Jump to content

Photo

Keys being Used up by Doors


53 replies to this topic

#16 Anomaly

Anomaly
  • Members
  • 158 posts

Posted 12 August 2006 - 07:11 AM

The key consuming feature of BG2 FixPack is one of the main reason I like this mod over all other Baldurdash-like fixes. I really hate to have some keys consumed and not others, this is clearly a glitch in the original game. I hate to have a door opened because I have a key in my inventory without knowing it (e.g. without the famous SFX "key used" jcompton was talking about). I hate to have a set of keys without any means to know if one key have been used and can be discarded or not. And it is more "ecological" to have keys consumed that to let useless keys lying on the floor. Moreover, using keys in Item Upgrade-like mods does not make much sense for me. And if someone really need that Symbol of Amaunator, it can patch again not to consume that key like Item Upgrade v33 does.

Please keep this feature. :)

On the other hand, I agree that a complete list of fixes like the one of Baldurdash website would be very useful. :)

#17 CamDawg

CamDawg

    ALL GLORY TO THE HYPNOTOAD

  • Gibberling Poobah
  • 9685 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 12 August 2006 - 08:33 AM

I've started documentation from scratch, because it occurs to me that the current way we had been documenting stuff was only useful (if that) to the Fixpackers and not to players.

As for the keys, it seems that most think keys should be consumed (seems intended behavior) with the exeption of non-keylike keys (follow that? :) ) like the Symbol and Sekolah's Tooth. If there's really that much demand that there be different ways to do this, OBC components can be added.

Why is this Hypnotoad video so popu... ALL GLORY TO THE HYPNOTOAD.


#18 Blucher

Blucher
  • Members
  • 25 posts

Posted 12 August 2006 - 02:11 PM

Keeping the "odd" keys would be a good idea imo, for two reasons. (1) Some mods use these items, and (2) from a roleplaying perspective, it's nice to keep those items as little mementos of your previous adventures. In these games I always keep the notes, bounty notices, and other little odds and ends you can collect throughout the course of the game. Granted I usually only do this the first few times I play game when it's all still new and wonderful, but still...

Also a wholesale change to NPC alignments to conform to some standard is another one of these changes that detracts from the game. Having, for instance, a Lawful Evil Majordomo (and others with surprising alignments) adds texture to the game world. We don't know what lies in the heart and soul of the Majordomo; he appears decent enough but that doesn't mean he is necessarily good. Seeing such a character show up as evil with a casting of Detect Evil makes one take notice and perhaps spurs the imagination. Regardless of these roleplaying considerations, can anyone really discern the designer's intent in these cases? It's possible that the character was based on a lawful evil Majordomo from one of their P&P campaigns. Who can really say that this character (and others) weren't meant to have alignments they have in the standard game?

#19 Caedwyr

Caedwyr
  • Retired Gibberlings
  • 1286 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 12 August 2006 - 02:39 PM

What about the Chaotic Good Irenicus?

#20 Blucher

Blucher
  • Members
  • 25 posts

Posted 12 August 2006 - 03:21 PM

What about the Chaotic Good Irenicus?


Heh, I didn't say the changes were all wrong. Beyond it being slightly interesting to speculate that CG was his alignment before becoming evil and being corrupted by Bodhi, I'd certainly agree that his CG alignment is probably not correct...

Anyway does even that really matter? I can't say it ever had an effect on my games. What does it change? Not getting any use out of Holy Smite in those two battles? But yeah, even if I don't think it's worth having even more garbage in my override directory to fix, I can understand some people wanting it changed.

Though, I don't believe all of the cases involving alignments changed are that clear cut.

#21 SimDing0

SimDing0

    Extremely cute and fluffy and lovely.

  • Modders
  • 1319 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 13 August 2006 - 03:59 AM

There was, once, a very useful thread on FWP where Dorner deconstructed some of Kish's alignment decisions prior to incorporating them into his Baldurdash update. This was, very helpfully, deleted completely by the esteemed administrator of the time. If there are any specific changes you consider dubious, then I encourage you to detail them, but I'm not how far "Major Domo is evil because he might be evil" is going to carry--we've got to do the best we can with the information available, and if we allow too much speculation into whether people should have counter-intuitive alignments, we're prone to ending up with a game where alignment is even more of a meaningless load of rubbish than it is when implemented properly. :)

Edited by SimDing0, 13 August 2006 - 04:01 AM.


#22 SixOfSpades

SixOfSpades

    Idea Machine

  • Modders
  • 444 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bellingham, WA

Posted 17 August 2006 - 12:36 AM

Why has nobody suggested simply turning the All Doors Consume Their Keys into an Optional But Cool component?

Not installed: All keys are left in the party's Inventory after use, except those that are known to be destroyed in the process (e.g., Valygar's Body and the Jae'ellat Wardstone).
Installed: All keys, except those that open multiple doors or one door multiple times, vanish upon use, regardless of what roleplaying value or potential mod use they might add by their presence.

#23 Meddle.

Meddle.
  • Members
  • 15 posts

Posted 17 August 2006 - 12:34 PM

i bet the engine does have means to make you notice when you use a specific key. you just have to write a dialog for each and every unpickable door, heh. kinda like 'search through your keyring/try something else'. that is not fixpack thing, though.
even if you make keys disappear, i'd like to have overhead strings saying smth like 'you used a key'.

#24 Baronius

Baronius

    Robed Bandit

  • Modders
  • 451 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Hungary

Posted 23 August 2006 - 07:26 AM

IMHO things such as Irenicus as Slayer has real soundset instead of ogre shouldn't be among Core Fixes. While your arguing (if the player keeps its soundset when transforming to a slayer then why Irenicus doesn't) is logical, for example I find it more fun if the "ogre" soundset is used in that big battle. It reflects raw power, cruelty and death.

Furthermore, I also think that the alignment changes are subjective, and thus they shouldn't be among core fixes. IIRC about the readme, you even imply that they're somewhat arbitrary by inviting players to discuss them in the forum. I know you always have a logical argument when changing the alignment of a creature, but this is a change, and not a fix in the strict interpretation of fix. It is subjective, because it is based on a certain arguing, while someone else would find a different argument, which could result in a different alignment.

I think if you guys are really wanting this to be the new standard in unofficial patches, then it should place an emphasis on significant bugs and errors. The main question should be "what can the Fix Pack leave out?" rather than "what can it include?"

I can completely agree with Blucher. While I think Fixpack is a great project, I think that instead of "let's find real issues", the tendency of "Let's find as many things as possible that can be changed in some way and can be called as a fix" seems to be dominating. If this is what most players want to see, so be it, but it is obvious that there will be people who say that a fixpack should be more solid, and "disciplined". "Let's find real issues" is a harder job, because only a few of such are left.

As I've said, I still think this is a great project, and that is why I wouldn't be happy if it ended up something that couldn't be called as a fixpack.

For example, I think that a quest which has an invalid variable or dialogue trigger which breaks it can be fixed, but e.g. changing the soundset of a hostile creature with a given soundset (which otherwise technically isn't incorrect i.e. a troll doesn't use a xvart soundset) based on a certain chosen argument is not a fix.

Hence, "fixes of baldurdash plus a few hundred more" is quite misleading -- considering how many fixes it includes, and how many are significant from these fixes.

To sum up the three major points of the advice I can give:
  • Reconsider the meaning of 'fix', try to use a more restrictive definition.
  • Based on point 1, consider what to add to Core fixes. Several major things that are in Core Fixes at the moment can hardly be called core fixes.
  • Try to remain unbiased and objective. You're doing a great service by this project, don't fall to the trap of unintentionally dictating anything.
    Or with a more general wording: don't fall into the trap of exceeding your real goals. The statement "I'm hoping it will help convince more modders to use brand new components for item upgrades, rather than existing ones." is a good example of an incorrect interpretation of a fixpack's possible role or secondary goals.

Edited by Baronius, 23 August 2006 - 07:32 AM.


#25 CamDawg

CamDawg

    ALL GLORY TO THE HYPNOTOAD

  • Gibberling Poobah
  • 9685 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 23 August 2006 - 08:33 AM

IMHO things such as Irenicus as Slayer has real soundset instead of ogre shouldn't be among Core Fixes. While your arguing (if the player keeps its soundset when transforming to a slayer then why Irenicus doesn't) is logical, for example I find it more fun if the "ogre" soundset is used in that big battle. It reflects raw power, cruelty and death.

You can't possibly be trying to argue that the developers intended Irenicus to say "Me will crush you to goo" in the SoA finale.

Furthermore, I also think that the alignment changes are subjective, and thus they shouldn't be among core fixes. IIRC about the readme, you even imply that they're somewhat arbitrary by inviting players to discuss them in the forum. I know you always have a logical argument when changing the alignment of a creature, but this is a change, and not a fix in the strict interpretation of fix. It is subjective, because it is based on a certain arguing, while someone else would find a different argument, which could result in a different alignment.

We've been more than welcoming for anyone to question anything we fix, even the clear ones like a shapechanged elf in demon form saying "Me will crush you to goo." Don't be surprised when "I think it's fun" isn't recognized as a logical defense. :(

There are two parts to every fix: identifying bugs, and fixing them. Irenicus is clearly not chaotic good--this part is easy--but what alignment should he be? (Irenicus is not a good example as we know his exact alignment readily from his other creature files. But we have many bugs in the pending forum because we've been unable to fix them in any sort of satisfactory way.) This is one reason why, specifically in the alignment changes, that we wanted to be especially clear that feedback is welcome. Saying you don't like them is not something upon which we can act as it's too broad. If you want to say that we shouldn't change otyughs from neutral good basilisks to true neutral otyughs because of reason X, please make your case and we'll hear you out.

I can completely agree with Blucher. While I think Fixpack is a great project, I think that instead of "let's find real issues", the tendency of "Let's find as many things as possible that can be changed in some way and can be called as a fix" seems to be dominating. If this is what most players want to see, so be it, but it is obvious that there will be people who say that a fixpack should be more solid, and "disciplined". "Let's find real issues" is a harder job, because only a few of such are left.

A bug is a bug is a bug, whether it's something game-breaking like Aran sending you back to Bynnlaw in chapter 7 or a spell having an incorrect range. It isn't the BG2 Fixpack Of Stuff We Think Is Big Enough To Warrant A Fix, it's the BG2 Fixpack. You're welcome to question discipline but this is again too broad of a statement to be meaningful--what specifically do you think is undisciplined? Our methodology is as open as it can possibly be and we invite feedback, particularly criticism. But we can't act on non-specific, overly broad statements that equate to "I don't like it". We can, and have, acted on statements like "I don't think the Symbol of Amaunator should be consumed by doors because (logical reasoning)".

Or with a more general wording: don't fall into the trap of exceeding your real goals. The statement "I'm hoping it will help convince more modders to use brand new components for item upgrades, rather than existing ones." is a good example of an incorrect interpretation of a fixpack's possible role or secondary goals.

Please read the whole thread, particularly where it's stated, clearly, that this is not the attitude of the team and where Nick clarified his point to show that this is not what the intended meaning of his statement. There are no ulterior motives other than the oft-stated 'fix bugs'.

The game has simply been out for too long in its present state for everyone to like everything we've fixed. This is precisely why we've stressed developer intent, logic, methodology, and consistency so heavily in our approach. I would be very surprised if most folks can't find 2 or 3 (or 70 or 80 ;) ) fixes to which they object, perhaps strenuously. Now that the full docs are available I am very surprised we haven't had a flood of 'wow, you guys sure are idiots for changing X' threads. This is most certainly not a dismissal of your criticism, but please understand that there's very little we can do as a response to something so general, a point I tried to make (and clearly failed) in my response to Blucher.

Why is this Hypnotoad video so popu... ALL GLORY TO THE HYPNOTOAD.


#26 Baronius

Baronius

    Robed Bandit

  • Modders
  • 451 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Hungary

Posted 23 August 2006 - 08:59 AM

This is the case, which was shown at BWL too, that you've a problem with general things.
You expect examples, yet if I or anyone else lists 10 concrete things in Fixpack that we don't like in Core Fixes, it really won't change on anything.
It's exactly about general things. The whole. My advice to move many things from Core fixes to some different component. But you fail to understand the principle, what Blucher summarized in a few sentences I quoted, because you "don't see the forest due to the tree" (A Hungarian saying.)

#27 CamDawg

CamDawg

    ALL GLORY TO THE HYPNOTOAD

  • Gibberling Poobah
  • 9685 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 23 August 2006 - 09:14 AM

You expect examples, yet if I or anyone else lists 10 concrete things in Fixpack that we don't like in Core Fixes, it really won't change on anything.

If this wasn't posted in a thread that directly contradicted this it wouldn't be so funny. :(

Why is this Hypnotoad video so popu... ALL GLORY TO THE HYPNOTOAD.


#28 Baronius

Baronius

    Robed Bandit

  • Modders
  • 451 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Hungary

Posted 23 August 2006 - 09:19 AM

Exactly, the fact you take out the consumed Symbol from Core fixes doesn't change on the whole. But it's well-visible that you don't understand the point.

Well, I've told my three points, you either take the advice or not. Good luck with the mod!

#29 Caedwyr

Caedwyr
  • Retired Gibberlings
  • 1286 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 23 August 2006 - 10:10 AM

@ Baronius: I'm having a hard time trying to understand what you are saying. On one hand, the maintainers of the Fixpack appear to be going to great lengths to make their process and methodology as transparent as possible. They seem willing to discuss any change that someone finds debatable/objectionable. So... if there are some changes that you don't feel appropriate why not bring them up?

Another point you seem to be arguing, is that some fixes are too small to be worthy of being fixed. How is this any different from Baldurdash? It didn't just fix game crashing bugs, but also covered a multitude of smaller fixes. In fact, many of the fixes in the Fixpack are exactly the same ones as fixed in Baldurdash. Do you only want the game crashing bugs and game progression blocking bugs to be fixed? I'm trying to understand your perspective here.

#30 Baronius

Baronius

    Robed Bandit

  • Modders
  • 451 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Hungary

Posted 23 August 2006 - 10:39 AM

I haven't told I've problems with the changed alignments for example, but I would like to see them in a different component. This applies to other features as well. Simply because they're based on (too) subjective arguments, even if they're logical. I've already pointed out that a fix should be interpreted more strictly.

I'm not against small issues to be fixed, but I think that Fixpack tends to contain "forced" fixes. "Let's find more and more things to be fixed", but criteria aren't accurate enough. If nothing is to be added, then nothing is to be added -- no need to struggle to find new ones. Sometimes the few is the more.
However, players tend to like these forced fixes. If this is the case, I say so be it, but I wouldn't mind if the Core fixes component reserved its "traditions".



Reply to this topic



  


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users