icelizarrd

Regarding an overhaul, yeah, the Mac version is already using a completely new save file format. Something similar's eventually going to have to be done with scenarios too, I reckon. (While maintaining backwards compatibility, of course.) Barriers having properties is an interesting thought. For the case of barrels and crates more specifically, though, what about shifting them away from terrain entirely and making them a special kind of item? Then adapt the push-related code to apply to items instead of terrain, where applicable. This would, I realize, be complete overkill for how the game uses barrels right now: they only need coordinates, and all the other item properties would be going to waste. But! It would establish a framework for portable containers later on, perhaps, if that's ever wanted. (There are only 24 slots for displaying items, but we could borrow NetHack's strategy of reusing/replacing those slots for display when a container is open, then reverting back to displaying the normal inventory otherwise.) This would be in the far, distant future, of course.

Originally Posted By: Less Than Three i read the title and feared that the worst had come upon us... Hmm, an Avernum/Exile crossover "universe battle" scenario? (Of course, they occupy close to the same universe anyway, don't they?)

Originally Posted By: Celtic Minstrel Originally Posted By: icelizarrd Ah, when the generic alchemy info comes up, you need to click the arrows to "scroll" until you find the listing for the potion in question. Seems like something to change, eh? Agreed! I seem to remember there was some vaguely related issue with mage and priest spell help, but I'd have to confirm it first.

Ah, when the generic alchemy info comes up, you need to click the arrows to "scroll" until you find the listing for the potion in question. (You can also open that by selecting "alchemy" from the library menu.)

I like the "select button rather than check box" idea. (Or select button in addition to check box.) After all, you might need to reorganize some of the default items a little. For maximum customizability, assuming it wouldn't be too much trouble, we could make the set of stock descriptions editable in each scenario too. So if you wanted to change the basic description of every "shield" type item, you'd just make one edit instead of going through and changing each entry by hand.

Originally Posted By: Celtic Minstrel ... I'd be inclined to rate the Mac code slightly higher than the Windows code due to it being the original. That's assuming we CAN trust the original code, heh heh. Good to know about ability strength, anyhow.

Ah okay, that makes sense, thanks again. I suspect I'll return to this thread occasionally if/when new discrepancies come up.

Great! Thank you very much, that helps a lot. Out of the ones I posted, that settles them all except for the 1-100 versus 0-100 random numbers with respect to to-hit checks and lock picking checks. If we follow the rest of the code for consistency, it looks like most of those types of rolls are supposed to be 1-100 rather than 0-100, I think?

Hmm, I do remember coming across the strength thing before, now that you mention it. On this page of the code discussion thread, Chokboyz reports fixing the hit-bonus of skill and Giant Strength items. I'm not having a lot of luck finding discussion about the other issues, though. I'll keep looking. Lilith, thanks for the info about monster 0. Given that, I think it makes sense to not ever bother checking it as a possible summon type. About the item dropping, hmm, the number being generated is 1 to 100, which should be fine. But you're right, actually: on the Mac code, the comparison is less than the item drop probability, while it's less than or equal to on Windows. So Mac users will still miss an item drop 1/100 times. Furthermore, neither Mac or Windows code forces the item placement, even when it's set to 100. So you can still lose it from there being too many items already, or whatever else causes item placements to fail.

As I've been trudging laboriously through the BoE code on both the Mac and Win32 end, I've noticed a few tiny differences that change the game's "balance" with respect to probabilities--i.e., the likelihood of some event succeeding, or the amount of damage it does. I ask other coders, and the user-base at large, do you happen to know what the "correct" values here are? Or do you have an opinion about which ought to be the official version, if there's no "right way"? These are mostly really tiny differences, but in the interest of a unified codebase, it'd be nice to have them settled. -- FYI: as far as I can tell (without having looked TOO closely), a lower hit roll makes a PC more likely to hit its target, since the roll must be BELOW the PC's skill to succeed. (Confusingly, projectile weapons are the other way around: higher hit roll is better.) -- 1. Skill items and gauntlets of giant strength apparently detract from your ability to hit in the Mac code, while they enhance it on Windows. The right answer here seems pretty obvious. (That is, go with the Windows code). [pc_attack(), boe.combat.cpp] 2. Relatedly, both the hit bonus and the damage bonus for those two item types are calculated based on the item's "ability strength" on Windows, but on the "item level" on Mac. I don't know which is better here. 3. When a player attacks, armed or unarmed, the base roll for a successful hit is from 1 to 100 on the Mac, while it is 0 to 100 on Windows. (Keep in mind that lower roll = better. Unless I'm misunderstanding the code at the moment.) 4. This is also the case for the chance to assassinate: 1-100 base to-hit roll on Mac, 0-100 on Windows. 5. When picking locks, there is a base roll for whether the pick breaks and a separate base roll for the picking success, and again, both are 1-100 on Mac, 0-100 on Windows. For the break roll, higher is better, but lower is better for the pick roll. [pick_lock()--boe.town.cpp on OS X, classes/location.cpp on W32] -- I would almost start to suspect that the random functions were different, but no, they're identical on each platform, and there are too many other places where the rolls ARE the same. 6. For the actual lock pick chances, the formula for failure is like this: Mac: r1 > (unlock_adjust * 15 + 30) Windows: r1 > (90 - unlock_adjust * 15) ... Where r1 is the modified roll, and unlock_adjust is a flag from the scenario's terrain type. If I'm understanding this right, a higher unlock_adjust means it's easier to pick on the Mac (at 6, almost guaranteed to fail the above check unaided) but harder on Windows (practically no way to avoid passing the check at 6). 7. Same deal with bashing doors, only there's no pick-break check, and the numbers are a tiny bit different. 8. When selecting a monster to summon, the Windows code rolls from 1 to 255, while the Mac code rolls from 0 to 255. This is, you might notice, the opposite of the previous discrepancies, where this time the Windows code has 1 as a lower boundary instead of the Mac. This means we're either including or excluding monster number 0 from being considered for summoning. (Regardless of whether it actually qualifies as one of the summon types.) I think the 0 is preferable here, but I don't know if monster 0 has some kind of special significance that should keep it out. [get_summon_monster(), boe.monster.cpp) Would appreciate some input! Otherwise I'll just, um, decide arbitrarily I guess. Would also appreciate corrections where I'm misunderstanding something or forgetting something else.

I just PMed you, I'm interested too. I estimate that it's VERY likely I won't ever use it, but you never know...!

I'm pretty sure item descriptions should be doable. They were in Exile III also, if not the earlier ones too, and I was a little disappointed that BoE never included them. I think it was suggested before, or someone (CM or Chokboyz?) mentioned long-term plans to eventually incorporate them. Anyhow, I'll add it to the Google Code tracker, for what that's worth. As for weapons simultaneously projectile and melee, I don't know enough about the code to make guesses about how hard that would be yet. I feel like it would be difficult though.

I'm interested. icelizarrd icelizarrd.sic [AtGoesHere] gmail.com I played quite a number of scenarios back in the day, but I took a pretty long hiatus from BoE. (At least 9 years, I think.) Still, I judge that I'm pretty competent in BoE-style combat. A bit above average, optimistically?

Originally Posted By: Chokboyz - Casting the priest Light spell now updates the surrounding areas automatically (like Light and Long Light mage spells; moving or waiting isn't required anymore). That's a nice little change that's bugged me for a while. Though, for me, I seem to remember that happening with other things too, not just the priest Light? I'll have to check. Thanks for the tweaks either way. Ah, by the way, sort of an incidental intro for the forum at large: I'm new here, but I am attempting to join in on the CBoE development. I've exchanged a few emails with Celtic Minstrel, and right now I'm working on the Mac/Windows merge (mostly the internal data structures). I'll strive to incorporate these new changes too.