Jump to content


Photo

[Poll] SoD banters via script VS dialogs


46 replies to this topic

Poll: SoD banters

This is a public poll. Other members will be able to see which options you chose

Should the SoD compaign use scripts for banters or dialogue files like other campaigns?

You cannot see the results of the poll until you have voted. Please login and cast your vote to see the results of this poll.
Vote Guests cannot vote

#1 Roxanne

Roxanne
  • Modders
  • 1153 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 29 August 2016 - 01:40 AM

K4 edit: Before participating in poll please read at least fist few posts to understand what the poll is really about. Written feedback would be also very valuable.

 

------------

 

 

 

Most BG1 NPCs have ***

that's the way it works in vanilla BG:EE+SoD where BDBANTER.2DA is referenced in CAMPAIGN.2DA but the file doesn't exist which mean none of the vanilla NPCs have banter file assigned during SoD. Not sure why they didn't just assigned BG1 banter files there but since that was their choice than I've replicated it by assigning blank dialogue file for those particular NPCs (notice that everyone from BG1 is joinable during SoD even though only few NPCs are playable after Korlasz Tomb where most of them leaves the party.

 

Took me some time to discover why there are no banter files assigned during SoD.

 

There is the new (new does not mean improved) concept to display banters between your NPCs in stringhead texts triggered by area traps. These pseudo-banters can be easily overlooked and they are not stopping the game like normal dialogues (often they appear in between battles or other activites - really enerving).

 

Within the EET context, this approach separates SoD from the rest of the game where banters are done traditionally via dialogues.

 

So, is there some way (via mod, scripting etc) to convert those pseudo-banters into dialogues? It is more of a technical issue, I think, as the existing contents and triggers could be used - just the string texts be taken and put into the respective dialogue files and assign them to the NPCs wirh BDBANTER.2DA. Not an urgent task, but probably a large enhancement for EET's SoD campaign.

 

PS - Those are not occasional remarks from NPCs but full (ofter lengthy) conversations. Look for example at BDBan004.bcs for a "conversation" between Corwin and Safana.

 

EDIT 03/19/17

I finally made a mod for it

http://gibberlings3....e=3#entry252470


Edited by Roxanne, 19 March 2017 - 02:47 PM.

The Sandrah Saga

another piece of *buggy, cheesy, unbalanced junk*


#2 Jarno Mikkola

Jarno Mikkola

    The Imp

  • Modders
  • 5927 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The town where the dead haven't keeled over, yet. In Finland.

Posted 29 August 2016 - 04:04 AM

So, is there some way (via mod, scripting etc) to convert those pseudo-banters into dialogues? It is more of a technical issue, I think, as the existing contents and triggers could be used - just the string texts be taken and put into the respective dialogue files and assign them to the NPCs wirh BDBANTER.2DA. Not an urgent task, but probably a large enhancement for EET's SoD campaign.

More like something to consider to be coded into a EET Tweaks component. The EET should not touch how the original content is presented. In any portion of the game.

Welcome to the sanity, you are free to search for the limit, it's out there, we drew it in the sand.

Here's how to install all the stable mods you ever really could want to Infinity Engine games.


#3 Roxanne

Roxanne
  • Modders
  • 1153 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 29 August 2016 - 05:30 AM

 

So, is there some way (via mod, scripting etc) to convert those pseudo-banters into dialogues? It is more of a technical issue, I think, as the existing contents and triggers could be used - just the string texts be taken and put into the respective dialogue files and assign them to the NPCs wirh BDBANTER.2DA. Not an urgent task, but probably a large enhancement for EET's SoD campaign.

More like something to consider to be coded into a EET Tweaks component. The EET should not touch how the original content is presented. In any portion of the game.

 

Of course I completely disagree. (The original games are there on your computer still if you want to have that - you need them for EET to install, so what?).

EET attempts to present one game in 22 chapters to you. You should be able to play it with the feeling that it is not stitched together from several games (including IWD in a short while). When your NPCs exchange their banters via dialogue in all but 6 chapters somewhere in the middle, this is just an oddity. It separates this part of the game unnessessarily. 

It is understood that SoD was the latest addition to the game and by itself is just half year old, so there was not yet too much time to do everything that should be done to have it a full part of EET. That does not mean we should not aim for it in the longer term.


The Sandrah Saga

another piece of *buggy, cheesy, unbalanced junk*


#4 K4thos

K4thos
  • Modders
  • 876 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 29 August 2016 - 05:52 AM

 

 

 

Most BG1 NPCs have ***

that's the way it works in vanilla BG:EE+SoD where BDBANTER.2DA is referenced in CAMPAIGN.2DA but the file doesn't exist which mean none of the vanilla NPCs have banter file assigned during SoD. Not sure why they didn't just assigned BG1 banter files there but since that was their choice than I've replicated it by assigning blank dialogue file for those particular NPCs (notice that everyone from BG1 is joinable during SoD even though only few NPCs are playable after Korlasz Tomb where most of them leaves the party.

 

Took me some time to discover why there are no banter files assigned during SoD.

 

There is the new (new does not mean improved) concept to display banters between your NPCs in stringhead texts triggered by area traps. These pseudo-banters can be easily overlooked and they are not stopping the game like normal dialogues (often they appear in between battles or other activites - really enerving).

 

Within the EET context, this approach separates SoD from the rest of the game where banters are done traditionally via dialogues.

 

So, is there some way (via mod, scripting etc) to convert those pseudo-banters into dialogues? It is more of a technical issue, I think, as the existing contents and triggers could be used - just the string texts be taken and put into the respective dialogue files and assign them to the NPCs wirh BDBANTER.2DA. Not an urgent task, but probably a large enhancement for EET's SoD campaign.

 

can you show some examples (script names)? All I see (in override scripts) are messages like:

IF
  Global("bd_safana_special1","global",0)
  IfValidForPartyDialog(Myself)
  Died([0.0.0.0.CRUSADERS])
  OR(4)
    AreaCheck("bd2000")
    AreaCheck("bd4000")
    AreaCheck("bd4300")
    AreaCheck("bd5100")
  RandomNum(10,1)
THEN
  RESPONSE #100
    SetGlobal("bd_safana_special1","global",1)
    DisplayStringHead(Myself,267668) // Caelar certainly inspires loyalty, but she's little to offer in the way of intelligence.
END

which doesn't really feel like a banter.


Edited by K4thos, 29 August 2016 - 06:00 AM.


#5 Roxanne

Roxanne
  • Modders
  • 1153 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 29 August 2016 - 06:04 AM

 

 

 

 

Most BG1 NPCs have ***

that's the way it works in vanilla BG:EE+SoD where BDBANTER.2DA is referenced in CAMPAIGN.2DA but the file doesn't exist which mean none of the vanilla NPCs have banter file assigned during SoD. Not sure why they didn't just assigned BG1 banter files there but since that was their choice than I've replicated it by assigning blank dialogue file for those particular NPCs (notice that everyone from BG1 is joinable during SoD even though only few NPCs are playable after Korlasz Tomb where most of them leaves the party.

 

Took me some time to discover why there are no banter files assigned during SoD.

 

There is the new (new does not mean improved) concept to display banters between your NPCs in stringhead texts triggered by area traps. These pseudo-banters can be easily overlooked and they are not stopping the game like normal dialogues (often they appear in between battles or other activites - really enerving).

 

Within the EET context, this approach separates SoD from the rest of the game where banters are done traditionally via dialogues.

 

So, is there some way (via mod, scripting etc) to convert those pseudo-banters into dialogues? It is more of a technical issue, I think, as the existing contents and triggers could be used - just the string texts be taken and put into the respective dialogue files and assign them to the NPCs wirh BDBANTER.2DA. Not an urgent task, but probably a large enhancement for EET's SoD campaign.

 

can you show some examples (script names)? All I see are messages like:

IF
  Global("bd_safana_special1","global",0)
  IfValidForPartyDialog(Myself)
  Died([0.0.0.0.CRUSADERS])
  OR(4)
    AreaCheck("bd2000")
    AreaCheck("bd4000")
    AreaCheck("bd4300")
    AreaCheck("bd5100")
  RandomNum(10,1)
THEN
  RESPONSE #100
    SetGlobal("bd_safana_special1","global",1)
    DisplayStringHead(Myself,267668) // Caelar certainly inspires loyalty, but she's little to offer in the way of intelligence.
END

which doesn't really feel like a banter.

 

Look for example at BDBan004.bcs for a "conversation" between Corwin and Safana.

Actually you can take any BDBanXXX.bcs (my game has them up to 106).

You can also see that they may take significant time to be executed this way by stringheads while your game continues with other stuff happening in between.

These "conversations" (scripts) are actually triggered from the NPC override script, i.e. those triggers may as well be used to trigger *real* dialogues.


The Sandrah Saga

another piece of *buggy, cheesy, unbalanced junk*


#6 K4thos

K4thos
  • Modders
  • 876 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 29 August 2016 - 06:14 AM

huh, these are indeed proper banters :blink: As you can see here I'm quite good with regexp so there wouldn't be a problem with converting them to proper dialogue files automatically and present like in other parts of game. The question is - do people prefer this solution? What about compatibility with future mods that modify these scripts? I'm going to split these posts to new topic and add a poll.


Edited by K4thos, 29 August 2016 - 06:23 AM.


#7 Jarno Mikkola

Jarno Mikkola

    The Imp

  • Modders
  • 5927 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The town where the dead haven't keeled over, yet. In Finland.

Posted 29 August 2016 - 06:20 AM

My vote, no change, and add option to EET Tweaks to do so.
Why, cause someone could as well go and change all the other(16 chapters of) dialogs to use this kind of "shouting" between the NPCs.

Welcome to the sanity, you are free to search for the limit, it's out there, we drew it in the sand.

Here's how to install all the stable mods you ever really could want to Infinity Engine games.


#8 Roxanne

Roxanne
  • Modders
  • 1153 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 29 August 2016 - 06:21 AM

huh, these are indeed proper banters :blink: As you can see here I'm quite good with regexp so there wouldn't be a problem with converting them to proper dialogue files automatically and present like in other parts of game. The question is - do people prefer this solution? What about compatibility with future mods that modify these scripts? I'm going to split these posts to new topic and add a poll.

Just an additional argument.

*Old fashioned* mod makers (like me) do their banters in all parts - including SoD - in dialogue style. Means, you will have some conversations between NPCs in dialogues and some others in stringheads, even now.

 

And this is how it looks in game:

I am in the Dwarf's Dungeon in SoD (below BD1000). No enemy in sight. One of the *stringhead conversations* starts, Corwin displays her first string - some undead come around the corner and a battle starts - Viconia displays her *answer* - battle goes on - Corwin displays a *response*. etc...This is a mess, you either follow their dispute or the battle...or miss both.

In the *old* way, those two would have had their dispute when no enemy was in sight while the game had paused. They finish their talk and the undead would attack.


Edited by Roxanne, 29 August 2016 - 06:39 AM.

The Sandrah Saga

another piece of *buggy, cheesy, unbalanced junk*


#9 Jarno Mikkola

Jarno Mikkola

    The Imp

  • Modders
  • 5927 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The town where the dead haven't keeled over, yet. In Finland.

Posted 29 August 2016 - 06:41 AM

Just an additional argument.
*Old fashioned* mod makers (like me) do their banters in all parts - including SoD - in dialogue style. Means...

Yeah, and that should not prevent others from picking up the new style of inter party banters. Which will make your the clear mod added content, while the other couldn't easily be identified as one or the other.

Like I said, the EET itself shouldn't touch the vanilla content at all... AT ALL ! Tweaks are for tweakers.

Welcome to the sanity, you are free to search for the limit, it's out there, we drew it in the sand.

Here's how to install all the stable mods you ever really could want to Infinity Engine games.


#10 Ulb

Ulb
  • Members
  • 109 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 29 August 2016 - 08:13 AM

I'd just like to note that these “none dialogue” banters do exist in vanilla BG1 as well, though in a less sophisticated fashion.

 

NPCs will play a somewhat generic voice line like “I quite enjoy your company” and another NPC will respond with something like “Why, thank you!”. It is not quite the same as the SoD banters but it definitely goes in the same direction.

 

Personally I quite like the way SoD handles those banters. Sure, they can get drowned out if there is a lot of action going on but for the most part that isn't really a big issue and they allow for a more fluid gaming experience. Also, dialogue based NPC banters can become quite an annoyance during re-plays.

 

As for causing issues with SoD NPC mods that use traditional dialogue banters, I actually think those two methods will mix rather well. There has always been a mix of voiced line only and dialogue input from NPCs, whether it's the BG1 mini banters mentioned above or just the bored/fatigued/reputation complaint lines in BG2.

 

So, as much as it pains me, I have to agree with the Imp. Converting SoD banters into dialogues should not be part of the core EET but an optional EET-Tweaks feature.

 

 

Like I said, the EET itself shouldn't touch the vanilla content at all... AT ALL ! Tweaks are for tweakers.

 

 

I disagree with you on that one, but thanks for reminding me..

 

Off-Topic/SoD spoilers:

@K4thos, I've noticed that there is a continuation problem with the Soultaker dagger, caused by EET.

 

Without EET you either lose the dagger during the Ulgoth's Beard fight, at the end of BG1 or you don't get it at all. So, the dagger being used as a plot device at the end of SoD works (more or less). With EET however, you are now able to do Durlag's Tower during the SoD part of the game or just carry that dagger around with you. So, as you can see, its kind of awkward to listen to Duke Silvershield complaining about how his daughter’s soul is trapped in that dagger.. while you have that very dagger in your backpack.

 

I would suggest renaming the BG1 version of the dagger to something slightly different (since the SoD version is mentioned in voiced lines). Having that little BG1 reference in SoD is neat but it doesn't really add anything to the plot. (Also, I doubt having the BG1 version renamed would cause any issues even if Beamdog decided to release some kind of BG2 mini expansion to resolve that whole Skie plot line.)



#11 K4thos

K4thos
  • Modders
  • 876 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 29 August 2016 - 08:21 AM

So, as much as it pains me, I have to agree with the Imp. Converting SoD banters into dialogues should not be part of the core EET but an optional EET-Tweaks feature.

 

this is not going to happen unless someone else contributes such tweak. It's too much work to write a code for automatic conversion if only small part of the playerbase will use it (that's what happens if something is optional). So if this feature will be implemented than EET_Tweaks could have an option to restore vanilla system. Not the other way around. That is why I didn't add an option to poll with EET_Tweaks choice.

 

edit: As for the Soultaker dagger - a valid concern, but please create new topic for it or continue this one. Can't split half of the post and i think it's better to keep discussion in poll threads on topic.


Edited by K4thos, 29 August 2016 - 08:39 AM.


#12 argent77

argent77
  • Modders
  • 617 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 29 August 2016 - 08:45 AM

In my opinion EET should only change as little as possible of the original content. Converting a whole banter system is quite a big change and would probably cause compatibility issues with some mods or, at the very least, add more work for modders who would have to implement an extra code path for EET.
 



#13 Fouinto

Fouinto
  • Members
  • 103 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:France

Posted 29 August 2016 - 09:03 AM

IMHO, keep EET as vanilla as possible.



#14 Mike1072

Mike1072
  • Gibberling Poobah
  • 2326 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Canada

Posted 29 August 2016 - 02:36 PM

I agree with argent77.

 

Another point: if there were a demand for converting these banters to use dialogues, wouldn't it be better to create a separate mod rather than bake it into EET?  Some non-EET players might also be interested in this.



#15 smeagolheart

smeagolheart
  • Members
  • 95 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 29 August 2016 - 09:07 PM

I'd like Beamdog to convert those pseudo-banters to dialogue instead of Stringhead.  We should leave the fixes to them.   I guess that's the best course in this case.

 

It is best not to fix something that they've (arguably) messed up - just in case they decide to change it themselves sometimes in the future.  If you were to change it now and they change it in the future, then you've made something incompatible and you'd have to change it on your end.   So you'd be making more work for yourself.

 

If it's too much work for EETweaks then don't do it.   If it was in EETweaks (or another tweak pack) then I would install it now but just in case they change it themselves in the future I wouldn't recommend making it a default part of EET.





Reply to this topic



  


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users