448 réponses à ce sujet

[Lance Botelle]

Do you know that you can still use the campaign to override this?  If you have both a module-level and a campaign-level conversation, the one in the campaign folder will be used, so you don't actually need to use the hak method.  It will of course change the conversation to a campaign-level conversation, but as long as you don't have any other conversations that use the same name, there will be no conflict.

Hi Tchos,

Yes, I was aware of the campaign folder does a priority read .... however, I am trying to ensure that only campaign scripts and conversations are placed inside the campaign folder. If I start placing the odd module file in there, I may confuse myself.

At least if I have a single "patch" place in a hak, then I know where everything has gone for those that would need the changes. I know , in theory, I could have a "patch" folder in the campaign folder too, but it still amounts to the same thinking (for me).

Cheers,
Lance.

[andysks]

On one hand, having things at a campaign base allows easy access. But a module resource allows for one more fix. That is, if a convo breaks and is a module resource, tell the people to put the new one in campaign. Breaks again, a new one in override, and then on hak. If you work immediately from hak, then you need to fix that hak if it breaks again.

 

I personally use module for convos that have no interference with other areas, campaign for important convos which I want access through all my modules, and only hak I use at the moment is the bonus blueprints from Bob. Campaign folder is our friend .

[Lance Botelle]

On one hand, having things at a campaign base allows easy access. But a module resource allows for one more fix. That is, if a convo breaks and is a module resource, tell the people to put the new one in campaign. Breaks again, a new one in override, and then on hak. If you work immediately from hak, then you need to fix that hak if it breaks again.
 
I personally use module for convos that have no interference with other areas, campaign for important convos which I want access through all my modules, and only hak I use at the moment is the bonus blueprints from Bob. Campaign folder is our friend .

Hi andysks,

You can, of course, simply replace the campaign version each time including *after* the first time of changing. i.e. You can simply replace campaign files every time they need updating. So, the theory is, you would not need to use any other form of higher priority file position. So, I certainly agree that the campaign folder is a great "friend".

However, to keep files from an override folder and to avoid placing module scripts in a campaign folder, I will intend to use the priority hak system to update any module files that need patching. In this sense, the priority hak works like the campaign folder, in that you can keep updating the hak with newer versions of the same file, which will override the existing module files.

Basically, we certainly have more means to "fix" a module that is underway, which is a great relief.

Cheers,
Lance.

[Tchos]

Andy, I'm not sure what you were saying about putting fixes first in the campaign folder, then in override, etc.  As Lance says, you never need to go beyond the campaign folder, because it will use what is in the campaign folder even if you change it later.  It's true that if you can't replace the file in the campaign folder for some reason (there is no reason I can think of) then you would have to use a higher-level override, but that surely won't happen.  The advantage the campaign folder has is ease of access, mainly, and not having to replace, say, a 20-50MB file every time you want to make a 10-50KB script or conversation fix.

[andysks]

I was just thinking of a conversation file, which let's say already fired. Will replacing it in the campaign folder cause the new one to fire? I always replace mine, and seem to work that way. But I always ask my testers where they are in order for fixes to take place or not. Perhaps it's unnecessary precaution from what I hear .

[kamal_]

I was just thinking of a conversation file, which let's say already fired. Will replacing it in the campaign folder cause the new one to fire? I always replace mine, and seem to work that way. But I always ask my testers where they are in order for fixes to take place or not. Perhaps it's unnecessary precaution from what I hear .

It should. It definitely does when you update a "patch hak" hak file.

[Tchos]

I can't see any reason why it wouldn't.  It's the way all of my updates have been done, which include conversations.

[andysks]

That's good to know. And I've been writing ReadMe files for the testers with specific instructions, while all I should have done is tell them "drop this there and override the previous, or unzip and merge". .

[Tchos]

It's okay, I generally ignore specific instructions if I know they're unnecessary.

[Lance Botelle]

Hi andysks,

As all said, you can safely replace any existing script or conv in the campaign folder without it being an issue. The main reason for using the priority hak system nowadays, is simply (if like me) you want to avoid mixing module files with campaign ones ... and also wish to avoid using the override. Using the priority hak is (as far as I can see) a much cleaner and safer way to keep patching up to date and reasonably small, and without duplicating files in too many places. Whether you choose to add a folder to the campaign folder called "Patch" and keep updating files in that, or simply replace a single hak (with the same updated files) is the choice really.

 

 

Cheers,

Lance.
 

[Tchos]

Of course, I never mix module resources and campaign resources, either.  I just make everything possible into a campaign resource. 

[Lance Botelle]

Of course, I never mix module resources and campaign resources, either.  I just make everything possible into a campaign resource. 

Very droll ...

Latest alpha-testing updates in a minute or two ...

Lance.

[Lance Botelle]

Alpha Testing #4

And so the testing continues ... At least this part is fairly light going and relatively easy to do.
 
Objects & Lighting
 
I came across an area that I decided needed a few more objects and a change in lighting. It was one of the first I put together, and involves more activity than eye-candy, and so it does not require too much more. What I have now added should suffice, hopefully.
 
Quest Logical Flow Error
 
I found a logical flow error in one of my early "basic" quests, where a player could complete a quest and then ask about it. It was a quick variable fix.
 
Resting Companions
 
This was the "biggest" issue today. Due to the way I register companions (to the particular player that asks them to join), the companion count (or selection) can change according to which player (normally in a MP game) does the talking or action in question. Of course, in a SP game, this does not normally differ, but I discovered an error where I had accidentally associated companions with each other rather than with the MainPC, which made the counting of them return an error on occasion. E.g. A PC can initiate "resting" at a tavern, which brings up the Accommodation GUI. This GUI was rightly showing the number of "lodgers" (i.e. The party number who needed space to rest), but charged the incorrect amount once accepting. It ended up too cheap. Can't have that!
 
General Feedback
 
Once again, I discovered the occasional misleading feedback, which needed clarifying. E.g. If a PC tried using "R"  to initiate "REST" (while in a tavern), then it was not clear that proper resting had to be initiated by talking to the tavern staff. This has now been updated.
 
Companion Inventories (Disappearing)
 
This is one of those annoying things I noticed a long while ago, had implemented a "fix", but was never happy with that fix, as it was unreliable. At the time, I did not worry too much about it, as the problem would only really show if a player dismissed an NPC, and then asked them to join again. If this was done, then the companion that joined again would have their inventory "empty". That is, the items would not show up until you started adding new items into their inventory. I believe this is a bug that has been around for some time (in the game), and so I decided to adopt a version of my tombstone system to fix it properly. i.e. Now what happens, is when a companion is asked to leave (for whatever reason), then their equipment goes into a temporary storage, whereupon it is recalled and given back to them if the player asks them to join again. Testing has shown this to work just fine.
 
Core Death and Respawn Scripts
 
This problem is tied in closely with the resting error I discovered (mentioned above), in that sometimes, a companion had been incorrectly associated with another companion (if the player was possessing that instead of the main PC at time of interaction), which meant there was a risk that a companion may not be correctly treated. This problem was "fixed" at the same time I address the other problem mentioned above.

 

New Code

 

A quick thanks to KevL who wrote a function for me that would check v elemental protection on a creature, be it due to spell/feat or item. That will prove to be very helpful and I recommend it to other builders who may also want to check for such elemental protection on occasion.
 
Module Progress ....
 
I was surprised to find that I have already managed to reach level 3 with my party of three clerics. (I really ought to try expanding with other classes.) It still feels like I have only just started, and still finding my feet, which means I may have to look some more at XP distribution. That said, however, there is something to be said about helping PCs reach a reasonable level before they start talking the bigger risks, and so maybe this is still good. After all, other players may not take the path I did, and so XP may not be so forth coming for some.
 
More later, as I make progress....

 

A ) Approximate Alpha Testing completion of points check list: 6%

B ) Approximate potential additional coding needed (to date) of points check list: 0.15%

 

Point B ) has been weighted by a factor of 10 to help give a better representation of estimated additional work compared to entire module. The extra coding will not be done until after being released to BETA and only then if others notice the same things as I did.

[Dann-J]

Both the OC and SoZ jump the player to level 3 before they encounter any potentially lethal action. I personally don't like being mollycoddled in such a way by a game. If I insist on taking on dangerous enemies while still at level 1 then I either deserve to die, or I better have one hell of a cunning plan in mind (preferably better than anything Baldric could come up with).

 

I have a very simple script (part of my overland map weather system) that checks for feats or items that protect specifically from cold. Since my hail storms don't do damage to the player on the overland map (they just slow you down if you fail a fortitude throw), I had no need to check how much protection the player has. I considered any amount of cold protection to be enough. I can see many uses for KevL's mega-script though.

[Arkalezth]

Both the OC and SoZ jump the player to level 3 before they encounter any potentially lethal action. I personally don't like being mollycoddled in such a way by a game. If I insist on taking on dangerous enemies while still at level 1 then I either deserve to die, or I better have one hell of a cunning plan in mind (preferably better than anything Baldric could come up with).

 

The problem is that EVERYTHING is potentially lethal at level 1. It's easy for most characters to die in one hit, and I'm not even counting criticals. Besides, I suppose this is up to personal preference, but I find low level combat a pain in the ass, being mostly random and taking an eternity with a single attack per round (companions and certain feats help a bit, but still), so the fastest I can get to level 6-ish, the better. Not to mention that having a few levels under your belt makes sense RP wise if you have some experience as a mercenary/adventurer/whatever.

 

Of course, you can always rely on fed ex quests to give players a couple of levels, which is essentially the same thing, just playable, and not particularly fun in some cases.

[kamal_]

The problem is that EVERYTHING is potentially lethal at level 1. It's easy for most characters to die in one hit, and I'm not even counting criticals.

Here's ways to handle level 1 combat: weaponless kobolds, gibberlings, etc. with low enough strength they have a damage penalty, especially if you don't throw a lot of them at once at the party so the party outnumbers them.  Small giant ants or rats (less HP than normal, less damage) will work. An already wounded creature (the farmer hit the wolf with an arrow as it was escaping with a chicken). There are things you can have a first level party fight directly.

 

Also if the players aren't smart enough to use ranged weapons to initiate combat at low level well that's their fault for not listening to their elven ranger foster father. With the ranged weapons they get in a freebie attack against non-ranged equipped enemies, or even more than one if you give the players positioning that allows multiple attack such as forcing the enemies to run around a fence to reach the player while remaining in range.

 

Finally, you can give the players other advantages, such as chokepoints or fighting from behind castle walls and shooting out the arrow holes to give them a big AC bonus.

[Dann-J]

No-one should be engaging in potentially lethal combat at level 1. Running away from such an encounter should be the first and only response. Level 1 characters should only take such risks if they've planned in advance, either by setting a trap they can lead their pursuer into, or by joining a group (preferably a large group) to reduce the chance of them being targeted individually.

 

Any level 1 character who walks up to someone (or something) and deliberately picks a fight face-to-face shouldn't ever expect to reach level 2 - except perhaps as a 2 HD undead animated by someone else.

[Arkalezth]

Well, whatever one engages is, first and foremost, up to the module author. And I never suggested to ignore tactics (the few ones you may have at that level, anyway), I'm just saying that "no potentially lethal fights at level 1" means pretty much the same as "no fights at level 1 at all". Yes, you can balance the encounters somewhat, but only up to a point. I know of a certain Bhaalspawn that might disagree about those harmless kobolds and gibberlings...

 

Might be going a bit too much off-topic here. The point is, I don't think that not starting at level 1 is a bad thing, especially if there's an RP reason behind it. An experienced adventurer who starts at level 1 doesn't make any more sense than a level 10 kid who has never seen a sword in his life.

[Dann-J]

I'm just saying that "no potentially lethal fights at level 1" means pretty much the same as "no fights at level 1 at all".

 

That's where enemies that only do subdual damage prove useful - although I'm not sure whether it works properly in NWN2. There are the 'training clubs' at the start of the OC that are supposed to be subdual, but I wouldn't mind betting that something else is going on there to prevent permanent player death.

 

It certainly worked fine in the old 2nd edition isometric games. If you weren't a monk, you could beat people into submission with your bare fists, safe in the knowledge that you wouldn't accidentally kill them. I usually gave poor Noober a frequent thrashing. Enemies that only beat you into submission at level 1, rather than finishing you off completely, would provide plenty of 'safe' fights.

[Lance Botelle]

Hi All,

 

Interesting discussion here ... And from the gist of it, it sounds like I will leave the combat and XP as it currently stands then. As the player can potentially reach a "reasonable" level (by which I mean "survivable" level), as long as they play sensibly and do not go gung-ho and miss all the warning signs. i.e. A PC will die if they act rashly, but can get quite well established if they do not try to wander too far in the early stages ... but the beauty is, they can do so, but at their own risk of a swift death!

 

I will try to do another update later ...

 

Cheers,

Lance.

[kamal_]

In BG1, when you leave Candlekeep you are directed to tge Friendly Arm Inn. If you walk along the road leading there you encounter nothing of real note. If you start roaming around in the forest on those maps then there are 4th or 5th level bears and an ogre and it's just you and imoen at level one or two. You chose to walk off the safe path and likely got killed for it sin e a single bear or ogre easily takes you down at that level. It wasnt until you had a party of four at third level that a single ogre is really in reach and even then it was easily possible to lose someone in the fight.

Of course BG let you be stupid if you chose to...

[Arkalezth]

In BG1, when you leave Candlekeep you are directed to tge Friendly Arm Inn. If you walk along the road leading there you encounter nothing of real note.

 

Yet a single little **** of no real note can still one-hit you, which is entirely my point. (You do actually run into a mandatory hard fight right before entering the inn, but that's not the enemy I'm referring to, nor are the ogres and bears).

 

When you only have a handful of hit points, a light breeze can easily kill you, that's all I'm saying. And yes, I agree that you can tweak the fights so they are a bit less random and more level 1-friendly, but some module builders may also decide giving the players a level or two so the game over screen isn't only a lucky roll away, or maybe they just feel that sick kobolds with broken sticks don't fit the module setting.

[kamal_]

I believe some newer editions address the one shot issue by giving players the equivalent of epic toughness, 30 extra hit points at level one.

[kevL]

for builders:
there's an itemproperty "Decreased Damage" (... ideal for pointed sticks and rusty daggers )


although i'm not fond of level 1, I like it just as some sort of "welcome to the world" thing -- i want to get through it quickly and hopefully painlessly.

[Tchos]

I guess I'll add to the discussion that I've always hated level 1.  Even level 2, where you have double the hit dice you had before, is better than level 1.  Note, I tend to play d4 classes, so that later edition 30 extra HP thing would sort of rob the sense of progression in that regard, since I shouldn't have 30 HP until level 8 unless take feats for it.  And that doesn't even mention the constant miss, miss, miss of level 1, even when you are fighting appropriately-statted enemies.

 

For me, D&D isn't all about combat, and I'm all about the many alternate ways the Dungeon Master's Guide describes in detail for acquiring XP without combat, so I really prefer getting past level 1 in one of those non-combat ways.