx and the polymorph engine. Simpler scripts sound like a good option.

that confirms my own opinion so I will rework this and exclude this workaround

 

Re switches: i personally see no reason for the disabling feature to begin with. But i'm pretty certain i could work around it anyway, if i ever encountered a mod where i disliked a setting. So i do not care either way. The main question is: is there even a sp module builder around who is interested in this? I might be interested in his oppinion. Maybe i'm missing something here.

I would also like to hear someone who wants this, why he wants this etc. But the inclusion of this feature is non problematic itself so I can add it nevertheless - whether someone use it or not its not my business - and as you said, player will always be able to get around this, its just matter of the work he will need to employ.

 

 

Point 1 sounds intriguing. But does it solve anything a cpp dm widget couldn't?

Re 2: no preference really but to me it sounds like something people would want a switch for.

3: i do not understand the bug. Is it supposed to simulate passage of time before resurrection? Or arw we talking about payer cast spells? In the latter case im pro, former case no prefference.

4: it's my idea, what's not to like? :-D

5: i like that idea, definatelly support it.

Main reason for post: i'll upload the ground models tomorrow. The way it looks atm, i'll package project q models where available. They are really way above the doa ones. This includes a spot on model for healers kits, a model for boots that do not have the problem you mentioned (i hope), and improved models for amulets and rings.
On top of it i'll send the updated zextures for thieves kit, cloak (both vanilla resources that fix other problems, too) and belt.
I will also send a basitem.2da. The q models have different file names and i also thought it would be nice to add shieldmodel 011 as base model for shields instead of bags.
Everything is optional of course, so will also send tje improved texture for the old healerkit

 

1: CPP wise only, there is a little advantage. At this moment CPP uses two invisible placeable objects (three with new polymorph engine) that if not pre-set will be created in starting area. This shouldn't be visible in any way so there is no problem. However the inclusion of the area could allow to add other features which would need a visible and useable placeable. Some ideas:

- placeable with PC Widget Tool conversation meant for Dungeon Masters.

- "engine" chest for new itemproperties. Aka I could add a scripting support to create an itemproperty from CPP in NWScript. This is done with an item blueprint that has this itemproperty so this item needs to be spawned somewhere and later destroyed - wouldnt be a good to do in astarting area. Also, other builders could reuse this chest for their own purposes as they could count with its presence (or couldnt since CPP is optional ok scratch it)

- etc.

In short, not needed at this moment, could be good for something in future.

 

2: yea, its quite a lot hardcore I guess

3: talking about player cast AOEs - imo when player is dead this still has a reson why they should work as its not something that player needs to focus, however after respawn this is quite weird imo

[Bogdanov89]

It would be awesome if the Defensive Casting Mode could be made to properly work with henchmen!

Perhaps they should be given a big boost in Concentration, just to make sure that these caster companions can "keep up" in usefulness when compared with the melee fighter/rogue/monk companions.

 

Currently my cleric/bard companion just get hit for 80% of their health when they try to cast spells in melee AND their spell also fails (concentration fail)... so using the Defensive Casting mode (and risking it's chance to fail the spell) seems to be a good idea - especially if you can buff up the Concentration skill for the caster companions.

 

 

I noticed two small issues with Tomi the rogue in chapter two of the original campaign (maybe in all other chapters as well):

 

1. he seems to be wearing armor that greatly penalizes his Dexterity bonus to AC, as well as other feats/skills that rely on Dexterity and the use of lightest armor.

I think Tomi is in studded leather or hide armor (max dexterity 4), which to me seems very penalizing when Tomi probably has much more dexterity.

If possible, he should be permanently changed to use only Padded Armor or Leather Armor, so that his Dexterity based AC/feats/skills do not suffer from the armor penalties.

 

2. Tomi mostly relies on sneak attack to do damage, and he has those "two weapon fighting" feats that help characters dual wield.

However, even after all the "conversations" for him to level up/update gear (currently at lvl10), he is still NOT using two weapons!

He has a single dagger (or whatever) in his main hand, and nothing in his off hand... meaning he is losing out on a lot of off-hand sneak attacks, and all those two-weapon-fighting feats are just wasted

 

I do know that changing the original campaign is not the primary goal of the CPP, but i just thought it would be a good idea to mention potential issues whenever i manage to spot them

[Gruftlord]

As far as i can tell, you can spawn the cpp player widget to allow you to access his inventory. This will solve both of your Problems. There is nothing more the cpp could want or would want regarding this atm, imho

[Shadooow]

For bigbies spells, incorporeal mechanics are not part of the base game in 1.69 or earlier, are they?  That's another change/tweak/fix I could see a player possibly not wanting.

Just a minor addendum.

 

I think this is actually for the player's benefit. It improves a shifter.

 

Shifter in specre form gets 50% concealment, incorporeality status (thus no longer affected by web, grease, entangle, bigbies, implosion) and ghost effect - passability thought creatures. And in a case the shifter is currently affected by bigbi/entangle effect, if he shapechange into spectre he is released from it.

 

That gives plenty of new ways and opportunities to play the shifter. Also the air elemental pulse now works as wind of gust. These features makes playing druid/shifter so much fun and interesting.

[Gruftlord]

here we go:

http://www.file-uplo...ns-Juli.7z.html
 

thanks to the cep team for these nice models.

[Shadooow]

here we go:

http://www.file-uplo...ns-Juli.7z.html
 

thanks to the cep team for these nice models.

thanks

 

EDIT: would you mind renaming the models to the doa prefix? This way, I would have to include both old doa models and these models in order to provide backwards compatibility with a modules using baseitems.2DA "old 1.71 final" or even 1.70 where doa_ models are used.

 

I guess I should rename the models to the it_ prefix back then, but its too late to do that now I guess...

Modifié par Shadooow, 07 juillet 2014 - 08:03 .

[Gruftlord]

you can rename the models for a CPP 1.72 later on, i suppose. but you are right, as long as we can not replace them all it's best to leave the names as is. new upload is here:

http://www.file-uplo...ns-Juli.7z.html

 

i deleted the baseitems.2da, but you should consider adding the shield changes to it anyway.
 

[Bogdanov89]

I did the 1.71 v3 Addons reinstall as you suggested, and pretty much everything is working fine - except in one situation.

 

My henchmen was just following me through the NWN Forest zone (chapter 2) and did not fight when both i and she were attacked.

 

Her last order from me was either "attack nearest" or "guard me", so she was definitely not ordered to be passive.

 

Could you please take a look at these 2 saves and see is it an AI issue?

 

http://www.filedropper.com/passiveai

[Shadooow]

I did the 1.71 v3 Addons reinstall as you suggested, and pretty much everything is working fine - except in one situation.

 

My henchmen was just following me through the NWN Forest zone (chapter 2) and did not fight when both i and she were attacked.

 

Her last order from me was either "attack nearest" or "guard me", so she was definitely not ordered to be passive.

 

Could you please take a look at these 2 saves and see is it an AI issue?

 

http://www.filedropper.com/passiveai

Indeed, Sharwyn is broken. Unfortunately this happened before first save and I have no clue how this can happen - it shouldn't be possible anymore.

 

Just tell her attack nearest - this now acts as a ultimate passive fixer.

 

This will probably happen again, when it happen again, try to remember what were circumstances when this happened. I dont think that save will help anymore - this needs possibly some special order of commands/actions/situation, and to fix this we must figure this order out.

[Shadooow]

MannyJabrielle, and everyone who is building single player/LAN module with CPP.

 

I realized, that there is an easy way for a builder to determine whether player playing his module has CPP installed or not.

int GetCommunityPatchVersion()
{
object oTest = CreateObject(OBJECT_TYPE_ITEM,"70_it_scrwarcry",GetStartingLocation());
 if(oTest == OBJECT_INVALID) return -1;
DestroyObject(oTest);
oTest = CreateObject(OBJECT_TYPE_PLACEABLE,"70_ec_poison",GetStartingLocation());
 if(oTest == OBJECT_INVALID) return 170;
DestroyObject(oTest);
return 171;
}

Might be useful?

[MannyJabrielle]

Could very well be, yes.... right off the bat I think of using that as a way to msg the player that doesn't have CPP to install it or miss out on the content/possibly break some features should I not attach the hakpaks.

[MannyJabrielle]

Question/comment on one of the spell tweaks/fixes.  The current documentation says that the 'continual flame' spell has been changed to mark the targeted item as stolen, although there is a module switch to disable that change, and to check x2_inc_switches for the switch.

 

I looked through x2_inc_switches, and there's no switch, or is the feature bundled up with the functions of another switch and it's just not labeled in the description of the various switches?

Comment in general.... Couldn't there be a better way to handle the continual flame/selling change?  As far as I know, marking an item as stolen only limits which merchants you can sell the item too, as there are merchants who do buy stolen items, so for fixing this as far as the OC's.... doesn't really stop it, just hassles the player doing it by making them have to sell to the black-market merchants.  While they might not get as much as I do believe the OC stolen goods merchants buy stuff at a lower price, the player is still making a profit by lighting up the copper rings he finds.

 

Offhand I would say just lower the GP value of the "light" permanent properties to virtually nothing (similar to the disarm-whip feat, which costs nothing compared to the regular disarm feat on the same item).  That would solve the exploit (if we could really qualify it as an exploit), although it would 'cheapen' light items in general (at low levels, that 125 gp light ring can be a major investment).  But then again, that could be changed by the module builder as well.... manually raise the price on such light-enabled items to whatever he or she deems appropriate.  For the OC's... I wouldn't say light items/torches are *that* much of an issue since the OC's don't really have any super dark areas.

 

And  last, a suggestion.  Could the switch (as it is now) be added to the widget's switches for the player to control?  I personally don't view this issue as a strict exploit.  Cheap gameplay, yes, but not an exploit as in the non-patched behavior the spell is doing exactly what it is supposed to.  Builders who want to address this issue in their own modules would still be able to do so (just as non-patch builders... change the spell's behavior directly as I've seen done by making the spell create a very long lasting temp property, or modifying their item property costs 2das, or whatever other method they choose).

[MannyJabrielle]

Oh, and a second question on spell specific notes in the current documentation....

For the weapon enhancing spells (holy sword, magic weapon/greater magic weapon, darkfire, flame weapon), they all say "spell is now custom content compatible.".  What exactly does that mean?

Offhand I'm going to guess that it means custom content as in non-standard NWN weapon types such as the "double scimitar" from CEP and the various holdable objects in project Q?

[Shadooow]

That switch is gone. I removed it in 1.71 along with switch for AC type of Ioun stone Dusty Rose.

 

Reasons were two:

1) growing number of switches

2) its a single spell/script - if builder doesn't wish this behavior he can easily change it (which is not a case of other switches which are dependant on modifying numerous scripts,includes and recompiling all together)

 

If you are a player and you don't like it, well I see no reason why would player objected agains dodge AC on dusty rose ioun stone, I understand that players wants to cheat, buy item from store, enhance it with continuous lightning and sell five times expensive, but thats exploit. Not a game mechanic but an NPC AI. Merchant wouldn't bought that. Maybe once, then he would realized you tricken him and stop trading with you.

 

Anyway - the Stolen flag is indeed not perfect, but there you are in contradiction.

You wan't this to be removed so you could sell it, and also to drop cost so you won't be able to make a fortune. Which current solution already offers! As you said you can go to black market and sell this for lower profit.

 

But yes, this solution is not ideal, I did this before I added Item Cost Parameter itemproperty. With this itemproperty it should be possible to decrease cost on the original value or a bit more (some small gain could be there, as its not free especially in modules where rest is charged with food).

 

EDIT: to lower light cost is not an option - it would retroactively changed cost of every items which wouldn't be good. Could change even UMD rank required etc.

This is feature for PW modules, there this exploit can be really problematic. Those who know about it already dealt with it and thus the new script from CPP won't be active, for those who don't this can effectively solve this issue and make it not (enough) profitable.

 

Oh, and a second question on spell specific notes in the current documentation....

For the weapon enhancing spells (holy sword, magic weapon/greater magic weapon, darkfire, flame weapon), they all say "spell is now custom content compatible.".  What exactly does that mean?

Offhand I'm going to guess that it means custom content as in non-standard NWN weapon types such as the "double scimitar" from CEP and the various holdable objects in project Q?

Yes, but it won't recognize holdable objects as weapons unless these new custom items are set as weapon in 2DA which they shouldn't unless its some improvised weapons. In short its now dependant on 2DA settings.

[Shadooow]

Update: no I don't see it possible even with Item Cost Itemproperty. Because item cost is calculated by some weird and twisted multiplying. Thus the 20mWhite light increases cost of the mundane +0 dagger by 500gp but the same dagger with also keen property by 2500gp. The better item already, the higher value this adds - where you can now see the issue, don't you?

 

Technically its possible, but very tricky and not worth the time to me. An item cost before, and after had to be calculated, and then an appropriate chain of Item Cost Itemproperty had to be found (in many cases it will need both C,B and A) and apllied. The main problem is how to calculate which Item Cost itemproperties had to be applied because they are multiplied too. Would be easier to solve with NWNX where I could add/reduce the cost by exact value. But that wouldn't be a good solution since NWNX is optional and also at this moment such feature is not in the scope (with features like this it would interfered with other plugins as there are plugins with such feature already).

[MannyJabrielle]

That switch is gone. I removed it in 1.71 along with switch for AC type of Ioun stone Dusty Rose.

Ok, will remove that from the new documentation.

Follow up... is that switch (and the AC one which I notice before) in version 1.70?

 

 

If you are a player and you don't like it, well I see no reason why would player objected agains dodge AC on dusty rose ioun stone, I understand that players wants to cheat, buy item from store, enhance it with continuous lightning and sell five times expensive, but thats exploit. Not a game mechanic but an NPC AI. Merchant wouldn't bought that. Maybe once, then he would realized you tricken him and stop trading with you.

Perhaps that is a problem with the AI, and one that is not limited to that specific scenario, as the AI just does not react realistically to anything not explicitly handled within it's scripting.  But that's not an exploit of the spell itself, that's just poor game design overall.  That's a clear distinction that has to be made between exploit and game design.

 

For the realism argument, it could easily be said as well that the merchant would gladly buy back those rings....  he is getting a whole stock of magically enchanted rings he can then sell at a higher price than he would have gotten for the plain non-magical ones, and he's controlling both the price he pays for the enchantents, and the price he charges his other customers for the finished products (which is, unless the buy/sell markups are equal), still a profit for him.

 

To frame the argument as the PC is tricking the merchant in an in-character context, you have to view it in the out-of-character context of the NPC merchant is not actually making a profit because he doesn't actually do business with other NPCs mechanics wise.

Likewise, realistically an adventurer finds a plain ring in a dungeon along with that magic dagger and magic spell scroll.  He casts continual light on the ring, and goes to sell all three... There's a break in immersion that the merchant he sells to somehow psychically knows that the gold ring is "stolen" while the other two items aren't, but if that very same ring were not enchanted it wouldn't be "stolen".

And gameplay wise, as I noted earlier... this doesn't actually fix the "exploit" anyway.  It just makes it a hassle for the player who has to sell to the black market merchant instead.

 

The player can *still* buy plain unenchanted goods from the stolen goods merchant, cast CF on them, and sell them back for a profit, so what is actually accomplished with it other than hassling the player?  The spell does exactly what it's supposed to, selling of magical goods works exactly as it's supposed to.  There's really no exploit here, just a lack of AI reaction routines and poor gameplay design that is just inherent in an old game which doesn't have sophisticated AI.

 

 

You wan't this to be removed so you could sell it, and also to drop cost so you won't be able to make a fortune. Which current solution already offers! As you said you can go to black market and sell this for lower profit.

That's not a contradiction.

The solution of changing the item property costs down to a bare mininum would still allow the sale, but not as a means to make a fortune, thus allowing players who DON'T intentionally mass produce light items to sell the ones they do make without having to go through the immersion-breaking routine of finding a black-market merchant for completely out of character reasons.

AND.... it actually solves the issue as it covers all merchants, not just some of them.  If the purpose is to eliminate relatively effortless cash-production with the spell, the current method is not doing it at all, as it creates it's own exploit of the very issue it's intended to fix (and that would be an exploit as it's using game mechanics to bypass the intended game mechanic implementation).

 

 

Yes, but it won't recognize holdable objects as weapons unless these new custom items are set as weapon in 2DA which they shouldn't unless its some improvised weapons. In short its now dependant on 2DA settings.

Excellent, thanks.  And yes, when I mentioned holdable objects, I was thinking specifically about the improvised weapon type items.  Needed to know so I could tweak the change notes to be a bit more clear.

[MannyJabrielle]

Update: no I don't see it possible even with Item Cost Itemproperty. Because item cost is calculated by some weird and twisted multiplying. Thus the 20mWhite light increases cost of the mundane +0 dagger by 500gp but the same dagger with also keen property by 2500gp. The better item already, the higher value this adds - where you can now see the issue, don't you?

Offhand, I recall the item property costs are controlled actually by 2 separate 2das.  After work I planned on modifying some 2da's for my module, I can take a look at implementing the change effectively for the light property while I have the 2da editor open.  I see no issue preventing it from working as I can cite 3 item properties that behave in that exact manner already.