Talk:Stronghold random events (Pillars of Eternity)

Gafol the Drunkard
What is the condition for being able to order Pallegina to send him to the republics? I have tested both having her in my party and in my stronghold, but the option doesn't come up? Is it perhaps because I haven't completed her diplomacy mission yet, and she can't leave for the republics until her mission is complete? — AnorZaken (talk) 10:26, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Checking the scripts (PillarsOfEternity_Data\data\conversations\06_stronghold\06_cv_visitor_town_drunk.conversation), it seems that this is only possible in Act 2. Tagaziel (talk) 07:13, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Are you sure you don't you mean Act GTR 2? I sent him to Bellasege instead, and from my understanding (I'm currently trying to understand how to divine knowledge from this syntax, it's going so-so, bear with me...) that requires the Act to be LEQ than 2, and all other  references were GTR 2. If you could please double check that I'm understanding this correctly, then I will go ahead and edit it into the page.
 * Btw. how do I map a conversation NodeID to an actual string of text? — AnorZaken (talk) 11:36, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Nvm, found it (PillarsOfEternity_Data\data\localized\en\text\conversations\ - where 'en' is English) — AnorZaken (talk) 04:34, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Crap, this turned out to be passive-aggressive, sorry. In the future, to avoid being buried under the flood of edits, send me a quick note on my user page. :)
 * I'll have to recheck the script, but the requirements seem to use human-readable expressions. If it's LEQ, it's lesser or equal, GTR is definitely greater.... Hmm.Tagaziel (talk) 08:03, 18 January 2018 (UTC)


 * What tools do you use to look into these? I just had to learn that opening a *.conversation file with Excel gives me apparently ordered, but less and altered information, than while viewing it with browser/editor.


 * Okay, we're talking about this, ID20, correct?
 * "Pallegina can put you in contact with researchers in the Vailian Republics. You'll have work as an assistant."
 * There's only one "20" in the conv file, which lists
 * n_Current_Act GreaterThan 2 false
 * That's followed by "And", managing availability of Pallegina.
 * The only thing I, yet, can't interprete correctly or for sure, is the "not false" thing. But from the rest I would say, it's definitely a chapter related requirement.


 * I hope, this isn't already all said in the section below, which I haven't read, yet. ;) -- UserCCCSig.png  -- You talkin' to me? -- cCContributions -- 18:05, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The "not: false" means "invert the logic: no", i.e. "should the not-operator be applied to this statement: true/false". I hope that makes sense? You can try this yourself if you find a suitable condition; one of the nice things about pillars is that you can edit values in the game-files while the game is running. This lets you quickly test out the logic, or changes to the logic, ingame. :) But yeah when I wrote this question it was the first time I had looked into the files, so I wanted confirmation, but now I'm sure: Act > 2 is the requirement. —AnorZaken (talk) 03:26, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh forgot to answer your tool question: I don't really use one atm - it's all glorious Notepad++ :P But I'm open for (open-source) suggestions. —AnorZaken (talk) 07:26, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I use Vim. At this point, it's an indispensable tool. Bonus points for being able to render text in documents that would otherwise give Windows a heart-attack. Tagaziel (talk) 11:13, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Nyry the Deft Hand
So after initially helping Nyry (paying her 1000 ), then waiting for her to reach the Dead Fire (about 25-30 days, after which she sends a thanks message), then a lot more time passing... she has now returned as a generic "bad visitor" (-1, -3 ), which I can either pay off (175 ) or Escort away. Now the question: I don't remember if she initially had these and  effects when she arrived the first time, in which case I could just add these values to the existing entry - or if I should add a separate entry into the table for

or something like that. Anyone who knows (and/or has a better suggestion)? — AnorZaken (talk) 14:19, 12 January 2018 (UTC)


 * If it's two events, make two entries. Note the second visit at the end of the first's "resolution", note the first one as requirement for the second. Name both entries perhaps, and  , respectively. Without line break. Then stare at the table: does it look good? If yes, then that's the solution! ;) -- UserCCCSig.png  -- You talkin' to me? -- cCContributions -- 18:15, 2 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I think it'd be best to add another column explaining what bonus they add on random repeated visits. Tagaziel (talk) 22:28, 2 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm leaning towards Tagaziel's idea, by splitting the Effect column as so:
 * {| class="wikitable"

! style="text-align:left" | Visitor ! Requirements ! width="78" | Effect (First Visit) ! width="78" | Effect (Return Visit) ! Resolution ! colspan="5" class="section" | Bad Visitors ! Nyry the Deft Hand ...stuff...
 * -1 -3
 * -1 -3
 * -1 -3
 * }
 * Plus adding a sentence above the table explaining that when a special visitor returns, it's in the form of a generic visitor with only generic response options.
 * However I don't know which column these values should be in for the other visitors, so unless someone else knows I would have to resort to random guessing until I actually encounter it ingame.
 * — AnorZaken (talk) 05:27, 4 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't know … Can every "special" visitor return? Will they then always be "generic" visitors? The whole resolution column doesn't apply to the second visit, so why list the effects in an additional column only, rather than make a new entry to the table?


 * As for your concerns – isn't this relatively normal for the wiki, that information gets added when somebody encounters it? ;) Or didn't I get your point? -- UserCCCSig.png  -- You talkin' to me? -- cCContributions -- 12:37, 4 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't know if every visitor can return (probably not?) and some of them are still special when they return I think (the slave merchant) but on the other hand, looking at it like that, some of them has no Effect on the first visit, so that column would be unnecessary for those NPCs, and when they return (I think) most of them are generic, meaning they don't need a Resolution column. By that logic that table could be split into 2-3 separate tables. Although probably an insignificant programmer thought, I like the idea of either the table as presented above (/w extra column) or separate table, simply because that makes the table queryable by NPC name. If you start to add things such as extra numbers "(1) (2)" into the name column it wouldn't be as trivial to query anymore ...but I say it's probably an insignificant thought because why would someone query this table? Can't really think of a reason at the moment.


 * I think it would be easier to make a decision if we had more information. If there are only 3 options: Effect applies on first visit only (because there are no return visits), effect applies on return visits only, or effect applies on all visits, then that could be a separate column - specifying when the effect applies - because I don't think there is any NPC that has separate distinct effects for first and subsequent visits? Another possible (boolean) column is Can Return. Also the Resolution column could be renamed to Resolution (First Visit) if it never applies to return visits (or there is at most one exception to that rule). I think the solution is really to simply just experiment, as you suggested earlier: change it - stare at at - does it look good? :P


 * Regarding my concern, I meant that when I convert the old table to the new format (new rows / new columns / new table - w/e) since the old table is missing information I have to make guesses during the conversion. I wasn't worried about info missing, that's perfectly fine as you say, I was worried about info being incorrect; essentially after conversion almost all rows in the new table would need a verify tag, which is a bit annoying, but I guess there is no magic way around that and I'm just voicing my displeasure.
 * "Oh people of the wiki, gather around and hear my woes!" —AnorZaken (talk) 22:20, 4 February 2018 (UTC)


 * First and most important: never, ever make "guesses" on a wiki article! A wiki's a knowledge database, no speculations' platform. ;) (Okay, there might be some rare situations where something can't be done without a guess, but usually – no!)
 * Many empty cells in the current table – why should this be different in yours? For its look of perfection? ;) No, that'll be okay …


 * I'd still go for different rows inside one table.
 * A second table makes querying even harder than you were saying. (By the way, I don't see why an added "(1)" should make it complicated?)
 * There's an (empty) column "Requirements", which can be used.
 * Renaming the resolution? And what if for the second visit another resolution can be applied (for other people than Nyry)?
 * There would be the need of two or more dedicated "Effects" columns as well.
 * {| class="wikitable sortable"

! Visitor ! Requirements ! Prestige ! Security ! class="unsortable" | Resolution ! colspan="5" class="section" | Bad Visitors
 * Nyry the Deft Hand
 * Never visited before
 * style="text-align:center" |
 * style="text-align:center" |
 * Help escape (1000) → Cape of the Cheat and Potion of Power
 * Help escape with Doemenel (requires Rank 3 positive reputation) → Cape of the Cheat and Potion of Power
 * Tell her to turn herself in → +1 
 * Tell her to turn herself in, then trick her into being caught by the Knights of the Crucible (need rank 2 positive reputation) → +2 
 * Hang her → +1 
 * Kick out
 * Nyry the Deft Hand
 * Visited once
 * style="text-align:center" |
 * style="text-align:center" |
 * }
 * Everything else confuses, I think. Buuutt… I will not be the one who's going to do it, only patrolling after that. ;)
 * P.S. I've implemented minor improvements(?) into my above table's code. -- UserCCCSig.png  -- You talkin' to me? -- cCContributions -- 07:40, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * }
 * Everything else confuses, I think. Buuutt… I will not be the one who's going to do it, only patrolling after that. ;)
 * P.S. I've implemented minor improvements(?) into my above table's code. -- UserCCCSig.png  -- You talkin' to me? -- cCContributions -- 07:40, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Everything else confuses, I think. Buuutt… I will not be the one who's going to do it, only patrolling after that. ;)
 * P.S. I've implemented minor improvements(?) into my above table's code. -- UserCCCSig.png  -- You talkin' to me? -- cCContributions -- 07:40, 5 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Making the table sortable doesn't work well because it contains sections - the sections would have to sort individually, which they don't. As is they get sorted as a normal cells which gives confusing incorrect results: https://imgur.com/oCecAcQ I suppose we could split it into a separate table for each section though. (As an aside, I don't know why I didn't react to it before, but why does the current table have an empty requirements column? It isn't used at all. Well I'm leaving it in for now since we are contemplating using it.) —AnorZaken (talk) 19:28, 17 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Didn't think of those when adding sortable, sorry. Would make sense, though, to be able to sort by effect. Separate tables for all those section headers? Or an additional column instead? -- UserCCCSig.png  -- You talkin' to me? -- cCContributions -- 13:28, 23 February 2018 (UTC)