33 replies to this topic

[Lollorian]

I dunno what y'all may think, but I always thought mods get designed such that they could be used standalone or with other mods. So that sommon using kTweaks isn't forced to use IR or p5Tweaks just for that component

Yes, the end-user needs only one of these, but does he care where it's from??

But I wholly agree with the time factor which IMHO () could be prevented by some researching on the modder's part to save him the trouble But OTOH, there are tweakpacks that include copies of tweaks (even if the author already knows they exist) just because they felt it'd be a nice addition to their tweakpack (I think they take permission or sommin though )

And finally yeah, if all tweakmods get combined, it'd be in the best interests of the modders and the community (but I dunno though, it may lead to things like the BG2Fixpack-BaldurDash thing )

In short ... I'm a veeeeerrrry confused guy right now

Cheers,
Lol

[Miloch]

Yes, the end-user needs only one of these, but does he care where it's from??

Probably not. So why confuse him with multiple versions? We really can't expect him to look through the code of both and figure out which is better - so why not do it for him. Even I don't know whether to install BG1NPC's component or BG1UB's component that do similar things.

Now if two components do slightly different things, does that justify two different components? Still no, in my opinion. It would be more efficient to have something like:
Install Revised Spears?
1] pro5's version
2] kthxbye's version
(etc.)
That's probably not a good example, since these two are pretty much the same AFAICT, but you get the idea.

And finally yeah, if all tweakmods get combined, it'd be in the best interests of the modders and the community (but I dunno though, it may lead to things like the BG2Fixpack-BaldurDash thing

Now how is that going to happen? A tweak pack can have as many different, possibly even conflicting tweaks as it wants (see above for how to resolve). A fixpack is different, because people disagree on what exactly qualifies as a fix, but a tweak is a tweak.

[Lollorian]

We really can't expect him to look through the code of both and figure out which is better - so why not do it for him.

I honestly did NOT know that similar components could have different code But there's always gonna be a "most-efficient" code ... and ... I guess, people should try to get that

If I was prez, I'd scrap every redundant piece of code out there, there'd only be 1 Fixpack, 1 Tweakpack, and 1 MILLION quest mods!!! (and maybe 1 Cheatpack too while we're at it ) ... Ah well, that's exactly the reason why I'm not prez

A tweak pack can have as many different, possibly even conflicting tweaks as it wants (see above for how to resolve)

Ok, ok ... So that can happen then

Cheers,
Lol

[Salk]

A fixpack is different, because people disagree on what exactly qualifies as a fix, but a tweak is a tweak.

Someone could reply saying that a tweak is sometimes a fix...

By the way, did you work on more instances for your RP fixes, kthxbye?

Edited by Salk, 20 October 2009 - 08:11 AM.

[Lollorian]

By the way, did you work on more instances for your RP fixes, kthxbye?

I actually forgot to ask this earlier lol More dialog always perks up the game anytime (unless you have a fubared dialog.tlk ... in which case it'd be baaaaaaaaddd )

Cheers,
Lol

Edited by Lollorian, 20 October 2009 - 08:31 AM.

[kthxbye]

I'm doing a list while finding some dialogs to "fix" during my current no*reload challenge. So far, I must look into farmer Brun, Sarhedra and Mad Arcanad for sure, and by memory I know there are some quests in Baldur's Gate with dialogs I can change a bit - actually, there is one I'd like to change in a bit more intrusive way. The guy asks for a specific sphene gem, taken from the corpse of the basilisk inside one of the buildings in the dock (I think? In the city anyway) but he will accept any sphene gem, and the player can actually finish the quest without ever seeing the basilisk. I'd like either to change the dialog so that it makes sense for him to accept every sphene gem, or change the basilisk's gem with a custom one so that he will accept only that one, and the quest will keep its original flavor.

What I need to do before I can fix these things is only to find the name of the character, I will look up all the infos I need with Near Infinity and Infinity Explorer - if you already have a list of dialogs you'd like to see fixed and post it here, I'd be glad to see into each dialog and fix it without having to make you wait 'till I hit that point of the game.

I actually didn't think about a possible tlk saturation - is it really possible, and what would it lead to? Anyway, I'll code the component with separate .d files and separate sections inside the component tph, so if the tlk has too many strings it will be easy to comment out part of the component and keep only the most relevant changes.

EDIT: so the direct answer is "no, I haven't yet but I have a list, and with Rose recently updated I can use some time on ktweaks and the quest mod that was requested about two or three eons ago".
And, by the way, I completely forgot about Perdue! I think I can "fix" his dialog too. And Melicamp's quest. Omigosh, there's so much stuff I've forgotten/overlooked.

Edited by kthxbye, 20 October 2009 - 08:45 AM.

[Lollorian]

I actually didn't think about a possible tlk saturation - is it really possible, and what would it lead to? Anyway, I'll code the component with separate .d files and separate sections inside the component tph, so if the tlk has too many strings it will be easy to comment out part of the component and keep only the most relevant changes.

No my friend, it's not your problem at all

I was just talking random (and stupid) thoughts It's nothing your mod does. I don't even know if a tlk saturation is even possible lol My dialog.tlk's around 50 MB and the only string sillyness I got was from the NMR-relations mod

Cheers,
Lol

[kthxbye]

Whew, good thing!
I knew my mod alone couldn't give that kind of problems, but I was worried about megamods.

Anyway, time to vote: for quests like the sphene gem ones, is it better to change the item (possibly breaking compatibility with some other mods) and change the dialog only a little, or change the dialog a bit more (always keeping vanilla references to facts/locations/npcs) without touching items? I personally like both solutions. The first option would mean the quest (taking the sphene gem as an example) becomes "that basilisk has MY gem, get it back!" while the second one would mean "look, I want a sphene gem and I know that the basilisk there and there has one, but every sphene gem is fine".

[Jarno Mikkola]

Anyway, time to vote: for quests like the sphene gem ones, is it better to change the item (possibly breaking compatibility with some other mods) and change the dialog only a little, or change the dialog a bit more (always keeping vanilla references to facts/locations/npcs) without touching items? I personally like both solutions. The first option would mean the quest (taking the sphene gem as an example) becomes "that basilisk has MY gem, get it back!" while the second one would mean "look, I want a sphene gem and I know that the basilisk there and there has one, but every sphene gem is fine".

Well, it's best that you keep the original items, and then add an item if you need to, or at least warn that you'll be overwriting objects.
And if you have a item upgrade mod, make sure that the required item has brought enough requirement state(so open up a BWP game with NearInfinity and search for your item by name to get all the item codes), and then make sure to only remove one if multiple are not required.

[Salk]

Whew, good thing!
I knew my mod alone couldn't give that kind of problems, but I was worried about megamods.

Anyway, time to vote: for quests like the sphene gem ones, is it better to change the item (possibly breaking compatibility with some other mods) and change the dialog only a little, or change the dialog a bit more (always keeping vanilla references to facts/locations/npcs) without touching items? I personally like both solutions. The first option would mean the quest (taking the sphene gem as an example) becomes "that basilisk has MY gem, get it back!" while the second one would mean "look, I want a sphene gem and I know that the basilisk there and there has one, but every sphene gem is fine".

I like better the first approach, actually.

Stress shouldn't even be on the fact that the gem is a sphene but rather that it has some special relevance for the man that offers the quest. Certainly, Baldur's Gate abuses of the same formula for many sidequests but that's another problem (I would solve it by just cutting drastically the number of practically identical quests).

[kthxbye]

If we make a list of similar sidequests, I could change them a little with another component (like "RP fixes - intrusive fixes") instead of cutting them out.
I'll work on the RP fixes component these days.

I have a little problem with another component: the "(BETA) allow blades 2 points in bladed weapons" works as it actually let blades to specialize in bladed weapons, but it seems that the characters don't get the 0.5 APR bonus from specializing - still, they get the THAC0 bonus. Is there anything else than the weapprof.2da that I have to modify in order to grant them the APR from specialization?
On a side note, I really think I'll balance this component by making blades not able to get proficient with missile weapons, crossbows and bows (those really don't fit with the description I've read of the blades from an AD&D manual), leaving only throwing knives and spells for ranged combat.

[vilkacis]

it seems that the characters don't get the 0.5 APR bonus from specializing

Apparently only fighter-types (or fighter/xyzs) will get an APR bonus from specialization.

...it makes very little sense, but that's the IE for you.

[kthxbye]

Oh, that's okay then. Thought it was my component coded wrong (well, it IS signed as beta) but at least now I know it isn't that way. Thanks.

EDIT: actually, while the restriction itself is a bit strange and, well, maybe not welcome, it helps the component to be more balanced. Can't say I dislike that, thinking only about the beta component of ktweaks,

Edited by kthxbye, 22 October 2009 - 10:22 PM.

[hook71]

Found the following typos in the tra-files.

hints-joia.tra:

@2 = ~It seems Joia's father ol' ring. She lives near the gate, if ya want to return it to her.~

It seems Joia's father ol' ring. -> It looks like Joia's father's ol' ring.

@12 = ~I understand, and this is way I'm here. You see, I already retrieved your ring and asked Bentley where to find you. Here, let me give it back.~

way -> why

hints-joseph.tra:

@11 = ~I've found only the ring. I'm afraid your husband's dead.. I'm sorry.~

I've found only -> I only found

@16 = ~I'm very sorry for your pain. Here, have his ring to remember him with.~

with -> by

hints-mirianne.tra:

@3 = ~Yes, yes, I know. She lives in the house just north of Taerum's shop, ya can't be wrong. Need anything else?~

be -> go

@10 = ~Could you give a look at this letter? I found it on the road south of town, and I'd like to deliver it to this Mirianne. Do you know where she lives?~

give -> take

@14 = ~Then I hope this will help for me. I found this letter south of here, and would like to deliver it. Do you know where Mirianne lives?~

Confused about the "Then I hope this will help for me." part. Should it be "Then I hope you can help me."?

Edited by hook71, 31 January 2012 - 01:55 PM.