240 réponses à ce sujet

[simuseb]

I haven't played Aielund Saga, but the mounts in Wyvern Crown of Cormyr were so frustrating to both use and control that it eventually caused outright anger.  That, however, may have been because using the mounts was required to progress through parts of the module.  If they were not required, I would have no problem with their inclusion.

 

That's my stance. Players should be warned that the whole system is clunky and may cause some issues, but unless these issues are game breaking than they should be left optional. I mean, it's not like the game throws them in your face. I didn't even realise there were mounts in Act 1 until I randomly stumbled upon them. In Act II, they are simply mentioned briefly that you may obtain them from the stables if you so please. I'm more then happy to put up with the issues just so I can use mounts (and already am doing so). 

Since they are optional, I'd prefer they'd stay

[olnorton]

After saving Mona & she's talking to Dante, she says "What exactly are you tring to say here?"

 

When talking to Saffron, about the cleric, she says "I could not seem much of his face"

 

When talking to Sahir, you say "I'll se you when I return with the final piece"

 

Nellise  at the Tusone military camp, to the Aielund knight commander " That was NOT they were told! They're making it up."

 

Talking to the princess at General Duquesne's camp she says "No less than the future of two countries. And we're only going to get once chance at this too. "

And at the same place you say to Nellise " But I'm eager to meet with this General we've come so far to see. You want to come with? "

 

Samantha Holland in the crypt. " I shoud probably look around for a bit of armour though."

Modifié par olnorton, 11 avril 2014 - 11:49 .

[MagicalMaster]

Since they are optional, I'd prefer they'd stay

 

Problem is that they can break triggers for people at a minimum and possibly cause other problems.  Would have to make sure all of the other issues are fixed and whether that's worth the time/effort for such a broken system.  If they were completely neutral and had no negative impacts then it wouldn't be an issue.

[AndarianTD]

AndarianTD, on 08 Apr 2014 - 08:08 AM, said:

I essentially had to re-write the system from scratch for Sanctum 2 when I added ridable pegasi, so I know it's possible to fix them up.

I'm curious, what about them made you think adding them was worth the effort?

 

His point of view is that mounts would be nice to have, all else equal, but they cause more issues than they're worth and thus it's better to simply remove them.  NWN mounts are just not implemented well in general.

 

There were a few reasons, but the main one was that they were important to the plot. The mods are is based on a story that I've been novelizing, and I felt that preserving the role of the pegasi in it was important. I wanted to make that element of the story a part of the module experience as well (in other words, I wanted to be able to do this).

 

It was a lot of trouble, though, and to be candid it does work a lot better in the open areas for which it was designed, where they don't have to crowd around ground objects and terrain. I also used the horse scripts and variables to restrict them only to relatively open areas, such as the sky terrains and the "takeoff" areas that led to them. Sanctum also uses a system that makes it impossible to fully break triggers (if that happens they just get queued), so I didn't have to worry about that. So while it can be done, I can also see that retro-fitting features into Aielund that would make all of that work more smoothly would be a lot of effort. So I'm definitely sympathetic to the decision to just take them out instead.

[MagicalMaster]

Ah, yes, that's some impressive work done with the pegasi and the sky traveling.  There's nothing like that in Aielund, though, the horses were never originally envisioned and they were put in basically because "Eh, why not?" -- but then that wound up causing issues and being a pain.  Hence Savant preferring to remove them.  Definitely understand how they would be useful in other modules.

 

OlNorton, could you please not edit your previous posts and add stuff into them?  Luckily I happened to notice you edited your post but otherwise I would have missed some of those typos.  Just make a new post for the typos you find so I don't miss any.

[olnorton]

I just finished it & found no more bugs or typos.

[MagicalMaster]

Thanks for the effort, much appreciated.

 

Though, for the benefit of people reading this, I will point out that there are other typos -- I spotted one in Act 4 Part 3 at a minimum.  But depending on the dialogue paths you choose you could easily miss them so if you're thinking of doing something similar to OlNorton please do so!  Impossible to find every typo in one go for that reason alone.

[werelynx]

How bout using NWNSpellchecker?

It's available at the old vault.

[MagicalMaster]

Wouldn't catch 75% of the listed typos so far.

 

Example A: Fix "might" to "mighty" in Xyrna's speech

 

Might is a valid word, it just needs to be mighty in that case.

 

Example B: And at the same place you say to Nellise " But I'm eager to meet with this General we've come so far to see. You want to come with?"

 

Missing an "us" at the end, which isn't a spellchecking error.

 

I'll look into it anyway but a lot of work simply needs to be done manually.

[Empyre65]

People actually do say "want to come with?", but maybe not in Aielund.

[Shadooow]

I havent played Aielund Saga yet, but what are you doing here MM is much appreciated. Will probably play this campaign after this is done.

[Elhanan]

It has been a while since I have played this series, but it remains my overall fave NWN storyline; highly recommended. And it helps make Followers beneficial to have along for the experience, simply for the conversations.

[MagicalMaster]

Meaning what?  That you suggest making it so followers don't give an experience penalty?

[Elhanan]

Meaning I enjoy the dialogues of Followers, as opposed to simply wanting tanks and healers. While I prefer to solo in games, it is not because of XP; usually am too annoyed by having them tag along for the trip.

[MagicalMaster]

Ah, gotcha.

 

*Do* people think that making it so you get the same XP with or without followers would be a good idea?  I know rogueknight333 did something similar in Swordflight, not sure how much work that was.

If so, that would mean lowering the solo XP rather than raising the grouped XP -- balance would stay the same while grouped but there would be no real incentive to solo.

[Elhanan]

I would not mess with the XP, as those micro-managing for bonus XP should find ways to acquire it.

 

My advice is to help repair the story and the way it is told rather than revamp all the game mechanics.

[MagicalMaster]

I would not mess with the XP, as those micro-managing for bonus XP should find ways to acquire it.

 

Avoiding bringing the followers to avoid the 36% (1 - (0.8 * 0.8)) XP penalty is micro-managing for bonus XP?

 

My advice is to help repair the story and the way it is told rather than revamp all the game mechanics.

 

Technically I hadn't even considered this until you mentioned this topic, but regardless it wouldn't be revamping the game mechanics -- assuming you brought the maximum number of followers along (as intended) there wouldn't be any difference.  Seems it might be a good idea in order to encourage people to bring the followers since, like you said, they add a lot.  In most campaigns there's a disincentive to get followers if you can manage to solo it since you get more XP.

Not sold on the idea by any means, but if it's not too difficult to do it's something I'm considering.

[Elhanan]

Anyone not using these Followers is missing a great deal of the interactive story. Doing so for a bump in XP is it's own punishment/ reward.

[rogueknight333]

*Do* people think that making it so you get the same XP with or without followers would be a good idea?  I know rogueknight333 did something similar in Swordflight, not sure how much work that was.

If so, that would mean lowering the solo XP rather than raising the grouped XP -- balance would stay the same while grouped but there would be no real incentive to solo.

 

I am not certain it would actually be a good idea to implement this, since altering things in this way would now create an incentive not to solo (no compensation for losing henchman support) which some people might prefer to do. Arguably you would be changing the character of the series rather than simply fixing things that are clearly issues. It would also be tricky to fine tune so precisely that it made no difference at all to XP one way or the other - I was OK with the incentives created by setting things up so that taking henchmen along actually gave an XP advantage. I am also not certain how well my system would work in a multiplayer context since it is a global change, not one just affecting the PC who hires the henchman.

 

That said, if you are interested in implementing something like the system used in Swordflight, what I did was to adjust the Module XP Scale upward whenever a henchman joins the party, and adjust it downward whenever a henchman either leaves or dies. Swordflight's Base XP Scale was 5, and this went up by 2 (i.e. more than the 20% penalty imposed) each time a new henchman joined, up to 11 if one has 3 henchmen (the maximum allowed in Swordflight 2). To do this you need to:

 

1) adjust "x0_inc_henai" so that the ability to dismiss a henchman using radial controls is disabled (as I did) or alternatively include the XP adjustment there. Then recompile "x0_ch_hen_conv" (or whatever script is used in henchmen's "On Conversation" event if it is a custom one) to incorporate the change.

 

2) Adjust the XP Scale upwards in the conversational script that has a henchman join

 

3) Adjust the XP Scale downward in the conversational script used to fire a henchman

 

4) Give each henchman a custom "On Death" script that adjusts the XP Scale downward

 

5) Give each henchman a custom "On Spell Cast At" script that adjusts the XP Scale upward when the henchman is raised by spell and rejoins the party (assuming this happens automatically as in Swordflight rather than through conversation - do not remember how it works in Aielund).

 

For more info you can look at following scripts in Swordflight Chapter 2:

 

-modified "x0_inc_henai" ( IIRC correctly you should look at line 873 for the relevant section)

-"sca_henchhire001" and "s_library002" that it includes (my standard conversation script for hiring a henchman)

-"sca_henchfire001" (my standard conversation script for firing a henchman)

-"sk_hendeath001" (custom OnDeath script for henchmen)

-"sk_henspell001" (custom OnSpellCastAt script for henchmen)

-"s_test003" and "s_test004" are two scripts that can be run in Debug Mode - the first tells you what the current XP Scale is, the second resets it to the module's default value (useful for testing and debugging the system).

[Empyre65]

Anyone not using these Followers is missing a great deal of the interactive story. Doing so for a bump in XP is it's own punishment/ reward.

I agree with this. There is no need to change the experience penalty for having henchmen, becuse the modules are balanced with henchmen in mind.

[MagicalMaster]

I am not certain it would actually be a good idea to implement this, since altering things in this way would now create an incentive not to solo (no compensation for losing henchman support) which some people might prefer to do.

 

Technically there's an incentive to solo as much as possible and then get the followers if you run into a problem -- that way both you and the followers are higher level than if you always brought them.

 

I agree with this. There is no need to change the experience penalty for having henchmen, becuse the modules are balanced with henchmen in mind.

 

That would actually be a reason TO change the penalty -- because in most modules you're better off soloing.  Making it so using henchmen didn't give an experience penalty would make it clear you're expected to use both followers and that it's balanced assuming you will -- otherwise players may try to solo or only use one follower and then think the module is too difficult.

Regardless, 99% likelihood I wouldn't change anything as it's something that you're better off designing from the start and it would be a very low priority, but it is something interesting to think about.

[Empyre65]

In the old version I have, the master weapon smith in Twilight in Ch 4 part 3 says that the katana will be the best weapon he even made, which obviously should be ever.

 

That should tell you about where I am in my current play-through.

[Kylepc]

why not a port to nwn 2 engine or dragon age?

[MrZork]

I know I am late to the discussion about the PC(s) having associates along in the Aeilund modules and modules in general. But, I think that the goal should be that having associates doesn't change either 1) the general challenge level of the encounters or 2) the XP acquisition for the PC(s). I think that the second of those should be relatively straightforward in tweaking the XP awards to essentially cancel out the party-size penalty. The first goal is more difficult, particularly since so many modules place enemies statically in a way that doesn't scale for party size (or level, really). Ideally both goals would be accomplished in one step by scaling the encounters so that additional and/or more difficult opponents spawn according to the party composition and beating them down results in the same XP for a larger or stronger party as if a single PC had beaten them.

 

I understand the goal of attempting social engineering to incentivize the PC to take henchmen along or not. But, at the end of the day it may be best to make it clear there is nothing to be gained or lost in terms of quantifiable rewards, though the story will be more enjoyable with henchmen (or without). Then, let the PC determine what he prefers to do, knowing that his decision won't result in a weaker or stronger character. (Obviously, this doesn't apply to henchmen who are mandatory for story progression.)

 

BTW, at least one module I have played has partly discouraged the PC from using the tactic of plowing recklessly through the module and then simply reloading a saved game when he hits an encounter where that doesn't work. The technique was simply to put the best shops in the fugue plain that the PC only had access to by respawning. Basically, the PC will never get a chance at the best gear if he always reloads instead of respawning. And, if he legitimately never dies, then he obviously doesn't need the best gear, so no great loss.

[MagicalMaster]

why not a port to nwn 2 engine or dragon age?

 

I don't think you understand what building involves.  Making these changes will take 2-3 weeks of work (mainly for the stuff like upgrading the Fort Highmarch battle).

 

Porting it to NWN2 or Dragon Age would take years.

 

I know I am late to the discussion about the PC(s) having associates along in the Aeilund modules and modules in general. But, I think that the goal should be that having associates doesn't change either 1) the general challenge level of the encounters or 2) the XP acquisition for the PC(s).

 

I don't agree with 1 in this circumstance and it's a moot point regardless as that would be far too much of an overhaul.  2 would be easier if designed from the ground up -- doable in general but it's debatable about whether it's a good idea to do.  Something that's low priority regardless.

 

BTW, at least one module I have played has partly discouraged the PC from using the tactic of plowing recklessly through the module and then simply reloading a saved game when he hits an encounter where that doesn't work. The technique was simply to put the best shops in the fugue plain that the PC only had access to by respawning. Basically, the PC will never get a chance at the best gear if he always reloads instead of respawning. And, if he legitimately never dies, then he obviously doesn't need the best gear, so no great loss.

 

Guessing you're referring to Careena: Krakona Rising (or some spelling like that).  Seemed rather silly, frankly, especially since you wound up with some items that could only be used in the Fugue Plane -- so if you never died you were left wondering what the point of the tomes was.  Had to intentionally die to see that -- and it seems quite odd to encourage people to die to grab those items.