Post reply

Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.
Name:
Email:
Subject:
Message icon:
Verification:
Type the letters shown in the picture
Listen to the letters / Request another image

Type the letters shown in the picture:
What color is grass?:
What is the seventh word in this sentence?:
What is five minus two (use the full word)?:

shortcuts: hit alt+s to submit/post or alt+p to preview


Topic Summary

Posted by: SixOfSpades
« on: January 27, 2008, 12:34:54 AM »

Well, I've been away from this thread for more than a month. That says something, either about how I'm becoming more competent, or about how little time I have to mod. Aaanyway.

Spellslot penalties: Does anyone know a way to really make them work? This is what's happening to me:
A normal Level 14 Druid has 6 Level 1 spells.
A Level 14 Huntsman of Silvanus (Druid kit) has 4 Level 1 spells, due to a kit Disadvantage.
Having 16 WIS adds 2 bonus spells to that.
Problem: Each time the game is Reloaded, the computer applies the penalty before the bonus from WIS, doing this:
     1) The character has 6 spellslots, all of which have memorized spells,
     2) Implementing the penalty brings them down to 4 (say goodbye to the spells you had in slots 5 & 6),
     3) Implementing the bonus takes them back up to 6 . . . the last 2 of which are empty.

The only thing that jumps out at me is the Timing Mode of the spell that applies the penalties. I experimented with all of them, and met with no success, except for that one-time intermittent fluke when the universe just wanted to rub my nose in it. So, since messing with the Timing doesn't work, does anyone have any leads that might just work?
Posted by: SixOfSpades
« on: December 22, 2007, 07:55:07 PM »

Hang onto your keyboards, folks, I've got another stumper. CamDawg's kit-building tutorial states that
Quote from: CamDawg
creating a thief kit that uses Bounty Hunter usability restrictions will also mean your kit will receive fewer thieving points at level-up, just like a Bounty Hunter
. . . and also . . .
Quote from: CamDawg
If you want a kit that has the item restrictions of a Cavalier and a Shapeshifter (lord knows why!) you would add their respective unusable values: 0x00000008 + 0x10000000 = 0x10000008.
Except now, I find that the two rules are incompatible: If you combine the kit usability flags of the Assassin or Bounty Hunter with any other class or kit, the resulting Thief always gains the full 25 Thieving points per level, no matter what. So does anybody out there know of any other ways to manuipulate the number of Thieving points gained by the character at Level Up? Can this method also be applied to the other skill-using classes of Monk, Bard, and Ranger? Thanks.
Posted by: SixOfSpades
« on: December 18, 2007, 01:01:00 AM »

Okay, maybe somebody will know the answer to this one. I'm poking & prodding at 2 of the opcodes listed in DLTCEP:
Set AI Script [82]
(Retreat From) [110]
According to the description, Retreat From is bugged/unknown/does nothing. I messed around with it, and predictably, couldn't get it to do jack. So I looked to Set AI Script to serve as a substitute (as well as do other stuff), but I do have one worry: Supposing that I do manage to get the opcode to work, and succeed in yanking a creature out of its regular AI script & into a script that I designate, can I get them back? I don't want to create a nifty effect's that so dang nifty it can be used to make a smart enemy stupid, or even potentially break the game. I'm hoping that I can simply set Set AI Script to be of a short duration, after which the targets snap back to normal, but I thought I'd run it by you folks first. Does anyone out there have any experience with this? Thanks.
Posted by: SixOfSpades
« on: December 15, 2007, 01:34:15 AM »

This probably comes as no great surprise, but I want to make a Bard kit that has a Backstab multiplier. After my first failures, I was worried that it was a hardcoded limitation that only Thieves and part-Thieves can Backstab, but then I realized "Duh! The Stalker!" So I double-checked the Stalker kit and made sure everything was the same: Both the Stalker and the Rapscallion use the same spell (AP_spcl332) to increment their Backstab, I tested them using the same means of invisibility (Ring of Invisibility) and weapon (generic Longsword+1) for both.
The Stalker's damage was multiplied, the Rapscallion's was not. In addition, the Rapscallion had no Backstab multiplier mentioned in his Record page, whereas the Stalker did.

So, my question: Is this a hardcoded limitation? Am I talking to a wall here, or is there actually some way to do it? Thanks.
Posted by: devSin
« on: November 26, 2007, 12:08:48 AM »

Quote from: Ascension64 on November 25, 2007, 11:29:53 PM
Yes, STRING_SET has been reversible back in the late 190s. Its just that documentation has never been a bigg thing.
Back farther. Wes eventually caved and coded it up; probably the 170s or 180s or something.
Posted by: Ascension64
« on: November 25, 2007, 11:29:53 PM »

Yes, STRING_SET has been reversible back in the late 190s. Its just that documentation has never been a bigg thing.
Posted by: SixOfSpades
« on: November 25, 2007, 08:20:00 AM »

As far as I can tell, my STRING_SET is regularly uninstallable--I did notice that the Description of my Ripper+2 got badly mangled, but that may have been a result of my earlier attempts with things like WRITE_ASCII_TERMINATE. I restored my backup, tested by reinstalling & uninstalling the new string, and I haven't seen any weirdness since.

Quote from: jcompton on November 24, 2007, 11:31:42 PM
There is often a different, more graceful way of achieving something you would otherwise do with hard string setting, particularly if it involves a state of dialogue.
The string in question is the Archer's kit description. I suppose I could append my new description to the end of DIALOG.TLK and insert its string index on the fly into KITLIST.2DA . . . but I think at the moment, this newbie will go for simplicity over elegance.
Posted by: Ascension64
« on: November 25, 2007, 03:08:20 AM »

But of course, those dreadful warnings demand a review. STRING_SET being one of them.
Posted by: devSin
« on: November 25, 2007, 02:49:05 AM »

Quote from: jcompton on November 24, 2007, 11:31:42 PM
At the time it was introduced, it was not uninstallable (is it now? I lose track.)
Yes. Or as close to it as possible.

Quote from: jcompton on November 24, 2007, 11:31:42 PM
There is often a different, more graceful way of achieving something you would otherwise do with hard string setting,
More compatible too.

"Do not use this" usually means it's either undocumented (you can easily maim small children with careless use), created for a specific purpose (i.e., not for you), or is just a stupid idea for an interoperable installation system (i.e., forced overwrite with no consideration of the current state, which may or may not be the default state).

I think toward the end it was more the first two reasons than the latter. Wes either didn't want to talk about it or didn't care for anybody else to use it. ;)
Posted by: jcompton
« on: November 24, 2007, 11:31:42 PM »

Quote from: CamDawg on November 24, 2007, 11:13:53 PM
It's an old modder joke--any time we'd pester Wes to add a new WeiDU feature, it'd usually come with a 'do not use this function' note in the WeiDU readme.

Although this was, if not the first, then certainly one of the first, and for good reason.
  • At the time it was introduced, it was not uninstallable (is it now? I lose track.)
  • There is often a different, more graceful way of achieving something you would otherwise do with hard string setting, particularly if it involves a state of dialogue.
Posted by: CamDawg
« on: November 24, 2007, 11:13:53 PM »

It's an old modder joke--any time we'd pester Wes to add a new WeiDU feature, it'd usually come with a 'do not use this function' note in the WeiDU readme.
Posted by: SixOfSpades
« on: November 24, 2007, 10:38:33 PM »

Well, it seems to work, thanks. Odd, though--if it's safe to use, what's with the warning?
Posted by: Ascension64
« on: November 24, 2007, 01:54:49 AM »

STRING_SET index string. Do not use this feature.  ;)
Posted by: SixOfSpades
« on: November 24, 2007, 12:25:15 AM »

Next up: Messing with DIALOG.TLK.

If I have the numerical index of an existing string that I want to change, what WeiDU command should I use to avoid shooting myself in the foot? It doesn't seem to be SAY offset string, or WRITE_ASCII_TERMINATE, and most of the others say do not use this feature. I'm scared.  :-\
Posted by: SixOfSpades
« on: November 18, 2007, 10:00:49 PM »

Yeah, I noticed that, and I'm thankful for it, otherwise I would have lost another chunk of time (and gained the equivalent chunk of aggravation) before remembering that the actual data in weapprof.2da is right-shifted by 1 column. And yep, I'm documenting everything too, both for the sake of good programming style and because the best new mods look to the best old mods for guidance. Thanks, aVENGER.

And now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go look up that mod that allows Barbarians to Dual-class, and see what it does to dualclas.2da. Yeah, I could just go by trial & error for an hour and a half, but why?
[ADD] Sheesh. Spent an hour scouring the Modlist, never did find the dang thing. I guess they haven't submitted it yet. And then I did the trial & error bit and got it right on the first try. Took all of three minutes. Another victory for Team Irony.