@JuliusBorisov, @Shaiden, and @LukeRideout Has there been any progress in tackling Bug #37442 on the Console and/or Mobile ports? How economically feasible and beneficial will this be for @Beamdog as a company to ensure parity on all 3 (Console, Mobile and PC) platforms? Thank you for reading, and happy gaming to all.
Have there been any updates regarding the 2.6 patch?
We originally heard that the patch would come out in December 2018, and that we should have smaller patches going forward with less time between patch updates. We later heard that there was a delay in the release, probably related to the DLC.
Since then, we have heard absolutely nothing about the 2.6 patch, other than that it would NOT include Pathfinding fixes and NOT include UI updates.
While the DLC is holding up the 2.6 patch, does that mean all progress is currently frozen, or is there any progress being made towards later patches to resolve the Pathfinding and UI issues?
Or did Beamdog simply give up on patching IE games, leaving 2.5 to be the definitive patch? It certainly is looking that way.
Questions for Beamdog:
1. When there will be "Dice, Camera, Action" pack with new merchant onboard for IWD PC-version available?
2. Any info on items that new merchant will be selling?
Remember that the wait for the current patch has still been SHORTER than the wait for the last two patches put out by Beamdog. This isn't anything new or extraordinary yet.
And yes, everything brought up in this thread is trivial. Beamdog use to have a rating system for their bugs. I bet most of these things being brought up is C or lower.
That does sound very authoritative, but regardless, it's completely subjective. When I complain about an issue (or group of issues) not being fixed, it's already apparent that Beamdog sees those issues as having less importance than I do—hence the reason for the complaint. It's a difference of opinion.
Though point well taken, we could all do better to keep this thread more on topic.
Speaking of which, here's a question for Beamdog:
Have you looked at Patreon and/or similar crowdfunding solutions as a possible monetization method for providing patch support for the Enhanced Editions? Do you think such a solution could help with that effort?
I am also curious about the possibility of using crowd funding to fund patches in the future. Beamdog needs to make money, and patches don't exactly do that.
Or maybe crowd funding could be used to help Beamdog rebuild an IDII:EE from the existing engine they've already reworked.
All i want is... once they are done finishing up the console ports, is to go back to working on 2.6 IE patch asap. Its almost been six months. *fingers crossed*
Let's compromise... 2 big fixes and no more patches needed...
1. Stacking of npcs on top of each other
2. Mouse cursor turning to Microsoft arrow in part of the screen.
Those two are frustrating and have been on the list for a very long time.
Hey, I'll go you one better—they can do it with zero patches. They just need to put the source code up on Dropbox and drop us the link.
A man can dream, can't he?
@Adul Dude, that comment just brought on a flashback to when people on the BioWare Neverwinter Nights Forum were asking the developers to open the source code to that game. History is repeating itself right in front of me. Oscar Mike Foxtrot Gulf. Thank you for reading, and happy gaming to all.
I can fully understand that sentiment, it's really the ultimate dream outcome for any game. Once the devs cut ties because it's no longer profitable/advantageous to provide further support, the fandom at large could take over and start working on the remaining engine issues and feature requests. It would basically give the game an everlasting support lifetime, as long as there's at least one person around who's willing to put in time and effort to continue improving it.
That said, I do also realize that it's usually a pipe dream, as there are various ownership and licensing circumstances that may stand in the way of the devs opening up the source code.
Here's the catch 22: There are certain engine and UI issues within the game that are just too complex and chaotic for even the most seasoned custom coder, scripter or content creator to tackle even if, hypothetically, the source code were to be made available to them. Redmine Bug #37442 has been regarded by Mr. @Shaiden as "a bit of a deep dive", so I would imagine only those who have both thorough and intimate knowledge of the source code could be the ones to properly fix it. This issue is as personal to me on so many levels as it is about the quality of life of this game. I believe it was my lack of action to report this bug during BioWare's final days of support for NWN Classic that perpetuated its existence for 13 years come July 9, 2019. My bug report on Redmine is not only another chance to see this issue finally resolved for all players of NWN, both Classic and Enhanced Editions, it is also my one shot at redemption for the mistake that I made almost 13 years ago. I must amend, avenge and atone.
@deltago Speaking of atonement, it seems I owe you an apology for my response to your comment regarding the frequency of repeated questions about gameplay issues being comparable to spam. You're right, we should all make an effort to stay more on topic and add variation to our questions on this thread. I am sorry.
Which brings me to my next questions: While the Beamdog Livestreams were still being broadcast, there was talk about a new game engine in development. Is that still being worked on? Has it been sidelined, iceboxed, or scratched altogether? @TrentOster Which Beamdog Livestream did you mention a developer at BioWare you worked with who deserved a "gut punch" for his crazy code calculation method for NWN Classic? I believe you also said the name of his calculation method. It was Polish... something. It would be nice for me to refresh my memory. Thank you for reading, and happy gaming to all.
My question is in relation to the game Axis & Allies Online
How can I access the game with early access? or participate in the beta, or this has no date? I would like to test and disseminate the Perfomece on Linux and move to the Linux Gamer community.
I have 2 questions about upcoming patch v2.6 for IE games:
1 - Is there a fix for SOD soundset mod compatibility planned for 2.6 patch?
2 - If this delay for the release of this patch going to continue, could Beamdog at least consider expanding the scope and contents of the 2.6 patch? There could be some quick wins here if Beamdog doesn't just brush off this idea saying the scope is already done and dusted.
Sorry I can't respond as often as I'd like, I thought I'd just thank and echo @Prince_Raymond 's post above regarding fixes and deep dives.
This is in no way a "talking down" or anything like that, and if it comes across as such, you have my sincere apologies. I can only really offer a tangential perspective on the issues at hand, not being the one to generally make the fixes, but I thought I'd offer my perspective on the issue in case it helps.
Not only does it take quite a bit of investigating to determine the root cause of an issue sometimes, but it also comes down to timelines, focus, and the concern of knock-on effects.
Timelines tend to be pretty self-evident.
Focus is the dependency of certain team members, and features / reliant sub-systems that are being worked on.
- "Do we have someone working on that system?"
- "How often have we looked at this system, is it original, or have we refactored it?"
- "How many other systems does this one touch?".
That sort of thing. Ramp-up time with developers is definitely a 'thing', especially if it's a system unfamiliar to them. If we can, it's better to get a fix right once, than patch it endlessly.
The final one is knock-on effects. Being in the industry for a while, I can honestly say that you'd be surprised how often seemingly silo-code can influence radically different parts of the game than you'd think. This happens especially with heavily interlinked games like RPGs, you need to be careful not to 'tweak' a minor setting for a fix, only to find out it has horrible consequences much further down the road. Thus the need for the focus listed above.
(As an amusing anecdote, here are a few things I have seen prior to my time at Beamdog)
- Text size crashing the game due to the combat log
- UI elements having hidden hard-coding that isn't carried anywhere else
- Completely empty subroutines, that if removed prevent the game from launching
- Massive memory over-usage due to texture quality on non-critical object/creatures
And so on! As I said above, I'm a bit tangential to the process, so I can't say anything definitive, but this is one of the patterns I've seen happen a lot.
I would like to Ask Beamdog: Would you in the light of recent developments consider to release the (according to previous answers basically finalized and ready to go) patch 2.6 as soon as possible without tying its release date artifically to the Dice, Camera, Action DLC any more ?
The situation around the 2.6 patch hasn't changed, this is why that question is not included. The situation around the DCA pack requires an official statement from WotC (stay tuned for their announcement).
Regarding this question by @Adul : "Are you planning to do something about the CreatueCreatureOffscreen() function and the countless issues it's still causing within BG:EE and BGII:EE?"
This was our reply from November, 02:
We have been putting effort into fixing issues with CreateCreatureOffscreen in our Infinity Engine games, but we don’t have plans to completely remove the feature from scripts. Report any bugs you encounter related to this feature at our bug tracker, and we’ll try to fix them! http://blog.beamdog.com/2018/11/november-02-livestream-recap.html
@JuliusBorisov "We have been putting effort into fixing issues with CreateCreatureOffscreen in our Infinity Engine games, but we don’t have plans to completely remove the feature from scripts. Report any bugs you encounter related to this feature at our bug tracker, and we’ll try to fix them!"
Wasn't @Adul 's whole point that the function itself is the source of the bug? If that's true, how would anything short of removing it fix the problem?
That is the point of view of @Adul. The company's point of view is that the function shouldn't be removed.
Actually, my point of view is that you have a responsibility to fix the bugs you've put into the games. You're trying to disclaim that responsibility by saying that the function itself isn't bugged, and that we should report the broken encounters instead.
There are three main problems with this response:
1. Yes, the function itself is bugged. When you're playing on a high resolution and low enough zoom level (like 100% zoom on 1920×1080), it spawns characters way farther away than it was likely intended, in random directions and often in off-limits, hidden, or hard to find parts of the current area. It should instead spawn the creatures right outside of the edge of the fog of war, and it should also take specific care to spawn them only as far away in terms of travel distance from the party as necessary, which it currently doesn't. It should never spawn them in off-limits parts of the area, which it currently does.
2. The Beamdog person who wrote the function into the game scripts didn't understand and/or didn't care about how the new spawn function differs in functionality from the originally used spawn function(s). The original scripts almost always placed the creatures somewhere inside of the player's viewed area, usually right next to the player party. Then the creature's script would continue to handle the interaction from there, because the party was in their line of sight and their scripts were specifically written to interact with characters/foes in their line of sight. The new function, by design, places the spawned characters outside of the party's line if sight, meaning that most of the spawned NPCs' scripts are no longer adequate to handle the new, altered interactions. This typically results in them never approaching the party unless the player seeks them out first, which means their encounters are now broken. After updating the spawn scripts, Beamdog should have also reviewed and updated the scripts of all of the spawned characters to make sure they could still handle their intended purpose. But whoever implemented the script changes didn't know what they were doing, or simply didn't care.
3. I've already reported to you every single instance where the broken function is used in the two Baldur's Gate games. Links: [1], [2]. No, not all of these encounters are bugged, but the majority of them are. If Beamdog is hellbent on keeping CreateCreatureOffscreen() in the game despite the plethora of issues it's causing (though I still think you should just revert to the original spawn methods), then you should not only fix the function itself (see point 1), but you should also review, test, and fix—if needed—every single encounter where it's currently being used. It's not our responsibility as players to catalog and test all of those bugged encounters, it's yours. Especially so since we're talking about regressions that Beamdog has caused to the games. And besides, us players don't have a QA team on staff. You do.
Needless to say, I find Beamdog's response to this question another in a long list of frustrating, tone-deaf responses where they either don't acknowledge the issues, outright dismiss player concerns, or try to slink away from the responsibility of having to fix their own messes. You're doing pretty much everything you can to ensure we don't trust you to do anything right going forward. I'd say I'm disappointed, but I already knew better than to expect anything else.
The situation around the 2.6 patch hasn't changed, this is why that question is not included. The situation around the DCA pack requires an official statement from WotC (stay tuned for their announcement).
Regarding this question by @Adul : "Are you planning to do something about the CreatueCreatureOffscreen() function and the countless issues it's still causing within BG:EE and BGII:EE?"
This was our reply from November, 02:
We have been putting effort into fixing issues with CreateCreatureOffscreen in our Infinity Engine games, but we don’t have plans to completely remove the feature from scripts. Report any bugs you encounter related to this feature at our bug tracker, and we’ll try to fix them! http://blog.beamdog.com/2018/11/november-02-livestream-recap.html
They are not disclaiming responsibility to fixing the bug. They are just not fixing it the way you want it fixed.
You continuously asking for it to be fixed, when they have already acknowledged that this is a bug they are looking into is like a kid in the back seat of a car ride going “are we there yet? Are we there yet? Why aren’t we there yet?”
They are not disclaiming responsibility to fixing the bug.
Oh, but they are. They said that if there are bugs, we should report the specific encounters where they are happening. I'm not going to repeat myself on why I think it's not the players' but Beamdog's responsibility to test and fix their own game, especially after the players have already reported the broken behavior to them.
And, as far as I know, they haven't actually acknowledged that the function itself is also bugged—which it is.
You continuously asking for it to be fixed, when they have already acknowledged that this is a bug they are looking into is like a kid in the back seat of a car ride going “are we there yet? Are we there yet? Why aren’t we there yet?”
BG2:EE has been out for over five years, and the encounters this issue affects have been broken since the release. I beg your forgiveness for my unrealistic expectations, but I think five years should have been plenty time for Beamdog to fix a hive of regressions that they have carelessly delivered the game with. Especially since the fix is as easy as reverting to the original scripts.
To reiterate: these bugs weren't present in the original games. They're all due to Beamdog's meddling with scripts that were working fine to begin with.
I have another question:
the whole google / privacy policy problem is being solved with a new UI where you can toggle between different options?
Is that solution going to be implemented on all platforms?
I hope so - even though I am on a iOS platform.
Are the reasons that you can't talk about 99% of the things we really want answers to due to legal issues?
Because it's looking a lot like how things were back when Atari filed bankruptcy and you guys were quagmired in NDAs.
Anything related to WotC is under NDA and all communications about it usually need to be approved by them before being released to the general public.
True enough, which is why it seems like a really good idea for Beamdog to cut the cord to WotC. I doubt there's a single developer out there who's had a really positive experience working with WotC, at least in recent years. I feel it would be best for both Beamdog and us fans to come to terms with the fact that WotC will never give us a decent cRPG using WotC-owned material. So why not at least go the GrapeOcean route and use the D&D OGL to make a game using a "home-brew" world?
Will we get a reply? Or has it already been covered in another blog post of some sort?
2) the voice pack from the waffle crew. Will it come ? or has recent events - for which Beamdog holds no responsibility (I think (and hope)) - meant that the project is put on hold?
Comments
Thanks !
We originally heard that the patch would come out in December 2018, and that we should have smaller patches going forward with less time between patch updates. We later heard that there was a delay in the release, probably related to the DLC.
Since then, we have heard absolutely nothing about the 2.6 patch, other than that it would NOT include Pathfinding fixes and NOT include UI updates.
While the DLC is holding up the 2.6 patch, does that mean all progress is currently frozen, or is there any progress being made towards later patches to resolve the Pathfinding and UI issues?
Or did Beamdog simply give up on patching IE games, leaving 2.5 to be the definitive patch? It certainly is looking that way.
1. When there will be "Dice, Camera, Action" pack with new merchant onboard for IWD PC-version available?
2. Any info on items that new merchant will be selling?
Beamdog stated that 2.6 is not the last patch they'll release for PC, so according to them, PC is not done.
That does sound very authoritative, but regardless, it's completely subjective. When I complain about an issue (or group of issues) not being fixed, it's already apparent that Beamdog sees those issues as having less importance than I do—hence the reason for the complaint. It's a difference of opinion.
Though point well taken, we could all do better to keep this thread more on topic.
Speaking of which, here's a question for Beamdog:
Have you looked at Patreon and/or similar crowdfunding solutions as a possible monetization method for providing patch support for the Enhanced Editions? Do you think such a solution could help with that effort?
Or maybe crowd funding could be used to help Beamdog rebuild an IDII:EE from the existing engine they've already reworked.
Here's the catch 22: There are certain engine and UI issues within the game that are just too complex and chaotic for even the most seasoned custom coder, scripter or content creator to tackle even if, hypothetically, the source code were to be made available to them. Redmine Bug #37442 has been regarded by Mr. @Shaiden as "a bit of a deep dive", so I would imagine only those who have both thorough and intimate knowledge of the source code could be the ones to properly fix it. This issue is as personal to me on so many levels as it is about the quality of life of this game. I believe it was my lack of action to report this bug during BioWare's final days of support for NWN Classic that perpetuated its existence for 13 years come July 9, 2019. My bug report on Redmine is not only another chance to see this issue finally resolved for all players of NWN, both Classic and Enhanced Editions, it is also my one shot at redemption for the mistake that I made almost 13 years ago. I must amend, avenge and atone.
@deltago Speaking of atonement, it seems I owe you an apology for my response to your comment regarding the frequency of repeated questions about gameplay issues being comparable to spam. You're right, we should all make an effort to stay more on topic and add variation to our questions on this thread. I am sorry.
Which brings me to my next questions: While the Beamdog Livestreams were still being broadcast, there was talk about a new game engine in development. Is that still being worked on? Has it been sidelined, iceboxed, or scratched altogether? @TrentOster Which Beamdog Livestream did you mention a developer at BioWare you worked with who deserved a "gut punch" for his crazy code calculation method for NWN Classic? I believe you also said the name of his calculation method. It was Polish... something. It would be nice for me to refresh my memory. Thank you for reading, and happy gaming to all.
How can I access the game with early access? or participate in the beta, or this has no date? I would like to test and disseminate the Perfomece on Linux and move to the Linux Gamer community.
1 - Is there a fix for SOD soundset mod compatibility planned for 2.6 patch?
2 - If this delay for the release of this patch going to continue, could Beamdog at least consider expanding the scope and contents of the 2.6 patch? There could be some quick wins here if Beamdog doesn't just brush off this idea saying the scope is already done and dusted.
Sorry I can't respond as often as I'd like, I thought I'd just thank and echo @Prince_Raymond 's post above regarding fixes and deep dives.
This is in no way a "talking down" or anything like that, and if it comes across as such, you have my sincere apologies. I can only really offer a tangential perspective on the issues at hand, not being the one to generally make the fixes, but I thought I'd offer my perspective on the issue in case it helps.
Not only does it take quite a bit of investigating to determine the root cause of an issue sometimes, but it also comes down to timelines, focus, and the concern of knock-on effects.
Timelines tend to be pretty self-evident.
Focus is the dependency of certain team members, and features / reliant sub-systems that are being worked on.
- "Do we have someone working on that system?"
- "How often have we looked at this system, is it original, or have we refactored it?"
- "How many other systems does this one touch?".
That sort of thing. Ramp-up time with developers is definitely a 'thing', especially if it's a system unfamiliar to them. If we can, it's better to get a fix right once, than patch it endlessly.
The final one is knock-on effects. Being in the industry for a while, I can honestly say that you'd be surprised how often seemingly silo-code can influence radically different parts of the game than you'd think. This happens especially with heavily interlinked games like RPGs, you need to be careful not to 'tweak' a minor setting for a fix, only to find out it has horrible consequences much further down the road. Thus the need for the focus listed above.
(As an amusing anecdote, here are a few things I have seen prior to my time at Beamdog)
- Text size crashing the game due to the combat log
- UI elements having hidden hard-coding that isn't carried anywhere else
- Completely empty subroutines, that if removed prevent the game from launching
- Massive memory over-usage due to texture quality on non-critical object/creatures
And so on! As I said above, I'm a bit tangential to the process, so I can't say anything definitive, but this is one of the patterns I've seen happen a lot.
The situation around the 2.6 patch hasn't changed, this is why that question is not included. The situation around the DCA pack requires an official statement from WotC (stay tuned for their announcement).
Regarding this question by @Adul : "Are you planning to do something about the CreatueCreatureOffscreen() function and the countless issues it's still causing within BG:EE and BGII:EE?"
This was our reply from November, 02:
We have been putting effort into fixing issues with CreateCreatureOffscreen in our Infinity Engine games, but we don’t have plans to completely remove the feature from scripts. Report any bugs you encounter related to this feature at our bug tracker, and we’ll try to fix them!
http://blog.beamdog.com/2018/11/november-02-livestream-recap.html
Wasn't @Adul 's whole point that the function itself is the source of the bug? If that's true, how would anything short of removing it fix the problem?
Actually, my point of view is that you have a responsibility to fix the bugs you've put into the games. You're trying to disclaim that responsibility by saying that the function itself isn't bugged, and that we should report the broken encounters instead.
There are three main problems with this response:
1. Yes, the function itself is bugged. When you're playing on a high resolution and low enough zoom level (like 100% zoom on 1920×1080), it spawns characters way farther away than it was likely intended, in random directions and often in off-limits, hidden, or hard to find parts of the current area. It should instead spawn the creatures right outside of the edge of the fog of war, and it should also take specific care to spawn them only as far away in terms of travel distance from the party as necessary, which it currently doesn't. It should never spawn them in off-limits parts of the area, which it currently does.
2. The Beamdog person who wrote the function into the game scripts didn't understand and/or didn't care about how the new spawn function differs in functionality from the originally used spawn function(s). The original scripts almost always placed the creatures somewhere inside of the player's viewed area, usually right next to the player party. Then the creature's script would continue to handle the interaction from there, because the party was in their line of sight and their scripts were specifically written to interact with characters/foes in their line of sight. The new function, by design, places the spawned characters outside of the party's line if sight, meaning that most of the spawned NPCs' scripts are no longer adequate to handle the new, altered interactions. This typically results in them never approaching the party unless the player seeks them out first, which means their encounters are now broken. After updating the spawn scripts, Beamdog should have also reviewed and updated the scripts of all of the spawned characters to make sure they could still handle their intended purpose. But whoever implemented the script changes didn't know what they were doing, or simply didn't care.
3. I've already reported to you every single instance where the broken function is used in the two Baldur's Gate games. Links: [1], [2]. No, not all of these encounters are bugged, but the majority of them are. If Beamdog is hellbent on keeping CreateCreatureOffscreen() in the game despite the plethora of issues it's causing (though I still think you should just revert to the original spawn methods), then you should not only fix the function itself (see point 1), but you should also review, test, and fix—if needed—every single encounter where it's currently being used. It's not our responsibility as players to catalog and test all of those bugged encounters, it's yours. Especially so since we're talking about regressions that Beamdog has caused to the games. And besides, us players don't have a QA team on staff. You do.
Needless to say, I find Beamdog's response to this question another in a long list of frustrating, tone-deaf responses where they either don't acknowledge the issues, outright dismiss player concerns, or try to slink away from the responsibility of having to fix their own messes. You're doing pretty much everything you can to ensure we don't trust you to do anything right going forward. I'd say I'm disappointed, but I already knew better than to expect anything else.
They are not disclaiming responsibility to fixing the bug. They are just not fixing it the way you want it fixed.
You continuously asking for it to be fixed, when they have already acknowledged that this is a bug they are looking into is like a kid in the back seat of a car ride going “are we there yet? Are we there yet? Why aren’t we there yet?”
Oh, but they are. They said that if there are bugs, we should report the specific encounters where they are happening. I'm not going to repeat myself on why I think it's not the players' but Beamdog's responsibility to test and fix their own game, especially after the players have already reported the broken behavior to them.
And, as far as I know, they haven't actually acknowledged that the function itself is also bugged—which it is.
BG2:EE has been out for over five years, and the encounters this issue affects have been broken since the release. I beg your forgiveness for my unrealistic expectations, but I think five years should have been plenty time for Beamdog to fix a hive of regressions that they have carelessly delivered the game with. Especially since the fix is as easy as reverting to the original scripts.
To reiterate: these bugs weren't present in the original games. They're all due to Beamdog's meddling with scripts that were working fine to begin with.
I have another question:
the whole google / privacy policy problem is being solved with a new UI where you can toggle between different options?
Is that solution going to be implemented on all platforms?
I hope so - even though I am on a iOS platform.
Are the reasons that you can't talk about 99% of the things we really want answers to due to legal issues?
Because it's looking a lot like how things were back when Atari filed bankruptcy and you guys were quagmired in NDAs.
@deltago These are the questions we could provide at this moment. I'm sorry if they disappoint you.
@lefreut These questions have been asked by your fellow forum users.
@Gatekeep3r @Wise_Grimwald The mod is compatible with BGII:EE. https://forums.beamdog.com/discussion/71525/new-xan-bg2-voice-set-now-available
True enough, which is why it seems like a really good idea for Beamdog to cut the cord to WotC. I doubt there's a single developer out there who's had a really positive experience working with WotC, at least in recent years. I feel it would be best for both Beamdog and us fans to come to terms with the fact that WotC will never give us a decent cRPG using WotC-owned material. So why not at least go the GrapeOcean route and use the D&D OGL to make a game using a "home-brew" world?
How far along are the updated character models? Are we going to get a big bang of fancy looking stuff with the new renderer?
Will the new high quality weapon and armor models also be used for inventory icons?
Are spell effects being considered for a remake as well after the character models are done?
1) reading a post from Trent seems to suggest that we can expect a reply to Ashafetovs request (link to post inserted).
https://forums.beamdog.com/discussion/comment/1022420/#Comment_1022420.
Will we get a reply? Or has it already been covered in another blog post of some sort?
2) the voice pack from the waffle crew. Will it come ? or has recent events - for which Beamdog holds no responsibility (I think (and hope)) - meant that the project is put on hold?