Author Topic: Community Patch discussion and development thread  (Read 20372 times)

Legacy_Shadooow

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7698
  • Karma: +0/-0
Community Patch discussion and development thread
« Reply #525 on: July 12, 2014, 06:41:19 pm »


               

looks very nice - no problem with moss, the moss actually fits the CPP scope - keep standard look but improve (yes I realize that few new spell icons are breaking this rule]



               
               

               
            

Legacy_Shadooow

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7698
  • Karma: +0/-0
Community Patch discussion and development thread
« Reply #526 on: July 12, 2014, 07:38:06 pm »


               


Both me and my brother are huge fans of the shapeshifting - but the weird item/feat scaling always kept us from actually being good at it xD


 


If you could please make it so that regular players (like myself) can "switch" it so that all shapeshift/polymorph forms 100% scale from all items and feats (even in the original bioware campaigns/expansions) - THAT WOULD BE AMAZING!!! '<img'>




I can do almost everything. Turn this game to 3.5 DnD ruleset, Pathfinder ruleset or even Diablo2 ruleset. Modify every game asset as I want.


 


But thats not what I do - this project has a given scope and theme. So every modification I am going to implement I must ask and clarify whether its in the patch scope and theme or not. Additionally, I don't think I can steal other projects focus - for example I don't think this project should be attempting to include every NWNX features that are publicly available such as new scripting events, new scripting functions, extended weapon modifications (such as setting which weapon is finessable etc.) or database connectivity. I could put all this into single plugin, but I believe that it would only ****** all these peoples who made these features - or anyone who prefer have everything detached (see the whole issue about peoples who want to use CPP features and content but do not want to use patch itself).


 


Furthermore - speaking of optional game features like switches - there are other things that needs to be taken into consideration.


 


First - the number of switches itself - it is not appealing to give one hundred switches. Will only make a mess and confusion and bother most players and lead into all those issues that similar modifications like NWN CPP (Homam3 WoG, Jagged Alliance 1.13, Baldurs Gate WEIDU mods to be specific) all suffer - too many options and player is more changing them then playing game - especially in all these three games many options persist in savegames and requires new replay to disable them if you find you don't like it. I want definitely avoid this.


 


Second - if its in patch scope again and also, what is a relative effort needed to make this feature externally. Which is the case of the "all items merging for all shapes" modification. The question is whether this should be part of the CPP itself or should I make it externally as an override that player downloads? Because this feature can be accomplished easily by polymorph.2da edit. This is the reason why I hesitate with making this feature inside CPP - need suggestion/opinions which are not coming...


               
               

               
            

Legacy_Bogdanov89

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 155
  • Karma: +0/-0
Community Patch discussion and development thread
« Reply #527 on: July 13, 2014, 12:42:01 pm »


               

I do not have any experience building modules or playing on PW, so i really have no suggestions to share with you '<img'>


 


My honest opinion is that the "vanilla" druid/shifter/wizard shape-shift/polymorph is rather bad, overcomplicated and weak.


There are some useful forms but 90% of them are just flat out baaaaad.


 


I think the "all items and all feats merged into all shapes/forms/polymorphs" should be inside the CPP - it is bioware's fault for not designing the class like that from the beginning.


 


To me it makes absolutely no sense for most of those forms/shapes/polymorphs to be so damn weak and overcomplicated for no benefit what so ever...



               
               

               
            

Legacy_Gruftlord

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 490
  • Karma: +0/-0
Community Patch discussion and development thread
« Reply #528 on: July 13, 2014, 03:52:30 pm »


               

new files here:


http://www.file-uplo...-140713.7z.html

 


new barkskin in 512 (original texture resolution) with color fixes by me, alternatives included: 1024 and 64 (vanilla barkskin resolution, lol. 64 version os without moss, because it would just be a green blob anyway).


improved belt texture


key grondmodel mdl file with new texture


 


regarding polymorph merge: i think bioware had a reason why they only merged certain  items, there seems to be a guideline behind it. it might be a nice addition or separate mod, but i do not see it as a clear "must have" for CPP, since while the shifting abilities are weak, they are not necessarily broken. like most abilities in NWN their usefulness varies with the magic level of the setting, and there are servers, that ban the shifter class, because it would be too owerfull for PWs with magic level <= +3



               
               

               
            

Legacy_MannyJabrielle

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 275
  • Karma: +0/-0
Community Patch discussion and development thread
« Reply #529 on: July 13, 2014, 04:47:29 pm »


               

I agree with Gruft that credit should be given... it should be a matter habit even.  In my module, I have several bits which I cannot remember where I got them (although I do remember I pulled them from open projects), and in my credits text, that's made clear and a "please tell me who the creator was" line added in lieu of creator name... It's really no trouble for a module/cc maker to give proper credit whenever possible.  A txt with the download or packaged within a hak never harmed anybody.


 


And as for switches, I agree that hundreds are a bad thing.  So far I think we only touched on 2, maybe 3 things considered for a switch?  IMO switches should be for things which make a definitive change from the norm for gameplay in SP mode for the non-modding player/DM benefit, but not bug related changes (example, spell X was bugged and didn't work right/as intended, CPP fixes that, not a switch candidate).  I think I've scrounged through every item listed in the current readme, and gone through the patch key looking for anything that wasn't mentioned in the readme.... (which is a lot of content) I think I found only 2 or 3 items I initially considered good candidates for switches.  Certainly not hundreds though '<img'>



               
               

               
            

Legacy_NWN_baba yaga

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1944
  • Karma: +0/-0
Community Patch discussion and development thread
« Reply #530 on: July 13, 2014, 08:38:00 pm »


               

Hey Shadooow,


 


have you changed the waypoint system too or can i use an advanced waypoint system i found and think will use in the future?



               
               

               
            

Legacy_Shadooow

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7698
  • Karma: +0/-0
Community Patch discussion and development thread
« Reply #531 on: July 13, 2014, 08:42:23 pm »


               


Hey Shadooow,


 


have you changed the waypoint system too or can i use an advanced waypoint system i found and think will use in the future?




I added a new flag to allow circular path but thats it. It has no new features except that so try either NPC Activities 6.0 or meaglyns Advanced Walk Waypoints.


 


I dont have in plan adding such features into patch as I think its out of its scope.



               
               

               
            

Legacy_NWN_baba yaga

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1944
  • Karma: +0/-0
Community Patch discussion and development thread
« Reply #532 on: July 13, 2014, 08:48:33 pm »


               

Yes meaglyns system is what i use. Great stuff btw!


 


So thanks for the answer and will use your patch then '<img'>



               
               

               
            

Legacy_Shadooow

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7698
  • Karma: +0/-0
Community Patch discussion and development thread
« Reply #533 on: July 13, 2014, 09:28:35 pm »


               


I agree with Gruft that credit should be given... it should be a matter habit even.  In my module, I have several bits which I cannot remember where I got them (although I do remember I pulled them from open projects), and in my credits text, that's made clear and a "please tell me who the creator was" line added in lieu of creator name... It's really no trouble for a module/cc maker to give proper credit whenever possible.  A txt with the download or packaged within a hak never harmed anybody.


 


And as for switches, I agree that hundreds are a bad thing.  So far I think we only touched on 2, maybe 3 things considered for a switch?  IMO switches should be for things which make a definitive change from the norm for gameplay in SP mode for the non-modding player/DM benefit, but not bug related changes (example, spell X was bugged and didn't work right/as intended, CPP fixes that, not a switch candidate).  I think I've scrounged through every item listed in the current readme, and gone through the patch key looking for anything that wasn't mentioned in the readme.... (which is a lot of content) I think I found only 2 or 3 items I initially considered good candidates for switches.  Certainly not hundreds though '<img'>




Cool I want to hear what are those.


 


btw - you still didn't answer my question about the continuous flame - what functionality is desired from player's perpective? should this spell be used to increase cost of the loot you are selling or not? Cos now when I made the possibility to use Item Cost Parameter itemproperty in NWScript - I realized how to decrease cost easily and dynamically (well it will be ugly code but will work). If a player didnt had CPP nothing happens and the cost won't be altered. (desired ? not?)



               
               

               
            

Legacy_MannyJabrielle

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 275
  • Karma: +0/-0
Community Patch discussion and development thread
« Reply #534 on: July 13, 2014, 11:33:57 pm »


               

I'm thinking leave it raising price of sold loot and without the flag change.  Builders can edit their 2da or spell scripts or merchants for their modules to address their module's economy issues.  Any given 'player' might have modding ability, but I think it would be safer to assume the average player doesn't script or edit 2das.  If the flag could cover black market merchants as well, that would be great a new switch for DM's setting up a quick OC run over lan or net.


 


Clunky for dynamic price shifting?  The dynamic part sounds intriguing, the clunky code sounds worrisome.



And I"ll dig up the other item later tonight when I get home '<img'>  This CF item was one, the other I gotta look over again and decide if it was something that was worthy to bring up or if it was an initial impression that it could be.  Been a bit busy for me lately, sorry for the delay



               
               

               
            

Legacy_Bogdanov89

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 155
  • Karma: +0/-0
Community Patch discussion and development thread
« Reply #535 on: July 14, 2014, 12:17:25 am »


               

I am a bit confused about this Continual Flame spell... it just adds a permanent light effect to your current weapon?


 


Honestly, to me that spell looks more like just flavor and esthetics than an actual useful spell...


Overall seems utterly useless for any combat purposes.


 


You can just as well completely delete that spell and no one would notice.


 


Actually, the only players who would notice are the ones that were using it to make pretty much infinite gold.


 


And making infinite gold through an unlimited low level spell was definitely not the intention of Bioware - it makes gold and losing gold completely irrelevant.


 


Just make it so that it can not be used for the unlimited money abuse... that spell has no other purpose anyway.



               
               

               
            

Legacy_MannyJabrielle

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 275
  • Karma: +0/-0
Community Patch discussion and development thread
« Reply #536 on: July 14, 2014, 02:20:32 am »


               

I'd have to disagree.


 


I actually do use the spell with my non-elf/halforc/dwarf casters.  In SP, I find it incredibly useful to add permanent light to my favorite armor and free up a ring slot which would hold a ring of cyan/crimson/ect.  Plus, I prefer white light to any of the other shades.  It's just easier for me to see.  Plus, I actually use lv-0 spells for combat, so I prefer permanent lightsources over recasting light over and over again.


 


As for online, the PW I play on has tweaked the spell to add an extremly long lasting temp property which persists through rests rather than a permanent property.  I would vote for that same method with the spell in the CPP, but Shadooow said that was a route he didn't want to take, and it's 100% understandable.


 


As for it only being used by money horders to generate money, not it's actual purpose.... you can't have it both ways.  The spell adds light to a worn object.  That is it's actual intended purpose.


What wasn't intended probably was the by product of the OC's where players could if they chose to, buy loads of plain items, sell them back enchanted for money.  However, you are ignoring the fact that the sheer amount of GP you can get in the OC's is *not* because of the spell, and it's blatantly obvious when even a barbarian with 0 appraisal, no UMD or casting ability can walk of of NWN chapter 4 with around 1,000,000 GP.  That's shitty module design on bioware's part.  And it's not required builders follow that design of massively uber loot coupled with unrestricted resting and unlimited GP merchants who sell unlimited copper rings.


 


Bioware made gold irrelevant in the OCs WELL before they introduced the spell with the first expansion pack


The really troublesome thing about making a statement such as "no player does X" or "the only players who do X are this" because you don't do it or you aren't this or that kind of player is is well, fallacious.  Even if you don't do it and the people you regularly play with don't do it, you really can't make such a confident claim about *all* players.



And as Shadooow mentioned earlier in the discussion.... really, if someone wanted infinite GP, DebugMode 1, dm_givegold, DebugMode 0.


 


And let's be honest, if you're going to insinuate something negative about the character of other players, at least don't double down and make the implication that they're too dumb to use the console command to get infinite gold as well.  The player looking for the "easy route" is going to use the console for infinite gold, even the stupid ones.  So is it that you don't like the spell because you think of it as easy money?  Module design easily takes care of that.  Mods with restricted rest solve it, mods with material spell components solve it (and even make it a LOSS to enchant your copper rings given the price of the CF material component), mod which don't have merchants with unlimited gold solve that.... half a thought into module balance will solve it.


 


And those wanting easy money are not going to waste hours of their time raking in millions of gold 150 to 200 GP at a time selling a couple of lit up copper rings, resting between on average 2 to 6 casts per rest, maybe more if they take the time and effort to use metamagic slots.... and if a player DOES want to waste hours of their time doing that instead of console.... so what?  Honestly, so what?


But yeah... please stop making baseless insinuations against players who do use the spell as intended, who aren't "shitty players farming unlimited effortless gold and abusing stuff" by using a few spell slots to get a few extra GP out of the loot they actually yes, put effort into getting.  It tends to get rather tiresome sometimes.  Speaking as a player, a DM and a builder, especially for the latter two, I have found that what appeals to me does not necessarily appeal to others, and vise versa, and knowing what the rules of the game actually are helps in having fun with the game, not annoying others with the game.



               
               

               
            

Legacy_MannyJabrielle

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 275
  • Karma: +0/-0
Community Patch discussion and development thread
« Reply #537 on: July 14, 2014, 02:26:15 am »


               

Yes, sorry, long winded, I just type a lot sometimes '<img'>


And yes, I'm one of those rare players who actually plays PDK's too, so <raspberries>



               
               

               
            

Legacy_Bogdanov89

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 155
  • Karma: +0/-0
Community Patch discussion and development thread
« Reply #538 on: July 14, 2014, 02:55:43 am »


               

Text changed (irrelevant to CPP), as requested by ShadoOow.



               
               

               
            

Legacy_Shadooow

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7698
  • Karma: +0/-0
Community Patch discussion and development thread
« Reply #539 on: July 14, 2014, 03:06:43 am »


               


But yeah... please stop making baseless insinuations against players who do use the spell as intended, who aren't "shitty players farming unlimited effortless gold and abusing stuff" by using a few spell slots to get a few extra GP out of the loot they actually yes, put effort into getting.  It tends to get rather tiresome sometimes.




Yea, one player that was caught duping items on a PW I used to play used the same excuse. Really not good one '<img'> .


 


Anyway. I introduced this because I was always playing and even building PWs and this was something that players always abused, the PW admins solved that usually by banning, changing spell do nothing, adding chance 50% of destroying the item, adding stolen flag or even plot flag or making the spell temporary. Everyone building a PW sooner or later run into this issue and I wanted to CPP provided a solution for those who will yet start building so they can skip this proccess. Seriously - if you do not know this gold trick, and you build a module without that in mind it can be later quite difficult and time expensive to balance that (by the techniques you speak MannyJabrielle). I don't think that what is bad design is not the stores in the official campaigns but the spell itself.


 


Got possible solution btw. It is easy to distinguish a multiplayer environment in script so I can reduce the cost only in multiplayer environment. That will solve the issue on PWs and let players freely abuse it when playing OC or any other SP modules. Because yes, we cannot expect a player has modding abilities and if this is something that players would seek a restore switch - it seems better to me not to change it for them.