Progress report for IA v6 Options

[Ardanis]

assigning a different "secondary type" to the Spell Shield spell and then removing it by the protection removal spell is excatly the way I have fixed the problem between Spell Shield and SpellStrike

Now I seem to recall it. But iirc you've used one of already labeled in msectype.2da, not a new one. The idea however (I believe) is to use new sectype, as they don't end after 0xd. Of course, it may impose unnecessary complications when abused (like making 'protection from fire/cold/elements/enegry' and they ilk refreshable without stacking), but as a bugfix for just a single spell it can definitely pass.

[Sikret]

Well, give it a try (if you want) and let me know the result as well. I'm not much optimistic about its chance of success though.

[Demivrgvs]

Spell Shield is still somewhat bugged. I have fixed its bug against Spell Strike, but it may still become buggy against Ruby Ray of Reversal. I don't recommend Spell Shield as a pick for your sorcerer, because if its bug kicks in, you will win the battles against enemies much more easily than intended.

There was a discussion recently at http://forums.gibberlings3.net/index.php?showtopic=16659 about how this might be worked around... I'm a little reluctant to do it for SCSII because I see a lot of compatibility problems, but it might be of interest for IA, where you can make rather more reliable assumptions about what other mods the player will have installed.

I checked it. Its main idea, which is assigning a different "secondary type" to the Spell Shield spell and then removing it by the protection removal spell is excatly the way I have fixed the problem between Spell Shield and SpellStrike (I wonder why he didn't mention it if he has looked it up in IA).

Because I didn't looked it up in IA? Last time I looked into IA's files was a few years ago, and I really didn't recall it having done what I'm suggesting now.

Now I seem to recall it. But iirc you've used one of already labeled in msectype.2da, not a new one. The idea however (I believe) is to use new sectype, as they don't end after 0xd. Of course, it may impose unnecessary complications when abused (like making 'protection from fire/cold/elements/enegry' and they ilk refreshable without stacking), but as a bugfix for just a single spell it can definitely pass.

Yes, I'm suggesting to use a new secondary type, but each and every removal spell protection should be able to use an almost identical shell spell system. I don't see all those complications you're talking about though. How would it be "abusable"?

Regarding "making 'protection from fire/cold/elements/enegry' and they ilk refreshable without stacking" being an abuse, why? Anyway a simple Protection from Spell effect prevents it.

[Sikret]

Because I didn't looked it up in IA?

Glad to hear that!

However, since you had used IA's ideas and tweaks in the past (such as the modifications applied to the Spell Immunity spell which were introduced by IA for the first time) without mentioning anything about IA in your mod's readme file and without giving the credit when credit was due, it was easy to assume that it might have happened again. I'm glad to hear that it wasn't so in this case, at least.

[Demivrgvs]

Because I didn't looked it up in IA?

Glad to hear that!

However, since you had used IA's ideas and tweaks in the past (such as the modifications applied to the Spell Immunity spell which were introduced by IA for the first time) without mentioning anything about IA in your mod's readme file and without giving the credit when credit was due, it was easy to assume that it might have happened again. I'm glad to hear that it wasn't so in this case, at least.

SR's changes aren't based on IA features.

I'll surely give credit instead to Galactygon for SR V3's Flame Arrow, because his use of "random targeting projectiles" was innovative, and without him I probably wouldn't be able to do it ever.

[Sikret]

SR's changes aren't based on IA features.

I gave you the example in my previous post; I don't see why you are trying to deny the obvious.

I'll surely give credit instead to Galactygon for SR V3's Flame Arrow, because his use of "random targeting projectiles" was innovative, and without him I probably wouldn't be able to do it ever.

The question is not whether you know how to implement something from a technical point of view. When you use someone else's idea in your mod, giving the credit is due (regardless of whether you already knew how to technically implement it or not).

Anyway, this thread is not for such discussions and I don't think that you'll agree with me even if we continue this debate; I just mentioned it here for the record, not because I was optimistic that you would agree.

[Demivrgvs]

SR's changes aren't based on IA features.

I gave you the example in my previous post; I don't see why you are trying to deny the obvious.

Perhaps because it's not the truth! We just happened to have the same opinion on that matter, nothing has been "stolen". You're suggesting that everytime someone has an idea he/she should search on google if someone else thought about it too and scream: "hey, I have to credit this person, he got there first!".

Example: I suggested to block melee attacks during Time Stop at SR's forums long before you posted about it in this topic (and I only noticed your post a few days ago). Should I claim copyrights on that matter? I don't think so...we probably both arrived at that idea because playing BG we noticed that using melee attacks during a Time Stop seemed unfair.

Thus I'll repeat myself: SR's changes aren't based on IA features.

Sorry for the off-topic, I won't insist.


P.S I have to remove that SI's tweak because of "compatibility" issues with SCS's AI, thus I won't have to credit you anyway!

[Sikret]

SR's changes aren't based on IA features.

I gave you the example in my previous post; I don't see why you are trying to deny the obvious.

Perhaps because it's not the truth! We just happened to have the same opinion on that matter, nothing has been "stolen". You're suggesting that everytime someone has an idea he/she should search on google if someone else thought about it too and scream: "hey, I have to credit this person, he got there first!".

Don't play with words. IA's modification to SI has been known to everyone since long ago and you were an active visitor of this forums on those days; you didn't need to google anything. And it was already implemented in IA; it wasn't just a mere random thought thrown somewhere in a post (similar to what you said about your post about timestop in a forum I don't browse unless someone sends me a link to).

P.S I have to remove that SI's tweak because of "compatibility" issues with SCS's AI, thus I won't have to credit you anyway!

The SI tweak was only one example; you have taken several other things from IA quite "silently".

I didn't want to continue and reply, but it's really hard to tolerate such a degree of shamelessness.

[DavidW]

SR's changes aren't based on IA features.

I gave you the example in my previous post; I don't see why you are trying to deny the obvious.

Perhaps because it's not the truth! We just happened to have the same opinion on that matter, nothing has been "stolen". You're suggesting that everytime someone has an idea he/she should search on google if someone else thought about it too and scream: "hey, I have to credit this person, he got there first!".

Don't play with words. IA's modification to SI has been known to everyone since long ago and you were an active visitor of this forums on those days; you didn't need to google anything. And it was already implemented in IA; it wasn't just a mere random thought thrown somewhere in a post (similar to what you said about your post about timestop in a forum I don't browse unless someone sends me a link to).

I didn't want to continue and reply, but it's really hard to tolerate such a degree of shamelessness.

Conciliatory observation: I'm an "active visitor of this forum" but I have no idea what "IA's modification to SI" is. Sikret: I think you're overestimating the extent to which we all pay attention to each other

[Sikret]

SR's changes aren't based on IA features.

I gave you the example in my previous post; I don't see why you are trying to deny the obvious.

Perhaps because it's not the truth! We just happened to have the same opinion on that matter, nothing has been "stolen". You're suggesting that everytime someone has an idea he/she should search on google if someone else thought about it too and scream: "hey, I have to credit this person, he got there first!".

Don't play with words. IA's modification to SI has been known to everyone since long ago and you were an active visitor of this forums on those days; you didn't need to google anything. And it was already implemented in IA; it wasn't just a mere random thought thrown somewhere in a post (similar to what you said about your post about timestop in a forum I don't browse unless someone sends me a link to).

I didn't want to continue and reply, but it's really hard to tolerate such a degree of shamelessness.

Conciliatory observation: I'm an "active visitor of this forum" but I have no idea what "IA's modification to SI" is. Sikret: I think you're overestimating the extent to which we all pay attention to each other

You know "IA's modification to SI" very well. You even posted about it in SP forums (that in IA, mutliple SI's don't stack and SI:abjuration gives immunity to all abjuration spells including magicattacks).

Plus, Demivrgvs was once an IA player who surely knew all those features of IA. He even used to send me PMs asking how to implement this or that modification to the game. I'm pretty sure he had read IA's readme file on those days, which makes his recent comments about the need to googling a game with the words.

This post has been edited by Sikret: Jan 31 2009, 10:18 PM

[DavidW]

You know "IA's modification to SI" very well. You even posted about it in SP forums (that in IA, mutliple SI's don't stack and SI:abjuration gives immunity to all abjuration spells including magicattacks).

Oh, sorry, that's what you mean. My bad.

... but look, you're the one who's been saying that it's "cheese" or "cheating" or something to stack SI or for SI:Abj not to protect from abjuration. If it's supposed to be obvious to players that this is an oddity of the spells, or whatever, then I take it it shouldn't be surprising to find other modders doing it as well?

(In fact, I'm in the opposite camp: the first time I played BG2 I assumed SI didn't stack. I was mildly surprised to discover it did, but then couldn't see any reason why not.)

[Sikret]

I prefer to stop discussing this issue at this stage, as it's really off-topic. I just mentioned what I did for the record. I'm not really hoping to convince anyone about how to behave with courtesy when they pick and use someone else's ideas and work.

(And yes, if it was a plain bug of the vanilla game, fixing it in different mods without giving any credits to the originator of the fix wouldn't probably be much of a problem or surprise.)

[DavidW]

I prefer to stop discussing this issue at this stage, as it's really off-topic.

Fine: happy to agree to differ.

[Ardanis]

Well, to answer and to pretend I'm having the last word here

I don't see all those complications you're talking about though. How would it be "abusable"?
Regarding "making 'protection from fire/cold/elements/enegry' and they ilk refreshable without stacking" being an abuse, why?

For examle, imagine a Breach taking down all of Pro from fire/cold/etc at once. The textbox would be flooded with "Target - Protection from xxxx dispelled"-like messages (I wish it were possible to block them :sigh: ).

[Shadan]

- Dwarves and Gnomes won't gain more than +1 racial bonus to their saving throws.

What about halflings? They have improved STs also.

Side note: I reread the whole changes in v6 and I made a sad conclusion. Whole game is nerfed down. Some items nerfed down, some spells nerfed down, some classes (bard, cavalier), THACO, dual classing (specialist mage and scroll reading), trap XP etc. Only enemies will be stronger. I agree with most of the changes, I don't want to be negative, just this makes me sad. I would be so happy to see some improvements for weak items, classes, spells... Now I see only very very rare tweaks like old Horn of Valhallas.

This post has been edited by shadan: Feb 20 2009, 11:39 AM

[Raven]

Side note: I reread the whole changes in v6 and I made a sad conclusion. Whole game is nerfed down. Some items nerfed down, some spells nerfed down, some classes (bard, cavalier), THACO, dual classing (specialist mage and scroll reading), trap XP etc. Only enemies will be stronger. I agree with most of the changes, I don't want to be negative, just this makes me sad. I would be so happy to see some improvements for weak items, classes, spells... Now I see only very very rare tweaks like old Horn of Valhallas.

Well there are actually some improvements to help the player as well - the numerous new spells (both divine and arcane) are specifically designed to be useful in IA. This has certainly been the case in testing. The expanded stronghold quests give new powerful items for the protagonist (as well as extra xp and other treasure). The bug in Improved Invisibility (which IA has inherited from Baldurdash) is fixed which will help the player fight against enemies who use Improved Invisibility + SI:D.

[Sikret]

I don't know what kind of improvements you are looking for, shadan. If you are looking for improvements which work in favor of the party rather than the enemies (and make the party more powerful or their options more interesting), then there is already a long list of them in the progress report (did you only see the one about the horns of vanhalla?). Let me quote some:

- Another new ranger kit added and assigned to Valygar.

- A new 2nd level druidic spell, Speak with Animals, is added to the game (none of the existent spells is replaced though; it's a new addition to the collection of 2nd level spells).

- Six more item upgrade recipes added.

- Riskbreaker kit is revised (improved).

- Free Action spell and Freedom potions are fixed to grant immunity to stun.

Book of infinite Spells has some bugs in the vanilla game. Fixed it and also replaced its spells with some more useful ones.

- Spirit animals' weapons fixed....to have +3 enchantments.

- Cerebus, the creature summoned by the Moon Dog Figurine is tweaked: His spell-like abilities and innate immunities are omitted, but on the other hand, his +1 claw is improved to have +3 enchantment and his number of attacks are increased (from 1) to 3. He has much better morale during the combat as well.

- Joolon, the lion summoned by the Golden Lion Figurine is improved: His +1 claw is changed to +3 and he fights more intelligently.

- The "Pick for me" button will choose the best and most useful 1st through 3rd level spells to be used in IA for your sorcerer.

- The mage spells Skull Trap, Minor Spell Deflection, Minor Spell Turning, Spell Deflection, Mislead, Cacofiend, Delayed Blast Fireball, Summon Fiend, Power word Blind, Spell Trap and Gate are replaced with new spells. The clerical spells, Glyph of Warding, Gate and Holy Word are replaced with new spells as well. (Note to shadan: All these spells are replaced with much better and more useful spells.)

- The clerical HLA, Mass Raise Dead is replaced with a new clerical spell/HLA and is only available to clerics (again, it is replaced with a much more useful spell).

- A new druidic HLA is added to the game.

- swashbucklers have now a much more appealing HLA table than before.

And all these are in addition to the many new things (including new items) you will see and find during the new quests added to v6. Just see the list of new quests in the initial post. Even without the expanded druid stronghold, the content of v6 is now 100% more than v5 (i.e. double amount of v5).

[Shadan]

Yes, I read those what you linked, Sikret. And they are great. I am sure, new spells will be useful also. I wrote also, there are some improvements (like old summing items, a some new spells, few new HLAs). Just my feelings was after a complete reread most changes are nerfing down... Maybe if I could read more times XY spell/item/class is improved a bit. Don't concern me, I just wanted to write down my feelings. Final conclusion comes only after I played v6.

What's about halflings? Their saving throw bonuses also decreased?

This post has been edited by shadan: Feb 20 2009, 12:31 PM

[Sikret]

Yes, halflings use the same table as dwarves. I had only forgotten to mention the halflings in the initial post (just edited). Thanks!

[Brahms228]

Hello Sikret ! The NPC Mazzy has a +++++ short bow skill , this is really a waste in IA if I want to get her to play IAv6 in future , can you do some change for her ?