A few questions for the experienced NWN players :)

[Legacy_Elhanan]

               I know little of mod crafting, but based as a frequent mod user in NWN and Skyrim, mods (especially those that perform some type of overhaul )generally appear to be better received when designed as modular. In Skyrim, the SkyRe design allows the indv Player to choose which of the alterations they desire to activate, as opposed to some other mods which only allow for the author's vision.

Neither are wrong, but allowing the indv Player to better customize their own experience appears to be the more popular and useful choice.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Shadooow]

               

Elhanan wrote...

Neither are wrong, but allowing the indv Player to better customize their own experience appears to be the more popular and useful choice.

Well I got different experiences with the Jagged Alliance 2 where community made a new unofficial patch and allowed to set absolutely everything from the speed of how characters progress in abilities and levels, through mine income up to adding zombies to the game.

In my opinion it completely broke the game. Nobody played the same game anymore, everyone was playing by different rules and comparing the game progression become impossible and pointless. Futhermore, and this is something I experienced myself, players suddenly restarting the game because they found that zombies are quite stupid option or that the change they have done resulted in too easy or too harsh gameplay.

I don't really want to end up as they did. Actually, I was already tempted to remove some of the switches I added from my own iniciative or on a player requests into CPP such as multisummoning or allowing spells to boost gloves from this exact reason. CPP should not provide an overwhelming option set for each rule. Thats up to the custom content - of course nobody is making custom content for CPP but thats not the obstacle.

This should be a patch not a custom modification. I know many peoples out there never accept it, but thats the way how project like this should look like.

I think you will agree with me that making things like the "Familiar fixes" optional is just nonsense. So point me specifically what should be optional and we can talk about it, but this cannot be applied globally on this project.

Also, due to the fact that the patch content will never overwrite anything that builder already did in module I dont see a need to make things like the Dusty Rose Ioun stone optional anymore.
               
               

               

                     Modifié par ShaDoOoW, 20 février 2014 - 11:20 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_Shadooow]

               BTW. I was making an adjustion into spells in my module to allow spells to deal critical hit.

This is something that was already presented in PRC, but their scripting become obsolete for me as Im now building on the spellscripts from CPP.

Anyway, I stroke on the Empower issue again! And it gets even more riddiculous if I apply whats written in the SRD and multiply the spell outcome by 2. Suddenly the advantage of the empower vs maximize is twice as big in those spells with bonus per caster level. But rules are clear .
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Elhanan]

               I do not use overhauls; have only seen them in use, and know of their popularity. Perhaps taking a look at total downloads and endorsements of mods, and then comparing designs will grant some kind of info on what folks most want and utilize. While total overhauls are quite valid and are popular, these do not seem to be the ones at the top of these lists.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Shadooow]

               

Elhanan wrote...

While total overhauls are quite valid and are popular, these do not seem to be the ones at the top of these lists.

Yes the most popular and downoaded are nudity packages. And what? Should I perhaps add it into my project to get some more popularity ? 

This project has a certain scope. This scope is defined by the things that Bioware made in official patches, by the things that a generic Community Patch usually does in other games and what is technically possible and impossible to do in NWN given by the compatibility issues etc.

There are peoples who will never use it even if it would be perfect and endorsed by the "community". Those are peoples who are not even willing to try it. And there is nothing I can do about it. But modifying the project per the suggestion of these peoples is something I found out to be pointless.
               
               

               

                     Modifié par ShaDoOoW, 21 février 2014 - 12:37 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_Pstemarie]

               ShaDoOoW, the switches I was referring to would be only for coding that is broad based and is of the category where no clear consensus can be achieved because what is canon in PnP makes absolutely no sense when applied in NWN (e.g Empower Spell). So far the switches you've included seem to fit this criteria, so those could definitely serve as a model. I certainly don't want a switch for every little thing - that'd be plain silly.


As far as no one making custom content that is based off CPP - give me time. I have a ton of spells from NwnE that I plan on converting over to the CPP spell engine. I just need to get through this semester then I'll have more time.
               
               

               

                     Modifié par Pstemarie, 21 février 2014 - 12:40 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_henesua]

               As far as CC that works with the CPP, I did develop a package that works with it - my framework for familiars - which I released last year, and updated recently. Its a very small hook into your spell engine, but critically important since I allow familiars to cast a hostile spell that their master has stored on them (similar to 3rd editions touch spell ability for familiars). I'll probably be looking at the spell system more closely soon, to determine if I need to tweak this.

But first I still have lots of AI I am working on.

___
and yes I am well aware that I am the only user of my familiars framework. the important thing however is that i did release it. so its out there.
               
               

               

                     Modifié par henesua, 21 février 2014 - 12:55 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_Pstemarie]

               Your familiar package is on my list - just haven't gotten to it yet.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_WebShaman]

               

henesua wrote...

But first I still have lots of AI I am working on.

Now I am interested...new AI for NWN?

Could you include AI options for using PRC stuff?
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Squatting Monk]

               

Elhanan wrote...

I know little of mod crafting, but based as a frequent mod user in NWN and Skyrim, mods (especially those that perform some type of overhaul )generally appear to be better received when designed as modular. In Skyrim, the SkyRe design allows the indv Player to choose which of the alterations they desire to activate, as opposed to some other mods which only allow for the author's vision.

Neither are wrong, but allowing the indv Player to better customize their own experience appears to be the more popular and useful choice.

As someone who uses and and loves SkyRe, I wanna note that the reason it uses this modular approach is that the mechanics changes it introduces can cause game-breaking compatibility issues with other mods that alter the same things.

To my (limited) knowledge, the CPP doesn't have these problems, and so likely would not benefit from a modular approach. Module switches are great, though they're probably only needed for big changes or ones that could significantly affect game balance. A module switch for every little thing may be nifty, but it's likely to be overwhelming, both for ShadoOow and for users.
               
               

               

                     Modifié par Squatting Monk, 21 février 2014 - 11:48 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_Elhanan]

               

Squatting Monk wrote...

As someone who uses and and loves SkyRe, I wanna note that the reason it uses this modular approach is that the mechanics changes it introduces can cause game-breaking compatibility issues with other mods that alter the same things.

To my (limited) knowledge, the CPP doesn't have these problems, and so likely would not benefit from a modular approach. Module switches are great, though they're probably only needed for big changes or ones that could significantly affect game balance. A module switch for every little thing may be nifty, but it's likely to be overwhelming, both for ShadoOow and for users.

As I mentioned, I do not use Overhauls, but do notice that SkyRe is used more than Requiem or other non-modular titles. For whatever reason, this design, as well as MCM mods (eg; Frostfall, Deadly Dragons) allowing Players to configure their own solo game are apparently more used and endorsed.

As for NWN, I would like to see a few spells altered (eg; Haste, Harm, Heal), and Dev Crit, but that is about it for me. I simply do not require a full overhaul or like mod for my own games.
               
               

               

                     Modifié par Elhanan, 22 février 2014 - 12:02 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_henesua]

               

WebShaman wrote...

henesua wrote...

But first I still have lots of AI I am working on.

Now I am interested...new AI for NWN?

Could you include AI options for using PRC stuff?

Sorry for missing this, Web. I am working on AI for the module I am working on. Over the past couple years I've made a number of threads that suggest the kind of AI stuff I've been grappling with. I doubt its the kinda thing that integrates specifically with the PRC. Its more of something that would work in parallel but not necessarily interact with it.

In a nut shell I am more interested in providing more diverse behaviors rather than more challenging combat with NPCs.

I don't actually mean this as self-promotion so I hope it doesn't come across that way. I just like talking about what i am doing. Usually smarter people help me do things in a better way when I do. Anyway here's what i've been doing lately:

• Completely rewrote the perception event to enable more behaviors. My default perception AI script now captures all four perception events, enabling different responses. This opened up the possibility of sentry behavior, and pack behavior. As well as doing some of the other stuff I have below. While I like what I have done I have considered rewrtting it.
• Use local variables on the creature to turn on or off specialty behaviors. These are mostly flags for stealthy creatures, sentries, packs of creatures, carnivore/herbivore/omnivore behavior, and a number of other things. For further diversity I modified NESS so that a builder can set the same local variables on a NESS spawn point and then these will propagate to the spawns. This includes the special combat ai script string which Bioware implemented.
• I rewrote all the special behavior for animals, and am periodically tweaking it to make sure that it works as I want. One of the changes includes animals treating familiars differently than PCs. The basic concept is to enable the creature to make a decision between fight, flight, friendship (react to animal empathy), or ignore which I think is a step up from Fight or Ignore. Unfortunately animal AI is currently more sophisticated than typical AI, so I need to switch gears and work out some more interesting behaviors for "smart" creatures.
• A scent ability that enables creatures to detect invisible hostile PCs at a particular range (I limited it to PCs to keep it efficient). Incidentally this was a PITA as I had to dig down into bioware's includes to ensure it worked. Its like a very weak version of true sight. Has a limited range, and I have the ability to modify it in the future with things like catching and losing a scent. Don't know if I'll ever fully develop it.
• Started looking at AI adjustments for innocuous familiars. All I did so far is to provide a configuration that makes most familiars less aggressive, but allows some (like dogs, dire rats etc...) to be aggressive when they spot enemies (I added a setting in my familiars 2da to toggle the default for this behavior on or off). Since most familiars should not be aggressive I feel stupid that I overlooked this for so long. Recently in testing a lizard familiar (which is smaller than an NWN rat) charged a black bear as soon as it saw it. I thought that was innappropriate. I will likely expand on this feature, and am considering the familiar conversation so that the master can tweak the AI as well.
• I am playing with "groups" which is a string label set on a creature that acts in some ways like a faction. Creatures of the same group can belong to different factions, but still behave appropriately - meaning that they listen to one another's shouts, respond to them, are not hostile to one another regardless of faction reputation. PCs can belong to a "group". What I like best about this is that allows me to overcome my disease of faction bloat. In my Arnheim module I had more factions than areas before I came up with this idea. Since a group is simply a string label, I will be able to generate a number of tools and hooks into it. Stuff like allowing a DM to create a group on the fly and putting NPCs into it. And of course the ability to quickly flag a PC with group membership when they join the bandits. I need to get NWNX working with this.
• One of the first extra features I am working with related to groups is a new alarm system for NPCs. It includes a new shout, some new placeables, a special combat script and so on. The idea is that some groups will be organized enough to post sentries which will shout warnings, and run to area wide alarms. I am still working this out as I got distracted with the Mountain Forest tileset while in the middle of implementing an alarm system for a goblin group.

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Pstemarie]

               I've got the CPP 1.70 fully integrated and have no issues. I post more when I've had more time to play with it.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_WebShaman]

               Henesua, no need to apologize, it's all good.

One of the main problems with the PRC is that many of the passive feats do not get used by the AI (not to mention Psionics, etc).  Boneshank did a great job on the Epic Spellcasting System, that eventually made it's way into the PRC in the form it is now - the AI will use a lot of those spells (and if one gives the NPC virtual XP, will even cast Epic Spells that use up XP!).

It is a limitation that does irritate.  I mean, who wouldn't want an AI using Psionics?  Nice stuff!  

@ Pstemarie - nice to hear, and it corresponds with the testing that I did.  And my sincerest apologies for stating that Project Q was RIP.  I corregated it.
               
               

               

                     Modifié par WebShaman, 22 février 2014 - 01:59 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_Pstemarie]

               

WebShaman wrote...

@ Pstemarie - nice to hear, and it corresponds with the testing that I did.  And my sincerest apologies for stating that Project Q was RIP.  I corregated it.

NP, Webshaman. I wound up not having to use the CPP patch170.hak as I combined the 2da files into my tophak. The rest of the files weren't need because I already have my own baseitem models and I use custom templates for all the creatures in my LAN server.