919 réponses à ce sujet

[Bogdanov89]

Massive text erased (irrelevant to CPP), as requested by ShadoOow.

 

ShadoOow, do you perhaps know how long will the beta of 1.72 last?

Are you guessing a few weeks or maybe even months?

[Shadooow]

Jesus, dont you both want to go back to your posts and edit all this personal stuff? I think that one is certain - nobody there had in intention to pursue or persecute players who are doing whatever others might consider cheating in their own SP gameplay. You are getting this only worse with this post Bogdanov.

 

Now that that ugly business is done with...

 

ShadoOow, do you perhaps know how long will the beta of 1.72 last?

Are you guessing a few weeks or maybe even months?

Well I decided that there will be a 1.72 only a week ago. I don't think there are many issues that would need to fix anymore even the hardcoded ones, but I do not intent to do that anytime soon.

 

1) To release a new patch version every two month is not desired. Peoples wants a stability and current development might include things that shouldn't be there and if thats going to be raised I can now remove them while if I released it as a "final" it would be most problematic. Furthermore, builders do not want to remake their spellscripts every 2 months etc., at least I think they don't. While thats not even required, every builder has to at least study the new changes and features and decide whether to turn them on/off or remake. There are few PWs which use 1.71 - decision is up to them .- if they want the new features ASAP, a shorter development cycle can be done.

 

2) This hasn't been tested yet. What I am especially careful about is the quality of my work and ensuring it will be compatible backwards (with 1.69) and also forwards (with custom content). And ensuring there are no new bugs and issues. I think I managed to do that with 1.71 nicely, while I was the only tester (was testing this in PW environment on a PW Arkhalia). At this moment only three issues raised, from that 1 purely visual, second was a duplicate check in script without affection a functionality and third was the issue with healers' kits the MannyJabrielle found (extremely rare issue to say). Current 1.72 beta needs extensive testing especially of all polymorph fixes and features. I am no longer in admin position on Arkhalia PW and the new managment decided they do not need any new CPP (still running on one of the betas actually all the development on module stopped). So I cannot test any of these - furthermore they are running linux anyway and the latest NWNX_Patch is available only for windows so far (and I have no control over linux version, when it will be done and if it will be done at all).

 

3) While there is almost nothing to fix anymore, there is another step that CPP can do if this will be desired and that is to create a better framwork for (starting) builders. To include various scripting system such as advanced walk waypoints etc. I do personally use CPP exactly in this way as a framework that has many of I need in my building attempts, so I would personally like to do that. But the ultimate decisions have a builders building with CPP. If this direction will be approved there is a lot of what can be added into 1.72.

 

Note, while I do discouraging builders from using 1.72, this applies rather to the NWNX_Patch which is optional. This is least tested thing because I wasn't able to test it in multiplayer with other players where I worry how it will behave. The rest of the 1.72 - the scripting improvements such as new polymorph is safe to use. There ,might be little bugs but if anything will be found I will provide fix in very short time.

[Bogdanov89]

I definitely agree on the quality over speed approach, the 1.71+Addons is great and the 1.72 has a lot of awesome changes - but none of them are urgent.

 

You definitely wrote a large reply - i was merely asking because my younger brother dislikes "betas", and he prefers to wait for 1.72 final to play it...

While i would love to play right now with all the sweet 1.72 changes xD

 

 

While the discussion between me and MannyJabrielle is no longer active, i am not sure what did you mean by your first paragraph:

 

I did not go back and edit any of my posts - what little editing i did after posting were typo errors and similar.

Did you mean we should go back and erase our posts, or at least replace all of the text with something else?

 

I also had absolutely no intention of insulting, pursuing or persecuting anyone - as i have written in my 2nd post, "I really had no ill will towards any players".

Honestly i really do not care what people do on their PW or in their single player campaigns... i have nothing against using cheats or whatever else fancies the player.

 

I do not understand what am i getting worse with this post?

The discussion me and MannyJabrielle had is over... he is free to post whatever he wants, but i will not be responding to his shenanigans.

 

Again, sorry if our squabble annoyed you

[Shadooow]

Did you mean we should go back and erase our posts, or at least replace all of the text with something else?

yes thats what i mean, both of you

[Bogdanov89]

yes thats what i mean, both of you

 

I edited out both of my replies to MannyJabrielle, as you have asked of us.

 

I just remembered something weird i saw in Chapter/Act 3 and 4 of original NWN campaign.

 

It happened a couple of times when my wizard casted either a necromancy or an enchantment (dominate) spell on an enemy.

 

My combat log said something like:

Monster rolls a will-save (or fort save) DC of 32 while I roll a DC of 34 - my spell failed!

 

I am no math wizard, but 34 is higher than 32... and unless i am missing something fairly obvious, my spell should not have failed?

 

I checked and the enemy had no immunities to anything - i even casted the big Disjunction spell against the enemy before my necromancy (or enchantment) spell!

 

Would it help if i got a screen shot or a save game of that happening?

Because it happened a few times in acts 3 and 4, and once it almost got me killed

[Shadooow]

yes please screenshot would be very helpfup

[Shadooow]

I am not sure immunities stack at all when unpolymorphed, so i do not know if it is needed for polymorph.

I just tested this and it seems that damage immunity/vulnerability stacks even on single item (unlike most other properties). No need to recalculate that then.

[Shadooow]

For builders: I wrote a tutorial for an advanced usage of the spell override variables feature. This is not written in the CPP readme since this is basically a custom content based on CPP features.

 

Tutorial: How to modify caster level, DC or metamagic dynamically without need to recompile all spellscripts

 

[Bogdanov89]

ShadoOow for president of Bioware!

 

About my previously mentioned issue with strange DC rolls - i know there is something called "spectacular failure" if you roll a 1 on DC checks, which means you automatically failed the check.

 

Is there such a thing as a "spectacular success" that can guarantee a DC win regardless of what your actual power/skill is?

 

 

Also could you please explain to me when does the "coup de grace" attack occur in combat?

 

I have seen it happen sometimes on targets that my Wizard has afflicted with crowd control spells - but i do not know which type of effect causes the target to be vulnerable to "coup de grace" and which ones do not?

[Shadooow]

ShadoOow for president of Bioware!

 

Is there such a thing as a "spectacular success" that can guarantee a DC win regardless of what your actual power/skill is?

 

 

Also could you please explain to me when does the "coup de grace" attack occur in combat?

 

I have seen it happen sometimes on targets that my Wizard has afflicted with crowd control spells - but i do not know which type of effect causes the target to be vulnerable to "coup de grace" and which ones do not?

yes it is - if you roll 20 on saving throw then you success regardless of DC

 

coup de grace info

[Talon]

there is a possibility to implement in IA for npc or pg for "raise dead" spell on death monsters?

[Shadooow]

there is a possibility to implement in IA for npc or pg for "raise dead" spell on death monsters?

yes I could do that, i taught henchmans to do this, the reason why I didn't allow this to monsters is not to break old behavior of the preexisting monsters especially on PW

 

but I could do this as a HIGH_AI_LEVEL feature I guess, would that work for you?

[Talon]

Well normally npc don't have raise death/resurrection or similar as default spell...so could be not necessary change ai! Is a builder choise.

Is possible use the spell too for pg to death npc body?

[Shadooow]

Well normally npc don't have raise death/resurrection or similar as default spell...so could be not necessary change ai! Is a builder choise.

Is possible use the spell too for pg to death npc body?

Actually, what I encountered is that a lot of builders is making creatures via LevelUp Wizard which gives them lot of spells that AI cannot use. Greater restoratioin, resurrect, mass heal. Then they balance the creature to way they need, but don't remove spells which creature didn't use. Either because they didn't even went to the Spells tab or just because they didn't had to remove them.

 

And these builders (or players at least) will be mad if CPP allows AI to use these spells which creatures didn't used before. It will significally affect a balance because every single one of these spells is making creature twice as tough than before since she can heal to 100% or resurrect dead allies to 100%.

 

I've experienced this on Arkhalia PW where I was using 1.71beta and testing it there. Yes, builder can remove these spells afterwards but then CPP is forcing him to do that which is not desired by many.

 

 

what is pg?

[Shadooow]

BTW, when toying with the backpack as a cloak. I had this idea. What about adding the old cloaks to the game again? This is now basically hidden content because they are still there just overriden by new cloaks. (This would have to be in hak though)

 

What I found out is that any custom item you put into cloak slot now shows the uncolored (brown) plain cloak (model 1), which I found out how to disable - which might be good idea to do for the old cloaks?

[Talon]

i mean players..they can in this way raise death npc too!?

[Shadooow]

i mean players..they can in this way raise death npc too!?

No. Only if you made the corpses selectable (which for NPCs is not needed - just set longer fade)

[Bogdanov89]

ShadoOow, with all this talk about switches that allow players to choose what is active in the CPP - is there any chance for those ranged weapon improvements that i mentioned a while ago?

 

I will write them here for easy reading:

 

1. All ranged weapons automatically Mighty up to the character's (total) strength modifier (instead of just throwing axes and darts).

2. Possibly a feat that makes ranged weapons (both projectile and thrown) use Strength instead of Dexterity for attack rolls (similar to Zen Archery, but for Strength instead of Wisdom).

3. Specific feats/bonuses, like Weapon Master feats and the various epic Barbarian Rages, fully working with all ranged weapons.

4. Changing standard bioware weapons like Longbow +3 to also give the damage bonus, instead of only the attack bonus.

 

5. (new idea ^^) Ability to cast spells like greater magic weapon and darkflame to affect both projectile and throwing ranged weapons.

 

 

I do not know how many players would be interested in the above improvements as optional switches (or separate mods/files/addons), but i just thought of asking about it since it would be rather awesome to have a Weapon-Master in Throwing Axes!!!

[Gruftlord]

imho, adding a feat is not easily possible (point 2)

points 1, 3 and 4 are to my understanding not DnD rules, and i see not how they would qualify as an addition to a Patch mod.

if this is something that shadooow can add via an nwnx.dll, then why not. afaik, adding new options for builders to set up new modules is something Shadooow wants to tackle with the project.

 

number 5 sounds reasonable imho. no reason, why a GMW should not be able to add damage to an arrow and AB to a bow. should it apply both in one casting? dunno.

[Shadooow]

Adding feats is not in the CPP scope for sure. The feats for Shou Disciple and Eye of Gruumsh (and the classes themselves) are an exception because they were already there (hidden content) - plus from safety reasons since anyone trying to reuse those lines would be confused with the additional bonuses the game provides.

 

CPP really cannot add a custom content classes, spells nor feats.

 

Bogdanov, if you want such feats you should try the Players Resources Consortium (PRC), it addes more than hundred new classes, more than hundred new spells and more than hundred new general feats into game. Those you wish specifically arent there but should give you different options with comparable results.

 

Though, automatic mighty for shuriken and sling could be an option for a switch because these are in DnD rules. Not sure about 3.0, but definitely in 3.5. However, the reason why I didnt added this already is because CPP shouldnt become a DnD 3.5 ruleset mod. The current way I do stuff is that when I find something odd/unlogical/or wrong I always refer to DnD rules and if its working differently there I do it. I do not making things up as many thinks.

 

3. Barbarian rages do work with ranged weapons.

4. Wouldnt be doable as a switch - I mean, it can be done dynamically but not seamlessly which is what I always try for.

5. Hmm this seemed to me as a little imbalanced, but no problem to add as an optional switch if players wish (this is a good candidate for switch because its not easy to make a CC to do this - multiple spells and need to modify include library)

[Shadooow]

if this is something that shadooow can add via an nwnx.dll, then why not. afaik, adding new options for builders to set up new modules is something Shadooow wants to tackle with the project.

I can do that, the problem is many of these features were already done. For NWNX at least.

 

I dont think it would be right to steal other plugin's job. Unless the original author will specifically want to include his content under CPP but that has a downside that I would want to include it under single plugin not to ship the other plugins with it. And thats something that many nwnx developers wont accept.

 

Otherwise it would be nice to have an ability to change whether is weapon finessable, useable by monk with flurry or have extra module events such as OnToggleMode, OnCastSpell etc.

[MannyJabrielle]

Well but  you know no spell in DnD breaks improved invisibility. And this is actually possible to implement in NWN - it has real improved invisibility that can be turned on, the current improved invisibility is a workaround as the real one was extremely powerful and AI couldnt react on it. The NWN ii is a combination of the normal ii + 50% concealment. And this normal invisibility is lost anytime you do something harmful to anyone - is curse song harmful? no odubt about that.

Yeah, that's why I only initially jotted it down as something to ask about.  I did remember tabletop improved invis acted much differently than NWN's version.  The tabletop version would be nice, but the AI would definitely be more important to maintain.  And yes, curse certainly is a harmful one

 

 

 

Clarification: NWN has an effect and duration scaling system. This is a script that reduces duration depending on a game difficulty and swap effects for less harmful ones. This triggers only if a PC is a target of such spell by default.

 

Ah, ok, that clears it up... just like how confuse (or whatever spell/effect is cited in the difficulty slider descrition) will give a daze effect at lower dificulties.

 

 

Anyway - it would be possible to rework this to require both, I understand that this would be a nice feature for some epic musical instruments. Will do.

That was the idea I had in mind for a later chapter in my campaign... a couple of high end musical instruments I wanted to restrict to not just bards, but very skilled ones

 

Clarification: Several 1.69 scripts has been affected and compiled with the x3_inc_skin library. Every spell that was recompiled with this library now creates a PC Skin on a caster or target and this skin then remains in loot. This is something that The Krit fixed, but I took different route to do that and I rewrote the mount check in a way it no longer needs a x3_inc_horse include which I therefore removed from the offended scripts to make it more clean. But basically, from a generic user this line means the only thing: fixed PC Skin issues.

Great, thanks.

 

txt would be nice

Will do.  Will get it to you as soon as I can, it's just been damn busy lately.  Parade season, so lots of truck prep  And I try to actually play the game now and then lol.

[Shadooow]

 

Ah, ok, that clears it up... just like how confuse (or whatever spell/effect is cited in the difficulty slider descrition) will give a daze effect at lower dificulties.

Addendum:

CPP implement this feature into fear spells where it results in attack decrease penalty instead. This was already in the code of the effect scalling function just non-functional (which I found after 1.70, where it doesn't work) and unused - no actual fear spell/ability uses this in vanilla.

[MannyJabrielle]

So the patch *does* implement scaling, vanilla non-patched was supposed to at one point, but for whatever reason, bioware never actually put it in?

[Shadooow]

So the patch *does* implement scaling, vanilla non-patched was supposed to at one point, but for whatever reason, bioware never actually put it in?

yes