Jump to content

Bartimaeus

Modders
  • Posts

    2,465
  • Joined

  • Last visited

2 Followers

About Bartimaeus

Recent Profile Visitors

6,105 profile views

Bartimaeus's Achievements

  1. "AI" might be useful for coding one day, but it'll be through models trained specifically for and ONLY on whatever language you're trying to get it to do something for - not ChatGPT, which is just a language model that has no fundamental understanding of any of the code that it reads or writes, so of course it just spits out vaguely similar-looking pseudo-code. Garbage input leads to garbage output, and generalized models like ChatGPT are 100% pure unadulterated garbage input.
  2. No bother at all: thank you, fixed it! Should now only be added if it's an EE game, just like all the other 324s.
  3. The first one makes sense, since it's an EE-only item and I just over-looked it when transferring it over to IRR; the second one is the Equalizer. The last commit that I made to SW1H54.itm says "The Equalizer was usable by alignments it specifically mentioned as being denied to". The official IR description says "not usable by Lawful Good, Lawful Evil, Chaotic Good, Chaotic Evil"; the IRR description instead says it requires any kind of "neutral" alignment, which although different wording, should mean the same thing. Official IR's The Equalizer allows all alignments (including the supposedly barred Lawful/Chaotic Good/Evil) to use it, which I corrected for with the IRR version, but then I also added these 319s on top of that? I'm not certain why, especially because they're type 10 319s (restrict by character name?) and don't seem to actually reference anything. I'm a bit at a loss for what I was trying to accomplish here with these 319s...perhaps it was just left-over and unnoticed cruft from when I was trying to figure out how best to enforce the alignment restrictions? Regardless, thank you, I've fixed both swords!
  4. I was never really fond of the "RCx" part of the versioning, feel as though it just doesn't make itself immediately clear enough as to which of "4b19" or "4b19 RC5" is later/preferred. Kiiind of thought it should've always just been an immediate increment of the "b"...even if you get up to ridiculous numbers, "b120" will still always sound later than "b15", so that's alright. The only thing I noticed that seemed to be a potential issue is that the resist type of the 232 opcode for Sleep isn't the same as the rest of the spell (type 2 instead of 1). It's an extremely minor issue, as it would lead to a creature that magic resist-ed the spell to get the "awaken" spell cast upon it upon taking damage...which wouldn't actually do anything, but still strikes me as inconsistent (also, does being "awoken" if you're already awake still play the animation? I'm not sure). Alternatively, use this SPWI116 that also has a few more race-selected immunities for the sleep effect: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/scl/fi/pmfeqt3lqtgpwbdvk9yrs/spwi116.spl?rlkey=kt60nke95wrfvbs69p6wb412q&dl=0 From what I can tell, there should be no other differences.
  5. Windows Defender/SmartScreen triggering false positives for Wacatac on perfectly clean rars/zips has been a re-occurring thing over the past few years (and it should be noted that G3's setup .exes are simple self-extracting archives that can be directly opened with tools like 7-Zip). Manually update your Defender definitions and give it another try.
  6. Putting any concept issues aside for the moment, how does SCS handle deafness? 50% chance of making the immediately following Vocalize fail would seem to pretty much make or break that spellcaster unless SCS waits until the deafness is over.
  7. I think it's a loose fit, but I don't mind strongly one way or another. Really, paralysis itself is a rather ill-defined effect: getting held via e.g. Hold Person/Monster is simple enchantment, but the mechanism of paralysis via a ghoul's touch is certain to be completely different, but Remove Paralysis cures both just the same, so yeah, while maybe a loose fit, I think it'd be fine. However, in relation to the earlier problem of Haste and if we need it to be un-reverted back to being single target, I would think Remove Paralysis curing slowness would be a strict necessity, so that's something to keep in your back pocket either way.
  8. The only thing more embarrassing than making a mistake is to let that mistake stand for weeks, months, years at a time because you didn't know or forgot that you had made a mistake, . Especially in instances where I said I figured out what a problem was and fixed it, I encourage anyone and everyone to make mention of it again if it seems in actuality to have either not gotten fixed or simply forgotten about. For doing things the right way, for transparency and stability, for preventing sudden changes that are wildly off-course...collective control/contribution/observation is definitely the way to go, especially for mods that change a lot of things in both large and small ways like IR and SR do. I am very appreciative of everyone and everything that has helped both IR/R and SR/R along the way - even GitHub itself in the way that it allows file and commit history has proved to be a great boon many times over the years. Heck, if I were to ever suddenly disappear, someone else could easily just fork the entire project to their own account and take up maintenance if they so wished.
  9. Fixed, yes...but added to the GitHub repository, no. Thanks for reminding me: it doesn't help that I'm back to manually managing my repositories, as the tool I'd previously used (SmartGit) to keep track of any changes I make went to a very lovely subscription service model that is not really worth the money given that I'm just managing a few mods...
  10. No to both, I'm afraid. I still think strange/murky potions should have a possibility of doing what they're supposed to at the very least, just to make them...I don't know, a little more interesting mechanically, but it would still probably ultimately be just flavor. I don't think players are exactly hurting for potions most of the time, are they? So why use ones you know could screw you over? But it's still a fun idea, something to make them more than pointless. With regards to Rifthammer, there's probably someone who would make a good candidate right at the end of BG1...Tamoko is proficient with and uses a flail (plus she already has Plate of the Dark), so not her, but I just haven't run through BG1 for good ideas since the last time we discussed it and no-one else has brought up any possibilities. If you see a named character that you'd think would make a good candidate, my suggestion would be to tell me and then just manually spawn the hammer yourself as if I officially put it there, .
  11. If you mean that you took a look at the original SPCL742E.spl in your override and compared it to the one I gave you and saw that I simply changed the 177 (Use Eff File) opcode from the wrong Hold Monster .eff to the correct Halt Undead .eff while understanding why/how, then yes, it really can be that straightforward and you can certainly make such changes yourself, . I'd heartily recommend that anyone and everyone be able to do so, but you must find and familiarize yourself with the tools to do so as well as have the time/initiative for it, and it's not something that everyone is interested in when they just want to play their game.
  12. Whoops, I'm running afoul of the "Spell Deflection blocks AoE spells" sub-component here, which externalizes all the effects of AoE spells, such as our Halt Undead, to sub-spell files to make the component work. Rather than change your SPCL742.spl, put this SPCL742E.spl into your override folder instead and give it a try: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/scl/fi/oqbdn4tuqurfbsd63jxjn/spcl742e.spl?rlkey=dalbktiel4mfvqvmvwhfi5pq1&dl=0
  13. ...I am guessing the Priest of Lathander variant is not one used very often by people, because it's been broken for four years now with nary a complaint from anyone. Its effect actually points instead to Hold Monster instead of Halt Undead, which is a much better spell but obviously completely useless against undead, and you'd have no way of knowing that's what it's actually doing. Whoops. If you give me your SPCL742.spl from your "game directory\override" folder, I can fix it for your current game. Thanks for bringing it to my attention!
  14. Thanks: I want something a little more fine-tuned, but the idea definitely has merit. Ideally, I would like to have a secondary and re-installable component that allows the player to switch the values of items between BG1 and BG2, so that if one is playing BGT/EET, they could patch all their .itms as they progress from BG1 to BG2 on the fly. The technical implementation here would actually be very helpful for accomplishing this, as you could slightly modify it to print out the values of your items - once before all the .itms are overwritten, and once after - and compare and contrast those lists to see the discrepancies and figure out what needs to be BG1-ized, and then you could make two different pre-generated .2das, one for BG1 and one for BG2, and allow the player to patch their .itms according to the values of either lists. At the moment, that idea is a little pie-in-the-sky given that I can't even find the time to finish the masterwork component, but...maybe eventually.
×
×
  • Create New...