Jump to content

Lupine00

Members
  • Content count

    730
  • Joined

  • Last visited

3 Followers

About Lupine00

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Recent Profile Visitors

835 profile views
  1. Thanks. I wasn't looking for help as such. I just wanted to highlight it so that people would be aware, which might possibly assist in it getting fixed. I solved my personal problems with a consoled key. If I hadn't wanted to do that, I could have set key drop to 100% and looted something. Getting keys is usually possible for situations fixed with a key, which this one is. Good thing I didn't have a key holder ... For me, at least the follower showed up. With DAymoyl I used to get followers simply ceasing to exist. As for the combat animations overriding combat, I'm guessing Reesewow was right about it being script driven. As I noted above, that is not a viable design. Banking on papyrus ever executing in a timely manner is a hope waiting to be dashed. As the follower engages in combat, it's fairly clear they weren't stopped at the aggression or package level, which I believe would work. One further issue is that if you set keys to only drop when you are bound, really, they should also be enabled to drop if your follower is bound, because there aren't many followers that can simply unlock themselves. This only adds significant performance cost if the follower status isn't cached appropriately. What's the worst that can happen? Once in a blue moon a key drops shortly after you got free? Nobody will care.
  2. Reesewow posted a splendid, "none of this is DF's fault, it's quite perfect" response on the DF forum. Personally, I believe DF erred in removing my armbinder when the follower was bound, but the rest of it... The rest of it, I think is obviously either DCL, or in the case of the combat animations, DD. Reesewow suggested that combat animations are stopped by a script. If this is done in response to an event, it's not going to work very well. The combat could be over before that script runs. Bound followers need their behaviour modified so they do not try to fight. This is not impossible to do. A start would be tweaking their aggression so they run away from combat instead of into it. Possibly also put them in an alias with a combat override package list that stops them from fighting. This list is alleged to completely pre-empt combat, so you can make them do whatever you like; if you don't run a combat package, they won't fight, won't draw weapons, and won't break their animations. The hard part is making sure it gets undone infallibly later
  3. Mostly it is DCL, but I already made that blindingly clear. You say it like I didn't, but I did, so it's not exactly a counter point to the DF issues. This has absolutely no effect. DCL does not retroactively remove bondage on followers. Or if it's supposed to, I've never seen it work. Case in point, I tried it. It didn't work. There was no follower framework in play, as I already noted. Nor could the follower run cross-country from Morthal to south of Helgen in the twenty seconds I spent playing the hog-tie game. That is why I'm noting it. It's quite peculiar! Close, but not quite right. I found the follower could still fight after the second encounter. Whether they did so might have depended on script-lag or somesuch. Any combat blocking that relies on handling an event is useless, so perhaps something else is required. Of course, if you'd mentioned that on the DCL forum rather than here, it might be read by someone who can do something about it. I posted a note on the DCL forum, along with a possible fix strategy. Probably I should post it on the DD forum, but I haven't. If DCL hadn't put bondage on the follower despite being told not to, there wouldn't even be a DD issue. Sure, and I didn't suggest it should. However ... see below. DF not understanding bondage on the follower, at all, seems a bit of an oversight. When you think about it, there's an entire area of functionality that could exist there and clearly doesn't. DF doesn't bind followers. This is hardly an answer. They can easily get bound. Why is everything always the player's problem/fault? I turned off binding in DCL, but guess what? DCL doesn't care. Perhaps, DF should not allow the follower to do anything special while bound, including, but not limited to: Initiating games. Making new deals. Playing key game. Gambling for money. Unbinding the player. Parting ways. Punishing the player. Clearly, some of these would depend on the specific binds, a blindfold or gag would be different to an armbinder, different to leg-cuffs, etc. Debt should continue to accrue. There could be a "per device" debt penalty if the follower gets bound. The follower should make the player pay for the inconvenience to the follower. Very few mods deal well with followers in bondage, but DF probably needs to cope somehow because DF followers can get bound. They certainly can! And DF is about the followers, most other mods are not. With effort this could be turned into a positive feature that adds fun for the player. What if there were bondage games you could play with the follower that weren't always player submissive? People have asked. Not me, but others. It's a thing. Alternatively, DF could simply remove all follower binds automatically, which would solve the problem fairly definitively. What the heck happens if the player locks a follower in Queen Sarah gear? Does DCL have a melt-down when it sticks the follower in an alias that should only have the player in it? Maybe it never happens. Either way, not DF's problem. Sure... But that's an outlier. Mostly it's going to be stock-standard DD items. If it's not keyworded as special, simply remove it.
  4. Except right now you can't do half the things in the MCM at all anyway. And I simply disagree that "people find out" is a reason not to have mystery in a mod. Right now, the different "games" aren't spelled out, for a reason. Some people come on here and ask how to trigger, maybe one of them that they heard about. The rest remain surprises, and many will play the mod without reading the entire DF forum. There will always be dispute over what feature should or should not be most important. ALL features are work. Right now, new deals are verging on the point of diminishing returns, and the scope to add more that are genuinely different, but equivalent in weight to existing ones, is quite small. However, regardless of what features get done or not done, mystery is essential to fun in a mod like DF. The moment you know how everything works the magic vanishes. Once you've been through all the dialog and inspected the conditions, the fun is gone and all that's left is a collection of gambling games where you bet against DCL smashing you, bet against getting a nasty deal, bet against getting screwed on a key game. I guess some people find gambling addictive, but I do not. Right now, for me, there's new stuff I haven't pulled apart. Once I go in and read it all, it will be spoiled for me and I won't be able to play it except as a dull test. I'm trying to put off that day. Fortunately, Lozeak adds new stuff so fast that DF keeps being refreshed for me.
  5. Lupine00

    Sexlab Survival

    You'll see from my earlier post that I was also getting this, and thought it was the default behaviour. I'm running a new clean game with SLS in it from the start, but toll collector has no dialogue after the first one. Also, SLS MCM does not come up at start. It took TWO save and loads and Jaxon's MCM kicker to make it show up. That's pretty hardcore not-showing-up MCM. I'm going to take a wild stab and say that the missing dialog is due to an empty alias. Flaky conditions CTD more often than not, so probably not that unless its alias related. The other obvious cause is that a periodic script didn't start up like you hoped. I'm seeing spews about None in my log, but I can't tell what mod is generating them. Could be SLS I suppose. Aliases that don't fill are often caused by mods that don't fill them but did once ... developer testing from a save rather than a new game. Another good way of getting them not to fill is a mod startup race condition. Or not starting the required quest at all because your SEQ data wasn't rebuilt. It's going to be something like that. Three people. A new game. It's not just a one-off bug. I'm pretty sure I can track the cause if I get a chance to look. Will see if I get time.
  6. Lupine00

    Sexlab Survival

    I've been using this with DF. It sort of does the trick for me, so I'm happy it exists. The main thing I wanted from SLS was the toll feature, and the escort requirement. These do work, but there's room to enhance them a bit. I greatly enjoyed the initial dialogue with the toll collector, but was disappointed that there is no recap dialogue available. Also, toll collector fails to explain that you pay by clicking on the cash box tucked away in the corner - this made me think the mod was broken at first. The toll collector really could make that a bit clearer. It would be a big plus if you could talk to the toll collector and get re-insulted for being so dumb that you need to keep asking, and have him remind you how tolls work, and how to pay them. Also, the escort requirement could do with similar treatment to the above. Should be able to get dialogue that confirms your status: e.g. "Ah, I see you have an escort now. Pity it's a woman, both of you will be in chains within the week, stupid bitches, but I'll let you out anyway. The law is the law after all." "Ah, I see you have a dependable male escort now. Make sure you do as he says and you'll be fine. You'd still be better staying home and having babies though." "Ah, I see you are travelling with a group. There's safety in numbers, but don't go getting any stupid ideas." "Idiotic woman. Where's your escort? I can't let you out without one." Another wish, and this is more personal rather than basic usability, is a chance to bribe your way around needing an escort. e.g. "My escort will be along in a minute. You can let me through in the meantime though, can't you?" ... "Certainly, if you make it worth my while." You should have to pay cash plus a humiliating act/devices etc. to get out without follower(s). If you're using LAL, and start in a walled town, it can be hard (or impossible) to get a follower, blocking progress. So it might make sense to mention this in the tooltip. I assume you can simply set the requirement to zero in such cases and it immediately disables? The implementation as a locked door has some issues. I found my follower would not navigate through the door. They didn't reappear until I went into a building outside the city. Another problem with this is that Falkreath has no gates, and thus no tolls. I know Falkreath is barely a town in the first place, but this has the consequence of making Falkreath the default town of preference if you're using tolls and escorts. I think you could add a tax collector for Falkreath, who periodically shows up and demands money when you leave your house in the hold (if you have one). If you don't pay him off ... somehow ... you get a bounty. Players could then optionally enable this for player homes in other holds too. This would have the benefit of working even on mod-added player homes if you detect player-home-ness correctly. I can't speak to all the cum-related functionality, as I haven't used any yet. It sounds better than FHU or the DCL FHU-lite functionality, as they were always just a way to perma-break your character node scales without much gameplay benefit. However, the mouth open requirement could probably be made optional. Nine times out of ten a non-blowjob oral animation plays, the mod playing it intended a blowjob anyway, but accidentally picked lesbian, or whatever. If you look at tags, and it's got oral and not FF, and not explicitly tagged with something for furniture, it's probably a blowjob anyway. A perusal of tags could probably improve on this heuristic. The open mouth thing is way too fragile - there are so many things that can break that - like a ring gag, which would give a false positive. Interesting you considered it though. Please don't ever trust anything Apropos says, it's almost always wrong, and SLSF is hardly any better (and full of bugs and script load that achieves pretty much nothing useful in terms of gameplay). If I want annoying comments, I'll go for sexist guards, but it too has its problems. Still, looks like SG is on your radar, and I wouldn't complain if SLS added some support for it in some way. Might actually make it have a gameplay value.
  7. Sure. It makes sense to worry about return on effort, and there are lots of other ways to add to the mod. It might be that such things would be better for an entirely different mod that was sort-of like DF, but based around custom-built followers. If you completely rule out any tracking of history, the follower will never be able to comment on history, only the present. As the follower doesn't even comment on the present at the moment, so I can see that worrying about past events might seem like a bit moot. However, the idea that a follower personality can be crafted in the MCM is a hard sell. I'm not buying it. The biggest problem is exposure. It suffers from TMI syndrome. As a player, it takes the existing problem of hand-tweaking the settings for challenge (which already feels like cheating to make yourself fail) and adds a new level of unwanted revelation to it. If it's up to me to twiddle Lydia's settings so she feels different to Mjoll, there will be a powerful absence of surprises. Also, the MCM lacks the functionality to tweak every little detail, because the mod lacks those tweaks. But if new tweaks are added, should they always be exposed in the MCM? Even if the behaviours existed, I don't agree they should always be exposed in the MCM. It destroys the illusion, and complicates the MCM. The simplicity of the existing MCM is a virtue, and TBH, the amount of cruft around deal configuration is already starting to niggle me a bit. The only reason I can see for it is to disable a deal you think might break some other mod you're using, and I've never had to do that. Or to disable a deal that is temporarily buggy. Much of the charm of DF relies around "surprise" and the more you fiddle with detailed settings as a player, the more you know about what the NPCs can and cannot say, the more that surprise collapses and the illusion of immersion crumbles. If you know exactly how it works it's boring. That's why I prefer to play mods other people make The only way this would work is if you could tweak Chaos Mode so it randomises settings one time, each time you hire a new follower (and hides them from you). This is already somewhat possible. I can't set the re-roll duration longer than 14 days, but I can set 0. I'm guessing this results in no re-rolls, but I'm not entirely sure. Maybe you could add a "chance to re-roll" to chaos, so when a roll is due, it might not happen? That would be useful to lots more people, as they could do things like set duration to 1, and set chance to 50%, to get quite variable times between re-rolls. It would seem a virtue if Chaos always re-rolls when you recruit a follower. I'm not sure if it does, or whether it's only on first-enable of Chaos Mode. Possibly, actively dismissing a follower should disable Chaos Mode so you have to re-enable it? Maybe it already does? If that needs a small change, I think that would be a reasonable return on development effort, but it would be utterly random, and would thus never allow a player to assign an opaque personality type that hadn't personally predicated by manipulating the ranges in the first place. Right now, Chaos Mode can't drive gold control. Would be nice if that were added; I think lots of people would get some use out of that. Possibly, on top of that feature, you could allow the player to pick a "current personality type", for Chaos Mode which would post-tweak (certain) Chaos Mode rolls, depending on the type picked. The tweaks would be a simple set of hand-crafted "fudges", unique to each type. One personality type might secretly ensure that Lives are at least 10, while another might not make any changes to Lives at all, but instead change device removal multiplier and max removal cost. I think that opaque but directed Chaos tweaks of some kind would be a good thing, even if there were very few. The important thing about them is that they'd be a (relative) mystery to the player, rather than completely revealing their function. With the stats hidden, you wouldn't know what stats are getting tweaked, or how much - without reading the code - the people who want a feature like this aren't going to spoil it for themselves on purpose. You could use a similar approach to add "Easy, Default, and Hard" settings to Chaos, saving the player from having to hand-craft a rather burdensome number of values that new users of the mod might not even know the ramifications of. The more you know, they less illusion of immersion is created and the more you see the workings of an extremely simply machine. It's better to know less, as long as you still have meaningful choices. Personally, I really do not want to see the detailed workings. Once I perceive that crude clockwork, the immersion collapses, there are no surprises, and in the absence of surprise, honestly, why bother? I could just as well console devices and stick them on myself and Slaverun already delivers all the horse rapes and crawling on your elbows you'll ever need (and then some more, just in case). As for additional options that aren't currently available in Chaos Mode settings, that could exist in the mod to tweak follower behaviour, I think there could be a few. Chance follower doesn't lose lives on bleedout. Chance follower doesn't lose a live on removing DD items. Bias towards more punishing games (kind of presumes that there are more games being added though). Bias towards never letting you part ways (some followers could be a lot more carefree in this regard, others verge on stalkerishly obsessive). Chance to refuse to help with bindings for a number of hours. Chance for follower to sometimes waive the binding removal cost. Bias to the gambling game (more or less fair). Bias to the key game (more or less fair). Biases on various probabilities within gold control. Biases on the type of dialogue emotes produced. The value of color in dialogue emotes shouldn't be underestimated. Yes, I'm well aware what a huge pain Skyrim dialogues are to construct, but there are some things you can do with globals to manage them as sets that streamline this, as well as adding and removing an actor from an alias to enable or disable entire sets of dialogue functionality en-masse. Conditions aren't for free, but an equality test on a global isn't terribly costly, and would (for example) allow you to customise any dialogue based on personality type, incrementally, on a preferential basis. Using a quest for each personality type (for example), you could add custom dialog in a completely incremental and maintainable way - for example starting with a "housecarl" quest that allows you to leverage your thane status, or be mocked for it - not that I'd ever want such a feature, just saying I guess I see dialogue color as not-so-hard, because I can write dialogue pretty easily, and can see how I could take a single event and write it three ways to convey a particular bias in the speaker, but sure, the mechanics of typing the lines into the CK is still pretty tedious. There already are a lot of emotes, even without comments on ongoing events, and those could possibly be expanded to reflect personality sometimes. When the dialogue comes from DF, there is no way to make that functionality part of the follower, and not part of DF. Only DF can ever do that, without some extremely painful and unmaintainable patching.
  8. Unfortunate synergy between DD, DCL and DF... This problem/heap of bugs, involves an interaction between problematic features in all of the above. I'm going to report this in the DF forum too, but most of the problems are caused by DCL and DD. Using DD 4.1 and DCL 6.4 I enabled combat defeat in DCL, disabled follower support, but left followers can wear armbinders checked. I had robbery 100%. I had a DF follower, with no deals, in gold control mode. I was defeated in combat in the wilderness by some ice-wraiths, up near the border of the snow line south of Morthal. I found myself in the hog-tie game (located up in the mountains south of Helgren). While I was playing the hog-tie game, my follower ran up from ... quite some distance away. It's a puzzle to me what mod moved the follower, and where, but I'm pretty sure she didn't have time to run from Morthal! The follower was wearing some DD 4.1 steel shackles (basically an armbinder in functionality, and using armbinder animations). DCL should not have bound the follower, as follower support was not enabled. Perhaps it did this because armbinders on followers was still checked? Perhaps not. I escaped the hog-tie, and was naked in an armbinder. I asked the follower to remove the armbinder using the DF remove heavy bondage dialog. The armbinder was removed. This would be fine, except the follower was bound in shackles! If she had a key, why didn't she free herself? If she didn't have a key, how did she free me? I checked my items. I hadn't been robbed, despite robbery 100%. I re-equipped my gear. The follower was still bound in the shackles. I asked to trade with her and tried to remove them. No luck. I had no key. I had NO WAY to get a key for the follower, because: 1) I had keys only drop when bound set in DCL. 2) I wasn't bound any longer. 3) I couldn't ask the follower to play for keys, because I wasn't bound. Some wolves showed up, and the follower pulled out her sword and set about them. She ignored the DD binding completely, and animated in combat as normal. After combat was over, she returned to the bound animation, now holding a sword between her legs like she was trying to ride it like a broomstick. I set off walking to Helgen. Some more wolves showed up. This time the follower seemed unable to fight and remained in the bound animation - perhaps the wolves didn't hit her, only me? Frustrated with the situation, I consoled a key and removed the shackles from the follower. Issues here: 1) DF lets a follower remove bondage from the player while the follower is in the exact-same bondage. This is silly. 2) DCL binds followers when follower handling is disabled. 3) DCL doesn't seem to port followers when it ports the player on defeat - I can't think of any time that it shouldn't port them unless it's going to dismiss the follower and send them home. Possibly this was working as intended, but the follower showed up before I complete the hog-tie game, which was unexpected. 4) DD doesn't seem to reliably block armed NPC combat when NPCs are bound, but it does do something ... sort of random and inconsistent. 5) DF has no way to unbind followers if you don't have regular access to keys, but one of the features of DF is that you should be able to manage without key drops. Not really sure if the follower ran all the way from Morthal, but if she did, it was a bit quick. Follower must have been ported to some other location. Not sure whether DF or DCL is to blame for this. Generally speaking, if DCL is told not to bind followers, it shouldn't bind them, as it can create substantial problems. Was DF responsible for this? DCL was tracking the follower, and the follower's name was showing up in the MCM. I had no follower tweak mods installed, nothing like AFT etc.
  9. Unfortunate synergy between DD, DCL and DF... This problem/heap of bugs, involves an interaction between problematic features in all of the above. I'm going to report this in the DCL forum too. I enabled combat defeat in DCL, disabled follower support, but left followers can wear armbinders checked. I had robbery 100%. I had a DF follower, with no deals, in gold control mode. I was defeated in combat in the wilderness by some ice-wraiths, up near the border of the snow line south of Morthal. I found myself in the hog-tie game (located up in the mountains south of Helgren). While I was playing the hog-tie game, my follower ran up from ... quite some distance away. The follower was wearing some DD 4.1 steel shackles (basically an armbinder in functionality, and using armbinder animations). DCL should not have bound the follower, as follower support was not enabled. Perhaps it did this because armbinders on followers was still checked? Perhaps not. I escaped the hog-tie, and was naked in an armbinder. I asked the follower to remove the armbinder using the DF remove heavy bondage dialog. The follower charged me 500, but said as I had no money she'd add it as debt. This struck me as misleading, as I was in gold control to start with. The armbinder was removed. This would be fine, except the follower was bound in shackles! If she had a key, why didn't she free herself? If she didn't have a key, how did she free me? I checked my items. I hadn't been robbed, despite robbery 100%. I re-equipped my gear. The follower was still bound in the shackles. I asked to trade with her and tried to remove them. No luck. I had no key. I had NO WAY to get a key for the follower, because: 1) I had keys only drop when bound set in DCL. 2) I wasn't bound any longer. 3) I couldn't ask the follower to play for keys, because I wasn't bound. Some wolves showed up, and the follower pulled out her sword and set about them. She ignored the DD binding completely, and animated in combat as normal. After combat was over, she returned to the bound animation, now holding a sword between her legs like she was trying to ride it like a broomstick. I set off walking to Helgen. Some more wolves showed up. This time the follower seemed unable to fight - perhaps the wolves didn't hit her, only me? Frustrated with the situation, I consoled a key and removed the shackles from the follower. Issues here: 1) DF lets a follower remove bondage from the player while the follower is in the exact-same bondage. This is silly. 2) DCL binds followers when follower handling is disabled. 3) DCL doesn't port followers when it ports the player on defeat - I can't think of any time that it shouldn't do this unless it's going to dismiss the follower and send them home 4) DD doesn't seem to reliably block armed NPC combat when NPCs are bound, but it does do something ... sort of random and inconsistent. 5) DF has no way to unbind followers if you don't have regular access to keys, but one of the features of DF is that you should be able to manage without key drops. Not really sure if the follower ran all the way from Morthal, but if she did, it was a bit quick. Follower must have been ported to some other location. Not sure whether DF or DCL is to blame for this.
  10. Playing with gold control, I started to get the feeling that there was an important element that is missing: your relationship with the follower. DF doesn't really have any kind of tracking of past history. If you're in credit, the follower is nice, and when you get in debt, or the follower has no lives, the follower gets nasty - even if the follower was a moron who kept walking into a gate trap. There's no sense of an evolving relationship. In my game, I've been in credit since the start, high willpower since the start. I could have been in debt the entire time, but I wasn't. I could have taken deals, but I didn't. I think it would be good if the follower remembered more about your history and reacted to it somewhat. Mechanically, this should track a few statistics, something like... the average follower lives at the end of each day the PC's average willpower at the end of each day the average time between sleeps the average debt/credit state (for gold control) the number of times you were whored out or used solicitation to raise money the average number of DD items worn at the end of each day or the average debt (for not gold control) - should use whichever one you are currently in the base disposition of the follower (which could be in a form list, or random) (In practice you might sample every eight game hours or something, and keep it secret from the player when you're doing it). These stats could then be used to drive: random emotes from the follower responses to a "How are we doing?" dialogue option decisions taken by the follower about mode changes, deal options, punishments, and demands. This would give more of a feel of an ongoing relationship and make experiences with one follower distinct from another. I think this would add a lot to replayability. For example, you recruit a follower, and a run of bad luck and DCL events follow, you're in debt, in deals, low willpower, always failing... The follower should treat you with contempt, joke about your misfortunes and complain about your debts; talk about how she's helping a hopeless case, etc. In contrast, you recruit a follower, and pile up a ton of credit, stay willpower 10, and sleep regularly. The follower should speak to you as a friend and companion, say how she looks forward to the next profitable adventure; talk about how dependable you are, etc. Some comments might be quite specific... Hints directly related to follower average lives remaining... e.g. "I really think we need to rest more often, I can't take this pace." vs "That was a good night's sleep. I feel ready for anything." When it comes to decisions (the important part), a follower might give a player they like more money for deals, or regulate deal buy-out chances based on how much they like you. For example, if they hate you, the option to buy out of deals might not show up on some days! OTOH, a friendly follower might let you run up bonus debt before getting cranky, or sometimes heal a life automatically, or not lose one when they normally would. A PC who is always in a lot of devices might get sold when one who is rarely bound doesn't. The application of stats to rules is a space of broad possibilities. In the extreme case, it would make entirely new mechanics for some things that are currently just random rolls. But you could always retain a minimum portion of randomness, because that's also good - it's better if things aren't purely mechanical. Yes. It's all work, but it adds a lot of immersion. Tracking the stats is fairly straightforward if you use a sampling model for most of them. It would be possible to collect all the stats in a normalised form (from 0.0 to 1.0 or 0 to 100, scaled based on the current configuration at time of sampling, so even when the scales jump all over the place in Chaos Mode, it still works. Follower disposition could be mapped in a table that holds the names of all common followers (load from json, so players can tweak it). Maybe adjust for racial compatibility, and throw in a random factor when you first recruit. Maybe they could have a "care factor" for each stat, that biases how much they pay attention to it, vs being entirely random - so Lydia might be very particular about lives, but not care at all about debt? Then, you might find that Cassandra treats you very differently to Siv, and Lydia very differently from Mjoll. Just a suggestion anyway. Gold control made my game much more immersive, much less mechanical, and I started to want my dull ultra-basic follower to do more than just run up and hit things, I wanted some recognition of past events.
  11. I've been playing around with Gold Control (in version 1.706), and it's a great feature. Thanks Lozeak for this awesome addition. Even when things are going well, the reduced ability to track debt and use money creates lots of uncertainties and obstacles. I also like that I don't have to fuss about paying the follower, and the struggle to raise money for accommodation without undermining my self-esteem If the follower loses a lot of lives, you have zero cash available, and it becomes tricky to raise money for a room without whoring, which is great. In most cases where that happened, I asked the follower for more money, and got it. It has occurred to me that you could buy a load of drinks or food from a merchant when you're vending items, then sell them to the innkeeper and rent a room immediately. This would sneak around the cash limitation, by converting free cash into stuff you can trade with an innkeeper. One reason that I'm really hoping for auto-vending one day If that feature was available, not only would loot management be less of a chore, but you'd be much more at the mercy of the follower. I imagine it could work as a "deeper step" beyond gold control - that you'd have to "buy out" of auto vending before you could get out of gold control. It's good that it's harder to get rid of the follower, but... I think it's a bit too hard, in situations where you have no debt, and high willpower, I've found it is still impossible to get rid of the follower, and I'm not sure that's right. I voluntarily opted into gold control mode, with a range of 100 - 500. I have been holding at 10 willpower, and I have over 2000 gold in credit, and have always been in credit at the end of day, but for seven days straight, the follower has refused to return control, and when I ask to part ways, the follower emits the "get my share of the money" dialogue. Only once, in about ten days (around day 3) did the daily summary say that I could leave gold control. This has become an annoyance, as I want to swap the follower for a different one, and can't, despite high will and good credit. It seems reasonable that the chance to be allowed out of gold control should be directly related to willpower. e.g. with willpower 10 it should be at least 80% on any given day. So, when I ask to part ways, (as mentioned above), I get the "want my share" dialogue, and can't get rid of her - presumably because I'm in gold control mode and have to leave that before I can pay her off. If you ask to leave in gold control mode, you should get a more appropriate dialogue... Asking for her share seems wrong, and confusing, as she already HAS all the money - I'm in credit by more than 1000. I don't think the summary, or the follower, should tell you whether you can leave gold control or not. You should have to ask and try your luck. e.g. On a request to part ways, if you are allowed to leave, and if you're in credit, the follower should say something more like: "You can leave if you want, but I'm keeping all the money." (And she should NOT tell you how much that is). And then you should get the choice to drop the follower, at the cost of losing all your credit, or refuse and keep the follower and remain in gold control. And if you're not in sufficient credit, or you aren't allowed to leave anyway, the follower should say. "I'm disappointed that you want to run out on your obligations, so I'm going to charge you for that." "Maybe that will teach you to be better behaved?" And then it should add half the regular punishment debt, and you don't get to leave the follower. I did have an experience in an aborted path, where the follower gave me a chance to leave gold control mode, but then sort of "took it back" by saying, (approx) "You can leave today, but I'll keep all the credit, or wait until tomorrow." I opted to leave immediately, but then she said I wasn't fit to take care of my finances, and wouldn't let me leave, despite zero debt, and having just fleeced me for 1300 gold. In that case I quit and reloaded because it was so annoying! Since then, I've never even been allowed the chance to leave gold control (see above), which feels inappropriate for a willpower 10 character with good credit. I'm not sure that it is working correctly at all... Or maybe it is, but in that case it's counter intuitive, or the dialogue is unfairly misleading. It's a brand new game, made to test that DF version, so there can't be any "upgrade issues". The thing with the dialogue in DF, is that the follower really shouldn't lie to you. At that point, it feels like a rip-off, or that the entire thing is a dice roll. If your willpower is low, it's totally fair for the follower to boss you about and demand things, but when it explains rules and then doesn't follow them, it creates frustration and annoyance. It's fine for the follower to unfairly add demands in a bondage game for a low willpower character in bondage, but not fine to lie about money, or passively block everything, when you are fully armed, willpower 10, with a load of credit. If you have a high willpower, you should still be in control (up to a point), and it doesn't really feel like you are in 1.706.
  12. As the idea of getting a follower you didn't ask for was on my wish list, I'm happy with that ... whenever it happens. That said, I'm more interested in that happening as a result of "rescue" circumstances, or low willpower, rather than without obvious cause. I don't think this is about balance though. For me, it's never been about balance, it's been about immersion. I need to justify to myself some reason, roleplay, or practical, why I should recruit a follower, who I know will be expensive. When the costs have been tweaked the way I like them, the follower will almost certainly be a liability, so I look for an in-game rationale for taking on that liability. While the roleplay "weak character" is OK once or twice, it gets tired, and isn't entirely believable, as the PC inevitably is forced to become stronger as the game progresses, even if you try (and I have tried). I don't believe in that DF can be balanced against no follower, and I'm not asking for it. It simply doesn't make any sense to try, given that the costs and penalties will vary widely from one player configuration to another. In short, I never asked for balance in the sense that no follower should be harder than having a follower. But... Immersive reasons to have a follower, such as tolls, kidnap scenarios, and other things that are fun are what I'm looking for. However, I agree that it's a valid choice not to put that in DF. It's something that could be in a separate mod; it's just that such a mod doesn't really exist. SLS isn't it for me, and I think a lot of people probably haven't even heard of Sexlab Survival, but more obviously, it's not the objective of SLS.
  13. SLS clearly wants to integrate with DF, which is good, but SLS is tightly bound to RND, and is full of intrusive functionality that many will never want or need. Also, it takes something of a simulationist, rather than game-play driven approach to design, and as I've said many times, I feel that is almost always a mistake. But I should save such points for the SLS forum, not here. What does matter is that SLS is trying to be something like Lozeak's imagined "Devious World", and I think I'd probably prefer to see the Lozeak version. It might well be wise to split such functionality away from DF, but I'd still like to see it done differently to SLS. Some of the ideas in SLS are very interesting, they simply need reframing as pure gameplay and executed in robust ways. Much in SLS is highly relevant to DF. As for "take a break", I have put forward various suggestions in the past. I think the "pause" functionality suffices for me. Not very immersive, but it is practical.
  14. I don't really understand this, and as phrased, simply do not agree. While it would be fine to have that kind of feature, I don't think its a pre-requisite for features that encourage having a follower. The toll feature in SLS doesn't require an ability to bounce in and out of having a follower to work, it's already fine - the issues with it are that it needs SLS (which brings baggage), and is a bit of a blunt instrument that makes a follower a bit too obligatory. Sure, it would also be good to have a feature where you can "take a break" from a follower, and then come back to them later, such as described above, but I don't think its as fundamental. I could say why I disagree with each point above, one by one, but I think it should be obvious that it's basically a matter of taste. I for one don't want SLUTS in my LO, revamped or otherwise. It isn't well balanced, and frequently, it is bugged. So there simply is no scenario where I swap over to using it right now - not unless the revamp gets a lot better. As for SD+ etc, once DF improves its own slavery mode a bit more, I don't think I'll have any more need for SD+ at all, ever. DF is already better in most cases, and simply lacks one or two slavery features, and a way to surrender directly into it on defeat. Clarifying a bit... Sure, you can "just decide" to have a follower, this is probably the default for most people, even though they know the follower is more trouble than help. Or you can play a weak character, though that gets old after a few tries. Or you can set DCL to make things hard, but really anything DCL does to make things harder only makes a follower doubly treacherous, so its still not making a follower a genuine benefit. DCL is, and always has been a way to add pain and delays to skyrim, and DF simply lets you convert that pain and delay into different pain and delay. DF adds "trouble" to having a follower, so it seems only fair that it could make not having a follower even more trouble. In fact, I think it should. Possibly Lozeak feels that's the job of other mods to do that, but apart from SLS there aren't any such mods (I just don't think the DCL argument stacks up). You could consider the whole realm of things that happen without a follower out of scope, but I think they are very much the concern of DF in this context.
×