Externalize ToBEx's "Concentration Check for Spell Disruption"

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

Cahir

Second that, I would love to see some hardcore vanilla players at G3's to be able to play the game for a change:) It's sad to read, that EE is a disspointment because of lack of these features:) So, bring it on!

Erg

Of course I agree with the OP.

subtledoctor said:

just externalized - NOT added by default to the game

Especially on this !!!

Just consider what Beamdog did to the Pick Pockets skill, i.e. instead of just externalising SLTSTEAL.2DA as ToBEx does, they have arbitrarily changed also the default behaviour. After 15+ years of getting used to the vanilla behaviour, Beamdog, all of the sudden and unilaterally, decide that it should work differently.

Please leave these changes to mods like Rogue Rebalancing and stop messing with the default behaviours, especially when it affects heavily the gameplay.

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

Erg

subtledoctor said:

I was reviewing this again, and I feel the need to make a point for clarification: I don't even think it's that bad for Beamdog to make such decisions... as far as I'm concerned, make the default behavior however you guys want it, as long as it's moddable.

@subtledoctor, I would agree with you if this was the only change they had made. In that case it would be quite easy to mod the game to restore the vanilla behaviour. However, they have made several of these changes and undoing all of them can be very time expensive.

My personal solution, for the moment, is to stick with the original games because they are closer to my tastes and besides they are compatible with more mods, so they require less changes on my part to be fully to my liking.

This is mainly me expressing my dissatisfaction with the way Beamdog is handling the game, but I don't really expect that they will act on it (i.e. stop messing with the default behaviour).

Anyway, I really hope that they will, at least, listen to you and implement your request.

CamDawg

subtledoctor said:

I was reviewing this again, and I feel the need to make a point for clarification: I don't even think it's that bad for Beamdog to make such decisions... as far as I'm concerned, make the default behavior however you guys want it, as long as it's moddable.

The problem is when they change default behavior and make it impossible to mod - that violates the spirit in which these games were advertised and sold (i.e. modding-friendly).

I'm trying to think of a single default change made that isn't changeable by mods. Quick Loot?

subtledoctor said:

Beamdog sold people on the EE engine being better, less buggy, and mod-friendly. They delivered on the first two but after 2 years they're still behind on the third. Right now, almost in 2015, modders can do more with vanilla BG2 + ToBEx than they can do with EE.

Now that v1.3 is a solid, stable platform, let's get back to that original promise of extending its possibilities! Especially in ways that have already existed for 10 years on the vanilla engine.

Given the grip of fixed scripting actions/triggers/actions and opcodes, expansion of same, externalization of many items either not in TobEx (monk fists, thieving skills) or at a finer grain (clswpbon), and additional flags available in files, I'm curious how you feel this goal is not already achieved.

Not to say we aren't working towards getting everything from TobEx included, yes. It's just that the claim that a lack of a specific TobEx feature outweighs all of that seems a bit of a stretch.

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

CamDawg

subtledoctor said:

Erg's example, on its face, looks like an instance where Beamdog made a defat change that is not moddable. (I haven't looked into it, that could be wrong.) It looks like a decision was made to adopt a particular behavior instead of adopting a more flexible solution. I have no idea what the reasons for it were and those reasons are ultimately the prerogative of the devs.

Which is a misunderstanding. Erg's specific complaint here is that we chose default values different than what TobEx uses for pickpocketing externalization. The table itself is a 2da, editable by any text editor--you can change it to TobEx's values or anything else you fancy.

There's zero interest in taking something hardcoded and simply hardcoding it in a different way. In every instance BD has externalized it to modder-accessible assets. Like you said--we're modders too.

Erg's broader complaint is that modding all of the changes back to what he wants is too expensive, in terms of time--not that it's impossible.

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

Erg

CamDawg said:

Erg's specific complaint here is that we chose default values different than what TobEx uses for pickpocketing externalization.

Yes, but not just because ToBEx and BD use two different sets of default values. The ToBEx default values are meant to preserve the vanilla behaviour while allowing mods to change it. BD values change the vanilla behaviour and I would like to know the rationale behind that choice. In fact, I was under the impression that changes of that magnitude, and with such a profound effect on gameplay, were only allowed in case of bugs.

CamDawg said:

Given the grip of fixed scripting actions/triggers/actions and opcodes, expansion of same, externalization of many items either not in TobEx (monk fists, thieving skills) or at a finer grain (clswpbon), and additional flags available in files, I'm curious how you feel this goal is not already achieved.

Here I agree with @subtledoctor, IMO this goal cannot be considered truly achieved until everything from TobEx is included.

CamDawg said:

Not to say we aren't working towards getting everything from TobEx included, yes.

How does BD plan to include the optional components from ToBEx ? Let consider, for example, the component causing sleeping creatures to awaken when hit. Which behaviour is going to be the default ? Changing the default behaviour, if possible, will require writing a mod, editing an .ini file or simply toggling the corresponding option in-game ?

What about the core features of ToBEx? ToBEx is so versatile because each single core feature can be enabled and disabled at will, and at any time, by editing an .ini file. Is BD planning to implements something like that in the Enhanced Editions ? IMO just including ToBEx features is not enough without the versatility and modularity of the original.

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

Erg

subtledoctor said:

People can sell a game with whatever rules they want

they don't owe it to us

I agree on both counts, and if I ever gave you a different impression, it means I must improve my communication skills

However, in the same way, I don't owe to them to buy and/or play their games, especially considering that the original games already have what I'm asking for.

Grammarsalad

CamDawg said:

...
Not to say we aren't working towards getting everything from TobEx included, yes....

@CamDawg‌

Can I interpret this to mean that you are working to incorporate all tobex externalizations into the ee's...

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

CrevsDaak

@subtledoctor‌ actually I'd rather insist on a .2da file instead, so you can freely change the chances of missing the spell or not—for example, TobEx uses (1D20 + luck) > (spell level + damage taken). Also, I'd like to see the "No Spell Interruption On Zero Damage" implemented (that one would be a great .ini option).

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

AstroBryGuy

I'd love to see this too, although I'd like see a bit of level-scaling in the formula. That way, low-level mages have a decent chance to be interrupted (under ToBEx's scheme, a 1st level mage taking 5 damage still only has a 30% chance of losing their sleep spell, the same as a 40th level mage). Maybe (1d20 + Mage Level/2 + Luck) > (10 + Spell level + Damage).

That could be included in a 2DA file, of course, perhaps a flag for SCALED in CONCCHCK.2DA?

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

AstroBryGuy

That's a good idea - just use the Magical Defense Bonus, I presume?

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

Darkersun

Just want to lend my support to this request.
I'm not a modder but "Concentration Check for Spell Disruption" sound like a nice to have.

elminster

This would be nice to see

swit

subtledoctor said:

(Just please, add it via a .2da file or something, not in baldur.ini. Thes games have a thriving and long-running modding community - a number of modders are now EE devs - but the recent BG2ee patch has inexplicably placed the ranger/cleric spells setting and the 'max hp on level-up' setting beyond the reach of Weidu. It's kind of like climbing up a ladder and then pulling it up behind you...)

It's actually very easy to edit Baldur.ini with weidu. Just use %USER_DIRECTORY%/Baldur.ini Doesn't matter if Beamdog adds these features like this if it's simple yes/no decision.

---------

I support the stance that everything from ToBex should be in EE games. And by everything I don't mean popular "Concentration Check for Spell Disruption" (doesn't matter for me although sounds nice) but even those less requested features (probably due to not understanding how to use them and what they bring to the table) like new script actions and triggers that can make basic calculations, and external files reading: Assign, AssignFromObject, Eval.

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

swit

@subtledoctor you can always mention in the readme that the mod should be installed after player finished setting up his/her Baldur.ini.

If this is not enough than you can modify the file with COPY + (this tells weidu to not uninstall the file) and modify Baldur.ini via AT_INTERACTIVE_UNINSTALL. Can't help you with this one as I'm not good with command line. It will require batch code or some external command line language extender to modify the file at uninstallation (also separate code for OSX console equivalent).

Third option that you can test is removing whole line from Baldur.ini via COPY + and append it to BGEE.SQL (with INSERT INTO block). I didn't check it but that file is structured like Baldur.ini, so probably it can be used for ini options as well. If this is true and if this file is loaded by the engine after Baldur.ini than maybe you won't even need to modify ini file itself. Let us know the result if you are going to test it.

Cahir

Since this is probably the most important missing TobEx feature for many players, who played vanilla to death, it would be nice if devs just left a note if they even consider implementing it (like it was said before .ini option will do).

Personally I miss a thread where devs point out which TobEx features they're planning to implement, which will not be implemented at all, and which are considered to be added into a game at some point. More clarity and less teasing on this matter will be welcomed

billbisco

Yes Devs, please implement the ability to have ToBEX features like this. Please give no possible reason for BG2 mods to be better than the Enhanced Editions. Enhanced Edition should be an across the board feature improvement or feature match,

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

Avenger_teambg

We shouldn't be implementing this as a hardcoded formula. That's exactly what @Erg would complain about.
I can imagine this as a 'stat', that would give a percentile bonus to keep concentration. No spell level involved, no damage amount involved. Probably we could add luck, but then it would change vanilla behavior (with a luck of 1, you would have 1% chance to avoid a spell disruption).