Jump to content


Photo

A thank you, a comment, a question


  • Please log in to reply
40 replies to this topic

#21 Markus Ramikin

Markus Ramikin
  • Member
  • 104 posts

Posted 24 December 2009 - 02:21 AM

double post

Edited by Markus Ramikin, 24 December 2009 - 02:34 AM.

*coughQwinncoughLotharcoughskullscough*

#22 Markus Ramikin

Markus Ramikin
  • Member
  • 104 posts

Posted 24 December 2009 - 02:34 AM

Phew, glad I read through this thread again before release, almost forgot about it and there are a few small fixes here I did want to implement.

I ended up using the first three, not the GUI thing though because my monitor kinda hates all the resolutions you support (well I hate them too). Wish there was a 1024x768 option.


Hopefully you've noticed by now that Ghostdog has taken care of this problem, as his next release supports all resolutions. Yay Ghostdog!

Great news! I'll have to take a look.

Bug: choosing to attack a Red Abishai through dialogue did not make the fiend hostile. It should.


Fixed. (It already made -you- attack -him-, odd that that wouldn't make him hostile, maybe it only has you attack once and you missed? Well, whatever, he'll aggro for sure now).

I forgot to post about it, and it's been a while since I played Torment so can't give you a detailed list, but I remember noticing later that a lot of other situations like that work that way. That if a dialogue ends in the NO declaring an attack, rather than the NPC, then it's the NO that gets set to aggro as dialogue ends, and the NPC only reacts once an attack goes through. So I guess this sort of a thing was originally intended.

The bodice of the perilous quest actually sets her base AC to 4 (this is what the unidentified description claims is correct, but you'll never see it in the game). I agree that the AC 5 in the identified description is just a simple mistake (this bodice is just too useless otherwise). Regardless, Grace naturally has insane armor class (AC 2 when naked), so none of the bodices actually affect her armor class (so the perilous quest remains completely useless).


Ewww. I didn't realize this. And yes, it's true, looking at her CRE file, she has a "Natural AC" of 2. Guess that makes all the fixes on the bodice I did pointless. Oh well. I wonder if the AC sources were meant to stack? In theory I would think they should... no matter how hard her skin is, another layer of armor should provide additional protection, I'd think. Anyone know the 2nd edition rule on how natural and regular armor is supposed to stack? If 2nd edition says they should stack, I'd consider that sufficient to make them do so as a fix, given how silly the actual implementation is.

Hm no, I'd much prefer if you leave it alone, please. If you changed this mechanics, you'd probably seriously rebalance the whole game because it would apply to every character with multiple sources of basic armor. And didn't you say that the game is "too easy" as it is?

I couldn't tell you which Edition it is, but now that I think of it, I've seen it work exactly the same way in other games: for basic/body armor only the best source gets used, while other AC sources stack. For instance I was toying with one of the old Wizardry games some time ago and it worked he same way there.

In any case, the game is internally consistent, it works the same in other situations - for instance a mage bracelet or one of the two AC-related spells also work like body armor and they won't improve AC if you already have an equal or better source of armor elsewhere (like Dak'kon's armor). Other AC sources (rings, earrings, the other AC-related spell, Dexterity) add AC bonuses instead of setting AC, and those stack. So this isn't an isolated bug with Grace, it's intended, and that's enough for me now that I understand that Grace has a natural AC of 2. With rings, earrings and philactery her AC becomes ridiculous as it is, she doesn't need even more stacked on. The bodices have other effects which are useful enough.

I can't find anything along the lines of "I'm here to kill you."

Eh, I meant the same one that you get when you've accepted the mission to kill him. I forget, it's been a while and I lost my saves. Sorry for the imprecise report. I'll look into it when I play the game again... that won't be tomorrow, though.

Thanks for taking the time to reply here again!

*coughLotharcoughskullscough* ;)

Edited by Markus Ramikin, 24 December 2009 - 02:59 AM.

*coughQwinncoughLotharcoughskullscough*

#23 Qwinn

Qwinn
  • Modder
  • 3092 posts

Posted 24 December 2009 - 03:11 AM

Hm no, I'd much prefer if you leave it alone, please. If you changed this mechanics, you'd probably seriously rebalance the whole game because it would apply to every character with multiple sources of basic armor. And didn't you say that the game is "too easy" as it is?


Oh, I wasn't planning on doing anything global like that (I doubt I could without scient's help anyway). I was just pondering doing it for Grace specifically, maybe by setting her natural AC to 10 and giving her an invisible -8 AC item that would stack with the armor. Again, depends on what the rules say. I do realize that some forms of AC stack and others don't, I was wondering what the ruling was on actual armor worn over "natural" armor, I don't think I've seen that situation before.

It just seems very odd to give the armor AC's so poor as to be effectively irrelevant, and also that she has the same defenses naked versus armored. Actually, come to think of it, a better way to give the illusion of their stacking would be to just give the armors better AC (like Perilous Quest being -3 instead of 5). But, again, depends on the 2nd ed. ruling. I won't do anything unless someone can specifically say, yes, they're supposed to stack.

Qwinn

Edited by Qwinn, 24 December 2009 - 03:16 AM.


#24 Markus Ramikin

Markus Ramikin
  • Member
  • 104 posts

Posted 24 December 2009 - 03:37 AM

Oh, I see.
*coughQwinncoughLotharcoughskullscough*

#25 -Guest-

-Guest-
  • Guest

Posted 24 December 2009 - 04:31 AM

I agree, and it is fixed in the dialogue fix component.

This was a brutal massacre of English. To note, this is what I did locally to massage it into some semblance of legibility (the comma just isn't strong enough); it's the best I could do without dramatically altering the structure:

@47485=~You awake from uneasy dreams to find yourself transformed in your dank lair into a rather small, four-limbed fleshy thing. You're lying on your shell-less - as it were wholly unprotected - back, and when you lift your tiny head - unadorned with its usual sensory antennae - a little, you can see your pinkish belly, partly covered in soft, curling hairs, quite unlike the black bristles you're accustomed to seeing there. Your two - only two! - legs now jut from the end of your torso rather than up from around your abdomen. They look thick and ungainly in proportion to your body and lie there limply, making no attempt to right you on their own - only by actively concentrating can you move the things. What has *happened* to you?~


Ewww. I didn't realize this. And yes, it's true, looking at her CRE file, she has a "Natural AC" of 2. Guess that makes all the fixes on the bodice I did pointless. Oh well. I wonder if the AC sources were meant to stack? In theory I would think they should... no matter how hard her skin is, another layer of armor should provide additional protection, I'd think. Anyone know the 2nd edition rule on how natural and regular armor is supposed to stack? If 2nd edition says they should stack, I'd consider that sufficient to make them do so as a fix, given how silly the actual implementation is.

I don't know offhand, although I don't know that any PC class actually gets a base AC that isn't 10 (certainly, a monster's AC can be taken to be the value with standard armor and equipment for the creature type).

I've mentioned this elsewhere, but no harm in repeating it: the counter DID have an effect, it determined how many times TNO would resurrect in the Fortress. However, it -added- to them instead of subtracted. This meant that unless you went to the Fortress alone, you'd get so many resurrections that you'd actually have to try to run out. If you go in with a full party, you get 6. Then as each companion died, you'd get another free rez. I determined, and confirmed, that this is a bug - the dying should subtract an available resurrection, not add one. So, in version 4.0 onward, the Fortress does become a significantly more dangerous place... dying there, with few if any living creatures able to take your place, was not meant to be trivial and conflicts directly with the lore of the game.

Ooh, more Planescape hardcode! ;-) Thanks for taking time to point this out.

#26 -Ding0-

-Ding0-
  • Guest

Posted 24 December 2009 - 05:08 AM

You're lying on your shell-less - as it were wholly unprotected - back

This doesn't really make much sense either. Do we really need "as it is/were" at all? "You're lying on your shell-less - wholly unprotected - back"

#27 -Guest-

-Guest-
  • Guest

Posted 24 December 2009 - 05:55 AM

It didn't bother me, but it's a tough one, sure. I wasn't willing to remove any words from the original string, and I think your edit just makes it strange, as it were drawing attention to the association of an absent shell to an unprotected back, as backs quite normally are, for no reason whatsoever that the reader could ever hope to discern.

Like I said, the original is just a total "WTF" massacre of English. I did the best to preserve his complete failure and still give the reader some chance of surviving to the end of the final sentence. :-)

#28 -Guest-

-Guest-
  • Guest

Posted 24 December 2009 - 08:11 AM

I think your edit just makes it strange, as it were drawing attention to the association of an absent shell to an unprotected back

I don't think this is strange at all. The whole idea of the passage is that you're USED to having a shell, so "as backs quite normally are" doesn't work here. If you're used to wearing clothes and suddenly find yourself naked in public, your reaction isn't just "where have my clothes gone?" but also "shit! I'm naked!" Similarly, if you're used to having a shell and suddenly find yourself without one, you probably feel rather unprotected. This was my reading of the original text, as I don't see otherwise why you'd go to the effort of clarifying what shell-less means.

I don't really understand how your correction makes more sense than the old version. Sure, it's easier to ignore the nonsensical clause and move on to the rest of the sentence, but it's still a nonsensical clause. No amount of shifting the punctuation around makes this make sense.

#29 Qwinn

Qwinn
  • Modder
  • 3092 posts

Posted 24 December 2009 - 09:19 AM

Actually, rereading it again, I think I see the point of that second "your" now.

Here's the original:

"You're lying on your shell - less, as it is wholly unprotected, your back - and when you lift your tiny head"

I'm now reading it as something like this:

"You're lying on your shell - wtf, your shell is gone! So I guess it's really just your back - and when you lift"

I'm thinking of putting that your back in now, as this seems as reasonable to me a reading as others suggested.

A lot of those suggested commas in post #25, though, yeah, I'm agreeing with them in most cases.

Qwinn

#30 -Guest-

-Guest-
  • Guest

Posted 24 December 2009 - 10:31 AM

The original I have from vanilla PST is different (I only made slight changes in punctuation in #25)?

You awake from uneasy dreams to find yourself transformed in your dank lair into a rather small, four-limbed, fleshy thing. You're lying on your shell-less, as it were wholly unprotected, back and when you lift your tiny head - unadorned with its usual sensory antennae - a little you can see your pinkish belly, partly covered in soft, curling hairs quite unlike the black bristles you're accustomed to seeing there. Your two - only two! - legs now jut from the end of your torso, rather than up from around your abdomen. They look thick and ungainly in proportion to your body, and lie there limply, making no attempt to right you on their own - only by actively concentrating can you move the things. What has *happened* to you?

As you can see, the change in yours is pretty dramatic, and I'm not sure it makes that much more sense (it improves readability, but where else is this shell that you're laying on going to be, and why did you tell me I was laying on it only to tell me now that there is no shell?). All the other parenthetical elements here are clarifications or additions, and this would stand out as a pretty weird construct (not that the rest of the string is any more spectacular, though)?

#31 Qwinn

Qwinn
  • Modder
  • 3092 posts

Posted 24 December 2009 - 12:18 PM

You're right, that was the original. The bit with adding the dashes and the second your in that sentence was actually -my- attempt in the dialogue fixes component to make it more readable, I'd just forgotten about making that change.

I'll review all the suggested changes later.

Qwinn

#32 Qwinn

Qwinn
  • Modder
  • 3092 posts

Posted 25 December 2009 - 09:12 PM

Okay, going back over it, I've actually decided to reverse -all- changes to that line and leave it the way it is in vanilla. Apologies to those who've worked hard (and successfully) to come up with a more readable version, but here's my reasoning:

1. I've noted that a -lot- of people, myself included, consider that line to be one of the best, if not *the* best sensory stone description in the game. This is based on the original, vanilla version of the text. It may be an awkward read, but that hasn't stopped a lot of people from taking the time to puzzle it out and conclude that, frankly, it's awesome.

2. It's possible that in this case the grammar issues really -were- intentional, but even if they weren't, it remains plausible that the effect of those issues is overall positive and part of why it is such a well liked passage. The subject doing the thinking in that passage is clearly supposed to be utterly bewildered. If the odd construction of the text, and needing to puzzle it out, works to make the reader himself feel somewhat bewildered and thus in a sense in the same boat as the subject, well, cool, it'd be a shame to screw that up by "fixing" it.

3. Even with all that said, I would still fix really glaring spelling errors. But the original line doesn't have any. Yes, some of its phrasing is bewildering, but, well, see #2.

Qwinn

Edited by Qwinn, 25 December 2009 - 09:27 PM.


#33 Markus Ramikin

Markus Ramikin
  • Member
  • 104 posts

Posted 07 May 2010 - 01:22 AM

So, since I'm back, might as well continue this splendid and productive thread. *ducks barrage of rotten tomatoes*

- From the Fixpack readme:

Vaxis's charisma stat checks that determine if Vaxis thinks you'd make a good looking zombie (i.e. if your charisma is low enough, yes) are now consistent across all similar dialogue paths.

I got him to zombiefy me while having a charisma of 18. So whatever maximum charisma check is done here must have failed.
Conversation path (I already had needle and embalming fluid on first meeting):
1 1 4 1 1 1 2 6 2 1


- And I guess you're already aware of linebreaks missing from text in a lot of instances. Such as the description of the prybar.

I am curious how that happened, anyway. I wonder if you've yet reached what I call Modding Equilibrium, the state where you've gotten the game as near perfection as it can get, and from now on all the effort you put into fixing something else results in an equal amount of things getting broken as a side effect. ;)



- Small dialogue inconsistency
Talking to Ash-Mantle, after grabbing his hand, he wanted me to promise I'd let him go if he answers my question about Pharod.
I said I'd let him *live*,
he said he has nothing to say,
I again said I'd let him *live*,
he answered my question,
then I wanted to ask him another, and he said something like "but you promised you'd let me go", and I got -1 on the law/chaos scale. Even though I never promised him I'd let him go.

Conversation path:
1 3 1 3 1 3 1 2 4 1 5 4 1 1
Conditions: high wis, int and cha, enough dex to grab his arm, didn't talk to Emoric and thus don't know about Dustmen organisation.

Edited by Markus Ramikin, 09 May 2010 - 02:57 AM.

*coughQwinncoughLotharcoughskullscough*

#34 scient

scient
  • Modder
  • 1010 posts

Posted 07 May 2010 - 05:38 AM

- And I guess you're already aware of linebreaks missing from text in a lot of instances. Such as the description of the prybar.

I am curious how that happened, anyway. I wonder if you've yet reached what I call Modding Equilibrium, the state where you've gotten the game as near perfection as it can get, and from now on all the effort you put into fixing something else results in an equal amount of things getting broken as a side effect.


This is definately a widescreen bug. I tested in game with just fixpack/ub/tweak, no problems. But in game with widescreen and ghostdog's UI, item had no line breaks. My suggestion is to post in ghostdogs forum section first.

The other things Qwinn will have to anwser.

Those interested in the classic TBS game Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri / Alien Crossover should check out the unofficial patch I work on here.


#35 lac

lac
  • Member
  • 97 posts

Posted 07 May 2010 - 09:37 AM

Many, many spells are missing linebreaks. For instance, in Dak'kon's level 1 list, 'reign of anger' and 'scripture of steel' are misformatted, while 'submerge the will' and 'vilquar's eye' format properly. Is this a widescreen bug as well?

#36 Markus Ramikin

Markus Ramikin
  • Member
  • 104 posts

Posted 07 May 2010 - 10:08 AM

- Small problem when defeating Many-As-One:

When you beat Many-As-One, by killing enough rats inside his lair, he says something about how he/they will not bother you any more. It's just a floating message, not proper dialogue, and it just flashes momentarily and disappears, probably because of all the combat/experience messages floating around at the same time. I've replayed this twice and haven't been able to get the message to stay on screen long enough to read it properly.

It's not a very big deal, but could something possibly be done about this? Perhaps it could be made into an actual dialogue event or something? As it is, it's very easy to miss that message. An unfamiliar player might not even realize he "won" and that the game recognizes that, rather than just that he ran out of rats to kill - case in point, GameBanshee walkthrough doesn't even mention the possibility of winning that fight.

- Did you guys mess with the Law/Chaos and Good/Evil influences from conversations? Or were they always like this?

I just noticed playing with the Modron cube cost me shift of 5 points in the Chaos direction. 5 (FIVE) points. For comparison:
- keeping Amarysse's money for Nobb cost me just 2.
- keeping the promise and giving Nobb money earns no Lawful shift.
- The conversation with Dak'kon, starting with Tcha's Choice and ending with me vowing truthfully to find a way to free Dak'kon, results in a total shift of 3 Lawful.
- telling Nobb the truth about Amarysse (rather than the "white lie" dialogue option) earns no Lawful shift.

Now I'm no veteran D&D player so no idea how this is normally done, but IMHO it should be the other way around. Serious stuff should matter more than jokes. I don't think it should be impossible to be Lawful except if you're a completely humorless git. Even Grace shows a sense of humor (like in the banter), and she's lawful.

I've been playing pretty lawfully, keeping serious promises and vows, telling the truth, and the only Chaotic things I remember doing were joke around (with Morte, with Sere etc) and lie about Adahn. You'd think I'd be somewhat in the Lawful territory, or at least balanced out? I'm in the Clerk Ward now and -14 on the scale...

EDIT: I never realized all those gate guards I killed going back and forth through the gate leading from Pharod's village to Weeping Catacombs each cost me a Chaotic shift. I must have lost like 30 points of lawful alignment there due to hauling stuff from the Catacombs for sale back to the village, and having a fresh band of suicidal morons attack me every time.
Still, maybe -that- is something worth looking at as something that shouldn't be possible. The idiots have no authority more official than a band of thugs, and they attack me first, so no idea why deciding not to let them bully me around has to end up costing me so much lawful alignment.
EDIT2: LOL, and they increase my murder count and make Mercykillers attack me? What the hell?

- Minor suggestion:
Just a thought, but after clearing Phineas' cellar of the wererat, it would make sense if you returned his key to him. I wonder if this is possible. Doesn't require extra dialogue, the loss/transfer could be automatically triggered by your reporting that the task was completed.

Edited by Markus Ramikin, 10 May 2010 - 01:11 PM.

*coughQwinncoughLotharcoughskullscough*

#37 Markus Ramikin

Markus Ramikin
  • Member
  • 104 posts

Posted 08 May 2010 - 07:56 AM

// Practical Incarnation certainly deserves 5 proficiency in his wimpy club, he was a high level fighter

How do we know this? I was always under the impression Practical Incarnation was a powerful mage.

Edited by Markus Ramikin, 08 May 2010 - 10:16 AM.

*coughQwinncoughLotharcoughskullscough*

#38 Qwinn

Qwinn
  • Modder
  • 3092 posts

Posted 08 May 2010 - 11:43 PM

How do we know this? I was always under the impression Practical Incarnation was a powerful mage.


The Practical Incarnation's stats are as follows:

12th level Fighter

Strength: 25
Intelligence: 25
Wisdom: 16
Dexterity: 14
Constitution: 19
Charisma: 20

Attacks per round: 3.5

Edited by Qwinn, 08 May 2010 - 11:43 PM.


#39 Markus Ramikin

Markus Ramikin
  • Member
  • 104 posts

Posted 09 May 2010 - 03:15 AM

*nod* I thought you meant story-wise.

BTW hope you haven't missed my earlier posts. (Of course it's perfectly acceptable that they just didn't contain any points you found interesting!)

- Possible item price problem:
In the Rubicon dungeon I found two Mirrors of Imaging. I can sell them to merchants, and they offer them back for a little under 3000 (price varies a little of course).

Problem is, they only offer 1 cc when buying from the NO. Is this intended? They mirror is an actually working magical item without side-effects, which justifies the price when sold by merchants. So I figure I should have been able to sell them for a decent price myself. They were properly identified when I sold, too.

- small suggestion: morale events
After Ravel, when you ask Grace about her torment and then follow with "are you going to be all right?", that might be a good point to reward with a +1 morale increase for Grace?

Also, improving Nordom could improve his morale, too. There's a number of dialogue moments where that would make sense. Telling him about being Creative Director, for instance. And especially the big pep talk resulting in him becoming stronger, faster and more powerful "for my director", that should be a major boost equivalent to finishing the Circle with Dak'kon.

I know this stuff doesn't matter much, just something that would make sense IMHO and would be nice to see. EDIT: Basically you should hire me to redo all the morale and alignment hits in the game. It'd be the happiest month of my life. ;)

- BUG (in the dialog DUCHO)
When you talk to a upper class harlot, the line "I'm not, but Morte here might be" shows up depending on the Morte_UCHO global, which is set when he's previously asked you to spot him some jink for a harlot but you said no. What is lacking is a condition that Morte is actually nearby.

As a result, if you talk to a Harlot with that global on, and Morte is not nearby, his lines are spoken by the default Zombie. Indeed, a Zombie actually appears overlapping with the prostitute.

Suggested solution: add NearbyDialog("Dmorte") to the conditions on that line.

- BUG (Ravel vs TO)
During that whole exchange, my party was visible in the lower left corner of the room. I retested and this occurs every time for me.

I play in 1024x768 resolution, if this matters.

Posted Image

Also, what is that shape to the left of Ravel? It's hard to see against the white forum, but it's somewhat noticeable in the game, like a stain or discoloration. You might have to download it and view it against a black background to see it clearly. Could be a monster of some sort that didn't get fully blacked out by this scene?

- BUG? (also during Ravel vs TO)
When Ravel says "...and no traffic with the living may I have", the following line from TO ("I care little for how you die...") starts too early, cuts her off before she's finished speaking. I've re-tested it and it happens some of the time, but not 100%. No idea what it's about, has this happened to anyone else?

Thought: the problem may be with Ravel's line, not TO's - there seems an extra long pause before Ravel's line, so maybe that one's delayed rather than the other one being too early.

Also, my max frame rates are set to 40 like the installation guide advises, dunno if that may have affected anything.

- BUG in Curst Warehouse
When you convince Ebb to help and he and all the Anarchists run out, one of the Anarchists just keeps standing there. This is almost certainly because she is trapped in a small area which there is no way out of. She disappears if I save and reload, though.

Maybe move or remove her? Unless you can adjust that piece of the map to let her out.

- Greater Glabrezu in Dreambuilder not chasing
Sometimes - not always - they won't chase past a certain point towards where Kesai is standing, letting me pelt them with spells with impunity. I imagine this is a bug, rather than an intended counter to how magic doesn't really work much against anything worth using it against in this game? ;)
(On that point, I'm a level 17 mage, with a ton of offensive spells, extra spell slots from items. I expended ALL those spells and killed about... 140% of a Greater Glabrezu. The other one I had to finish off with a dagger + large amount of healing charms. *insert more grumbling about dumb magic system*)

Edited by Markus Ramikin, 10 May 2010 - 01:16 PM.

*coughQwinncoughLotharcoughskullscough*

#40 Markus Ramikin

Markus Ramikin
  • Member
  • 104 posts

Posted 10 May 2010 - 07:18 PM

- Visual problem (in the Fortress of Regrets)
Like what I said (and illustrated with the picture) about the team showing up near the Ravel vs TO duel. The same thing happens during the death-of-companions scenes in the Fortress of Regrets: the NO is visible in them, at least I'm 100% sure in Grace's and Annah's case.

- BUG/inconsistency? (in the Fortress of Regrets)
The presence of shadows in the area with the clocks seems to depend on whether or not I've reloaded a save. Here's what I did:

I started by clearing the whole area (except the northmost room because I missed it) of Shadows. I made a save at this point.
Then I went back to the rightmost clock, used the portal. Grace's fight with TO happened.
I was teleported to a position on the left of the map. I tried to save but it said I can't.
I found and used the closeby portal. Annah's fight with the TO happened.
I was teleported to the next position, in the lower left of the area. I was able to quicksave.
At all this time there were no Shadows anywhere where I had first cleared them.

I reloaded the quicksave, and the whole map was repopulated with Shadows, including two close to where I stood.

I re-tested this a couple times. The map stays unpopulated IF I don't reload a save once the companion deaths start, but once I do reload it, all the shadows I killed are back. Also note that the first save (the one after cleaning up the map but before using the first portal/Grace's death scene) does not repopulate the map when I reload it. Only the later one, after two death scenes.

Maybe the player wasn't supposed to be able to save at this point? The inability to do it after the first death scene makes me suspect that. But I wouldn't know. Just reporting the situation. I don't even know what was intended in the first place, whether the Shadows were supposed to repopulate or stay dead. (I vote for "stay dead", but knowing Qwinn... ;) ). Either way, it feels buggy - whichever was intended, logically the other possibility was not.

Edited by Markus Ramikin, 10 May 2010 - 07:19 PM.

*coughQwinncoughLotharcoughskullscough*