Zero results. Now, this is definitely a common thing that happens when you're trying to find a particular value in a particular game. There are a few possibilities here:

1) You messed up somewhere along the line. I did this a lot, in my early days of using Cheat Engine. No shame, it's a complex tool. You'll want to get comfortable finding values in games before you do more with Cheat Engine. It's not very intuitive and it's all downhill from here. This might be you, so repeat these steps a few times just to be sure.

2) The value is not a 4 byte number. This is less common nowadays than it used to be, I think, especially for PC games. There's enough memory space available that most numbers will be 4 bytes, but there are memory optimizations that COULD be made to compress how much memory each value is taking up that would reduce it from 4 bytes to 1 or 2 bytes.

3) The value is not being tracked how you think it is being tracked. What this means is sort of vague - basically the programmer decided, for whatever reason, to count differently than you're counting. In this SPECIFIC case, the programmer of the game decided to count spell casts up from 0, meaning that what you're seeing in the UI of PoE above is the value (4 - N), where N is the number of spells of that level you have cast.



I am a programmer, but I made the above mistake when trying to find this value at first and thought it would be a good demonstration of how using Cheat Engine effectively is much like reverse engineering, and by extension, requires that you get into the mindset of the programmer that wrote the game. In this case, I figured it out by talking it over with my more-experience programmer significant other, who, once he heard the design of the game, pointed out that it would be easier to count up from 0, instead of down from whatever the arbitrary number of spells for that tier was. While we might disagree that one method is easier than another, he was indeed correct that the programmer of Pillars of Eternity decided to implement it that way.

So if we repeat our value finding process, but this time, we find it with the paradigm in mind that the value will count up from 0...

[NOTE: Starting a search for a value from 0 is a bad idea, just because there are SO MANY zero values in memory. If you can avoid starting from 0, I really recommend you do.]