[RELZ] Unofficial Oblivion Patch 3.2.0 and 3.2.4 HOTFIXES [R : IV - Oblivion

» Mon Dec 27, 2010 10:08 am

Well, it's the player's choice to steal (and save their money for... something) or just pay at a shop, so I've got no specific problem with reverting them. I do have a couple of queries: are they owned? If they're not owned then the player can pick them up without consequences and that's a bit funny (and not the good kind of funny).

I've got no issue with "free" upgrades as long as the player has to do something for them (such as stealing). The bit where they fall through the floor sounds like more of an issue, but the crappy collision system the game has isn't so easily fixed... :brokencomputer:

Vac

» Mon Dec 27, 2010 10:32 am

Not being familiar with the items this user reported in the UOP entry at Nexus, does anyone have a comment? Would this be something that should be reverted in a future update? Personally I'm all for having opportunities to steal stuff as a thief, especially if it's meant to give me a free house upgrade.

It also explains why that poor guy is rotting in jail for no apparent reason

I was unaware of this, it's not in the official walkthrough as far as I know. I'll have to check it out.

» Mon Dec 27, 2010 6:35 pm

It certainly sounds as if they were placed there intentionally. Whether or not you think they should be there for game balance, it doesn't sound like the kind of "error" that the UOP normally fixes.

» Mon Dec 27, 2010 3:01 pm

On the purchase receipt question - could this maybe be added to the UOP Menu options?

» Mon Dec 27, 2010 5:33 am

Did some poking around tonight with the house receipts.

UOP deletes two of them from Stantus Varrid's house which were laying on his desk on the top floor of his home in the Temple District. One for the kitchen add-on, and another for paintings. In poking further, another set seems to have been placed similarly in Tertius Favonius' in the Elven Gardens, which the UOP has also deleted.

Luronk groGlurzogs' Basemant has another one for the paintings, and one for the storage area.

Marinus Catiotus' Basemant has a receipt for the storage area.

I don't think these are actually intended to be active. If they are, I'm pretty sure they're intended to be decorative and not actually provide you with half of the house upgrades for free. I think it's more likely they're paperwork the rich folk kept to prove ownership of their own property upgrades with.

It would probably make more sense to create scriptless duplicates of these items to leave where they are. Or just leave them alone as they are now - deleted.

» Mon Dec 27, 2010 4:15 am

It would probably make more sense to create scriptless duplicates of these items to leave where they are. Or just leave them alone as they are now - deleted.

Yes, that makes sense. Thanks for digging into it!

» Mon Dec 27, 2010 4:52 pm

Ok. Let me see if I can explain this more clearly.

Mod A makes a new script.
Mod A assigns this script to an NPC.

Mod B makes a new script.
Mod B assigns it's script to the same NPC used in Mod A.

Now you have a conflict.

Without Bash, the assignment made by Mod B wins and you lose whatever Mod A wanted done. But you want the script assignment from Mod A to win.

The solution then is to tag Mod A with "Scripts". This will tell Bash to pick up the script assignment from Mod A and use it instead of the one Mod B wants. ONLY the script assignment will be carried forward though. Any other changes made to this NPC by Mod A are still lost and get overridden by Mod B. But other tags exist to take care of other cases.

The source code of either script is entirely irrelevant. It's also not important who actually defines the two scripts. All this tag is concerned with is what the NPC has assigned to it (or the object). This is best illustrated if you're using Frans and you tag the "Francesco's Optional New Creatures Add-On.esm" file with "Scripts".

This particular tag is only really important when the NPC or object comes out of Oblivion.esm and more than one mod wants to make changes. You're less likely to need tags if Mod A and B are working on their own NPCs they created.

Hey thanks! I think I'll have to experiment myself with this to see the results, but I really appreciate your explanation.

» Mon Dec 27, 2010 7:26 am

Arthmoor,

For the next Version can you tag UOP with Faction's has well.

It is needed So that UOPHackDirt and UOPColovianTraders, get carried forth when using mods that alter those same npc. Has currently they do not get carried forth in bash patch. And PacificMorrowind is already aware of this and you should be getting a PM from him has well.. :ninja:

Corepc

» Mon Dec 27, 2010 3:01 pm

Arthmoor,

For the next Version can you tag UOP with Faction's has well.

It is needed So that UOPHackDirt and UOPColovianTraders, get carried forth when using mods that alter those same npc. Has currently they do not get carried forth in bash patch. And PacificMorrowind is already aware of this and you should be getting a PM from him has well.. :ninja:

Corepc

Yeah, I'll add that to the list.

Also surprised that there wasn't more to be said about the house receipt thing. Maybe since nobody realized they were missing nobody cares?

» Mon Dec 27, 2010 8:22 pm

Also surprised that there wasn't more to be said about the house receipt thing. Maybe since nobody realized they were missing nobody cares?

Welllllllll...

You know how it works: people will only start complaining after the event! :flamethrower:

AHEM! Ahh, right, civil? Yes, civil. Sorry, Mr. Corepc, sorry! :bigsmile:

ANYWAY! I've never played a thief in this game. I have very occasionally "mysteriously acquired" objects for the purposes of completing quests, but generally I would never bother picking them up even if they were there for me to do so. I'd guess there are other people like that too.

Vac

» Mon Dec 27, 2010 12:30 pm

Also surprised that there wasn't more to be said about the house receipt thing. Maybe since nobody realized they were missing nobody cares?

Yes, you can add me to the "doesn't really care" group. I had no idea they were there, in any case. Their locations suggest they weren't left there unintentionally, but were there for 'colour'. But it's probably not intentional that a thief can swipe them and get free upgrades to a house they might not have bought yet. Now, if there were similar receipts in the other towns giving free upgrades to the houses in those towns, it would be a different matter; but as it's just the IC shack that's affected, I'd go with replacing them with script-less versions.

Eloise

» Mon Dec 27, 2010 5:33 am

Also surprised that there wasn't more to be said about the house receipt thing. Maybe since nobody realized they were missing nobody cares?

Yeah, I don't care too much either way, but I think you're right that the best thing would be to create scriptless duplicates.

» Mon Dec 27, 2010 5:12 am

Also surprised that there wasn't more to be said about the house receipt thing. Maybe since nobody realized they were missing nobody cares?

Yeah I think that about sums it up. I never knew they were there to begin with, so of course never noticed the loss.
They do sound rather odd though; more like errors that shouldn't have been there in the first place, perhaps clutter accidentally using those receipts instead of ordinary notes etc. Intentional or not I think the idea of having such things lying around is pretty silly, even for the stealthy thief type character. More like the kind of 'cheat' I would expect a modder (of the "this makes the game easier" variety) to add to the game.

In terms of the UOP; I don't think I would care if it left or removed them, to be perfectly honest. Not necessarily broken aspects that need fixing, but not exactly "proper" either.

» Mon Dec 27, 2010 8:51 am

UOP Changes for 3.2.4

---------------------

* The path grid in Hackdirt Caverns was seriously messed up.
* The Clavicus Vile dog statue had the wrong texture path assigned.
* castlesecretblack01.nif has been reverted back to the vanilla version of the mesh, which actually DOES block secret areas from showing up on the map. The UOP version of this mesh fails to do this in a fairly substantial way, which leads to cell maps showing things that shouldn't be revealed until discovered.
* Chaky provided a short list of buried rocks and other items which have been moved out where they can be seen.
* Deleted a buried wall at Dasek Moor. - Chaky
* Cell names for mage and fighters guild buildings have been updated to be more consistent with those already renamed in 3.2.0 - Chaky
* A duplicated welkynd stone in Wendelbek was moved to a new holder. - Chaky
* A fort ruin piece in Pale Pass was out of alignment. - Chaky
* UOP supplied nif for Anvil Castle has been properly cleared of junk info.
* UOP supplied nif for Anvil Castle Tower has been properly cleared of junk info.
* Collision fixed on the Skingrad castle wall piece.
* UOP supplied _far.nif for Anvil Castle has been properly cleared of junk info.
* Corrected a broken ROAD node link on the path from Weye to Chorrol which caused NPCs to unnecessarily use the mountain road instead.
* Corrected a broken ROAD node link east of Pell's Gate that caused NPCs to unnecessarily traverse the northern route around the Imperial Isle even when the southern one was shorter.
* Corrected yet another ROAD node link that was severed over the bridge at the SE outlet to Lake Rumare.
* The mesh supplied to indicate missing meshes had two unparented nodes which have been deleted.

Just wondering if a deletion was appropriate, or if the buried wall should have been disabled instead because of this statement in the UOP changelog:

v3.0.1 (2008-06-16)

UOP Changes/Fixes
?Removed all 3,333 (yes, that was the number) deletions of objects (ie underground rocks) to eliminate any chance that the UOP causes crash-on-exit as this has been confirmed to be a cause (if a mod loaded later changes an object an earlier loaded one deleted) and replaced them with object disables/moves where appropriate

» Mon Dec 27, 2010 5:34 am

Deleted, then cleaned with tes4edit prior to release. It's just easier to say "deleted"

» Mon Dec 27, 2010 9:25 am

Deleted, then cleaned with tes4edit prior to release. It's just easier to say "deleted"

Thanks, just checking.

» Mon Dec 27, 2010 9:27 am

Arthmoor or

anyone else

Have any idea why the Trolleasy (formid:0001BF4d) Azhklan do not have "troll fat" in their inventory,

If you manage to kill one at low lvl there is no reward from them once again..

All the other Azhklan types which are higher medium,hard, veryhard all have troll fat, but not the easy one once again..

By Design or Mistake?

» Mon Dec 27, 2010 7:45 pm

Well since those trolls aren't covered by the UOP, and it looks like an oversight on Bethesda's part, I'd have to say Kivan simply missed it. I can't come up with a logical reason for why only the easy troll has no troll fat.

It's too bad Bethesda chose to use leveled lists for death items instead of a normal inventory block. Things like troll fat make more sense as death items than as live inventory.

» Mon Dec 27, 2010 12:41 pm

Only thing I can think of is that they are a fairly wimpy kind of Troll and perhaps Beth thought that the Troll Fat was too good of a reward for beating such wimps.

» Mon Dec 27, 2010 7:01 pm

Well since those trolls aren't covered by the UOP, and it looks like an oversight on Bethesda's part, I'd have to say Kivan simply missed it. I can't come up with a logical reason for why only the easy troll has no troll fat.

It's too bad Bethesda chose to use leveled lists for death items instead of a normal inventory block. Things like troll fat make more sense as death items than as live inventory.

Easy Kalperklan Trolll is the same has well. no troll fat while other do..same way..

I can only think because these are leveled types of troll that the easy one did not get it because of troll fat properties once again..Like Showler stated..

Most likely Kivan missed them or nobody ever pointed it out..

I agree would much rather have creature rewards has death drop, but, you know bethesda did not think of it like that..or deathdrop is buggy..

» Mon Dec 27, 2010 11:08 am

Found another bug recently: the enchantments on the lvld versions of the blade of woe were edited by the UOP to have a duration > 0 for the demoralize effect, but in DBEnWeapBladeWoe10, the enchantment has a fortify magicka instead of a damage magicka effect like the other enchantments.

» Mon Dec 27, 2010 7:46 pm

Easy Kalperklan Trolll is the same has well. no troll fat while other do..same way..

I can only think because these are leveled types of troll that the easy one did not get it because of troll fat properties once again..Like Showler stated..

Most likely Kivan missed them or nobody ever pointed it out..

Well since every other troll in the game has troll fat, it hardly makes sense for just these two varieties not to. I think Kivan missed it and nobody else ever noticed before is all.

Found another bug recently: the enchantments on the lvld versions of the blade of woe were edited by the UOP to have a duration > 0 for the demoralize effect, but in DBEnWeapBladeWoe10, the enchantment has a fortify magicka instead of a damage magicka effect like the other enchantments.

Good catch. Looks like that didn't get noticed either.

» Mon Dec 27, 2010 5:18 pm

Well since every other troll in the game has troll fat, it hardly makes sense for just these two varieties not to. I think Kivan missed it and nobody else ever noticed before is all.

Yeah, Kivan may have missed them,

but Soto did not in OOO, troll fat is added to those low lvls one,

I Have got them added in for next MMM has well now..For Compatiblity Reason once again..

» Mon Dec 27, 2010 5:48 pm

How does the hotfix interact with the MOBS version of the patch?

» Mon Dec 27, 2010 10:19 am

How does the hotfix interact with the MOBS version of the patch?

Read post http://www.gamesas.com/bgsforums/index.php?s=&showtopic=1066876&view=findpost&p=15655521

You have to use standalone mobs update with UOP Hotifxes..

Corepc