"Philosophical" questions, What is a cheesy method? Bug or feature? Options

[Sikret]

Don't you consider Time trap to be an "ambush"?

Maybe yes, but I remember that you were the first person to suggest that time traps are cheesy and should be removed from the game.

Actually, time traps are cheesy for three main reasons:

1- The trap's duration is too long for its intended purpose (see below)
2- The trap can be picked more than once as HLA.
3- Some players misuse the trap.

It's mentioned in the time trap's description that thieves typically use this trap for the purpose of gaining enough free time to move to the behind of an enemy to gain a free backstab shot. However, the time stop's duration is too long for this purpose and it actually allows doing a lot more than just moving to behind the enemy. Moreover, setting multiple time traps makes this even worse and a thief can stop the time for a longer time than any mage, which is quite absurd.

Even worse, as you mentioned in one of your posts, some cheap players set traps and then activate them with their own summoned creatures (after making them hostile); or alternatively, they set traps far away and then play 'cat & mouse' with the enemy to lure him into the trap. These two latter methods are not just cheesy, they are cheats.

Two main solutions occur to me:

1- Decreasing the trap's duration dramatically and make it to be picked only once in the HLAs table.

2- Removing the Time Trap from the game and replacing it with a more sensible HLA (honestly, it was never making sense that a thief could stop the flow of time mimicking the effect of a most powerful arcane spell).

I remember that you suggested the second solution and I, too, agree that the second solution is most probably the best. It will give your thief a new HLA which fits better with his class and can be used in fair combat.

[lroumen]

lroumen, how much of the mod have you actually played? I find there is more variation in spell casting later on.

I've finished earlier versions. There is some variation because foes are higher level than the earlier mages and have more at their disposal. However, for each "stage" I get the feeling that certain mages are scripted comparable to eachother. There're many spells that are not used very often (especially low level spells). I guess this is not just in IA though, but a problem in many mods. I guess that considering the content that IA adds, I agree that it doesn't need to be changed much. I'll let this rest.

The thief "detect illusion" ability is a divination tool. It's not divination spell or magic, but it's still sort of divination tool. See the mod's readme about this tweak.

The tweak is fully justified in my book

I fully agree with this. It's a type of divination after all, so I can see the reasoning for it to be blocked.

Theoretically high intelligence give protection against illusion spells, 19 protects against 1st level illusion spells, 20 against 2nd level and so on (in standard AD&D). I am not sure if it is implemented in the game or not (I think it is not) but the modified version of IA should protect against it also (based on your description). Do you think it is reasonable?

You cannot implement this because each character has a different intelligence score. In PnP you can manage it (especially solo) or in NWN solo, but not in party play such as BG. It would mean that one character is able to see the foe, whereas another character cannot see that foe. You can envision that that character points it out to the others….. but they will simply not see it, so it must be dispelled by a proper spell, not by just having high intelligence.

A dwarven sorc has +5 to saves unlike human, elf or half elf. That's a major bonus, I believe the game itself does'n allow it because of balance. As for Pt.10 - doesn't it mean you'll be killing them regardless of your aligment?

Weird race/class choices are disabled because they weren't edition 2 if I recall that correctly. I still like to play those bits though .
Dependent on my alignment I sometimes actually reason with foes to talk them out of a fight. Den of 7 veils, sewers party… those fights can all be avoided, so I sometimes do (at the cost of some nice item drops though).




General remark.
I'm a roleplaying person through and through. Because I like a challenge I've come to play IA and I've finished v2, and I've gotten halfway through the TOB part in v4.2 after which I stopped to play the new v5. My roleplaying style is somewhat disabled in IA, since several options are disabled because Sikret thought them not proper. The following are already discussed above:

1. Stealing quest items (I don't really mind this, but from a roleplayer point of view I think it ought to be possible with alternate quest endings, such as lower quest rewards, NPCs or foes leaving the site and hence not dropping their items, or spawning different cre files for the same NPC, one with droppable loot, one with less droppable loot).
My opinion. I don't mind this, but I'd rather see extension rather than blocking.

2. Stealing from shops (though of course selling it to the same shop owner should be disabled. I even feel that Stealing from Ribald should be possible as a result of the Ribald Amnish Guard locking you up in prison or putting you in front of the Amnish Court, followed by Ribald prices going up a 200%… that'd be an interesting implementation).
My opinion. I don't mind this, but I'd rather see extension rather than blocking.

3a. Info gathering through sneaking (I also use detect evil to determine whether they are foes) (Sikret has foes casting True Sight when they think there's a hidden person, though I would make it an Oracle scroll since it wastes their True Sight)
3b. followed by surprise attacking.
Up to a certain level he's correct. You cannot attack foes when they just stand there doing nothing or when they expect you but just haven't seen you due to fog of war. The Firkraag attack when you place traps in his area is a really good example for fixing this (there are more examples but I won't list them). However, in some cases when they don't expect it I think it ought to be allowed to get in the first hits without a big prebuff.
3c. Foes illogically prebuffing
I agree that certain foes can prebuff if they know you're coming or if there is a good reasoning that they might have set a somewhat justifiable perimeter guard (such as spies or invisible wards that you cannot disable). It's just that many foes just aren't aware of your presence and hence should not prebuff or marginally through a contingency.
Don't get me wrong, I do like it that you get a really challenging battle every single time, and in that division IA performs extremely well or I wouldn't replay it. It's just that sometimes I feel it's becoming a bit too common to forcespell each foe and it becomes a bit boring and I let my game rest a while before continuing..... that's my problem with IA.


My opinion. I still don't agree the reasoning that "they can prebuff because you can do it too", because that assumes that you always prebuff and now it forces you to always prebuff. To me it sometimes becomes a drag to do so and I don't think it's the best solution to fix the problem.

[LZJ]

Hi Iroumen!

For your point on stealing quest items, I have noticed in the forum certain discussions on stealing Conster's key.

Personally, I feel that this essential quest item should not be stealable. I don't know what happens exactly... Perhaps what happens is that you get to save the child and get away from the mage without killing him? He does have 'Teleport' after all... on a role-playing perspective, it would be rather illogical that you can get away from him.

Secondly, hopefully stealing from shops would be possible once Sikret gets around to doing the Evil Quests

On your third point, I agree that Oracle would be better, since the casting of True Sight takes rather long and an invisible character could still get away.

On your point on illogical buffing... I am not too sure. I think that here, an assumption is (Correctly IMO) made that players always have the option to pre-buff... if the AI is not allowed to do so, the player's pre-buffed characters would just slauter the enemy AI, and this would severely undermine the tactical component of IA. I DO agree that pre-buffing becomes a drag sometimes!

[Sikret]

2. Stealing from shops (though of course selling it to the same shop owner should be disabled. I even feel that Stealing from Ribald should be possible as a result of the Ribald Amnish Guard locking you up in prison or putting you in front of the Amnish Court, followed by Ribald prices going up a 200%… that'd be an interesting implementation).
My opinion. I don't mind this, but I'd rather see extension rather than blocking.

The general problem with the types of solutions you suggest is that the player will simply reload the game after a failed stealing attempt and will continue doing this till he eventually manages to steal whatever he wants.

I understand that each and every player gives me suggestions based on his own playing style and preferences, but I have to make the final decisions based on much more general considerations. I have to consider a lot more possible scenarios for every case than you or any other player uses or encounters in the game.

[lroumen]

That's true. You have to put in a lot of effort to make things work without problems or abuse.

I would have implemented the stealing from Ribald as a certain event if any attempt was made (regardless of success or failure). I guess nobody would try it in their right mind when they know that you get thrown in jail or somesuch, but it may be worthwile if you gain some favour or attention from the local thievesguild... in hindsight I don't think this is something for IA to implement, but more a rogue rebalancing thing. As such I don't mind the blocking of stealing from shops.

[lroumen]

Concerning area abuse.

I'd like to hear more opinions on the matter. I myself don't see many problems with area usage except for when foes cannot reach you because they are blocked by only the tileset itself (the D'Arnise Keep Golem is the only example I know of). However, I don't know what everybody considers unfair or just a bit of smart tactics.


Examples:
D'Arnise keep Torgal fight
I recently completed this fight in various ways.

1. I may op to position my fighters in the doorway to block him and his trolls from going after my mages, as a result, they will all attack my fighters in melee and Torgal will attack them as well.
- My mages cannot cast spells on each foe since they cannot see them all, so the foes are at an advantage too.
- Spreading out melee fighters is in most cases smarter than blocking them, therefore my clerics will be constantly busy healing and buffing my fighters and can do little else.
- Torgal can still use his spell to wreak havoc on my fighters and since the range is wide, also the mages. If he casts it on the clerics that stand in between the fighters and the mages, my whole party will still be affected, so Torgal can still smash hard and turn the tide by my choice to block them.

2. I may spread out my party
- I will lure the melee foes to attack my buffed mages (stoneskin, mirror image, whatever you want).
- My melee fighters will try to assassinate Torgal before he can do any serious damage with his abilities.
- My clerics can use combat spells rather than healing spells, since Torgal and the melee fighters will damage little.

Results:
I took a lot less damage when I spread out and I took out my foes quicker using this method. However, I'm not certain whether it is so much less cheesy. I was using protected mages to avert the damage rather than using the tileset. The general effect is the same. You use some method to block foes from hitting/damaging you.


Now what about this scenario?
Hypothetical fight… what is cheese?
You're in a hallway and a big golem is coming to fight you. You have 4 melee characters and a mage without protection spells. Options I can think of:
1. Will you position each fighter around that golem and attack that golem, thereby preventing him from reaching your mage? (i.e. not using the walls, but all fighters are really fighters)
2. Will you position your fighters to the walls in such a way that the golem cannot squeeze past the fighters+walls to get to your mage? (i.e. using a wall of fighters, 2 options: all fighting or some just blocking)
3. Will you position your fighters in the center of the hallway such that the golem walks towards one of the walls, then position one fighter between the others, thereby surrounding and blocking the golem between the wall and the fighters? (i.e. wall usage, only when fenced in are all fighters fighting)
4. Will you use an invisibility potion or spell with your mage and disappear from the battle? (i.e. remove the mage from the fight altogether)
5. Will you summon additional creatures around the golem to block his path if the fighters fail to do so? The golem will first have to plough through them to get to your mage. (i.e. emergency fix, but even doable out in the open when you're not in hallways and corridors)
6. Will you position your fighters around the mage, thereby shielding him from the golem? (i.e. a wall of fighters, at least 1 fighter cannot reach the golem)
7. Will you just order them to attack the golem, thereby ineffectively blocking him and allowing him to pulverize your mage? (i.e. do nothing, hope for the best
8. Will you run around with the mage, hoping the golem will die due to random hits by the fighters? (i.e. running the mage in circles around the fighters, who hit the golem as he comes past)

This post has been edited by lroumen: Aug 13 2008, 10:05 AM

[Vuki]

You cannot implement this because each character has a different intelligence score. In PnP you can manage it (especially solo) or in NWN solo, but not in party play such as BG. It would mean that one character is able to see the foe, whereas another character cannot see that foe. You can envision that that character points it out to the others….. but they will simply not see it, so it must be dispelled by a proper spell, not by just having high intelligence.

As I remember the thief detect illusion ability works in the same way in the paper version. It does not dispel the illusions, it just make possible the thief to see it. But this is not the main point here, the main point is that it works the same way and - at least for me - it is illogical to stop this features (thief and the intelligence both).

I agree with your other RPG-style points. IA makes much more tactical contents to the game and make it really harder. On the other side it removes a lot of RPG points from the game. Most of the cases the only solution to finish a quest is to "enter - kill everybody - collect rewards". In the vanilla game for example you can play a lot of roles, just for example you can be an assassin who sneaks into buildings and kill only the target person. Now there are more then one reasons why these are not possible anymore: first one is that the game is harder. It is ok, if the game is harder then of course you have less possibilities. But on the other hand it is also because of some restriction (in the game itself or in the cheesy rules).

I did not raise these issues originally just to point out that "hey, IA is a shit" or something like it. No, IA is a very-very good mod and it makes the game really interesting. But it is not perfect (for me, so it is just my personal opinion) and it is not perfect because it reduces the role-playing playability of the game. If IA could give the same flexibility than the vanilla game then it would be the perfect mod for me. That is what I am fighting for! Give me the perfect mod!

[Sikret]

IA will never be "perfect" in the strict sense of the word, simply because there is no such thing as "the perfect mod". At every given stage, there is still possible to progress and make it even better.

IA is progressing and becoming better and better with every new version; however, I make it better in the way I see things to be better (which may be different than the way you see things; for example my defnition of role-playing is different than yours).

IA testers are also playing an equally important role in developing IA (their opinions and suggestions are very important for me, because unlike the casual player, IA testers have played the mod thoroughly several times and they always know what they are talking about).

I'm reading all suggestions and comments (and I thank you and others for writing them), but as I wrote in my post to Iroumen, there are a lot of general considerations I should take into account before making any single decision.

Thanks again for the comments and ideas, everyone.

[Kerkes]

@ Sikret

I was referring to the fact that you've nerfed so many overpowered spells/abilities/items (celestial fury comes in mind), so I'm rather surprised about time trap still available. What I woud do is leave as it is but available for single-class thief.It's multi f/t wich are a bit of an overkill during those 1 minute long time stops. The trap itself is also buggy, because it sometimes activates several times.Perhaps adding a new, combat oriented hla for all thieves would also be good. One which could decrease thac0 or AC? In my latest run I went with a f/t and did pick time trap once from hla pool. It can be very overpowered, so I don't use it. UAI is overpowered by itself, and with it you can cast time stop with a thief anyway. Probably the best thing to do would be removing all traps from game, they're way too much cheese. Since you're on a "crusade" vs. cheating you'll probably remove it. That's ok, IMO. The fact that you can kill that demogorgon in vanilla game with Yoshimo lvl 8 with traps pretty much proves that game designers were not aware of how traps are overpowered.
another misuse of time trap not mentioned above: the time "itself" doesn't stop. So it can be used to "expire" protections from mages etc. and the fact that it can be picked more than once isn't actually a problem for anyone who is intented on abusing it. You can rest, set another, rest etc. wishing for rest will also renew it.
I'm pretty sure that in IA6 they're gone.

This post has been edited by Kerkes: Aug 13 2008, 12:08 PM

[Vuki]

IA is progressing and becoming better and better with every new version; however, I make it better in the way I see things to be better (which may be different than the way you see things; for example my defnition of role-playing is different than yours).

Yes, I think that is the main point. We see the world in a bit different way. That is not a problem, at least not in our case because we did not argue in a harsh way.

Thanks again for the comments and ideas, everyone.

And I really thank you for IA because it gave a lot of fun to me. And I am sure it will be a fun for me in the future too.

BTW, I will try a new party now (to make things interesting) and it wil be a special one. I will write it in the forum when I start to play with them.

[coaster]

On the discussion re: time traps.

Perhaps time traps are overpowered/cheesy. But so is time stop. So is improved alacrity. The most powerful class in BG2 (with or without IA) is still, IMHO, the fighter/mage (or fighter/mage/X without the level cap). My worry is that removing traps from the game simply means that arcane spellcasters become even more powerful relative to the other classes. So the rationale for choosing a thief or fighter/thief becomes even less compared to choosing a fighter/mage.

[Kerkes]

IMO, mages should be more powerful than any other class in the game - that' just how I see mages. The fact that a f/m can cast time stop it isn't all that great. I just finished the game with a figh/ill in my party and due to new exp tables in IA he had three time stops by the very end of the game, and I finished all quests there are. Most powerful enemies are immune to time stop. You'll probably want one or two slots for Apsolute Immunity anyway. And figh/mages (and especially pure class spellcasters) are a bit tricky to play in IA, they can be killed easilly if their protections get destroyed. Besides, a f/t can also cast spells with UAI which is ridiculusly overpowered ability by itself, far more cheesy than time stop IMO.
I don't consider improved alcatry cheesy, because enemies use it also. Every dragon has it constantly on.
I do agree that a f/m is extremely powerful in BG, with or without IA. But I believe the sorc is way ahead in terms of power over any class in the game. Well, maybe not over a f/t overly fond of using time traps .

This post has been edited by Kerkes: Aug 14 2008, 10:29 AM

[SpellStorm]

I've played this mod for some time now, and I don't like the nerfing of the thief class. My recent party was:

Assassin Protagonist
Valygar
Keldorn
Edwin
Aerie
Jaheira

The Protagonist was useless in the tough fights.

Many enemies are immune to backstab and poison, and to trap damage. Also, most of the tough enemies are immune to Spike and Fireball trap damage and stun effect.

The Hide In Shadows is almost useless.

With a Time Trap, my Assassin dealt a small amount of damage in combat. Tough enemies have great physical damage resistances.

Detect illusion did not work against most enemy mages.

I don't know why thieves are so nerfed in this particular mod. Even the greatest artifact for a thief, the Grandfather of Assassins, has nothing much to offer.

I will start a new game, with a different Protagonist.

[Sikret]

one other thing.. It is stated in IA readme that "this mod has some of the hardest battles......for experienced players.....etc" Personaly I don't know why Sikret even bothered with blocking possible exploits. What I mean, who actually uses stuff like that?

Yes, I know what you mean. I used to wish Sikret spent the time he spends blocking exploits on making new content instead (I'm sure he wishes he could do it too). But not everyone sees the game the same way; like it or not lots of players will resort to the exploits if they are available, and if I had spent as much time on a mod as Sikret has with IA, I would probably hate to read reports glorifying cheap methods and want to block them as much as he does.

I wonder how I had missed this post of you, Kerkes! Sorry for the delayed response.

I, too, know what you mean, but in addition to what Raven mentioned, there are a few other points which are worth considering:

1- Blocking the exploits available in the vanilla game are primarily a part of IA's fixpack. It's not a part of IA's tactical content, because as you said any serious IA player will not even think of abusing those exploits.

2- Moreover, blocking such exploits are also part of IA's anti-cheat feature. Most of those exploits have no difference with plain cheats even though some people have tendency to deceive themselves and others by saying that anything which is doable inside the game without using the Console command is not a cheat.

3- Regarding your question "Who actually uses stuff like that (cheats & exploits)?", there are always mentally sick people who don't play a mod such as IA for the challenge it adds to their own game; they play it in order to challenge other players!

For example, the person reads somewhere that IA is not soloable without cheating; then he decides to spare several hunderds of hours to refute the statement. He uses all sorts of exploits which have no difference with cheating, also sometimes silently uses more explicit cheating methods without admitting and even spends many hours to use his imagination to forge artificial and false reports (we recently had such a case, as you remember). Blocking the exploits available in the vanilla game will discourage this type of cheaters from trying and will help others to detect cheaters and liars in a clearer way.

It's also important to note that when such a person comes to write all sorts of false reports and lies in the forum, it shows something very terrible about his personality in the real life, because it's not his character inside the game who logs into the forum to write lies. It's rather the person (the real person) who sits behind a computer desk to write them. I think these people are very interesting case- studies for psychologists.

[Kerkes]

I agree with that "wasted time on cheating" argument 100%. If a player has so much time and is intended on playing IA I believe it's far more enjoyable experience to use that time playing the real game (as intented) than to prove to you (Sikret) and others that the game can be won solo.
I also believe that some of the "cheese" tactics are incredibly creative and ingenious, in their own way. I wish that those players using them would use the creativity some of them certainly have to play IA without cheese. I think the result would be great.

[Kerkes]

On the discussion about abusing area structure:
I find it difficult "not to abuse it" on certain areas. Mind flayer lairs, Samia in Firkraag dungeon (this is the worst), Copper Corent Beastmaster fight (to an extent).

[Vuki]

As far as I know liches are immune to 1-5 level spells. However they can be affected by dispel magic. Now, I see here an inconsistency. The problem is not that he can be affected by dispel magic because dispel magic affects not the creature itself but magic. The inconsistency is that breach and other similar low level spells do not affect him. They work excatly in the same way than dispel magic: they affect not the creature itself but magic.

Is it excatly the same in standard pen and paper AD&D? Or is it a specialty of BG2?

This post has been edited by Vuki: Sep 4 2008, 08:07 AM

[LZJ]

Hmmm... I don't know if it's the same as in standard pen and paper AD&D. I'll try to give a logical explanation for it though:

Dispel Magic, as you've noted, works on the magical protections from the outside. Therefore, what it contends with are the strength of the buffs/enchantments, and the immunities of the buffed creature don't matter... only the relative strength of the Dispel Magic as against the various buffs.

For targeted magic removal spells however (Spell Thrust, Secret Word, Breach, Pierce Magic, Ruby Ray, Warding Whip, Spellstrike), it needs to "go through" and reach/contact the creature it is targeted at. Perhaps what it does is to attack the buffs from the inside, hence relative spell level does not matter. After all, attacking protections from the inside is much easier than attacking them from the outside.

As far as I know, (almost) all creatures in IA that have immunities to spell levels are not immune to Dispel/Remove Magic, so this explanation could be valid. There is only one anomaly I know of (via repeated testings, the probability of it not being immune to Dispel/Remove Magic is virtually zero) ... but to reveal this would be spoiling. I think most people would not discover this fact anyway.

[Zarathustra]

My condolences to all cheaters and cheesy players! A lot more hidden anti-cheat utilities are added to the mod. As an example, the major golems and many other important bosses in the game will be bullet-proof against the infamous timestop-melee cheat. You will have to stand and fight like a man, I'm afraid!

I can't help but wonder why you call attacking an enemy during Timestop a cheat - let alone an infamous one, as I've never heard it spoken of in these terms before. I would say it's cheesy, okay, but to say it's a cheat seems to be stretching even that notoriously ill-defined word pretty far.

Note that I'm quite happy with the change you're making (I certainly don't mind it), but I'm confused about your choice of words. Unless there's something in the D&D rules which suggests that the ability to physically attack an enemy during Timestop is due to an engine limitation, rather than intended by the developers?

This post has been edited by Zarathustra: Jan 23 2009, 11:00 PM

[Sikret]

Item no.10 in the "cheat and cheap" document mentions the timestop-melee trick as an example of a cheat. Halting an enemy's normal and intended behavior in this way is playing the game (and the mod) in an unintended way and something I would never allow to happen as a DM in a pnp game. Using timestop to cast spells is fine because most of your spells won't take effect till the normal time resumes. Casting timestop with the intention to use physical attack is something different; I don't actually see any difference between killing an enemy in this way and killing him by the ctrl-y method; they are practically the same.