See likes
See likes given/taken
| Post info | No. of Likes |
|---|---|
|
Re: [Info] [3.71] Cheat Engine Addresses
I think what may be happening is the same thing that happened to me. It's not hearing, per se, which is the problem. Under one of the more recent updates, the game perceives it as an error in the character if ALL stats are 18 or above, and you get that character checksum error message in red. This can be avoided by keeping at least one of your attributes below 18 in character editing. So, for example, if you had everything at 20, you'd get the error, but if you then reduced hearing to 17 it would seem to solve the problem. But the reality is reducing ANY of your attributes to 17 would solve the problem. Please let me know if this checks out for your character (try editing hearing to above 17, but reducing a different attribute to 17). If I'm wrong, please let me know. If I'm right, it's not a problem that can be solved by cheat engine; there's just a hard-coded check that checks to see if your attributes are all 18 or above and spits out an error message if so. The work-around is to keep at least one attribute at 17 or below. December 25, 2022, 01:23:53 PM |
4 |
Re: [3.72] Community Bod BAC: Smith, Cooking, Survival, Carpentry, Sewing and More!
A very minor thing I have noticed before, so not specific to this version - Why do some wooden tubs stack but not others? In my cellar I have loads of them, all filled with milk. Five have stacked together, and two more in a separate stack, but the others remain as singles. Any ideas?Short answer: I'm not sure. Long answer: Stacking is a complicated thing. When it comes to foods that spoil, for example, they will only stack if they are at the same spoilage state, I think. Milk doesn't spoil, so that shouldn't be the issue. With other objects, stacking requires they be completely identical in every property. As far as I'm aware, the wooden tub crafted by the mod has the same properties as the vanilla one. Does it seem to be the case that some of the wooden tubs are ones you crafted, and ones are ones you traded for? If the modded ones are stacking separately from the traded-for ones, then that may be a mod issue, and one I will but on the list of "to be investigated" On the other hand, I've noticed, in some rare cases, two vanilla objects won't stack for reasons I cannot ascertain. If all your wooden tubs are ones you traded for, then this is likely to be the same issue here, and I don't think the mod has anything to do with it. There are other strange stacking rules that I don't fully grasp. Pots that you have just traded for, for example, will not stack with pots that you have previously used to cook, even if both are empty. But once you've used them to cook with, they will then stack. December 26, 2022, 06:47:04 PM |
1 |
|
Re: [3.72] Community Bod BAC: Smith, Cooking, Survival, Carpentry, Sewing and More!
The next major update is working on furs and leather. I'd consider feedback on the following very valuable as I work to finalize the changes. // Rudy - First, it's important for new players to know that fur clothing inherits protections from the TYPE of fur used in its creation. Bear fur generally giving the best protection/warmth. // Most crafed fur clothing is superior in protection to the generic "fur" type clothing that you can trade for, as a result. When you craft a shirt using bear fur, it will be crafted as a // "bear fur shirt", and be superior to a "fur shirt". For unknown reasons, the "bear fur shirt" is far LESS valuable than the generic "fur shirt" that you trade for, in spite of being // superior. This is one of the things I have attempted to adjust for. // I removed the [ARMOUR_MATERIAL:fur] lines from the modded armor items. This was preventing them from inheriting the greater protection values from specific types of fur, and instead // just assigning them the protection values of generic "fur". This necessitated changing the base item of Fur footwraps to a fur cap, but that presents no issues. [TYPE:armour] is also // unnecessary, as that is inherited from the base item. // Vanilla fur clothing is slightly 'lossy', usually requiring 0.2 pounds more fur than the weight of the final product. Fur required by modded fur clothing was adjusted to match that. // The fur loincloth actually required only 0.5 pounds of fur to create something weighing 1 pound! This has been fixed. // Adjustments made to hood/cap/mask/niska. Originally the hood weighed 1.1 pounds, and covers the face, neck and head. The cap (vanilla) and the mask and niska (modded) each cover // only one of those things and weighed 1 pound each, making the hood the only thing it makes sense to make. The weight of the cap, mask and niska were reduced to 0.5 pounds each, // for a total of 1.5 pounds. The fur hood weight was increased to 1.3 pounds. Thus fur hood is still slightly better if you want coverage of all three areas, but the individual // items have their place as well. // This does not affect the weight of the vanilla fur cap or hood that you might acquire from trading (though the fur hood from trading won't be as good as a "bear fur hood" for example). // When considering the value that fur clothing should have, there are several limitations and considerations. There does not appear to be a way to make the value of the final product // depend on the kind of fur used, so "bear fur cap" and "elk fur cap" will always have the same value. // To make balance decisions, we have to look at the value of the base furs, first. Value per pound of some major fur sources: // Elk: 1.25 Bear: 1.875 Badger: 2 Reindeer: 2.5 Squirrel: 3.33 Ermine/Hare/Weasel: 4 Grey Seal: 4.4 // All others are *significantly* more valuable per pound, from 7.5 up to 30, and so given the option it makes more sense to reserve those for direct trading rather than // make them into fur clothing. // A further limitation is clothing/fur quality. Fur clothing is always of decent quality, regardless of the fur used, due to a hard-coded limitation. There are ways to get around this for // other clothing types (see wool clothing), but doing so for fur clothing prevents the inheritance of protections specific to the type. In other words, if I change the recipes to allow // for "fine" or "masterwork" fur clothing, the higher protection of "bear fur", e.g. is lost. That does not seem a good trade, so we are sticking with the enforced "decent" quality fo // fur clothing. This also means, unfortunately, that "ragged/harsh" furs, e.g., can be used to make clothing of decent quality. In fact, it only makes sense to do so with them, rather than // trade them directly. // With all this in mind, players will be presented with a short explanation that normal fur clothing should only be crafted using decent or higher quality furs, for balance reasons. // This is not enforceable in-game, but many such issues are addressed by individual recipes (such as the instructions to players to shear each sheep only once), and so will be left // to the sense of fair play of the players themselves. There will be a few new fur recipes that will be added that can use ragged/harsh furs to craft, e.g., a "rough fur cloak", but ones // that will not inherent the properties of the animal type (and thus be inferior in protection, as they should be). // With these prices and limitations in mind, I have attempted to balance around the idea of fur clothing being worth 2.5 per pound of fur used in the final product. Assuming that // players abide by the intended restriction of not using ragged/harsh furs, then this makes turning elk fur into clothing into a profitable venture, but not obscenely so, and the final // product is no more valuable than reindeer fur, and so should not present a major balance issue. Bear fur is profitable when turned into clothing, and badger slightly so. Reindeer // clothing is equally valuable to the base furs, while all other furs are more valuable NOT turned into clothing. All of these statements depend on using decent quality furs; when the // furs are fine or superior, the profitability shifts in favor of keeping the furs (only elk fur is more valuable as clothing when of Superior quality or higher). // None of this can affect on impact the value of the generic fur clothing that you can purchase in settlements, which are not always in balance with one another in terms of materials used. // For instance, fur overcoat and fur leggings are both worth around 2.7 per pound of fur used, while fur leggings are worth around 1.7 per pound, and fur footwear worth 4 per pound. December 29, 2022, 05:26:55 PM |
3 |
|
Armor protection modding
A modding option to set the armor protection / warmth values of an armour item, much like we can currently set the attack values of weapons, would be very much appreciated.
December 30, 2022, 03:39:11 PM |
2 |
|
Re: [Info] [3.71] Cheat Engine Addresses
File updated for the 3.72 patch 1 update. If you have not installed the hotfix, or if it's not available for your OS yet, continue using the 3.72 file from three posts up.
December 30, 2022, 04:01:58 PM |
4 |
|
"RPG" stat mod
Hi All, seeking input on an idea. Let me start by saying I know this is not going to be a lot of people's cup of tea. What I'd like to do is create a mod that "allows" the regulated improvement of stats and other character aspects. This cannot be done within the game itself; there's currently no way to modify attributes using mods. However, my idea is to have a mod that uses CheatEngine as an external tool in the following way: There would be a menu of crafting choices within the game that would help you track 'experience' points. Like, one choice on the menu would be "Killed a bear", and it would produce, say, 50 experience tokens (weighing 0). Another one might be "built shelter" and it might be worth 1 experience token. There would then be a set of rules indicating how much experience you would need to increase an attribute using cheat engine. Like "To increase an attribute, spend 3 times the current attribute in experience tokens". Then the player would Discard the appropriate number of experience tokens, and then use cheatEngine to increase the attribute by 1. Currently I have a vague set of rules I use to formulate the improvement of my own characters in this way; the purpose of the mod would be to track the 'experience' more precisely, and allow a set of shared guidelines for "leveling up" in this way. Other things that could be modified would be character weight or height, or skills. Interested in feedback on the idea but, most importantly, whether there is ANYONE besides myself that would be interested in something like this. If not, it's not really worth the effort of making it, and I'll just continue to use my informal system. Likes are appreciated, but will not be interpreted as interest in using the mod. Best! December 30, 2022, 09:25:58 PM |
1 |
Re: [Info] [3.71] Cheat Engine Addresses
Please note that the address for textilework skill is incorrect. In Ruby's table it is set to 0B2F5DD5 but it should be urw.exe+A305DD5 I think that's true in the 3.72 file, but I'm pretty sure I fixed it in the 3.72 patch 1 file, no? It's fixed on my computer, so if not, something weird going on. EDIT: I think I had uploaded before I saved the fix. I changed the download two posts up to fix the textilecraft issue. I think. December 30, 2022, 09:47:06 PM |
1 |
|
Re: [3.72 beta linux] Bug in LoydettyTarvike() function. Report!
I actually recently got the exact same bug, for crafting a bow for my magic mod. The recipe is as follows: .Enchant a Bow. "Longbow" [effort:0] [phys:hand] *WEATHERLORE* /1/ |2| %20% {[NEARBY_TILE:mountain]} +'Pray at the Shrine' {Fire} +'Sacrificial Fire' {Weapon Enchanting Rune} (1) [remove] [noquality] {*Bow} (1) [remove] +'Northern, Hunting, or Longbow.' [NAME:Enchanted Bow] [POINT_ATTACK:9] It creates an enchanted bow with no string, which can then be strung normally. Normally I wouldn't report bugs that only occur with a mod, but it told me to report! EDIT: This is 3.72 patch 1 on Windows January 01, 2023, 02:56:46 AM |
1 |
|
Re: [Tool] WhereIsMyRobber - a "Homeland Robbers" tedium remedy
I'm bumping this, first, to confirm for others that it still works, some 2+ years later. And, second, because it's an invaluable tool that newer players should be aware of.
January 02, 2023, 12:55:04 AM |
3 |
Re: "RPG" stat mod
I don't wish to put a downer on anything, but this seems like a lot of work for what could be accomplished with a simple spreadsheet that people could download and fill out as they play.Totally agree that the spreadsheet could work. For me, I prefer having the menu because it means I don't need to "tab out" of my game in order to access my exp tracker. The tracking, at least, is all done within the game, even if the actual editing step cannot be. Also I find it much more 'neat' (for lack of a better word) to have an experience tracker that I can see in my inventory. This is all very subjective, of course!  If you do want to make it, I suggest rarity should be a factor in assigning experience tokens to kills - a snake or polecat is a much harder kill to get than an elk, for example. Not in the number of axe blows required of course, but in the time invested to find or trap one!Very good point on the rarity of the kills. Snake I'll definitely move up at least one 'rung'. Maybe polecat, too. I like the idea of triple for killing anything the first time. Only downside is that it requires that the player track and remember which animals they have already killed. Maybe I'll use that just for the combat options: it's easy to remember whether you've killed a foreign trader or not, for example. I think I'm going to stick with "significant trade"; for one, I don't think it should be worth experience points every time you get a masterwork paddle or masterwork staff, for example. It's limited to once per day, per the description you can see in-game, and there are examples given for the player's reference. Each of the things on the list has descriptive text the player sees once opening up the option in the menu. Appreciate the feedback very much! January 04, 2023, 06:24:37 PM |
1 |