Charon117
-
Posts
325 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
3
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Downloads
Calendar
Posts posted by Charon117
-
-
23 minutes ago, Flix said:
I checked and that actually is a ring icon.
It looks EXACTLY like all the other talisman. Although so do many other rings.
-
TaliaMets Madness icon is that of a talisman, but the game treats it as a ring.
Is there a way to remove the delayed hp bar update. And make the hp display correct up to 1 frame ?
-
2 hours ago, Androdion said:
Yeah, the intensity thing... I don't bite. Like Charon is saying the bonus isn't huge and by levels 80-90 you're still getting +2/+3. You can only stack and abuse that modifier with a shopper and a smith, and most people won't go that far for that.
I think that the dev's nerf was enough, further tampering may be a case of trying to fix something that isn't broken. That jewellery could drop more in higher class enemies but other than that I think it's fine as it is.
The 2.43 version had a very nice thing where bosses would have a very good chance of dropping +AllSkill material, I really liked that. Now even that got nerfed to hell, as you can farm 50 bosses and might get 1 AllSkill item out of it.
The problem is that Flix cant figure out what drops who and when and if. Otherwise he could jank in some increased dropchances for AllSkill exclusively for bosses. Or other interesting mobs.
Edit: Uurshus Inquisition is grossly underpowered for being a unique.
-
On 12/31/2019 at 8:23 PM, Flix said:
Don't delete them. As far as I can tell the game just merges them itself, since they all spawn.
I cant process the file without unique identifiers. So I merge dublicated entries manually ? And you and dimitrius too ?
Edit: I assume treasure.txt doesnt have modding content ? But it should still get a merge system by the one example ? @Refresh @Flix @dimitrius154
Edit 2: Is the Wiki Spell Resistance page supposed to say -DE% decreases with level ?
-
25 minutes ago, Flix said:
Hmmm... so maybe scarcity may stay as is, and instead the intensity of the bonus can be lowered
I would say droprate can at least safely be increased by 10% of the original value. And why intensity ? a level 80 ring only has +2. Do you want to have + 1 for 80 levels ? Look, I dont even use +AllSkill, because they are not the best thing that drops, but even if I wanted to, I only have 1 ring to use anyway ><.
-
8 minutes ago, Flix said:
That being said, all creatures in those areas spawn as intended so I don't believe the game has any issue with the same layermap_id being used more than once per sector. I also can't say if the layermap_id should or even could be increased past a value of 3 - likely not.
A quick search of "layermap_id = 4," says it gets used for -- Start Region Atmo.
14 minutes ago, Flix said:So, those first two are CM additions (more flying eyes in Blood Forest, Harpies in Nor Plat for Dark Rituals quest). The others are all in the Northland, likely also added by CM Patch as part of restoring the Christmas content. So I think it's safe to say that without user content there would be no duplicates.
Which means, we .. delete them ? Merge them ?
-
9 hours ago, dimitrius154 said:
Hit chance original formula: (500 + Surehit_bonus) * (ChancetoDenyEvasion_bonus + 1000) * 3000) / (((ChancetoEvade_bonus + 1000) + 3000 + AttackerLevel - DefenderLevel) / 1000
I honestly cant make sense of that formula. All I can take from it is that OCE gets applied, and the character panel says the final hitchance increase is something a little lower than the OCE value. If that formula is correct.
Can we trust the character panel ?
@Flix Changes look good so far but I dont see the point of making +AllSkill even more rare than they are now. Not only is +AllSkill not that good of a modifier anymore with that values, but they are already rare enough. 36 hours of gameplay and I can count +AllSkill jewelry I got on one hand. Just some input though.
Is the flat talisman armour bonus an AND or INSTEAD modifier ?
Did you see the edit here ?
19 hours ago, Charon117 said:Edit: Oh yes, for EE and Addendum I suggest lowering minSpeed from 50% to 30%, while taking a second look on MS decreasing CAs. For now I suggest to half the initial value of Levins Array Paralyze to 25%. Other CAs and mods will have to be individually looked at, but I assume halfing of the initial value will be a reasonable starting point. Keep in mind that +/- MS has no diminishing returns, propably. Edit2: if you increase the speed per difficulty so drastically you dont have to lower MS decreasing CAs.
Also @Flix Life regeneration for Enhance ? Seriously ? GTFO and give me casting speed instead, as it is custom for a magic enhancing blacksmith art. With that Enhance might just become a good choice for casters. Maybe even pair it with AS, so that physical and casters might both find it viable, since one CA never gets boosted by both.
I also find the current COCE and OCE values completely reasonable. AV and DV are bad, but they are bad by design, there is nothing you can do about that. They are also the base values of where all calculations start, so its not unreasonable that they are bad.
-
1 hour ago, Flix said:
Yes, it seems to be that every time they wanted to make an additional spawn within the same sector they also increased the layermap_id by 1,
Does that mean that you can can increase the layermap_id if you want to make a new spawn ?
mgr.addSpawn (11,22,-2,{ -- No Spawn level 2 allowed in this area!
total_density = 100,
layermap_id = 2,
} )I just found this and it says "No Spawn level 2 allowed" and its laymermap_id = 2. Im not sure if layermap_id is just another entry, or if it gets addressed in the code. An interesting way to test this would be to remove 1 mgr. entry and see what it does in that region.
I ran my software over it and found a few dublicates:
Quotemgr.addSpawn (61,13,0,{ -- Butwald Augen ||| layermap_id = 3,
mgr.addSpawn (11,51,0,{ -- Orc Bear Groupspawn ||| layermap_id = 1,
mgr.addSpawn (58,54,0,{ -- Weihnachtsbaeume ||| layermap_id = 3,
mgr.addSpawn (58,54,0,{ -- Weihnachtsbaeume ||| layermap_id = 2,
mgr.addSpawn (58,55,0,{ -- Weihnachtsbaeume ||| layermap_id = 3,
mgr.addSpawn (58,55,0,{ -- Weihnachtsbaeume ||| layermap_id = 2,
mgr.addSpawn (58,56,0,{ -- Weihnachtsbaeume ||| layermap_id = 3,
mgr.addSpawn (58,56,0,{ -- Weihnachtsbaeume ||| layermap_id = 2,
mgr.addSpawn (59,55,0,{ -- Weihnachtsbaeume ||| layermap_id = 3,
mgr.addSpawn (59,55,0,{ -- Weihnachtsbaeume ||| layermap_id = 2,
mgr.addSpawn (59,56,0,{ -- Weihnachtsbaeume ||| layermap_id = 3,
mgr.addSpawn (59,56,0,{ -- Weihnachtsbaeume ||| layermap_id = 2,I will await feedback on how to proceed with the dublicates, and in the meantime ask @Flix whats his oppinion on making
On 12/29/2019 at 2:30 PM, Charon117 said:quest.createTaskItem( and quest.createQuest(
mergeable.
-
Can somebody explain the spawn.txt ?
mgr.addSpawn (1,52,0,{ -- sector pos
total_density = 50, -- max number of enemies ?
layermap_id = 3, -- ?
{2036,4,"",0,0,0,0}, -- creature id, number of spawns, ?, ? ,? ,?, ?
{2050,5,"",0,0,1,0},
{2048,2,"",0,0,2,0},
{2042,1,"",0,0,3,0},
} )Edit: Am I right in the assumption that sector pos + layermap_id = unique ?
-
35 minutes ago, dimitrius154 said:
There's a final dice, where all these boni participate, as well as attack and defence values. Then again, as far as I know, the calculation is somewhat broken, because there's a certain line where = has been misplaced with +. I've got that changed in the Addendum.
Sooooooooooo ... OCE gets represented in a broken, but applicable, state in non-Addendum versions ? And it might approximately work as the formula I described ? And in what way does it work in Addendum then ?
-
6 minutes ago, dimitrius154 said:
Does not affect targets without the Chance to Evade bonus, or the Combat Reflexes skill.
So the displayed increase in hitchance in the character window when equipting OCE is a bogus, or everything has at least an evasion chance of 0% ?
-
4 minutes ago, Flix said:
OK let's brainstorm. You said the increased potion cooldown alone doesn't seem to do much, but what if the long cooldown was paired with a nerf to the amount healed by each drink? I could for example make the amount healed by a small health potion 20%, a medium one 40%, and a big one 60%.
I think the best way to look at it, is as a completely broken system which we should not necessarily take as a starting point.
Ofcourse we have to take the limitations of the Sacred 2 system into account.
One of the most basic limitations that Sacred 2 has it doesnt recognise inputs at the same frame. So if you drink a potion and then activate a CA, your CA wont get taken. Conversly if your press on space incidently falls on the same frame as a CA, you wont drink a potion. Usually you will never notice this, because of pressed LMB and RMB, but sometimes ... just sometimes ... you dont consume a potion when you should have. For this reason I dont think our goal should be make the player drink potions more frequently. Our goal should be infrequent, strategic consuming of potions.
So how do we get to infrequent, strategic consuming of potions ?
As a basis for this discussion I would cut potion drops to 30% of the current drop rate.
Additionally I would increase players health to x3 times the current amount, split among all attributes and modifers that give health. x3 times the amount for +health modifier. +150% for vitality, and +50% for constitution.
IMO the best solution would be to rewrite the whole code to make a maximum of 5 health potions consumeable every 30 seconds.
The second best solution would be the one I suggested in the Addendum thread. 30 second cooldown. 20% decrease per instance, stacking with diminishing return, and a low cap of 0%. Both of this requires source code access and modifying skills.
The third best solution is just to make them incredibly expensive to buy. Its not the best thing, but its something.
-
1 hour ago, Flix said:
Partly true. OCE will only reduce Evade Chance on opponents who actually have an Evade Chance to begin with, and that's not necessarily a lot of enemies.
No ? As far as I know OCE takes your "chance to miss" as "chance to evade".
https://www.sacred-legends.de/effekte.html
Ausweichchance des Gegners -x%
Erhöht die eigene Trefferchance. Trefferchance = (Trefferchance (bestimmt durch Aangriffs- und Verteidigungswert) + SichererTreffer%) * (1 + AusweichenVerringern%) / (1 + Ausweichen%).Formula says (Hitchance(AV againsr DV) + COCE%) * ((1 + OCE%) / (1 + Evasion%))
As a basic reference this means if you have 20 OCE%, and a 70% AV/DV than your final chance to hit is 0.7 * 1.2 = 84% disregarding other effects like block and reflect. I think chattius wrote a paper on COCE and OCE in this forum.
If we disagree we would have to ask god, I mean dimitrius.
1 hour ago, Flix said:I ... well yes, that was what prompted to increase critical chance in 2.2. Are you thinking the damage itself should be higher, for example a very low chance to do something like 300% damage?
I would be fond of this change, but you would need to make other changes with it. Look, I am currently at level 82 on silver on challenge mode. Strong enough to kill everything, but even though I 100% invested ALL my skills and attributes into defensive, take as many damage mitigation as I can find, crank up my armour to the utmost and invest ALL my attributes into vitality there are still boss crits that one shot me.
The Kraken overhead attack one shots me if it crits. The Crystal Boss touch does 80% damage, and is unavoidable.
The main point is you cant go over 200% damage on crit, or you put the player in risk of getting one shotted for a lot of things. And thats pretty unreasonable.
I would find it nice if the average damage of crit stays the same, but the crit% get halfed, making getting crits a special experience. So yes, 75% crit chances and increasing damage to 300% sounds good, but you have to figure other stuff out first. Like:
- A way to deal with potion spamming. Currently you are immune to damage against anything that doesnt one shoots you.
- I personally think the health pool is way too low. Maybe increase the health per vitality point first and foremost, and if that isnt enough look at constitution next.
- In total I think the player should have x3 times the health he currently has, paired with a reasonable potion system.
1 hour ago, Flix said:This could be done but it would be time consuming (I'd have to hit each entry in creatureinfo.txt). There are slight differences between creatures already, probably not enough to notice in most cases.
I asked you for it, but you said it was something which affected all types of creatures. If you tell me what to do, I will differentiate it myself as I walk through Ancaria.
Most MS in game is very reasonable. I just think a few changes would make some creatures a lot more pronounced than they currently are. For instance
rats could get a very large MS bonus. Rats are usually the weakest form of enemy, and do next to no damage.
spiders get a medium MS bonus. Spiders IRL are very agile and annoying. More MS makes them more annoying and thuse more pronounced.
flying bats get a medium MS bonus. They are not very strong, but their strafing movement usually completely blocks the battlefield. Making a fast strafing movement would give them character, and a certain feeling. Additionally I would make normal and elite models a lot smaller, so their weak forms dont block other creatures.
etc ...1 hour ago, Flix said:This actually already exists in balance.txt. Creatures are 25% faster in Niobium than Bronze
Nice ! I havent seen Niob with unlocked maxSpeed so it might just be alright.
1 hour ago, Flix said:Still, if you're really hurting for speed,
I am. Also the cap is pretty much symbolic. If anybody even slightly feels like some speed is getting capped he can increase it to 800% or whatever. Since the Trimmed Elite textures make the game incredibly stable there are no stability concerns tied with speed.
1 hour ago, Flix said:One thing that could help is adding more flat non-physical resistance to actual armor equipment.
Yes and no. What does it help the player to have poison resisting armour and than he switches to the Christmas island. Does he then throw away the armour ? I think if jewelry has a worse flat armour increase than reliques it gives the player the choice of which armour composition he wants to settle on. It also means he constantly has to resmith his armour. Which gives more value to gold, etc ... . If you really want to add non-physical armour on armour I suggest you reserve an additional value to the current ones, which gets randomely rolled for a non-physical type. Maybe even make it reflect that in the name like "Acid Torn Torso".
Giving jewelry non-pysical armour also increases the importance of jewelry, because they could spawn together with REALLY good modifiers, or they could spawn with REALLY bad ones, and visus verca.
Cheers
Edit: Oh yes, for EE and Addendum I suggest lowering minSpeed from 50% to 30%, while taking a second look on MS decreasing CAs. For now I suggest to half the initial value of Levins Array Paralyze to 25%. Other CAs and mods will have to be individually looked at, but I assume halfing of the initial value will be a reasonable starting point. Keep in mind that +/- MS has no diminishing returns, propably.
Also @Flix Life regeneration for Enhance ? Seriously ? GTFO and give me casting speed instead, as it is custom for a magic enhancing blacksmith art. With that Enhance might just become a good choice for casters. Maybe even pair it with AS, so that physical and casters might both find it viable, since one CA never gets boosted by both.
I also find the current COCE and OCE values completely reasonable. AV and DV are bad, but they are bad by design, there is nothing you can do about that. They are also the base values of where all calculations start, so its not unreasonable that they are bad.
-
@dimitrius154 Thats a good way to deal with it, I think. EE should definitely take one or another approach of dealing with health potion spamming, imho.
Btw if somebody finds some interesting new concepts or improvements I volunteer to try them out first, if its something I can easily change in my own files.
-
11 minutes ago, Flix said:
You might try increasing this number in balance.txt:
PotionHealCooldown = 500,
This is the 5 second cooldown in vanilla.
In EE it's 7s, Challenge Mode has 10s. So if you wanted 30s you might set the value to 3000.
It does nothing. There is no noticeable effect on coodlown for health potions. Maybe it goes down from 90% to 50%, but 2 health potions usually always heal everything. What needs to be done is to lower the low cap for health potions to 1%. And the other things I said.
-
Feature request to make potion spamming diminishing returns 20% with a low cap of 1%, and a 30 seconds stack time.
-
12 hours ago, Flix said:
I've been reviewing feedback in anticipation of 2.3. So you were thinking the various speed modifiers should be able to spawn on jewelry?
I was thinking about removing Chance to Halve Regeneration Time from magic and rare jewelry, because I found it irritating (similar to regen per hit) that the common strategy was to just shop for amulets with this modifier and socket it up to 100%.
Well my oppinion is highly subjective ofcourse.
My point is just that throughout the game 90% of all jewelry is simply useless. You usually wait for that one or two kinds of modifier and then stack it up. If you are a melee fighter you usually wait for COCE and OCE, preferably both on the same item. As a magic fighter your best bet is usually specialised %dmg.
Here I have to say that I dont think halved regeneration time is a good modifier, and they drop rarely enough. I also dont think anybody should balance the game around shoppers. If you wanna play professional shopper you can, but players depending on drops shouldnt suffer from that. If you want to nerf shop strategies than nerf the shop, dont drag everything else with it.
But back to the halved regeneration time, why would anybody do that ? I dont think its a good strategy, so it doesnt need to be nerfed.The critique here is that throughout the game the blacksmith is a better choice 90% of the time, while the jewelry should offer diversity, but doesnt.
Damage && AV: First of all, the %DMG is incredibly high, and incredibly usefull. DMG% is usually the best offensive modifier, and makes all other offensive modifiers either incredible situational, or 90% of the time a general worse choice. AV on anything is pretty useless, and thats not only because of diminishing returns, evasion, block and reflect chance, but also because COCE and OCE does what AV does, just better.
Armour% && DV: Dont get me wrong. Armour% is a BAD modifier. But its still the best defensive modifier you have available. Why is it a bad modifier ? Because first of all it only increases armour you actually have, and then only a % of it. Once you realise that armour has diminishing returns than your highly boosted armour ... means little. While the defensive options you are bad at ... stay bad. DV is better than AV in this case, moderately usefull, but then there is COCE and OCE ... so good to have, but dont invest in it.
Reg% && Crit%: So first of all, has anybody ever noticed how bad Crit% is ? I mean, not only in vanilla game with 120% damage on crit, but everywhere ? Lets say you have a 2 Crit%, for vanilla that equates to and 0.4% average increase in damage, without taking the better pierced armour into account. In other builds with 200% damage on crit 2% translates to ... 2% of average increase. With the very real chance that your summed Crit% goes over a 100 Crit%, and is worth zero. Reg% is good, as you usually want to have low regen time. Its hard to balance this, because its a direct competitor to DMG%, but at no point do I feel like taking this blacksmith mod over Dmg%.
A fundamental problem are the 5 damage types, and the corresponding armour types with it. Basically having 5 damage types means that you always can choose the damage type against mobs they dont have a resistance to, which makes a lot of modifiers like chance to disregard armour, or -armour% disregardable. On the other hand all the armour% and little absolute armour giving pieces means getting the right defenses ranges from hard to unobtainable.
Now, with all that background info, lets tackle the jewely problem.
Being grossly overshadowed by the blacksmith I think what jewelry should offer is diversity, and interesting modifiers.- Especially early on, I would like to see more, and more common +health mods on jewelry. Not only are +health jewely incredibly rare, they are also incredibly useless. Why do I get +275 health when I have 8200 ? Whats the point ? Do you think that will help me when the golem one shots me because I have no arcane armour ? So not only do I want to have common, magic and rare jewely to have health modifiers, but also to triple +health values on jewelry.
- Now to skill points ... they are so freaking useless. Have you ever gotten a +1 skill point on jewelry and thought "Thats exactly what I need." ? Yes, me neither. Balancing this into the right amount is difficulty, as we can only choose natural numbers, and no fractions, but I think the basis of our argumentation should be the AllSkill modifier. How the game should feel like is that AllSkill modifiers total skill points should give 50% more skill points than a single skill point mod. So if you have +1AllSkill than a single Skill mod should give +5. This makes AllSkill still better than a specific one, but specific ones better if you really want to invest into a single skill. This would be a good point to nerf shopping, and not increase the values for bargaining on jewelry. Or remove them alltogether. What do I know.
- Now to MS. MS mods on jewelry are pretty rare. Their values are good, but at the point you get them you have spend at least 20 hours into a character. The most common reaction to that is to simply go into the game file and crank up the speed of the player. MS not only is a very important battle attribute, but also an attribute which scales with the fun of things. So instead of forcing the player into the game files to make the game more fun for them, I would like to see common, magic and rare MS modifier, so that the player keeps playing inside of the game, instead of outside of it.
- From a vanilla perspective, it is quite reasonable to limit the items of AS and CS, cuz of the low cap of 150%. But since EE removes the cap there is no reason to keep AS, CS mods so rare. As with MS I would argue the values of the dropping items are fine, but I would like to see common, magic and rare jewelry dropping more frequently with those modifiers.
once these points are integrated we can think about the following ones:
-
Nerf/Change the blacksmith. Right now I walk to a blacksmith and have 80% of all mods I will ever use. That shouldnt be. The feeling of a blacksmith should be that he provides reliable low mods I can use as long as I dont have better jewelry, and then replace them as soon as I do.
Reg% propably needs to be cranked up, or %Dmg down. -
I dont know how the Blacksmith skill works, so I could be completely wrong here. But if we assume that we nerfed the blacksmith, then I would like to see "chance to destroy item" on removal at 0% as soon as the blacksmith art is taken, and the mastery bonus an |bonus| to the slot bonus increase.
Conceptually I like dmimitrius approach of random modifiers on the blacksmith, but its the opposite of what we want to achieve. We want players out and hunting animals, not standing in front of a slot machine in hopes of getting three 7s in a row.
Also if we change the blacksmith art than I would like to see a second blacksmith option for the smith to safely remove all items which is x10 more expensive than the normal smithing option. - Following the changes of MS, AS and CS I would also like to see a more differentiated movement for mobs, where some mobs are claerly faster than others. Maybe even an increase in MS based on difficulty.
- I would like for reliqs to be socketable. Usually you have a lot of problems as soon as somebody uses 2 or more non-physical damage types and only 3 slots available to defend against it.
- Following this I would like to see jewelry getting flat non-physical armour values, as half of the respective relique value. So a common ring should have half of the common relique value.
- I would really like to see a nerf to potion spam, where you can only consume 5 health potions every 60 seconds.
Itadakimasu.
-
8 hours ago, dimitrius154 said:
Do we really want the aspirant to play "Inquisitor"(2009) Orc Mines?
"Do we really want incompetent people to vote ?" - the Founding Fathers of America.
My job is not to judge whether or not people have the ability to do a job, it is just to empower the people who do. If the price to pay for that is to also empower the people who dont, than yes.
8 hours ago, dimitrius154 said:Your faith in the infallibility of automation algorithms warms my heart.
The chance of failure for the automation process of the quest.txt is not higher than the chance for the failure for creatures.txt. Just the price is to pay is higher. Is it your oppinion that we should crawl under a blanket, abandon this project and never touch software again simply because it can fail ? Imagine if our ancestors would have said: "Better not use fire, its great, but it has the chance to burn down everything, so better stay in the cold wet rain, its safer."
Edit: The technical term for this is: The statistical benefits outweight the statistical risk of failure.
Anyway, I withdraw myself from discussing the quest and questscript file. I await the decision on what to do with quest.createTaskItem( and quest.createQuest(.
-
1 hour ago, dimitrius154 said:
That's correct, I wasn't being melodramatic.The file should, IMHO, absolutely not be processed by an auto-formatting utility.
Im unsure if you know what the modmerging software does, but it doesnt do anything other people wouldnt do manually. Which is also my whole point. But there is a problem I will describe later on.
1 hour ago, dimitrius154 said:Right, but we always keep a set of save files stashed away, as well as proceed systematically, step-by-step for each fix. Applying a file-wide automatic solution without having a complete picture of the file mechanics would be akin to trying to defuse a minefield by sending in a single infantry platoon.
Your concerns are touching, but irrelevant. The "danger" of modding the quest.txt falls onto the mod author to make a proper file. The modmerge system just automates installations. An automatic installation is in no way more dangerous than a manual one, you can screw up both, or nail them, depending on the instructions given.
1 hour ago, dimitrius154 said:Cause the backfeed from the game is treacherous for this file and the "questscripts.txt". All commonly used script files can break the game, if a single comma is omitted, or an extra one is added. But if you break things in surface.txt, or itemtype.txt, you realize there's a mistake almost immediately. Either in main menu, or upon loading CTD, or upon loading the game. With quests days can be spent before a bunch of corrupt entries is singled out.
Again, this falls onto the mod author.
But onto the main problem: there isnt enough modding content out there about the files in question.
As far as I looked the only mod that touches these files is the Boss Arena Mod, and in a very "moderate" way. I "assume" since Flix made DF2 he needed to touch the files as well, so he might be the only and most experienced source of information out there. Apart from that the limiting factor about the files is modder experience. So I agree with Dimitrius, we should limit the automatic process to what we know works, which seems to be very little, until we know with what we are dealing with.
So that we are on the same page, we are talking about quest.txt and questscripts.txt. I will give both files the option to be fully overridable, if the mod author specifies it so, by adding "//OVERWRITE" anywhere in the file, but preferable for human eyes above the header. Which is the main question for dimitrius, does the file accept // escape sequences, or does it hiccup on them ? eg.
//OVERWRITE
Now that we got that out of the way, and mod authors can replace the file at will, lets discuss the things we DO allow:
- Simply adding/overwriting quest.createTaskCreature should be allowed. It seems to be pretty safe, and I do it all the time. It doesnt need any adjustments anywhere else in the file, and can just be about added anywhere, but preferable at the end of the file. Examples for that would be changed story bosses to allow for things like "persistent = 1,", or simply added creatures around the world.
- Now I would allow quest.createTaskItem( and quest.createQuest( to be addable/overwriteable, and then the reserveQuestType to be rerolled, but I dont have enough modding experience to determine whether or not thats a safe operation. This is up to Flix and Dimitrius to work out, and inform me about the decision thereafter.
- No clue what about questscripts. The main point is that no non-full-conversion mod actually changes the file. Again, without further input it will be overridable only.
1 hour ago, dimitrius154 said:Well(or so we assume) understood files in 'server' folder that can be processed are blueprint, creatures,drop,equipsets,faction,spawn,weaponpool. Others, IMHO, are not.
So far every file is processable, the worst case is copyable only.
-
54 minutes ago, Flix said:
But it's hard to imagine merging two mods successfully that altered the same entries, as there's so many variables. If one mod simply added some entries, sure.
I dont see the difficulties. I assume all relevant information is present in quest.createQuest(. If you assume base A and merge B, than all relevant information has to be in merge B. The worst that can happen is that you (1) deactivate a quest of base A (2) change a necessary item or creature into something else.
But that fundamental problem is present for all merge systems, that is that you cant prevent unwanted overwritten IDs, because no system can differentiate between human intention. Or to put it in plain words: no software can prevent merging conflicts between 2 mods.
(1) It is up to the mod author to prevent conflicting data on the suspected lower base
(2) The only "real" solution would be an open database of which identifier for which file havent been taken, in order to avoid unwanted overwritten ID. Much in the same way you negotiate conflict avoidance about itemtype.txt with dimitrius.
But apart from that there is no software solution to keep one mod inadvertedly from disabling another.
(Final) Like I already said, the best solution is that the mod author checks if all used IDs are compatible with popular and known content.This is less of a problem than you may think:
- It doesnt concern EE or Addendum, as they are base applications right after the CP.
- This is a problem which every game has, not only Sacred 2. The result is that people usually avoid having mods which alter the same aspect. So only 1 full conversion mod, 1 weapon mod, 1 quest mod, etc ... . Mod authors usually adapt to this by looking sideways and giving information about which mod is likely to conflict with their own, and which isnt.
- A partial solution is to specifiy which modmerge build a mod is built to work conflict free on. Like [CP1.6|EE2.2||SomebodiesSuperDuperWeaponMod0.5].
I mean ... if we think about a possible solution.
A possible solution for avoiding unwanted merging data is to add authors intention with it. Like [Add] or [Overwrite]. If an ID has an [Add] tag, but realises base A already has this ID, it can reroll another, unused ID. Then it has to apply said rerolled ID to all relevant data, even other files. Which requires all files with linked IDs to be open at the same time. If [Overwrite] is specified it either overwrites the entry, or adds it if non-existent. All of that would require big data management, which is a lot bigger than the Sacred 2 modding community, potentially even bigger than the combined modding community for all games. Things at that level usually become commercial, and then things get complicated. And we dont even have a merging system for Sacred 2 yet. Dream big, but make one step at a time.
Edit: A possible medium solution would be to add tags to mods, and the software asking for confirmation if mods with the same tags are about to get merged. But that would be after we have a functional mergings system, and is depending whether or not the modmerging system even takes off for the Sacred 2 community.
An example would for EE, Addendum and CP would be [FullConversion].
Smaller mods could have txt files as tags like [quest.txt, itemtype.txt] etc ... . -
5 minutes ago, dimitrius154 said:
Should not be touched with a ten-feet pole. It's being processed bottom-top upon every game reload. Not-so-weird things happen, if you change anything within that file, then load a legacy character.
Is that you professional Sacred 2 modder oppinion ? As far as I understand it you can add quests, the appropriate items and creatures correspondind with it, and then recount quest types.
I do use quest.txt as a simple way to spawn creatures wherever I want, revive story bosses and other mods do other stuff. What should keep us from doing that automatically ?
8 minutes ago, dimitrius154 said:Other files mentioned should be left as is, IMHO.
Other files as in other files than the quest.txt ? Or other files as in other functions inside of quest.txt ?
-
13 hours ago, dimitrius154 said:
Local AI path-building file, if I recall correctly. SHould not be modded, at least not until there's a world editor around.
Copyable-only it is then.
So, quest.txt. Anything more I need to know about this file ?
reserveQuestType has been explained to me.
I assume I can ignore mgr.addWorldObject ?
quest.reserveQuestType seems to be its own code block. Anything else somebody might want to mod in there ?
quest.createTaskCreature(, quest.createTaskItem( and quest.createQuest( looks like a straightforward replace
I assume I can ignore the function calls in the beginning ? -
Thx for the detailed heads up @Flix.
Can somebody enlighten me what pathObjects.txt actually does, and in what way somebody might want to mod it ?
-
@Flix @dimitrius154 For equipsets.txt does this hold any meaning ?
-- reserve memory for this amount of equipsets and equipsetentries
mgr.reserveEquipsets(375,1057)it seems to match with the number of mgr.createEquipset. I assume it needs to be adjusted to the number of entries.
Sacred 2 Enhanced Edition
in Sacred 2 Modding
Posted
That I am not familiar with gaming formulas. As a mathematician I try to find the simplest expression of behaviour, but I dont have the experience of a game developer which makes such formulas different from the most basic ones.
Try it ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is there a way to remove the delayed hp bar update. And make the hp display correct up to 1 frame ? <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<