Prison Overhaul Patched (LE)

[Inte]

 

Did I forget to change that?

[Inte]

Hi Inte, any chance you could include a patch for Guffel's Raven Beak Prison? Both mods are awesome and it's a shame to see one taking over the other.

Thanks!

Patch what exactly. I haven't played RBP, but it is my understanding that they do the same thing ... sort of.

[DonQuiWho]

 

Patch what exactly. I haven't played RBP, but it is my understanding that they do the same thing ... sort of.

 

 

I think that the problem is that xPO and Raven Beak have conflicting triggers, and NismoMan is hoping that you might be as creative as find some way of adding something to your wonderful (nothing like buttering up, is there? ) PO Patches series to get round that, as there seems to be little likelihood of anyone else being able to make both mods work in the same game - at the moment you have to pick one or the other, which seems a terrible shame

 

And I have to say that I think that NismoMan seems to have his head screwed on properly, by asking here if there might be some solution....

 

 

[shinji72]

 

 

Patch what exactly. I haven't played RBP, but it is my understanding that they do the same thing ... sort of.

 

 

I think that the problem is that xPO and Raven Beak have conflicting triggers, and NismoMan is hoping that you might be as creative as find some way of adding something to your wonderful (nothing like buttering up, is there? ) PO Patches series to get round that, as there seems to be little likelihood of anyone else being able to make both mods work in the same game - at the moment you have to pick one or the other, which seems a terrible shame

 

And I have to say that I think that NismoMan seems to have his head screwed on properly, by asking here if there might be some solution....

 

 

One simple path would be to link Raven Beak as another punishment scenario, like the cage or parade. maybe after a certain bounty there is a change to be transfered to Raven Beak.

[Inte]

Well, it's like @donkeywho said, both are using the same triggers to start the sentence. So, the only way to fix that (that I see) is to make one mod dependent on the other, you know a master/slave type of thing , not a very good solution there.
I am open to suggestions.

[DonQuiWho]

Well, it's like @donkeywho said, both are using the same triggers to start the sentence. So, the only way to fix that (that I see) is to make one mod dependent on the other, you know a master/slave type of thing , not a very good solution there.

I am open to suggestions.

 

shinji72 has probably hit the nail on the head with their suggestion

If you could fix it to do all the xPO stuff, as a sort of immediate penance, and then, instead of being released at the end, just pass on to Raven's Beak for a remaining lifetime of unremitting toil and punishment, until you escapem, that would be quite good!

 

If that's possible, of course.....

 

[Inte]

 

Well, it's like @donkeywho said, both are using the same triggers to start the sentence. So, the only way to fix that (that I see) is to make one mod dependent on the other, you know a master/slave type of thing , not a very good solution there.

I am open to suggestions.

 

shinji72 has probably hit the nail on the head with their suggestion

If you could fix it to do all the xPO stuff, as a sort of immediate penance, and then, instead of being released at the end, just pass on to Raven's Beak for a remaining lifetime of unremitting toil and punishment, until you escapem, that would be quite good!

 

If that's possible, of course.....

 

 

That is already done.

For it to work though you need to have Simple Slavery installed. SS connects to RBP already  and POP connects to SS, so the scenario would be like this,

• Get arrested through POP.
• Serve your time.
• At the end of the sentence you get sent to the auction block (SS).
• There you get auctioned to RBP.

This of course would require @Guffel to add some kind of option to stop the arrest through RBP, so the POP arrest can procede normally. For example a check to see if POP is installed. If installed, defer the arrest and vice versa.

[NismoMan]

 

 

Well, it's like @donkeywho said, both are using the same triggers to start the sentence. So, the only way to fix that (that I see) is to make one mod dependent on the other, you know a master/slave type of thing , not a very good solution there.

I am open to suggestions.

 

shinji72 has probably hit the nail on the head with their suggestion

If you could fix it to do all the xPO stuff, as a sort of immediate penance, and then, instead of being released at the end, just pass on to Raven's Beak for a remaining lifetime of unremitting toil and punishment, until you escapem, that would be quite good!

 

If that's possible, of course.....

 

 

That is already done.

For it to work though you need to have Simple Slavery installed. SS connects to RBP already  and POP connects to SS, so the scenario would be like this,

• Get arrested through POP.
• Serve your time.
• At the end of the sentence you get sent to the auction block (SS).
• There you get auctioned to RBP.

This of course would require @Guffel to add some kind of option to stop the arrest through RBP, so the POP arrest can procede normally. For example a check to see if POP is installed. If installed, defer the arrest and vice versa.

 

 

lol, Donkeywho got it rigt (you smooth talker you!), regardless, what I did as a solution was a bit simpler, albeit a little ghetto; firing up TES5Edit, I deep-overridden RBP's edits with POP's edits into my Merged-Patch for guard's responses that include "Castle Dour's Dungeon" and "Dragon's Reach Dungeon", and there are three in total, so unless the guards specifically say you're going to CDD or DRD, you'll be transferred to RBP... it's not optimal and it's rough, but it works.

 

A better solution is to have an option in MCM where you could set a bounty limit that you have to cross in order to be transferred to RBP and yeah... this requires a dependency I think... shit. Now that I think of it, it would make more sense to take this to @Guffel, since it would be more efficient to implement the necessary edits from his end to "ADD" the responses from his mod on top of the vanilla ones instead of replacing them; where the vanilla responses would eventually lead to POP arrests and Guffel's lead to RBP's.

 

it would be nice though to see POP's routines (pillory punishments, parading and what not) to be implemented in RBP 

[DonQuiWho]

 

 

 

Well, it's like @donkeywho said, both are using the same triggers to start the sentence. So, the only way to fix that (that I see) is to make one mod dependent on the other, you know a master/slave type of thing , not a very good solution there.

I am open to suggestions.

 

shinji72 has probably hit the nail on the head with their suggestion

If you could fix it to do all the xPO stuff, as a sort of immediate penance, and then, instead of being released at the end, just pass on to Raven's Beak for a remaining lifetime of unremitting toil and punishment, until you escapem, that would be quite good!

 

If that's possible, of course.....

 

 

That is already done.

For it to work though you need to have Simple Slavery installed. SS connects to RBP already  and POP connects to SS, so the scenario would be like this,

• Get arrested through POP.
• Serve your time.
• At the end of the sentence you get sent to the auction block (SS).
• There you get auctioned to RBP.

This of course would require @Guffel to add some kind of option to stop the arrest through RBP, so the POP arrest can procede normally. For example a check to see if POP is installed. If installed, defer the arrest and vice versa.

 

 

lol, Donkeywho got it rigt (you smooth talker you!), regardless, what I did as a solution was a bit simpler, albeit a little ghetto; firing up TES5Edit, I deep-overridden RBP's edits with POP's edits into my Merged-Patch for guard's responses that include "Castle Dour's Dungeon" and "Dragon's Reach Dungeon", and there are three in total, so unless the guards specifically say you're going to CDD or DRD, you'll be transferred to RBP... it's not optimal and it's rough, but it works.

 

A better solution is to have an option in MCM where you could set a bounty limit that you have to cross in order to be transferred to RBP and yeah... this requires a dependency I think... shit. Now that I think of it, it would make more sense to take this to @Guffel, since it would be more efficient to implement the necessary edits from his end to "ADD" the responses from his mod on top of the vanilla ones instead of replacing them; where the vanilla responses would eventually lead to POP arrests and Guffel's lead to RBP's.

 

it would be nice though to see POP's routines (pillory punishments, parading and what not) to be implemented in RBP 

 

 

The reason I chipped in here was because, albeit it comes from 'reading between the lines', I didn't think Guffel was likely to be too inclined to change RBP.  Might be doing him a disservice, and if so may I apologise now, but that was how the 'tone' of the thread there 'felt', insofar as the written word can convey such.

 

I know you can get to RBP via SS, but as I read the mod description, even just having RBP installed for that purpose will 'hijack' the imprisonment by the way that the bounties etc are set, so PO would never initiate.  Others seemed to think so too.  Of course, if that's wrong, please let me know how to sort it!

 

And anyway, when looking for a solution to anything PO, Inte is the star......

 

 

EDIT:  Thinking a bit more about this, is there any way that 'Patches' could just add a simple MCM slider, and mod initiation test, so that if both mods were installed, this could be used to provide a variable 'chance' of which mod kicked off, and where imprisonment took you, when bounty condition was met?  

 

I'm not a modder, I'm afraid, but if I remotely understand how these things work, the main problem would probably be whether the RBP limits are set in RBP's scripts or fixed in its esp file. 

 

The test for inititiation would be simple, being based on the PC player current bounty being > PO bounty set, irrespective of whether that is > or < RBP trigger bounty - unless you wanted to be really clever and say that

 

PO only is initiated if

 

    ((player current bounty >= PO bounty set) AND (player current bounty < RBP bounty set))

 

PO or RBP is initiated based on 'chance' setting if

 

     ((player current bounty >= PO bounty set) AND (player current bounty >= RBP bounty set))

 

 

Is that feasible? - bearing in mind that the geriatric suggesting it is a crazed geriatric, not just an ordinary, or garden, one

[NismoMan]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well, it's like @donkeywho said, both are using the same triggers to start the sentence. So, the only way to fix that (that I see) is to make one mod dependent on the other, you know a master/slave type of thing , not a very good solution there.
I am open to suggestions.

 
shinji72 has probably hit the nail on the head with their suggestion
If you could fix it to do all the xPO stuff, as a sort of immediate penance, and then, instead of being released at the end, just pass on to Raven's Beak for a remaining lifetime of unremitting toil and punishment, until you escapem, that would be quite good!
 
If that's possible, of course.....

 

 
That is already done.
For it to work though you need to have Simple Slavery installed. SS connects to RBP already  and POP connects to SS, so the scenario would be like this,

• Get arrested through POP.
• Serve your time.
• At the end of the sentence you get sent to the auction block (SS).
• There you get auctioned to RBP.

This of course would require @Guffel to add some kind of option to stop the arrest through RBP, so the POP arrest can procede normally. For example a check to see if POP is installed. If installed, defer the arrest and vice versa.

 

 

lol, Donkeywho got it rigt (you smooth talker you!), regardless, what I did as a solution was a bit simpler, albeit a little ghetto; firing up TES5Edit, I deep-overridden RBP's edits with POP's edits into my Merged-Patch for guard's responses that include "Castle Dour's Dungeon" and "Dragon's Reach Dungeon", and there are three in total, so unless the guards specifically say you're going to CDD or DRD, you'll be transferred to RBP... it's not optimal and it's rough, but it works.

 

A better solution is to have an option in MCM where you could set a bounty limit that you have to cross in order to be transferred to RBP and yeah... this requires a dependency I think... shit. Now that I think of it, it would make more sense to take this to @Guffel, since it would be more efficient to implement the necessary edits from his end to "ADD" the responses from his mod on top of the vanilla ones instead of replacing them; where the vanilla responses would eventually lead to POP arrests and Guffel's lead to RBP's.

 

it would be nice though to see POP's routines (pillory punishments, parading and what not) to be implemented in RBP 

 

 

 

The reason I chipped in here was because, albeit it comes from 'reading between the lines', I didn't think Guffel was likely to be too inclined to change RBP.  Might be doing him a disservice, and if so may I apologise now, but that was how the 'tone' of the thread there 'felt', insofar as the written word can convey such.

 

I know you can get to RBP via SS, but as I read the mod description, even just having RBP installed for that purpose will 'hijack' the imprisonment by the way that the bounties etc are set, so PO would never initiate.  Others seemed to think so too.  Of course, if that's wrong, please let me know how to sort it!

 

And anyway, when looking for a solution to anything PO, Inte is the star......

 

 

EDIT:  Thinking a bit more about this, is there any way that 'Patches' could just add a simple MCM slider, and mod initiation test, so that if both mods were installed, this could be used to provide a variable 'chance' of which mod kicked off, and where imprisonment took you, when bounty condition was met?  

 

I'm not a modder, I'm afraid, but if I remotely understand how these things work, the main problem would probably be whether the RBP limits are set in RBP's scripts or fixed in its esp file. 

 

The test for inititiation would be simple, being based on the PC player current bounty being > PO bounty set, irrespective of whether that is > or < RBP trigger bounty - unless you wanted to be really clever and say that

 

PO only is initiated if

 

    ((player current bounty >= PO bounty set) AND (player current bounty < RBP bounty set))

 

PO or RBP is initiated based on 'chance' setting if

 

     ((player current bounty >= PO bounty set) AND (player current bounty >= RBP bounty set))

 

 

Is that feasible? - bearing in mind that the geriatric suggesting it is a crazed geriatric, not just an ordinary, or garden, one

 

 

 

 

Well, that's what I was referring to, but I believe it would be more practical for RBP to implement the changes and cater for POP and not vice versa, otherwise a patch esp is required to do the job. I would have taken a shot at it already if it weren't for my creation kit acting all funky and shit 

[Inte]

Is @Guffel tracking the PC bounty using a global variable, or is it hardcoded in?

[Sathar]

I am having a bit of a horse problem.

 

I stole a horse outside Whiterun and was able to get arrested easily enough.  My first issue was a bit of animation mess-up, as I was either still on the horse, or inside the horse, for the march to the dungeon.  Fast forwarding seemed to fix this.

 

Now in the prison for the jailer scene, the horse is still standing next to me, and clearly being stripped and handled as a follower. This is more than a little problematic, since the horse doesn't really fit down there, and is screwing up everyone's pathing.  Trying to dismiss the horse seems to break POP's script, which just stops.

 

The primary culprit is no doubt Immersive Horses 1.6, which iirc adds horses to the Current Follower faction (he might have changed that, but I think it still does).  I also use Simple Multiple Followers, but I think IH is more likely the issue.  If there's no obvious work-around, is there any chance to add a toggle to dismiss rather than include followers on being arrested?

[Morferous]

The primary culprit is no doubt Immersive Horses 1.6, which iirc adds horses to the Current Follower faction (he might have changed that, but I think it still does).  I also use Simple Multiple Followers, but I think IH is more likely the issue.  If there's no obvious work-around, is there any chance to add a toggle to dismiss rather than include followers on being arrested?

 

That is something I have never experienced. IHO used to add player to CurrentFollowerFaction, but that was removed.

 

I am using IHO and horse have never followed my character to prison cell.

[Sathar]

 

The primary culprit is no doubt Immersive Horses 1.6, which iirc adds horses to the Current Follower faction (he might have changed that, but I think it still does).  I also use Simple Multiple Followers, but I think IH is more likely the issue.  If there's no obvious work-around, is there any chance to add a toggle to dismiss rather than include followers on being arrested?

 

That is something I have never experienced. IHO used to add player to CurrentFollowerFaction, but that was removed.

 

I am using IHO and horse have never followed my character to prison cell.

 

 

Thanks for the correction.  Maybe I was wrong about IHO   Could be about a hundred other things, so I'll have to poke around some more.

[edespino]

 

 

 

Well, it's like @donkeywho said, both are using the same triggers to start the sentence. So, the only way to fix that (that I see) is to make one mod dependent on the other, you know a master/slave type of thing , not a very good solution there.

I am open to suggestions.

 

shinji72 has probably hit the nail on the head with their suggestion

If you could fix it to do all the xPO stuff, as a sort of immediate penance, and then, instead of being released at the end, just pass on to Raven's Beak for a remaining lifetime of unremitting toil and punishment, until you escapem, that would be quite good!

 

If that's possible, of course.....

 

 

That is already done.

For it to work though you need to have Simple Slavery installed. SS connects to RBP already  and POP connects to SS, so the scenario would be like this,

• Get arrested through POP.
• Serve your time.
• At the end of the sentence you get sent to the auction block (SS).
• There you get auctioned to RBP.

This of course would require @Guffel to add some kind of option to stop the arrest through RBP, so the POP arrest can procede normally. For example a check to see if POP is installed. If installed, defer the arrest and vice versa.

 

 

lol, Donkeywho got it rigt (you smooth talker you!), regardless, what I did as a solution was a bit simpler, albeit a little ghetto; firing up TES5Edit, I deep-overridden RBP's edits with POP's edits into my Merged-Patch for guard's responses that include "Castle Dour's Dungeon" and "Dragon's Reach Dungeon", and there are three in total, so unless the guards specifically say you're going to CDD or DRD, you'll be transferred to RBP... it's not optimal and it's rough, but it works.

 

A better solution is to have an option in MCM where you could set a bounty limit that you have to cross in order to be transferred to RBP and yeah... this requires a dependency I think... shit. Now that I think of it, it would make more sense to take this to @Guffel, since it would be more efficient to implement the necessary edits from his end to "ADD" the responses from his mod on top of the vanilla ones instead of replacing them; where the vanilla responses would eventually lead to POP arrests and Guffel's lead to RBP's.

 

it would be nice though to see POP's routines (pillory punishments, parading and what not) to be implemented in RBP 

 

 

Hi,  i do my own dirty compatibility fix. I rise the bounty necesary to be sended to RBP to 3000 so if my bounty is less of 3000 will fire ( in theory ) PO if is more 3000 then fire RBP ( i hope ). I do this raising the bounty threehold in  RBP condition, i not sure if will work if someone who now more about moding can tell me if am right ?? Thank you.

 

[shinji72]

 

Hi,  i do my own dirty compatibility fix. I rise the bounty necesary to be sended to RBP to 3000 so if my bounty is less of 3000 will fire ( in theory ) PO if is more 3000 then fire RBP ( i hope ). I do this raising the bounty threehold in  RBP condition, i not sure if will work if someone who now more about moding can tell me if am right ?? Thank you.

 

 

 

In this scenario, I can't see why PO also shouldn't start as well.  Even if RBP is set at over 3000, there is nothing to limit PO under 3000.

[edespino]

 

 

Hi,  i do my own dirty compatibility fix. I rise the bounty necesary to be sended to RBP to 3000 so if my bounty is less of 3000 will fire ( in theory ) PO if is more 3000 then fire RBP ( i hope ). I do this raising the bounty threehold in  RBP condition, i not sure if will work if someone who now more about moding can tell me if am right ?? Thank you.

 

 

 

In this scenario, I can't see why PO also shouldn't start as well.  Even if RBP is set at over 3000, there is nothing to limit PO under 3000.

 

 

True, that i guessed later, well i think without scriping or more avanced modding not is possible make them work tougether. Thank you for the aswer.

 

[NismoMan]

Is @Guffel tracking the PC bounty using a global variable, or is it hardcoded in?

 

I believe it's tracking the Global variables.

 

 

 

 

 

Hi,  i do my own dirty compatibility fix. I rise the bounty necesary to be sended to RBP to 3000 so if my bounty is less of 3000 will fire ( in theory ) PO if is more 3000 then fire RBP ( i hope ). I do this raising the bounty threehold in  RBP condition, i not sure if will work if someone who now more about moding can tell me if am right ?? Thank you.

 

 

 

In this scenario, I can't see why PO also shouldn't start as well.  Even if RBP is set at over 3000, there is nothing to limit PO under 3000.

 

 

True, that i guessed later, well i think without scriping or more avanced modding not is possible make them work tougether. Thank you for the aswer.

 

 

 

@shinji72 is right, the conflict is in fact with the priority to hijack the Guards' responses, so whatever mod comes later in the load order gets deployed, regardless of whatever amount of bounty you set in POP.

 

One way to do this is to have PO set a slider option in MCM that disables PO's interactions after reaching a specific bounty. This way, we can load POP "AFTER" RBP and force PO's interactions to be disabled after we reach the specified bounty, is this doable @Inte?

[Inte]

Let's see, for example.

• RBP is set at 3000
• POP is set at 2000

If your current bounty is say 2200 the load order does not matter here, you will always get arrested through POP.
 
The 'fun' comes when your bounty is above 3000, both POP and RBP will 'race' to arrest you.
 
POP does have a bounty slider, you can set it anywhere from 0 to 10000.
 
If RBP is tracking the bounty using a global variable just set that to something very high instead of the 3000 it is set at now, that way this scenario will always work -- problem fixed, for now.

[edespino]

Let's see, for example.

• RBP is set at 3000
• POP is set at 2000

If your current bounty is say 2200 the load order does not matter here, you will always get arrested through POP.

 

The 'fun' comes when your bounty is above 3000, both POP and RBP will 'race' to arrest you.

 

POP does have a bounty slider, you can set it anywhere from 0 to 10000.

 

If RBP is tracking the bounty using a global variable just set that to something very high instead of the 3000 it is set at now, that way this scenario will always work -- problem fixed, for now.

 

Thank your for the answer. So if POP  go from 0 to 10000 then will set the condition on 10001 by example in RBP so if i get arrested by one bounty of more of 11000 then POP dont will fire but RBP  for this i will rise the vainilla crime bounties, i already planned/done becuause always seen me  too low, i will put murder alest 10000, stelal horse  like 5000 and so on,.

 

Btw, in POP the hired thughs dont auto delete, and dont respawn ( dont had the respawn flag ). In many playaround i kill them and stay forever until i disable them, i check it on TES5edit and seen miss the autoclean scrip which the unoficial patch add but like POP thunghs are custom i cant forward the changes ( which can be done with vanilla one ) and i dont had idea how add that scrip ( i am only know edit stuff on TES5edit ). If can, do you see about it ?? Thank you.

[Inte]

If you mean the PO bounty hunters, they get 'recycled' when you switch cells. They are not NPC's per se, they are aliases (clones) of created NPC.

[edespino]

ok, well then i must search other place because i had for while some bounty hunter which never get deleted in fact are the first and the only ones, after of kill them never come for me again.I must had some coflict somewere. Thank you for the answer.

 

PD. In fact i think i confucing between Hired Tught and Bounty Hunters. I think the first one are which come for you for give you one "lesson" if you steal something and i think are this which are givining me problems. Well i will must check it.

[Slorm]

@Inte

 

Just noticed a typo the 7f patch is reported as being 7e in the MCM. Only noticed as I was updating DDe and reset PO

[Inte]

ok, well then i must search other place because i had for while some bounty hunter which never get deleted in fact are the first and the only ones, after of kill them never come for me again.I must had some coflict somewere. Thank you for the answer.

 

PD. In fact i think i confucing between Hired Tught and Bounty Hunters. I think the first one are which come for you for give you one "lesson" if you steal something and i think are this which are givining me problems. Well i will must check it.

 

Hired thugs are from SD.

 

@Inte

 

Just noticed a typo the 7f patch is reported as being 7e in the MCM. Only noticed as I was updating DDe and reset PO

 

 

I noticed that after I released POP 7f.

[NismoMan]

Let's see, for example.

• RBP is set at 3000
• POP is set at 2000

If your current bounty is say 2200 the load order does not matter here, you will always get arrested through POP.

 

The 'fun' comes when your bounty is above 3000, both POP and RBP will 'race' to arrest you.

 

POP does have a bounty slider, you can set it anywhere from 0 to 10000.

 

If RBP is tracking the bounty using a global variable just set that to something very high instead of the 3000 it is set at now, that way this scenario will always work -- problem fixed, for now.

 

RBP doesn't have a slider, not even an MCM menu for that matter unfortunately.

As for the slider in POP, correct me if I'm wrong please, but I remember two sliders there, one where you can set the bounty after which the bounty hunters will come to collect, the second is where you can set the threshold between major and minor crimes.

 

The idea is to add an extra slider that "disables" pop after a certain bounty. but again, you are by no means obliged to do this, I honestly believe that the changes should be catered by RBP and not POP.