Aielund Saga Improvements (Need Input/Feedback)

[Legacy_MrZork]

               

Just a guess regarding the PM thing: Whether or not it's still the case, at one time the Bioware Social boards made it a bit of an annoyance to initiate a private conversation between members. Instead of just clicking on someone's profile and sending a PM, there was a requirement that the sender first apply for and be accepted as the recipient's "friend", then the PM could be sent. There may even have been some further complication that I am forgetting. Particularly when trying to interact with people who didn't check the boards every day, it became potentially a several day process to get to the point where the first PM could be sent and read. Lots of people gave up on it.


My impression was that the PM complication was fixed sometime near the transition from the BW Social boards to the current boards. Now, I think the sender can simply click the recipient's avatar or even just hover over the recipient's name to get to a "Send Message" option.

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Empyre65]

               

Basically what MrZork said, You can only PM somebody who is already your friend.

 

Thank you for the status update, and congrats to your WoW guild.

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_MagicalMaster]

               

Basically what MrZork said, You can only PM somebody who is already your friend.

 

You heard it here first, folks, Empyre doesn't want to be my friend.

 

Thank you for the status update, and congrats to your WoW guild.

 

Thanks.  I'll try to update the first post within the week to reflect all of the planned changes based on the 8 pages of the topic, think it's only up to date for the first page or three right now.

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Empyre65]

               

You heard it here first, folks, Empyre doesn't want to be my friend.

On the contrary, I'd be happy to have another friend. I meant only that we haven't officially declared friendship in the forum software, and I didn't want to do that just to make a PM. Now, I have found out that it is no longer a requirement. I swear that it was at some time. I'm surprised that nobody remembers it. It generated a big fuss at the time, only a year or two ago.

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_MagicalMaster]

               

I swear that it was at some time. I'm surprised that nobody remembers it. It generated a big fuss at the time, only a year or two ago.

 

Oh, I remember it, and thought it was completely ridiculous at the time.

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Lilura]

               

From memory, the only thing I'd really like to see fixed before my next Aielund Saga play-through is:

 

   Spoiler
   

When Abaddon "dies", he uses Saqaarin commander dialogue.

 

I realize you have lots on your plate, though:

 

Aielund Saga improvements

Hordes of the Underdark overhaul

OC complete redesign

A Peremptory Summons sequel

Being the best in the US at WoW

 

Just kidding. But yeah, real life can really get in the way. I hate that.

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_MagicalMaster]

               

From memory, the only thing I'd really like to see fixed before my next Aielund Saga play-through is:

 

Yeah, I might just dash that and a few other "quick" things out just to have them fixed.  Then work on fine tuning some of the less "urgent" things later.

 

Being the best in the US at WoW

 

To be clear, there's a reason I said "two night guild specifically."  You can sort of think of it as a group RPG campaign that's insanely difficult (note that there are easier difficulties for more casual players) and everyone in the world is racing to finish it first.  Except you need exactly 20 people (can't take more than 20 and less than 20 means you won't be able to beat the bosses) to progress through it which means you need a consistent group to work through it over time.  And by "over time" I mean "The hardest bosses can take 200+, sometimes 300+ attempts (so 6000+ individual deaths in the latter case) and even the easier ones usually take 20-100 tries."

 

Which means you then need to schedule blocks of time each week where everyone shows up.  And, of course, the more times you meet per week the faster you can work your way through it.  The top guilds in the world literally will be playing 12+ hours a day for a few weeks to finish first and they schedule their vacation days and such around it.  Once they do finish they go back to a more sane schedule for the next 5-6 months until the next "campaign" comes out at which point they go nuts again.  But, as you might imagine, the vast majority of players have no interest in doing that and instead just play a few hours a night a few times a week.  Thus within the category of "two nights a week" our guild is the top ranked...but overall we're ranked lower than some "four nights a week" guilds -- even with equal or better skill than some of them we simply can't compete with them having twice as much time per week.  That said, we're also ranked ahead of a hell of a lot of three and four night a week guilds -- just not the best of the best in those categories.

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Lilura]

               

Yeah, I might just dash that and a few other "quick" things out just to have them fixed.  Then work on fine tuning some of the less "urgent" things later.

 

Sounds good! And as Empyre65 said, thanks for the update!

 

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_livegood]

               

Hi,

 

Signed on to the forums just for this.

 

I've been playing the Aielund Saga and I'm coming up to the end of Chapter 3. This is a really great mod and I now prefer it over the main NWN campaign.

 

My main criticism of the experience so far has been the lack of documentation regarding the changes made by EMS. In many cases I have absolutely no idea what spells do precisely as the in-game descriptions have not been updated. The readme does not indicate changes for a lot of the spells involved e.g. there's no mention whatsoever that Everard's Black tentacles no longer does damage.

 

People have also mentioned auto-empower and auto-maximise - are these feats I have to take or are they granted automatically?

 

I think overall I prefer the EMS Magic to Vanilla though it's a bit of a downer never being sure what exactly is changed and what isn't.

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_MagicalMaster]

               

The readme does not indicate changes for a lot of the spells involved e.g. there's no mention whatsoever that Everard's Black tentacles no longer does damage.

 

That sounds odd as I don't recall that -- to be clear, you're using EBT on enemy *creatures*, right?  Been ages since I used EBT in EMS so I could easily be misremembering, I'll look into it.

 

People have also mentioned auto-empower and auto-maximise - are these feats I have to take or are they granted automatically?

 

Automatically.  Believe all spells are auto-Empowered at caster level 25, auto-Maximized at level 27, and both auto-Empowered and auto-Maximixed at level 33 I want to say?

 

I think overall I prefer the EMS Magic to Vanilla though it's a bit of a downer never being sure what exactly is changed and what isn't.

 

Agreed.  A few EMS changes were also not done well (like Stoneskin giving temporary Critical Immunity turns into permanent Critical Immunity if everyone has +5 or better weapons).

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_livegood]

               

That sounds odd as I don't recall that -- to be clear, you're using EBT on enemy *creatures*, right?  Been ages since I used EBT in EMS so I could easily be misremembering, I'll look into it.

 

 

Automatically.  Believe all spells are auto-Empowered at caster level 25, auto-Maximized at level 27, and both auto-Empowered and auto-Maximixed at level 33 I want to say?

 

 

Agreed.  A few EMS changes were also not done well (like Stoneskin giving temporary Critical Immunity turns into permanent Critical Immunity if everyone has +5 or better weapons).

 

Yeah - enemy creatures. For whatever reason the hold/paralyse effect seems to work well and there's a "grapple" check so it's definitely EMS - just no damage, ever.

 

Also, even though I've moved the difficulty slider to hardcore/insane friendly fire is always off. Other stuff like crits on PC work perfectly fine.

 

Thanks for the info on auto empower and maximise - that's really helpful.

 

The stoneskin thing I'm not mad about  '>

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_MrZork]

               

I pretty much dumped EMS after an hour or so of my first play through of Aielund. I renamed EMS_FAKE.HAK to EMS.HAK and never looked back.

 

That's not to say that EMS doesn't have some significant improvements. It does. But, if faced with a choice between a system with potential improvements that are undocumented or (as in this case) very poorly documented and a the base system which has flaws but is pretty well documented, I am going to take the latter every time. And, I say that with a ton of sympathy for EMS' author. I know personally that it's a huge effort to make significant changes to something like a spell system, but finding the energy and enthusiasm to do that challenging-but-fun job is a totally separate hurdle from finding the energy and enthusiasm to do the tedious job of documenting all the changes in a way that is clear to someone besides the author.

 

BTW, I believe it's also the case that EMS (which had several revisions) came out before Bioware's final set of fixes for NWN, so some of the issues EMS addresses may be addressed in NWN without EMS.

 

I don't recall there being an issue with the EMS Evard's, but I might not have used EMS long enough to try Evard's. I know that that EMS documentation mentions several changes to Evard's, but I most of them look like they would increase the damage done compared to 1.69 Evard's. This is one of the cases where I wish I had the source for EMS, since I am somewhat curious how he got Evard's to both respect bludgeoning damage resistance and also penetrate damage reduction as +2 weapons. I thought lack of DR penetration was an engine limitation...

 

(Of course, there are references to the PHB Evard's. There are many references to EMS changes which purport to make something work "per PHB". That can be a little annoying since most NWN players probably don't have any version of the PHB handy and I don't recall that EMS ever makes it clear which edition PHB it is using, even if one were arsed to track one down.)

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Bawookles]

               Yeah, I don't like playing with EMS either, it's too nerfed for the most part.

One spell that really stands out in Aielund with EMS is Darkness. When enemies do that spell under EMS, it's trivial, but the fights become more challenging without EMS. It allows enemy spellcasters to actually be a challenge when they aren't nerfed by EMS.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_MagicalMaster]

               

Also, even though I've moved the difficulty slider to hardcore/insane friendly fire is always off. Other stuff like crits on PC work perfectly fine.

 

Yes, that's intentional for many reasons, which range from balance to practical ease-of-use to not breaking modules.  Only Lighting Bolt has friendly fire because it's a plot mechanic in parts of Aielund.

 

The stoneskin thing I'm not mad about  '>

 

Wait until you play a weapon master or rogue, get +5 or better weapons, and are never able to crit/sneak attack an enemy because because he cast Stoneskin and your weapon just pierces through it anyway.

 

That's not to say that EMS doesn't have some significant improvements. It does. But, if faced with a choice between a system with potential improvements that are undocumented or (as in this case) very poorly documented and a the base system which has flaws but is pretty well documented, I am going to take the latter every time.

 

Why do you say "very poorly documented?"  I mean, aren't 95%+ of EMS's changes perfectly clearly documented?  And frankly you can generally ignore the documentation and simply use spells in the manner they appear to be intended and be perfectly fine (as in, better off than default in power/balance/ease of use).  A person who simply read the name of each spell and got the general idea of what the purpose of the spell was would be much better off with EMS.

 

I also think you're missing out considerably as a result of skipping EMS (and also breaking the balance of Aielund in several ways).

 

This is one of the cases where I wish I had the source for EMS, since I am somewhat curious how he got Evard's to both respect bludgeoning damage resistance and also penetrate damage reduction as +2 weapons. I thought lack of DR penetration was an engine limitation...

 

Are you not able to open the hak file in the hak utility?  Traveling at the moment and don't have access to a computer with NWN installed or I'd check it myself.

 

Yeah, I don't like playing with EMS either, it's too nerfed for the most part.

 

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.  Oh, you were serious?

 

EMS was specifically designed to actually increase the power of spellcasters overall (especially in epic levels where they started to stall) while reining in some broken spells.  Unless you think the idea of doing nothing but spamming Maximized/Empowered/Silenced/Regular IGMS is awesome then you're much better off with EMS.  The only other major "nerf" I'm thinking of off-hand was not allowing a mage to turn an unenchanted weapon into a +5, 11-14 fire damage, and keen weapon.  Pick one bonus property, basically.  Oh, and I think Mestil's was made less insane?  I mean, a level 40 mage doing 81-86 Acid damage plus 41-48 fire damage every time you meleed him/her was obviously balanced.

Outside of that?

 

Mage Armor was buffed (early on, at least, and it becomes obsolete later on like it should IMHO).

Shield was buffed (actually gives Shield AC now and is always useful).

Ability buffs were buffed (always +4 now).

Odd-scaling spells like Ice Storm were buffed.

Stoneskin was crazy buffed.

Ball Lighting was buffed.

IGMS was buffed in a practical sense (meaning in modules that feature heavy immunities/resistances it now becomes very useful due to ignoring them and the module designer doesn't have to make every important mob immune to the spell or have heavy magic resistance).

Horrid Wilting was buffed.

Premonition was crazy buffed (remove the Sneak Attack immunity and tone down the physical immunity and I think it's a fairly solid idea).

PW:S and PW:K were buffed.

Meteor Swarm was buffed and NOW YOU ACTUALLY HAVE A LEVEL 9 AOE THAT DOESN'T SUCK WOOHOO!

 

And much, much more (like dispels actually showing better information).  Not to mention the auto Empower/Maximize or both as you continue into epic levels and improved Greater Ruin/Hellball (can you say "yes please" to a Hellball that hits every enemy for 375ish damage IIRC)?

 

Don't get me wrong, I think EMS has some significant flaws (like the problems mentioned with Stoneskin/Premonition for starters).  But I still think it's massively better in pretty much every way compared to the default system if I had to pick one of the two.

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_MrZork]

               

 

That's not to say that EMS doesn't have some significant improvements. It does. But, if faced with a choice between a system with potential improvements that are undocumented or (as in this case) very poorly documented and a the base system which has flaws but is pretty well documented, I am going to take the latter every time.

Why do you say "very poorly documented?" I mean, aren't 95%+ of EMS's changes perfectly clearly documented?

 

The only EMS doc that one is likely to see is EMS_Changes.txt, which I consider to be pretty incomplete documentation. (And, EMS_Guide.txt describes some switches and broader changes, but not individual spell changes.) For instance, here is the entry for Evard's Black Tentacles, with numbers added in square brackets for review

[1] Duration now correctly (per PHB and even BW) R/L.

[2a] Per PHB, creatures inside the tentacles move at half speed.

[2a] Per PHB, there is no Fort save: you either resist the grapple or you

don't. You are also NOT paralyzed, merely immobilized.

[3] The "grapple check" math is now correct and scales with the caster,

and is also a true grapple. BW just had it as 5+d20 vs AC, which is

why this spell has generally been considered a joke: the tentacles

couldn't "hit" most creatures on anything except a 20.

[4] Per BW, the tentacles are +2 "weapons", so GV etc will NOT reduce

the damage inflicted by them.

[5] Unlike BW, attacks are NOT combined, so DR is applied correctly.

[1] Right away, we have some potential confusion because it isn't clear that Bioware intended the spell to be rounds/level (as the first line implies) instead of rounds per 2 levels, as in the spell description.

[2] Several references to "per PHB" which most NWN players don't have and couldn't tell from the docs which version to get, if they were inclined to track it down. (Nevermind that NWN - while clearly inspired by D&D - isn't an exact representation of D&D game mechanics.)

[3] Apparently, there is some older version of Bioware's EBT that computed the grapple check differently. Since the docs don't mention what NWN patch he is fixing and the current Bioware version doesn't work the way he describes it, it's tough to know what he was trying to fix. And, worse, since he doesn't detail how the "correct" grapple check is done, there is no way to be sure how it differs from the current Bioware version.

[4] Sort of a mystery how this is done, but I at least know what this means.

[5] Although one might take this to imply that the Bioware version combined attack rolls against multiple targets or from overlapping castings of the spell or something else, I assume he is referring to an older version of the spell that combined all the tentacle damage per target. I guess this at least means that EMS (or at least this part of the docs) was written after 1.67 came out and before 1.69 came out.


Anyway, I am sure some of the documentation is more than adequate, but there is plenty that is vague or refers to other sources of behavior whose versions aren't clear and which the player isn't likely to have anyway.

 

And frankly you can generally ignore the documentation and simply use spells in the manner they appear to be intended and be perfectly fine (as in, better off than default in power/balance/ease of use). A person who simply read the name of each spell and got the general idea of what the purpose of the spell was would be much better off with EMS.

For some players (maybe the majority?), assuming that the spell sort of works may be fine. I generally play wizards hoping that I know in pretty decent detail what the spells do when they are cast.


(BTW, my criticism of EMS documentation isn't to let Bioware off the hook. Many Bioware spell descriptions are either vague or outright erroneous. But, at this point, I think the NWN Wiki has clarified most of the major issues and that resource is easily available to players. Obviously, it wouldn't be fair to expect something similar for EMS, but that's an advantage the Bioware versions have just by dint of having gotten so much attention.)

 

But, plenty of EMS-altered spells quite frankly won't work the way they are described in game. The level 2 ability buff spells are an obvious example. EMS makes a simple change, and one that benefits the spell's target 50% of the time (and works to his detriment 25%). But, it certainly isn't doing what the player expects. Combine that with the changes to empower and a player has little idea what the spell will do.

 

I also think you're missing out considerably as a result of skipping EMS (and also breaking the balance of Aielund in several ways).

I have played Aielund a couple times now and never been struck by an outrageously unbalanced battle. Whatever balance improvements EMS may provide, Aielund is quite playable without them.

 

And, I am aware that EMS does a much better job of scaling spell damage with caster level, one of my big complaints about NWN spells, most of which were clearly designed before epic levels were part of the game and never modified to deal with epic-level casters. But, ultimately, there are lots of EMS changes and I prefer knowing what's going on over assuming my casting toons would be more powerful if I used a system whose details are more opaque.

 

 

This [Evard's DR penetration change] is one of the cases where I wish I had the source for EMS, since I am somewhat curious how he got Evard's to both respect bludgeoning damage resistance and also penetrate damage reduction as +2 weapons. I thought lack of DR penetration was an engine limitation...

Are you not able to open the hak file in the hak utility? Traveling at the moment and don't have access to a computer with NWN installed or I'd check it myself.

The source scripts for the spells are not in the EMS HAK. There may be (or have been) a developer's version of EMS released at some point with the sources, but I have never seen it. If EMS addresses what is widely understood to be an engine limitation, I don't know how it is done.