And subtledoctor is stuck in his loop.
A.k.a. you just don't have enough comprehension to understand the point?
So nobody knows what the upper limit of SPECIFIC is? The value I picked under 250 probably works, I haven't tested yet. ... Still, I'd rather go with a value more definitely not used by anyone.
Lots of things add values to SPECIFIC.ids, and some of thems eem to do so programmatically. I'm not sure it's possible to say "this value is definitely not used by anyone." It would be necessary to check for an unused value in your mod installation
Weidu script.
Of course that's just problem #1. Problem #2 is that assigning a new specifics value to a creature will bump its existing value, which will break whatever it was doing; and the next mod to come along and use them will bump your value, which will break your mod.
never seen any bugreport pertaining to two mods clashes about SPECIFICS of a certain creature. If you could share any data to prove the contrary I would be grateful because I am considering to use it as well.
I don't know what and how the bugs might be seen, all I know is that the .CRE file structure only allows you to have a single value for "specifics" (0x274, 1 byte), so the SPECIFIC value can only ever do one thing for a creature. Whereas, a .CRE can be assigned hundreds or thousands of spellstates simultaneously and they will all work fine. For this reason, put together with the concern mentioned above, spellstates are strictly superior for this application. There is literally zero benefit to using specifics - in this case.
Here is a shot of SPECIFIC.ids in an unmodified
BGEE install:
And here is a shot in a basic
EET install:
I don't know what added all those entries, or how. And note, this is a
bare EET install - no actual mods have been installed onto it. So all sorts of other things might add more values there.
I have asked many years ago what mods, if any, actually uses SPECIFICS, but got no response.
My feat system and the newest version of Refinements uses a SPECIFIC value for player-character thieves. In my defense, it did not exist many years ago
I only made it a couple months ago. It does not conflict with
SoD or any other mods from what I can tell, it only affects thieves who are one of your six party members. Even then I really wanted to avoid it, except there is literally no other way to achieve what the mod does, and my feature requests with Beamdog have so far fallen on deaf ears.
EDIT - the recent "Shadow Magic" mod also uses specifics for party members, but only for a few kits (mage/sorcerer/monk, I think), and in ways that do not conflict with my usage for thieves.
My sense of this is that it's a minefield for compatibility... happily, there are other systems that are strictly superior to using specifics for just about anything a modder might want to do. And hopefully with the new patch, the number of those other superior systems will be even greater.
This might help more, if you gave a live example of your code. Anyone ?
He seems to really not want that. Why would I take the time to collect and post something that nobody actually wants?
Anyway I didn't write it myself, I think actually GeN1e gave it to me... also, although I used it a couple months ago, I don't actually remember what I used it for
There is a lot of code on my github page, and I'm not sure where to look for this bit.
Edited by subtledoctor, 20 February 2018 - 08:04 AM.