-
Posts
511 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Everything posted by Ess-Eschas
-
One reason I’m particularly looking forward to Exodus is because of this careful attention to detail. Without wishing to be too effusive, thanks for giving us these little insights, Kel! There are some good names here, some of the many. Nice touch with Talas’s name being a surviving anachronism, incidentally. This is just a thought, but have you considered compiling some of these posts into a text file that you could distribute with Homeland, something like a developer’s commentary? I know part of the whole point of these detailed elements is that they enhance the feeling of the world without drawing attention to themselves, but I feel there might be some merit in having a space where you can cast a little light on these design decisions. While I suspect most people who play Homeland might check these forums, I don’t believe everyone will. For instance, back when I played through your original scenarios, I don’t have any contact with these forums at all. Besides, I imagine your experience and thoughts on world/game creation could be quite useful to a wide range of people, and I don’t just mean Blades designers. Just a thought – I know it’s a way off yet, and I wouldn’t want to give you any more work than you already have! Also, I note with some amusement a near coincidence. I have already made use of one of your example names – almost – in my own scenario, in a character coded way back in 2011. At some point, you might meet the elusive Seliss-Orthoss! Also, as I was about to post this, I think I just clocked the Iliointh reference. If it's what I think it is, that’s another nice touch ...
-
Can't train barter?
Ess-Eschas replied to Dan's topic in Avernum Trilogy (2011-2018 remake versions)
Also, just to pre-empt any further confusion, there are indeed two versions of Avernum 2! The first version of the game was released in the year 2000, while the more modern version was released much more recently (in 2015). Usually, the games are distinguished by their titles. The 2000 game is generally referred to as ‘Avernum 2’, while the 2015 game is referred to as ‘Avernum 2: Crystal Souls’. However, this doesn’t always happen, which is why there’s potential for some confusion! In particular, some resources for the 2000 game add ‘Crystal Souls’ to the title in analogy to its parent game, ‘Exile II: Crystal Souls’. As a general rule, if you’re looking at material written before 2015, it will be for the earlier game, and not the game you’re currently playing. If the material is written after 2015, it’s probably for the later game. From what you’ve said, you seem to be using a guide for the older version of the game. There will be a great many similarities between that guide and your game, but just be aware that some specifics will differ. If in doubt, refer to the posts on this list (which probably have a lot more information than you might need!): http://spiderwebforums.ipbhost.com/topic/21046-avernum-2-crystal-souls-strategy-central-need-help-look-here-first/ and, perhaps more specifically, here: http://spiderwebforums.ipbhost.com/topic/21035-avernum-2-crystal-souls-item-list-by-randomizer-spoilers/ -
Excellent. Thank you for letting us know! I did a quick check, and the damage bonus does indeed expire when the next round of resources comes in. And don’t feel like you need to apologise! You’ve already dug up a bug and an area of confusion in the game engine, and those are really useful things to have been brought to Jeff’s attention. It will make the next version of the game even better! Also, I wouldn’t worry too much about Jeff’s ‘preferred’ way of playing any particular game. While I’m sure he has opinions, he’s said many times that he’s very happy for people to play his games however they want to. If you want to go ahead and burrow into minutiae, then by all means do so! There are plenty of people here on these forums who share that interest, and would be happy to discuss those matters with you!
-
Blessed ending is disappointing.
Ess-Eschas replied to madrigan's topic in Queen's Wish: The Conqueror
Great! You’ve stumbled on a bug, and that’s a useful find. However, just as a reminder, this is not the best place to post a bug report. The developer does not check these forums regularly, and so a post on here might be missed. What you need to do is to email your bugs to Spiderweb directly. That way, they can be fixed, and the game made even better for future players! Be sure to send your bug report here: support@spiderwebsoftware.com Be sure to include in your email the behaviour you’ve seen with Blessed Peadar, but also the lack of response of Istara to you supporting the Watchers. Try to be as clear as you can in your email, since that will ensure the issues can get fixed more quickly! Ah, but that’s the interesting bit! Kneeling to the Watchers is far from nothing. Indeed, it’s possibly the greatest demand any of the factions in the game make of you. Delia and the Queen might contact you through the portal about it. They have some insight into the matter. Good on you, incidentally, for your edit. -
Blessed ending is disappointing.
Ess-Eschas replied to madrigan's topic in Queen's Wish: The Conqueror
Yes, it probably should be! As I mentioned above, it’s likely that you’ve stumbled across a bug in Istara’s dialogue chain, probably resulting from an incorrectly set flag. However, what concerns me here is that you’re using this bug to make a number of claims that people could find misleading. For instance, you’re claiming strongly here that you dislike the ending for the Watchers because it’s similar to the ending for the Trench Towns. That is not the case. The two endings require entirely different actions, and result in entirely different outcomes. You’ve experienced similar endings because of a potentially confusing way in which the dialogue is put together. That’s unfortunate, since you’ve gone through a series of actions that are unnecessary. I’m sorry you’ve experienced the game in this way. If there’s a bug here or not, there might well be something to clarify in the way the dialogue is put together – if there’s time before the next update, which is due quite soon now. Just to be clear, all I’m trying to do here is to try to clear up some confusion about these two endings, and to make sure no-one else gets confused by our discussion on here! Personally, I think the ending for the Watchers is one of the more interesting endings to Queen’s Wish. It isn’t one I would choose myself, but the way it’s handled is different to almost all of the other endings. For instance, it’s the quickest and simplest ending. Every other ending requires you to directly attack some enemy of the party you're talking to. All you need to do for the Watchers is to talk to them, and to discredit yourself. You can get them on your side simply through diplomacy, without needing any force of arms. That’s a novel approach! The way Haven – and your mother – react to this approach is also very nicely written. They have some engaging, challenging things to say about it. This is a good ending, and one that’s worth experiencing. I want to make sure that people aren’t put off from playing it! -
Blessed ending is disappointing.
Ess-Eschas replied to madrigan's topic in Queen's Wish: The Conqueror
That is a slight problem, and may indicate that a flag isn’t being set correctly within the game. I’ll look into that, since Istara has a few lines of dialogue commenting on a decision to support the Watchers. However, this doesn’t resolve the issue. The ending for the Watchers requires no interaction with Istara whatsoever. Once you’ve spoken to General Toru and asked the battalion to support the Watchers, that’s it. The Watchers have become your vassals, and you don’t need to do anything else in the Ahriel Woods. Why do you want to speak to Istara after doing this? Everything else you list above is deliberately undermining the Watchers, who are now your vassals. The end result is that you’re basically overriding your choice of supporting the Watchers, instead replacing that choice with supporting Istara instead. That’s why no-one is acting differently to your actions – you’re not seeing the ending for the Watchers, you’re effectively seeing the Trench Town ending. Think of it this way. What you’re doing is a little like, say, trying to support the Mascha. You break the Owen’s defences, and report this to the Mascha. You then sign a contract with them. However, you then decide to break the Mascha’s own defences and tell your army to fight for the Owen instead, destroying the Mascha’s power base and freeing the Owen. Are the Mascha going to obey your contract now? Of course not! You’ve sided with the Owen in spite of your previous decision. That’s what’s happening here. You’re overriding your decision to support the Watchers by destroying their power base and siding with their enemy instead. The end result is that you are supporting the Trench Towns, even if that’s not your intent. Try going through this again without talking to Istara after talking to General Toru. The experience should make more sense after that! -
Blessed ending is disappointing.
Ess-Eschas replied to madrigan's topic in Queen's Wish: The Conqueror
That's because you didn't actually activate the Blessed ending! You were seeing the ending for the Trench Towns, which is why everything felt so similar. Once you've bowed to the Watchers, they will give you an idea of what you need to do next. Remember, to them, Istara is of no importance – she has little say in the goings on in the Ahriel Woods, and is supportive of those they believe are below their notice. You don't need to talk to her at all: Once you've done that, you'll find the game reacts quite differently to your actions. -
That's quite alright! Misreading dialogue is something that happens to all of us every now and again, especially after a demanding series of fights. No harm done! If you find anything else, though, do please report it (via the support email mentioned in the other thread). Every little bug caught makes the game that little bit better!
-
Buying Quicksilver or Stone in Fort Darkfen?
Ess-Eschas replied to PkK's topic in Queen's Wish: The Conqueror
That is indeed a bug, and a good catch! However, this is just a friendly reminder that this is not the best place to post bug reports. It's interesting to know, but the designer of these games doesn't check these forums regularly; anything you post here might not necessarily be noticed, especially with a new version coming soon! A much better approach is to write to the developer yourself, reporting this issue as clearly as you can. Then he can around to fixing it! You can submit bug reports to the following email address: support@spiderwebsoftware.com Otherwise, welcome to the forums! It's always good to see someone with a keen eye for detail! -
Could you please quote the exact portion of the dialogue where these people are referred to as three men? I don't recall such a description. I've also checked over the dialogue and I see no mention of it – but perhaps I'm missing something obvious!
-
Hello Lucidus, You're not noticing the bonus to damage arising from the top tier of magical skills because, perhaps counter-intuitively, it's not shown as that sort of bonus to magical damage! It's a core bonus applied directly to your characters, although it's not listed as such. The easiest way to spot this is to go to a fort. Look at your character with the top tier of magical skills, and make a note of the amount of damage they do when wielding a weapon that does magical damage. Now, untrain all of the skills they have learned in the top tier, and look at the values again. You'll see that the amount of damage done by the weapon has dropped by a flat amount, that is, the upper and lower limits have both dropped by the same amount. You'll see exactly the same thing with the bonus to physical damage from physical skills. Both work in the same way, and as intended. Curiously though, the amount either skill increases isn't actually 4, as it should be, but 3. That looks like a slight bug that's slipped through the net. You're only being shortchanged by a single point, so it's not a huge loss – that's probably why this hasn't been spotted before now. I'll report that in. I'm not sure if the lack of the listing as a damage bonus is deliberate or not. Still, I'll pass it on – it does seem potentially confusing as things currently stand!
-
Oh, I see what you mean! Yes, init_state is indeed checked whenever the party enters town, so setting the flag as you suggest would work for most situations – my use of forever in the above is a tad strong! In fact, it looks like Bain’s original suggestion would work in that case too – although setting the flag is still probably better practice, since I feel the approach is a little more transparent, and it's easier to debug. As you say, the problem is because the variables describing the door’s state (i_am_locked and i_am_open) persist, and are only checked in the init_state. Actually, I now realise that my script is more complicated than it needs to be! Just copying the text from the init_state into the other states should work. It does have to be copied into every state, though, otherwise you get some strange behaviour. (On my first attempt, you could open permanently locked doors just by looking at them, which is not hugely desirable).
-
This method should work from a logical standpoint, but unfortunately it's not that simple! The flag in cells 2 and 3 unlocks the door forever when the door script is called, even if you change the flag subsequently. Once a door is unlocked this way, it can't be locked again. To cut through my verbosity, I got around this by creating a new door script, one which manually keeps track of the door's state (i.e. whether it's locked or not, and whether it's open or not). This stops the game 'assuming' the door's state, meaning you can do with it what you want. It's available to anyone who might find it useful!
-
The call works, but it's a little finicky! This is especially the case with doors, which have their own peculiar characteristics. The reason why this isn’t working for you is because memory cell 0 is only called in the init_state of the door script. In other words, it’s only checked the moment the door is loaded into the engine, but it’s never checked again. You’re correctly changing the cell, but the game never gets around to checking it again! Generally speaking, it’s better to deal with locking/unlocking doors using flags. Memory cells 2 and 3 of the door script give the first and second coordinate of an sdf. If a door is originally locked, then setting the value of this flag to 1 will unlock the door. That is all well and good, but it’s a little more complicated the other way around. If a door is originally unlocked, then the sdf doesn’t have any effect. You can get around this with some trickery, however. One intuitive approach might be to first set the door as locked through memory cell 0, and then set the sdf to 1 at some point, maybe in the town’s init state. Setting the sdf back to 0 should lock the door again, having the desired effect, right? Sadly, no. The way the engine seems to behave, at least in my experience, is such that it ‘remembers’ when a door has been unlocked. If it’s been unlocked once, even with an sdf, locking it again is a little more tricky. There may be a nicer way of doing this, but I get around this by using a modified door script. All I do is to add one additional line to block_move_state, namely this, at the very top of the state: i_am_locked = 1; This ensures that the door is always locked when it’s closed. If the sdf is set to 1, it opens itself again but, if not, it stays locked (with whatever difficulty you originally set, so it’s best to set the starting value memory cell 0 to 200). Of course, in your script, you’ll also need to make sure that the door is shut whenever it’s set to being locked. This comes with its own problems! While it’s possible to detect the state of the door using get_terrain(), and then to close the door manually using flip_terrain(), the game also remembers whether the door was originally open or not. So, even if you’ve closed it manually, the game still thinks the door is open! One way around this is to add a manual check in your new door script. Create a call at the beginning of seach_state and block_move_state that checks a flag held in memory cells 4 and 5. Have this manually ‘close’ the door if the flag is set to 1 (by setting i_am_open == 0), and then set this flag elsewhere whenever you want the door to be locked. It’s a bit of an awkward workaround, but it should do what’s needed! Of course, maybe I’m overcomplicating things! I do have a tendency to do that in this engine ... Edit: Incidentally, I should have said that you’re more than welcome to my modified door script if it would help – it might save you from replicating the work! Drop me a line if so.
-
That ending (spoilers, obviously)
Ess-Eschas replied to Buzko's topic in Queen's Wish: The Conqueror
Ah, you found the Carrot Naga. Excellent! The interesting thing about this quest is that it relates to a series of little mysteries that the player initially can’t interact with. There are several of these in Queen’s Wish, but Watcher Ten-Fingers’s ones are particularly quirky – chances are, once you’ve found the places you’ve missed, the interaction of the stone will make a lot of sense! To save you from searching around aimlessly, the places you’re currently missing are: In these places, look for interesting exclamation marks on the map! -
That ending (spoilers, obviously)
Ess-Eschas replied to Buzko's topic in Queen's Wish: The Conqueror
Unfortunately, I believe the Queen’s ailment remains the same regardless of your actions. If you’re diligent with checking the portal messages during the game, you’ll see that the Queen becomes noticeably more sickly over the course of the game. It’s hinted at at first, but it becomes more and more obvious the more messages you receive. The critical point, though, is that I believe the Queen’s illness can appear before you’ve even contacted the Nisse. Sadly, I think this is merely a case of human frailty, rather than an effect of nasty magic. I’m afraid that there currently aren’t any mods to alter the older games to include the features you’ve mentioned here. However, making mods to include these features should be possible – the behaviour might not be identical to that of Queen’s Wish, but you could get similar sorts of effects. However, focussing on the ability to respec your character, there is one game series that already includes this feature, at least in part. The ‘Avadon’ series allows you to completely change your characters’ stats, although there’s not quite as much freedom as in Queen’s Wish. Namely, for each game in the series, you can only do so at specific trainers, and these aren't available right away. If you wanted the behaviour to be more like Queen’s Wish, however, there is a way to do just this. So long as you didn’t mind the approach, there’s a cheat code in the Avadon series that allows your character to retrain at any time, for free. If you restricted yourself to only using this in friendly towns, you’d end up with an experience much like Queen’s Wish. Note that achievements will be disabled when you use the code, but only for the current town – they’ll be activated again when you leave. Again, if you only do this in friendly towns, you shouldn’t miss anything much. For reference, this cheat code can be activated by opening a dialogue box by pressing ‘shift’ and ‘d’ and typing in ‘retrain’. If you’re interested, why not give the demo of Avadon 1 a try? For the record, the quests involving Watcher Ten-Fingers are really very fun, and quite wacky. I’d encourage you to go back and hunt them down. They’re a great part of Queen’s Wish, and worth playing through! -
Hooray! This is very welcome news! It’s great to hear that you’re getting stuck into Homeland in a more regular way again, and making such good progress once more. And you’re so close to another major milestone already! I imagine getting stuck in to Chapter 5 will be very enjoyable when the time comes – I’m sure seeing the plans you’ve had in place for the endgame finally coming to pass will be quite satisfying. As for the bad news, I always think it’s important to give creative works space, if possible. Life in the real world is important, takes time and effort, and is not easy. I feel that trying to force artistic expression when life is busy can be damaging, and can result in works that are rushed or poorly considered. Granted, that’s not always true (certain authors come to mind), but it’s a dangerous pitfall. I’d much rather that Homeland took longer to develop in the long run, but that you had time to really work on it at a pace you’re comfortable with. If Homeland takes longer to finish, but ends up a better scenario because of it, that much the better! Besides, compared to my work on my next novel, your progress on Homeland puts me to shame ... Honestly, your design approach seems very sensible. I find it easier to keep momentum on a project when I’ve put its core structure in place, and it sounds like that’s exactly what you’re doing here. Once you’ve put together a skeleton for the main plot, and the whole scenario connects together that way, no doubt it becomes much easier to fill in the blanks – and I imagine it’s much harder for progress to get bogged down working in all the little details. I don’t hide my excitement for this project, and I know there are plenty of others who are watching with interest too. We’re all cheering for you Kel! All the best for your work on the end of Chapter 4, and what comes next!
-
The Spiderweb Software conundrum. What game to play next.
Ess-Eschas replied to Chopkinsca's topic in General
There are! They just aren’t quite as out-in-the-open as many of the other games – the result of there not being significant factions to join, I expect. The one I find particularly interesting is this: Just in case this comes across as the only meaningful decision in the game, there are others. For instance, perhaps the most obvious secondary choice is this: Personally, I’ve always liked the idea of the colony of spiders in the Great Cave. They don’t attack you, simply going about their happy, spider business. No-one asks you to fight them, and they’re not bothering anyone. But they have treasure, and you can only get it if you force them to be hostile. I know that’s not hugely new, but I think it’s an interesting decision. What kind of hero do you want to be, after all? I still think you probably can be a hero of sorts in Queen's Wish, if you choose to be, but it’s not such a straightforward hero as in some of the other games. I mean, given certain circumstances, the factions in Queen’s Wish are really, really grateful to you – and in some cases end up building statues of you. I don’t think that’s because they’re forced to. My interpretation is that Sacramentum is really, legitimately thankful for your actions. Of course, that doesn’t mean that they’re aren’t some serious downsides to what you’ve done, too, just to clarify – I’m not trying to support colonialism here, let’s just be clear – but I think the player can end up doing an awful lot of good. Still, I definitely agree with you that Queen’s Wish is part of the ‘moral grey area’ part of Spiderweb’s cannon. There aren’t any no-strings-attached happy endings here! -
The Spiderweb Software conundrum. What game to play next.
Ess-Eschas replied to Chopkinsca's topic in General
In defence of Avernum 4, since I feel it’s in danger of being short-changed here, I think it’s worth mentioning that the game does feature engaging decisions and choices, and that there very much is a ‘what kind of hero do you want to be’ narrative involved – it’s just a little more subtle than other games. In some respects, I think what Avernum 4 does with its moral choices is really quite interesting. Of course, to clarify, what Slarty says is entirely true. Avernum 4 doesn’t feature a faction choice in quite the same way as modern games, so in that sense, it fits into a similar mould to the First Trilogy. So, if you want to feel like a hero, do give it a try. It’s a good game, and worth your time, Chopkinsca! Personally, I’m not sure that Queen’s Wish is quite as black and white as you say, madrigan, but this is largely down to interpretation, I suspect. Clearly, Haven causes some major cultural problems for its vassal states, but I don’t think the inherent doom of Avadon is cast over Queen’s Wish in quite the same way. After all: Honestly, I get the distinct impression that the Queen’s Wish series is going to be far more about the damage done to Haven through its actions than the damage done to the vassal states. In any case, why not try out Queen’s Wish yourself, Chopkinsca, and see for yourself! -
No worries! I’m happy to help, particularly for a port of such a fine scenario! I’m very much looking forward to seeing what you’ve done, at least once you’ve done all the alpha testing that’s needed. It’s great that you’ve been working to port these two scenarios from the Arc, and I for one would be interested to see more further down the line – so long as you’re willing to continue the project, and are having fun doing so. They’re good scenarios in their own right, but I think a BoA port gives them a slightly larger audience. Sadly, Blades of Exile is not very easy for many people to play these days. On that note, all the best for getting BoE to work on your end. Sorry I’ve not been able to be of much help on that front; Windows emulation isn’t something I’ve done much experimenting with, I’m afraid, and the PowerPC solutions I’m using unfortunately won’t work on your hardware. Still, if I have an attack of inspiration, I’ll let you know! Ooo! That’s not a bad timescale at all, particularly for a scenario of the scale you’ve been talking about. This is great to hear, and it’s exciting to think that the end may be in sight within the year. All the best for the remaining work, Kel. We're all rooting for you!
-
Dream Mechanics [Spoilers]
Ess-Eschas replied to Shaper_Mario's topic in Queen's Wish: The Conqueror
Hello txmimi, You're experiencing dreams in this way because of your earlier exploration of dreams – the link to how you travelled to them is coincidental. To clarify this, here's a little more information on how dreams work: -
No indeed, which is why this is such an interesting comment! As you say, all of the plot changes in the remakes have been either modest additions that remain faithful to the original canon, or slight adaptations or tweaks. This would be the first really major plot change, so it would be interesting to see how it eventually panned out! I can see why Jeff would do this for Avernum 4. After all, of all of the games, this seems to be the one most criticised for its plot. I have the distinct impression that Jeff goes so far as to parody this himself – namely the mission in Avernum 6 involving summoning the big bad again. Even so, I’ve always held the view that there’s actually a lot of really good content in Avernum 4, even if it’s mixed in with the flaws. If Jeff can work some magic and improve the overall experience, it would be nice to see the game gain in popularity a little! Still, I hope that the game doesn’t end up being too taken over by the Darkside Loyalists. For instance, I feel that Avernum 4 adds some really nice colour to the Vahnatai, painting their society in a slightly darker tone. Some of the ideas relating to the interaction of the race with their Crystal Souls are excellent, disturbing additions (based on ideas from the Za-Khazi run, of all things)! I’m probably one of the few people who loved the idea and execution of the pylon mazes, even if they were frustrating at the time. And I think there are some really novel approaches to the way the party converses and eventually deals with the big bad, ones that sadly we don’t really see again. Also, for some reason, I’d love a boss fight with one of the sea monsters. Maybe that’s just me.
-
Just as an addendum to Randomizer's comment, Spiderweb is planning to remake Avernum 4 (hooray!), but it won't be for the foreseeable future. See this comment from Spiderweb's AMA on Reddit, held just after the release of Queen's Wish: "I plan to remaster Avernum 4-6 someday. There's a lot of stuff in those games I can improve. (Plot in 4. Balance in 5-6.) But not until the Geneforge remasters are done, so not for a very long time."
-
Slime colours
Ess-Eschas replied to Chopkinsca's topic in Avernum Trilogy (2011-2018 remake versions)
Ah, that makes sense! Thanks for letting us know how you solved the problem! Just to explain a little, this worked because the colours are applied to the different slimes when you're playing the game. This is why the slimes in your graphics files are all green – tints are added to them when they appear on your screen! This tinting effect can be turned off, along with other graphical niceties, which is what that little graphics setting was doing. It's still worth having it turned on, though! While you might not see many of the rainbow slimes in the future, there are a bunch of enemies in this game that use the tinting effect. Your game will be much more colourful now! -
Slime colours
Ess-Eschas replied to Chopkinsca's topic in Avernum Trilogy (2011-2018 remake versions)
Hello Chopkinsca, I'm afraid that I'm a little confused by your comment here. Most of the slimes in this game share the same coloration as the previous Avernum 3, so you shouldn't be seeing so much green. However, it's entirely possible I'm missing something obvious! So, to clarify, which slimes in particular are you referring to? If you're talking about the Krizsan Slimes, take a look at this video below. Do the slimes in your game look like the slimes in this playthrough? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxz6xK1divo&feature=youtu.be&t=876 If they don't, something strange might be going on with your display. It's very possible to change the colour of any character sprite in this game, and it's quite easily. If you could give me a little clarification on what you're looking for, I should be able to help you!
