A few questions for the experienced NWN players :)

[Legacy_Elhanan]

               

MagicalMaster wrote...

Yes, suggesting that someone should be more honest and forthright in their dealings is such a dastardly and terrible thing to say.  It must reflect rather poorly on my moral character to think that people should acknowledge and fix their mistakes like I just did rather than evading issues.

Actually as I recall, your humble replies have been to 'clarify the record' which was unneeded as the record was there for all to see, and to exemplify 'Fair enough' followed by veiled backhanded compliments as a proper apology.

The Appraisal check of said replies stands for me....

As for actual advice needed for experienced Players, that seems to have derailed ages ago, IMO.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_WhiZard]

               

FunkySwerve wrote...
That said, I still don't think Max is generally worth the full extra level. If mechanics allowed, it'd probably be worth more like 2.2 metamagic levels - in part because it requires a great deal of information and knowledge to use to maximal effect, which the person casting will often either not have access to, or will not have time to compute (like current remaining hit points).

Funky

Although NWN does not support it, as the spell levels go higher (in excess of 10), the maximize average can eventually outdo the empower investment per level (calculated logarithmicly) as the number of sides of the die increases.

Die roll    Spell levels Maximize is worth using the empower index
nd4          2.32
nd6          2.66
nd8          2.84
nd10        2.95
nd12        3.02

Thus, in DnD, if it is a low level spell, you would do better stacking up multiple empowers, but for higher level spells, maximize looks a bit enticing.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_WebShaman]

               My apologies Elhanan, I must have misunderstood you.  My bad.

As for actual advice needed for experienced Players, that seems to have derailed ages ago, IMO.

Yeah, out with the bathwater!  Hehe...

Nice to see you in the thread FS!  You of all peeps here has the most experience with this sort of thing IMHO.  I can only imagine the nightmares that you and your team have had to overcome for your PW HG.

A shining example, btw, of what is possible in NWN.  Amazing.  The amount of work...stunning does not do it justice.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Bogdanov89]

               ShadoOow, after all these philosophical discussions, do you perhaps plan on making any changes to the Community Patch - at least as far as Empower/Maximize go?

I have been amateurishly following all your discussions, and i am very curious as to how it will affect the community patch?
               
               

               

                     Modifié par Bogdanov89, 14 février 2014 - 09:33 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_Shadooow]

               

Bogdanov89 wrote...

ShadoOow, after all these philosophical discussions, do you perhaps plan on making any changes to the Community Patch - at least as far as Empower/Maximize go?

I have been amateurishly following all your discussions, and i am very curious as to how it will affect the community patch?

No, not really.

I mean, I already offered to revisite the version 1.70 and remove anything that caused peoples like Pstemarie to condemn the whole project. But how that turned out hmm?

As for 1.71 matter, I see only one reason why to change this and thats empower description (which could be changed instead). The 7 pages of debate was on a subject what DnD rules implies and what is the correct calculation there. There is still the argument about what Bioware (or Floodgate as Pstemarie pointed out) intented. In a gameplay I found the MaximizeOrEmpower behavior to work way better than the OC behavior and I was playtesting this on a high-magic PW, I really don't think this will be different matter on low magic. And a goal of CPP is to make more balanced game afterall which this change does. Im willing to change this based on a poll or proposal of those who uses CP 1.71 but so far nothing suggests that peoples using this have so big problem with it.

I don't think that fact that maximize deals only 19% damage increase is a problem / or makes no sense. Maximize maximizes the damage output, there is no guarantee it grants XX% damage as MM suggest. And I see no reason why the fact that empowers in CPP now deals even less damage increase than maximize makes less sense.
In case of Negative energy burst, I see no way how a empowered output of 20-32 makes less sense than 31-42 when the maximized output is 28. The Bioware's/Floodgate's (not mine) implementation makes definitely more sense because it fixes everything despite its incorrect per DnD rules (which is almost everything in NWN btw). In the CPP empower spells still sometimes deal more damage than maximize, but the average is lesser which favors maximize and thats alright because maximize is a 1spell level harder to cast. Keep in mind that the player usually needs both feats. NWN, unlike DnD, doesn't offer the possibility to memorize the spell in any higher spell level slot which is a secondary advantage of the metamagic spells that allows this. Speaking of NEB and similar spells, its usually the only advantage of using the metamagic on such spell in a first place.

Still, the great thing on CPP is that since CPP united the empower/maximize calculation, any change to the Empower/Maximize spell feat calculation, such as I did based on MM suggestion as an override, is a matter of minutes. All the builder has to do is to copy spell scripts from CPP (which are externalized in a folder 1.71 builders resources) into his module, change the MaximizeOrEmpower calculation in the 'x0_i0_spells' include script and recompile all scripts. Voila.
               
               

               

                     Modifié par ShaDoOoW, 15 février 2014 - 12:50 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_henesua]

               

ShaDoOoW wrote...
Still, the great thing on CPP is that since CPP united the empower/maximize calculation, any change to the Empower/Maximize spell feat calculation, such as I did based on MM suggestion as an override, is a matter of minutes. All the builder has to do is to copy spell scripts from CPP (which are externalized in a folder 1.71 builders resources) into his module, change the MaximizeOrEmpower calculation in the 'x0_i0_spells' include script and recompile all scripts. Voila.

i agree. i also think your spell system was a great improvement.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_MagicalMaster]

               

Elhanan wrote...

Actually as I recall, your humble replies have been to 'clarify the record' which was unneeded as the record was there for all to see, and to exemplify 'Fair enough' followed by veiled backhanded compliments as a proper apology.

Yes, I'm sure it's more likely that people coming in late will read the entirety of both threads and critically think about WebShaman's comments rather than just assume he's right if no one points out how he's wrong.

Hint: that's sarcasm.  People tend to believe stuff they see in these types of cases (if Bob claims Chris is trolling and Chris doesn't say otherwise) unless they see contradictons by others (such as Chris pointing out how Bob's claims are baseless or how it is actually Bob trolling).

Tell me this: was I *WRONG* about anything I said in my clarifications?  If so, what?

ShaDoOoW wrote...

No, not really.

I mean, I already offered to revisite the version 1.70 and remove anything that caused peoples like Pstemarie to condemn the whole project. But how that turned out hmm?

How did it turn out?  Don't assume everyone is aware of everything that happens, especially for custom projects like this.  You're familiar with the history since it's your project, many of us aren't.

I'm guessing you're saying Pstemarie specifically didn't change their mind or something?

ShaDoOoW wrote...

In a gameplay I found the MaximizeOrEmpower behavior to work way better than the OC behavior and I was playtesting this on a high-magic PW, I really don't think this will be different matter on low magic.

Hang on, how does it work "way better?"  I thought your ENTIRE CLAIM was that "It's so small of a difference that you'll never notice?"  Now it suddenly is a big difference?

ShaDoOoW wrote...

And a goal of CPP is to make more balanced game afterall which this change does. Im willing to change this based on a poll or proposal of those who uses CP 1.71 but so far nothing suggests that peoples using this have so big problem with it.

How does it make it more balanced?  That's not a claim you can simply assert.

I'm guessing your main argument is that "My custom version of Empower makes Empower always equal to or worse than Maximize and therefore that IMPROVES balance" while plenty of other people are saying "Your custom version of Empower makes Empower worthless for some spells which already suffer from Maximize being worthless, that's a BAD thing to have both 'prime' meta-magic feats worthless for some spells which REDUCES balance."

You sound like you think you have a lot of support that your idea is more balanced, but frankly I haven't seen anyone but you support that idea.  Most people seem to think it makes it less balanced since it makes a meta-magic feat basically useless for some spells.

ShaDoOoW wrote...

In case of Negative energy burst, I see no way how a empowered output of 20-32 makes less sense than 31-42 when the maximized output is 28.

Fireball?  Empower good, Maximize very good.

Lightning Bolt?  Empower good, Maximize very good.

Scintillating Sphere?  Empower good, Maximize very good.

Mestil's Acid Breath?  Empower good, Maximize very good.

Flame Arrow?  Empower good, Maximizevery  good.

Vampiric Touch?  Empower good, Maximize very good.

Negative Energy Bust?  Empower good, Maximize utterly worthless.

There's a pattern here Shadow and one thing is different from all the others.

ShaDoOoW wrote...

Still, the great thing on CPP is that since CPP united the empower/maximize calculation, any change to the Empower/Maximize spell feat calculation, such as I did based on MM suggestion as an override, is a matter of minutes. All the builder has to do is to copy spell scripts from CPP (which are externalized in a folder 1.71 builders resources) into his module, change the MaximizeOrEmpower calculation in the 'x0_i0_spells' include script and recompile all scripts. Voila.

Honest (and serious) question, Shadow:

What in your patch is worth us having to do this at all?  Especially when "fixing" stuff like this, Regeneration, or other things might also then confuse players who are used to it acting like your documentation claims?

Sell us in a few sentences.  What are the major benefits of the patch that are noticable and worthwhile?  Especially for projects that already use things like CEP, Project Q, or custom haks of their own.

You already mentioned I obliterated your AI fixes/improvements by adding 3 lines at the start of a few scripts, for example, so obviously that's not a good reason to use your patch and tell our players that your patch is expected.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Shadooow]

               

MagicalMaster wrote...

ShaDoOoW wrote...

No, not really.

I mean, I already offered to revisite the version 1.70 and remove anything that caused peoples like Pstemarie to condemn the whole project. But how that turned out hmm?

How did it turn out?  Don't assume everyone is aware of everything that happens, especially for custom projects like this.  You're familiar with the history since it's your project, many of us aren't.

I'm guessing you're saying Pstemarie specifically didn't change their mind or something?

How did that turn out? Nobody cares. Those who doesn't use CPP (anymore) doesn't care, they know better so why bother with shytty project like this, they never needed it and never will.

ShaDoOoW wrote...

In a gameplay I found the MaximizeOrEmpower behavior to work way better than the OC behavior and I was playtesting this on a high-magic PW, I really don't think this will be different matter on low magic.

Hang on, how does it work "way better?"  I thought your ENTIRE CLAIM was that "It's so small of a difference that you'll never notice?"  Now it suddenly is a big difference?

Are your arguments limited to what Ive said two pages back and what I said two pages later and "ha-ha, you didn't used the same word!" ?

It is a small difference except three spells +-. For other spells the difference is so small that its hardly noticeable by someone who play this game still normally or even roleplaying. I stand for this claim.
(For someone like you, who is playing this game with a calculator in a hand and calculates the damage outputs and blames the NWN randomizer everytime hes not getting average, this is of course first thing you will notice when you would installed CPP. Of course. '>)

However, those who watches the gameplay from a DM client might spotted some differences and those differences are in my opinion better. Ability buffs and spell mantle are what I have in mind. First favors the maximize which is harder to cast (with a 3minumum for empower, maximize was pointless especially for clerics who has ext divine power there), second gives a small benefit to taking the greater spell mantle spell which before hasn't - was actually worse than the 7th level (before you focus on this and claim I am wrong, I mean in a usage, not output). (And BTW it still doesn't changes the spell mantle behavior, sorcerers are still better to take this spell, so nobody needs to make relevel because of that). For damaging spells, fact that they make less damage than before is usually a better behavior on low magic servers. In the PW I was playtesting this, high magic, it caused no difference on gameplay (and yes we have bosses like you mentioned though we have no boss specifically killed by only spamming FoD, NEB and NER) nobody even noticed. While more spell damage might be better behavior on a high-magic, spells we are talking about here are not "damaging" spells in a first place. They does damage but their first effect is death, strength penalty etc. and CPP didn't removed this benefit.

ShaDoOoW wrote...

And a goal of CPP is to make more balanced game afterall which this change does. Im willing to change this based on a poll or proposal of those who uses CP 1.71 but so far nothing suggests that peoples using this have so big problem with it.

How does it make it more balanced?  That's not a claim you can simply assert.

I'm guessing your main argument is that "My custom version of Empower makes Empower always equal to or worse than Maximize and therefore that IMPROVES balance" while plenty of other people are saying "Your custom version of Empower makes Empower worthless for some spells which already suffer from Maximize being worthless, that's a BAD thing to have both 'prime' meta-magic feats worthless for some spells which REDUCES balance."

Yes thats exactly my thinking. And its not my custom version of Empower but Bioware's.

ShaDoOoW wrote...

In case of Negative energy burst, I see no way how a empowered output of 20-32 makes less sense than 31-42 when the maximized output is 28.

Fireball?  Empower good, Maximize very good.

Lightning Bolt?  Empower good, Maximize very good.

Scintillating Sphere?  Empower good, Maximize very good.

Mestil's Acid Breath?  Empower good, Maximize very good.

Flame Arrow?  Empower good, Maximizevery  good.

Vampiric Touch?  Empower good, Maximize very good.

Negative Energy Bust?  Empower good, Maximize utterly worthless.

There's a pattern here Shadow and one thing is different from all the others.

As much as you try, maximize is not broken. It does exactly what it should and there are no expectations it should boost spell effects output by 100%.

Given to that, fact that a cheaper feat outshines more expensive feats means the cheaper feat is broken. Its not due to the spell design when this affects 25% of spells. The empower is what it is badly designed. As I said already, even due to the low effect increase from metamagic, it is worth using. If not for the greater damage then only to be able to cast that spell more times. Did empower change in CPP caused anyone to stop using empowered spells on "my" high-magic PW? Nope. They still does. And as I said many times already, I am not fixed on one environment, I considered the low-magic one and came into conclusion that the new empower behavior will be favored there as well and won't cause any gameplay issues either. Unfortunately due to the fact that 99% PW owners never install CPP thats something I only speculated, but since I played on few low-magic servers (20/30 lvl cap), I beieve I got enough experiences to decide.

ShaDoOoW wrote...

Still, the great thing on CPP is that since CPP united the empower/maximize calculation, any change to the Empower/Maximize spell feat calculation, such as I did based on MM suggestion as an override, is a matter of minutes. All the builder has to do is to copy spell scripts from CPP (which are externalized in a folder 1.71 builders resources) into his module, change the MaximizeOrEmpower calculation in the 'x0_i0_spells' include script and recompile all scripts. Voila.

Honest (and serious) question, Shadow:

What in your patch is worth us having to do this at all?  Especially when "fixing" stuff like this, Regeneration, or other things might also then confuse players who are used to it acting like your documentation claims?

Sell us in a few sentences.  What are the major benefits of the patch that are noticable and worthwhile?  Especially for projects that already use things like CEP, Project Q, or custom haks of their own.

Everything is written in the documentation, my language skills are not perfect but I think its understandable. If there is nothing you would consider worth to install CPP then I can say nothing more. If you believe you got everything and don't need anything from CPP, suit yourself. I, when I look on a wiki and see a ultra long list of notes that it doesn't work this way and that way, its bugged in this, that is not mentioned in description, doesn't consider this to be fine. If a CPP had its own wiki, there would be practically no note anywhere because everything now works as should or at least doesn't differ in description/implementation.

If you, as many others, prefer fixing each spell on your own in your own way, prefer importing stuff like "Familiar Fixes" one by one when you find its bugged on your own, there is nothing I can do. Community Patches in general are about the idea. They should unite the community in a effort to improve the game that is no longer supported by its creators. I don't know whether this goal succeded in a games like Gothic 3 (where I first learned about CPPs) but fact that half the community intentionally ignores this and condemn this from the beginning means something to me - I won't be analysing this, but think about it.

You already mentioned I obliterated your AI fixes/improvements by adding
3 lines at the start of a few scripts, for example, so obviously that's
not a good reason to use your patch and tell our players that your
patch is expected.

seriously? Once you argument that CPP changes something in your module and thats a reason why you suggest anyone not to use it and now are you argumenting that because CPP doesn't changes somethingyou have in a module is a bad thing also?

Are you even little objective?<><>

               

                     Modifié par ShaDoOoW, 16 février 2014 - 10:17 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_WhiZard]

               Combining multiple ideas on this thread (increasing spell levels beyond 9 for more metamagic, improving maximize to better compete with empower, and adjusting the number of sides to die rolls) I came up with this bugger which really rewards high level casters.


EDIT: Added slightly more flexibility by factoring two different dice (or a die and constant) to this.  This also does not penalize low level spells being empowered from rounding issues resulting in performing the function twice.

int MetaDamage(int nDiceSide, int nDiceNumber, int nSpellSchool= SPELL_SCHOOL_GENERAL, int nDiceSide2 = 1, int nDiceNumber2 = 0)
{
object oCaster = OBJECT_SELF;
if(GetObjectType(OBJECT_SELF) == OBJECT_TYPE_AREA_OF_EFFECT)
  oCaster = GetAreaOfEffectCreator(OBJECT_SELF);
int nLevel = GetCasterLevel(oCaster);
int nMeta = GetMetaMagicFeat();
int nEmpowerTimes = 0;
int nSideAdjust = 0;
int nDamage = 0;
if(nDiceSide > 12)
  nDiceSide = 12;
if(nDiceSide2 > 12)
  nDiceSide2 = 12;
if(nDiceSide < 1)
  nDiceSide = 1;
if(nDiceSide2 < 1)
  nDiceSide2 = 1;
if(nDiceNumber > 60)
  nDiceNumber = 60;
if(nDiceNumber2 > 60)
  nDiceNumber2 = 60;
if(nDiceNumber < 0)
  nDiceNumber = 0;
if(nDiceNumber2 < 0)
  nDiceNumber2 = 0;
if(nSpellSchool >= 1 && nSpellSchool <=
  {
  //Epic Spell Focus
  if(GetHasFeat(609 + nSpellSchool, oCaster))
    nSideAdjust += 3;
  //Greater Spell Focus
  else if(GetHasFeat(392 + nSpellSchool, oCaster))
    nSideAdjust += 2;
  //Spell Focus
  else if(nSpellSchool == SPELL_SCHOOL_ABJURATION)
    {
    if(GetHasFeat(FEAT_SPELL_FOCUS_ABJURATION, oCaster))
      nSideAdjust += 1;
    }
  else if (GetHasFeat(164 + nSpellSchool, oCaster))
    nSideAdjust += 1;
  //Arcane Defense
  if(GetHasFeat(414 + nSpellSchool, oCaster))
    nSideAdjust += 1;
  }
if(GetHasFeat(FEAT_EPIC_SPELL_PENETRATION, oCaster))
  nSideAdjust += 3;
else if(GetHasFeat(FEAT_GREATER_SPELL_PENETRATION, oCaster))
  nSideAdjust += 2;
else if(GetHasFeat(FEAT_SPELL_PENETRATION, oCaster))
  nSideAdjust += 1;
if(nMeta == METAMAGIC_EMPOWER)
  nEmpowerTimes += 1;
nDiceSide += nSideAdjust;
nDiceSide2 += nSideAdjust;
//Let epic levels unlock higher spell levels for empowering
if(nLevel > 21 && GetHasFeat(FEAT_EMPOWER_SPELL, oCaster))
  nEmpowerTimes += (nLevel-16)/6;
if(nMeta == METAMAGIC_MAXIMIZE)
  nDamage = nDiceSide * nDiceNumber + nDiceSide2 * nDiceNumber;
else
  {
  while(nDiceNumber--)
    nDamage += Random(nDiceSide) +1;
  while(nDiceNumber2--)
    nDamage += Random(nDiceSide2) +1;
  }
while(nEmpowerTimes--)
  nDamage = 3 * nDamage/2;
return nDamage;
}
               
               

               

                     Modifié par WhiZard, 17 février 2014 - 12:12 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_MagicalMaster]

               

ShaDoOoW wrote...

Are your arguments limited to what Ive said two pages back and what I said two pages later and "ha-ha, you didn't used the same word!" ?

Not at all.  You're still saying it on THIS page:

ShaDoOoW wrote...

It is a small difference except three spells +-. For other spells the difference is so small that its hardly noticeable by someone who play this game still normally or even roleplaying. I stand for this claim.

One post ago you said it was "way better," now you're saying that the difference is so small it's hardly noticable for most spells and it makes small differences for a select few spells.

By your own words, most people wouldn't notice that you even changed Empower -- so let's not claim your balance changes make things "way better."

ShaDoOoW wrote...

and yes we have bosses like you mentioned though we have no boss specifically killed by only spamming FoD, NEB and NER) nobody even noticed. While more spell damage might be better behavior on a high-magic, spells we are talking about here are not "damaging" spells in a first place. They does damage but their first effect is death, strength penalty etc. and CPP didn't removed this benefit.[

Or, in other words, you DON'T have bosses like I mentioned where being able to Empower FoD, NEB, and a few other spells made a big difference.

Then on TOP of that you're saying "Well, it doesn't matter if I reduce the damage, they're mainly used for something else anyway" which is an argument AGAINST changing it because, according to you, the damage didn't even matter in the first place!  So it wasn't messing up the balance to begin with!

Do you see the contradiction here?

ShaDoOoW wrote...

As much as you try, maximize is not broken. It does exactly what it should and there are no expectations it should boost spell effects output by 100%.

If you can't see the inconsistency and the problem is with Maximize in that case then this is pointless.  Empower gives the same boost every time.  Maximize gives the same boost 95% of the time.  Even if you don't want to fix Maximize, which is understandable, that isn't a justification for nerfing Empower.

ShaDoOoW wrote...

Everything is written in the documentation, my language skills are not perfect but I think its understandable. If there is nothing you would consider worth to install CPP then I can say nothing more.

You clearly don't know how to market something, Shadow, that was your grand opportunity to try to sway some of us and you just completely blew it.

Q: Why use NWNCX?
A: Eliminates the online connection delay, lists many online servers, and even gives you more camera control if you want

Q: Why use NWNTX?
A: Faster load times and faster compiling

Q: Why use NWNX?
A: Ability to alter things that you can't do within the toolset or normal scripting

Q: Why use Shadow's patch?
A: Just read through dozens of pages of documentation and figure out what might be important, it's way too complicated and/or way too much work for me to explain anything to you.

ShaDoOoW wrote...
seriously? Once you argument that CPP changes something in your module and thats a reason why you suggest anyone not to use it and now are you argumenting that because CPP doesn't changes somethingyou have in a module is a bad thing also?

According to your documentation using custom haks and/or CEP/Project Q will cause issues with many of your features.  You've also said module specific scripts will undo many of your changes.  So if we have a module with custom haks that uses CEP and has minor changes to pretty much every spell script and some AI scripts...what benefits does your patch even give?  Have we just undone basically all of the advantages the patch was supposed to give?
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Shadooow]

               Yes it is pointless. Your responses are perfect, you basically confirmed all I wrote in previous post, thanks. Let everyone make his own opinion on this.

I wrote enough on the CPP, I stopped the edvertisement because I was told its embarrasing and nobody cares. First time I tried to advertise this project in general forum it took only one hour before someone confronted me about abusing the general forum - because no way this project would be accepted by the community and thus as a any custom content the right place is in custom content forum so I had to move there. Later, when someone asked about some issue I wrote that this issue was fixed in CPP. Was told by PM this is wrong and abusive too so I stopped this entirely.

Im actually sick about this community, but I believe in this project and I already devoted to its development more than 2 thousands hours so I am still working on it with hope that at least someone appreacite my effort.

Of course, then there are peoples like you who do believe that they are better fixing everything themselves when they find that issue. Or that they already have everything and don't need anything from CPP at all.

I can say only a good luck and have fun with reinventing the wheel. If you rather spend dozens hours on a balancing rules and fixing stuff instead of actually creating the world, its only your choice.
               
               

               

                     Modifié par ShaDoOoW, 17 février 2014 - 02:54 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_WhiZard]

               You might have placed too high of hopes in this project as well.  From its outset it was supposed to be a useful tool for new developers trying to create their PW.  It served to counter many exploits, as well as give a framework that easily allows a new PW author to make changes fluidly without having to understand the constraints of the BioWare Toolset.  As a result, there were many workarounds that fell short of the direct fixes that acaos and others could make with plugins.

As advertised on the custom content forums, you have presented it as a panacea for most problems that posters have had, even if there was just a single thing they were concentrating on fixing.  The way it was implemented, the CPP could not be seen as a compilation of changes because it there was little support for partial implementation of the CPP for one change and not another, instead the CPP ended up being a combination of changes which may or may not produce beneficial or unwanted results in areas that a builder might not expect.

Your hopes here are in direct recommendation for users (module players) to download to enhance their experience.  But users are those who probably need it the least.  The changes made may or may not be applicable in the modules they play, and the extra functionality for builders, really doesn't mean a whole lot to them.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Pstemarie]

               Yeah, what Whiz said. Doesn't mean it's a bad project, just that its usefulness to some might not be what you'd expect. I personally prefer to "reinvent the wheel" cause I learn more that way. There are also a lot of systems I use that I integrated long before CPP came out. It took awhile to get them working. I'd rather not go through that again.
               
               

               

                     Modifié par Pstemarie, 17 février 2014 - 06:49 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_Bogdanov89]

               I got no clue about private servers and user made content, but to me as a player of the original NWN campaigns i find the CPP very useful.

All the bugfixes are awesome, and the only thing i wanted to change ShaDoOoW was kind to provide an alternative mini-mod for CPP  (empower 50%/maximize 75%).

Overall i am very satisfied with CPP - so thank you ShaDoOoW for all the content and the advices you have shared with us '>
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Shadooow]

               

Pstemarie wrote...
There are also a lot of systems I use that I integrated long before CPP came out. It took awhile to get them working. I'd rather not go through that again.

Can you point me any scripting system that is CPP supposed to mess with? Due to its nature its almost impossible this could happen, maybe it does but so far I haven't see such case and I spent a long time making sure this won't happen.

CPP is not just backwards compatible but also forwards (its possible to compile old scripts with new includes).

Despite what MM said there are no issues with haks or custom content (except the DOA baseitem issue - which is crash that happen to the players without patch if builder merges DOA base items into his 2DAs but dont include the models - which can be avoided and its described how in the readme). And the fact it has the lowest priority is the biggest advantage of the approach that CPP works.