KBAegis

Thanks! I posted there as well. The only thing I wasn't able to figure out on my own was the Ranger companion with the above context. If I leave everything untouched from setclasslevel Player_Watcher Ranger 25 false and learnallabilities Player_Watcher PT_Ranger, I now get a spectral stag on my character which seems to persist after a reload. Good enough for me.

Proficiencies are added with LearnAllAbilities PT_Proficiencies. You can use the uuid as well: a01f1324-4484-4548-a2b3-602a28dca631. I'm trying my second playthrough with an omni-class character (all classes rolled into one). It's working well, however does anyone have modding experience with the ranger class and their companion animals? I'm at a point where I'm getting stuck with a spectral grub.

The only thing that doesn't appear to be working consistently with my approach is the Ranger animal companion. If one of the devs could intervene here and explain to me how those are selected, I was given a bird familiar upon running: learnallabilities Player_<name> PT_Ranger From what I've been able to infer, the Summon Companion ability (e372ba5a-0c9c-451d-94cb-c24f90138c63) appears to simply select the first available pet that is associated with the player. Unfortunately, this is the worst documented component with many of the ranger abilities with empty strings under their notes section in progressiontables. I used removeability to purge the extra companion abilities from my character (ghost-hearted or no) leaving only the spectral bird. Now when I re-add the Summon Companion passive I am granted a spectral grub instead. The best I can tell, this is from the wizard familiar ability which I've attempted to remove- again, little to no documentation.

So I found out that the UI appears to read the class level to infer tabs. This is interesting since you can also run setclasslevel Player_<name> <class> 20 false. I played around with this and was able to create an omni-classed character (all classes in game), ignoring the 2 class limit. The UI conveniently then groups abilities together as if you had the appropriate class. The trick, I found, was then using removeability to remove all the redundant entries as it also includes all subclass and redundant skilltable entries. Unfortunately not all class abilities have common-sense names, so I was forced to do some shell magic to parse progressiontables.gamedatabundle and infer the UUID for the referenced abilities (like arcane trickster sneak attack). Specifically, $(cat progressiontables.gamedatabundle|tr ',' '\n'|less) since jq tells me that your JSON is broken. The notes were very helpful and allowed me to purge the superflous entries. Now I'm noticing that the game only appears to look at the first two classes for class-based dialog checks, although abilities seem to work fine. All around, awesome setup guys. I greatly appreciate it.

Hi all, I'm playing around with the console and I was noticing that there appears that the interface and abilities are decoupled. Pretty cool, but after playing around I was wondering if it was possible to modify the interface for an existing character: learnAllAbilities Player_<name> PT_<foreign class> <command to get the "Fighter Abilities" grouping on the character> Thanks in advance to the devs. The game is beautiful.

But what about force users who specialize on nullifying other peoples force powers? A light saber is pretty bad ass when you're chased around a room with no means to defend yourself.

Thanks. :D

Hey, cool. In lieu of facts, I'll offer an explication of the dialectic. First, the Knights of the Old Republic gets some literary license. I really hope they don't do as much research on Lucas' back story as you ostensibly have. I'd recommend we look at lore from the previous two games instead. The creators of the Star Wars universe have arrayed the forces of their universe in an arbitrary Darwinian/Utilitarian dichotomy reflecting the puerile ideals of their consumers. Thus constrained, Obsidian attempted to make an intelligent game and began weaving a complicated plot. I, for one, liked the second game better than the first. They created an inherent conflict against the good and removed the idiocy of evil through tragedy. For example, Kriea epitomizes the ideal of self-sacrifice without the stupidity of power-mongering. The dialogue trees are similarly intricate, exploring past motivations in a very realistic fashion allowing the player to rationalize a history while simultaneously creating a new one. To recapitulate, we know that if Obsidian gets the game, they will continue to make an interesting story. We're almost guaranteed that if a larger company gets it that it will be merely epic. Sadly, I don't think people can draw a distinction. We also know that the intrigue is typically limited to a level mirroring Lucas' own ineptitude with the medium. In a world where everything's explicit and literal, intrigue cannot really exist. I've never liked the fact that what you say is what you mean. The entire idea of obfuscation is to ensnare the critical senses and reinforce the non-literal. Limiting the PC's ability to discover and challenge the motivations of others limits the ability to create real characters. How many rogues, especially malicious ones, are going to tell you that they're going to kill you three seconds before they actually do it? None. That's monumental stupidity. They're going to ask you what you're standing in front of and go to investigate the small of your back; but I digress. We know that the Sith are evil because they are stupid. We know that the Jedi are good because they're righteous. We also know that the Sith are there as a plot device, metonymizing the dark and powerful enemy. Regardless of how stupid they are, they are equally powerful. The magic for this device: the force. Based on the fact that they fired the pre-development team, I don't imagine they've gotten much further than the above, but I'd imagine Bioware had something like the following planned out: Your character is born into the conflict and is some sort of force prodigy/genius/whole-world-resting-on-your-shoulders-protagonist who must save the galaxy based on his ability to swing a lightsaber and say roughly 100 sentences to tip the balance one way or teh othre. Not that this is a bad thing. It's merely epic. And that is what we know (based on past experience).

I can ask the same question to you... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I was under the impression that a 'dedicated engine' for each game would mean something other than a single engine running all three genres. I don't mean to be rude, but did you read what I typed?

no. same engine? What?

Gah! I refuse to play any game associated with Steam. The idea of a producer being able to invalidate your purchased copy of a game, or the idea of disabling the single player campaign if you don't have internet access is the worst idea ever, and the gamers endorsing that market are morons. Mabye it's time for me to switch to Linux. Anywho, yes I've seen a few of these engines streched to their limits. Warcraft 3 had a few mods that led to the development of WoW, and Unreal 2004 had flyable vehicles you could consider 'fightsimesque' if you have no tastes, but I'm not talking about engines that can be broken and used as half-assed versions and variants. I'm talking about dedicated engines. I'm also, more importantly, talking about genre integration. If you could have a game that connected the plots from homeworld 2, freespace 2, and Half-Life to build a coherent universe, would you buy it in three or four separate installments? Also, it's kind of missing my point by focusing on the price. The installments would each have their own gameplay and consequently their own risk-factors and revenues. Then you release another game that uses the engines from each of these games to build a coherent world instead of just a gameplay experience.

So I've been wondering why no one has done this: 1) Develop a successful game engine (example: homeworld 2) Sell the game, turn a profit. THEN, instead of making a sequel or an expansion pack with the same engine, 2) Develop an integratable flightsim engine (example: freespace 2) Sell the expansion, turn a profit. 3) Then release additional content for the two, or even eventually make a first person shooter engine to incorperate into the engine. (example: unreal tournament 2004) So far I've only seen this done one way: badly. The very few companies I've seen attempt something like this always fail because they either A) try to release all three engines at the same time, doing all three poorly, or B) develop the engine without making any content, and not ending up selling the engines. I've always thought it would be awesome actually being able to select your loadout manually and actually jump into your ****pit before launching and dogfighting. Or better yet, be able to fight off some enemies with guns outside the command deck, and then turn back around and focus on directing your ships/troops on a holographic interface. WHY HAS THIS NOT BEEN DONE!? I was actually more curious as to what the developers here t obsidian had to say regarding this. Oh yeah, and just out of curiosity, you guys are amazing. Why the hell haven't you started your own franchises? I mean, KotOR II? NWN 2? I'm not criticizing the way you do business or anything, but I am curious.

Interesting. So Shadow, how would you account for the propagation of, for example, racism? If the fundamental problem lies in "the obstinance of people," or rather their resistance to outside influences, instead of the medium through which things are discussed, then why do conflicts exacerbate themselves once started? If my opinion is my opinion, and your opinion is your opinion, then how do you account for clash? Why then are racial groups persecuted instead of merely isolated?

So what if, hypothetically speaking, these protesters were actually Isreali insiting a riot and representing territory which is hostile to their presence? Or worse yet, the cartoon was created by a member of Hamas which wanted to get the Islamic people more pissed off at the rest of the world and support their cause?

"He who experiences the unity of life sees his own Self in all beings, and all beings in his own Self, and looks on everything with an impartial eye." First of all, and I mean this with the utmost respect for all parties involved, but please stop being a**holes to each other. I think that there's alot of irrational belligerence tied up into what should be an impartial discussion with other human beings. I think everyone here should be able to admit to themselves that they don't want to kill someone who they've only met on a 10' x 10' piece of plastic with text on it. I mean, it's kind of a large jump to make from, "I disagree, Tom" to, "I'd like to kill you and your family because of what you did to me back in February of 2006, Tom." That having been said, the real problem here is overgeneralization. The independent factions which make up the liberal and conservative ideologies and an unfortunate stretch from there to the Republican and Democratic parties are numerous and far reaching, and I think that everyone here can find some sort of common ground. Getting this thread back on track, I personally find that polarization is the largest problem with men and nations. If you guys haven't, you should read up on a MMORPG called Monkeysphere. It has a very interesting premise, and I've seen it accurately reflected in society. In any true conflict, it does a man will to dehumanize his enemy. When a man shoots another man in a war, he doesn't think about that mans father, mother, brothers, sisters, and children. He thinks about what that mans government is doing to his government. Conflicts of nations are oversimplified because the conflict of men is too atrocious and horrible to comprehend. Thus, polarization. Civilization depends on the ability of men to find a humane way to reconcile their differences. Without that, we all become beasts, slave to our own nature. My curiosity has always been more focused on whether this conflict is beneficial in the long run. If people only listen to sources which they agree with, their opinions are reinforced positively and they are never introduced to new materials. If people only bash heads with their ideological opponents, however, this reinforces negatively and inevitably leads to circular and cumulative causation. So what do you guys think? Is this productive? Is it beneficial? You aren't convincing anyone but yourselves talking like that. So? Are you convinced yet?