sse Paradise Halls Enhanced (pahe) Special Edition with the customary addons

[Antiope_Apollonia]

49 minutes ago, CliftonJD said:

stripped items will still stay in inventory for items that were given to the slave, outfit items are unequipped but still remain

Maybe best if there's an MCM toggle for it, but given the way that the vanilla outfit system spawns copies of items in their outfit when they're naked, I'd think it'd be good to be able to let it just delete those items instead of unequipping them.  Don't really know how your new mechanic is working under the hood, though.

 

1 hour ago, CliftonJD said:

with recent updates to when the strip functions were applied to the slave i notice even more evidence it should be possible, but might need the direct approach, will have to retest them with the mandate nudity toggle active

Cool.  Fingers crossed!

 

1 hour ago, CliftonJD said:

hmmm, thinking more on it, if you still have any slaves missing dialogues, i might be able to setup a debug dialogue to force the slave to log their current stats and slave factions

I still have Joslin for now.  I'm going to change up my modlist and start a new playthrough in the near future, though, so accessing her will be a lot harder after that.  How long would it take you to set that up?  I can try to wait.

 

1 hour ago, CliftonJD said:

if this were a more direct issue with nff, it could be looked into. but an issue with another mod sposed to fix nff, would be like fixing the fix, we would likely need to look into why nff needs a brawl fix. is brawl fix for nff something that can be replaced and why isn't nff handling this on its own

Well, Modern Brawl Bug Fix isn't specifically a fix to NFF.  NFF was what prompted me to download it, and I'd guess that's relatively common, but in principle, it's a fix to a more general issue.  I'm not certain that's the source of the bug, but it seems like it.  I'm about to start messing with my mod list and getting setting up for a new playthrough, so I'll try to do a little testing while I'm at it.  

 

1 hour ago, CliftonJD said:

yes, its been this way for years on combat slaves, seems to make sense when comparing it to follower behavior that it would need them to be combat slaves

I guess I'm missing something?  What does this have to do with combat?

 

1 hour ago, CliftonJD said:

like this idea, will have to look into a reverse dialogue of didn't fight

"A reverse dialogue of didn't fight"?  I don't think I understand...

 

1 hour ago, CliftonJD said:

outside of being allowed to cum would there be any difference between the 2 options tho, seems like it might just be a more immersive way to have sex, to maybe just relabel the dialogue using this new phrase

Well, "a more immersive way to have sex" is a pretty big thing in and of itself.  Beyond that, though, the roles would be reversed.  Actor roles are a lot harder for those of us lesbian players, but for M–F sex, it's much more clear cut; e.g., a male player with a female slave may play fellatio animations for sexual service and cunnilingus animations for sexual reward.  As described in the original proposal, the training effects would also be a bit different, and if we're moving to a formulaic threshold consent system, the threshold for consenting to sexual reward should likely be a bit lower.  I could also see a case to be made either way for whether or not refusing sexual reward should generate a punishment reason, but refusing sexual service definitely would do.

[Martok73]

10 hours ago, Antiope_Apollonia said:

Well, Modern Brawl Bug Fix isn't specifically a fix to NFF.  NFF was what prompted me to download it, and I'd guess that's relatively common, but in principle, it's a fix to a more general issue.  I'm not certain that's the source of the bug, but it seems like it.  I'm about to start messing with my mod list and getting setting up for a new playthrough, so I'll try to do a little testing while I'm at it.  

I have that MBBF and so far have not had any issues with any of my combat slaves mistaking a brawl for a real fight. The fix is supposed to take care of npcs accidentally turning a brawl into a real fight due to some screwed up code in the engine. That MBBF mod is very very old, as the bug has been around since LE.

 

12 hours ago, CliftonJD said:

On 3/25/2022 at 4:57 PM, Antiope_Apollonia said:

• This would replace the current "Ok slave..." → "I'm going to fuck you."  The new dialogue could be, for example, "Ok slave..." → "Come and give your Mistress/Master some pleasure."  

outside of being allowed to cum would there be any difference between the 2 options tho, seems like it might just be a more immersive way to have sex, to maybe just relabel the dialogue using this new phrase

I suggested something very similar to this a couple of months ago the wording is almost identical. A simple dialog swap to make it more immersive and to not sound the exact same as the punishment option which in a nutshell translates into "hey slave you're about to be raped", lol.

 

Outside of the direct punishment sex or "training" sex, even tho there has to be different "conditions" flagged in the mod, there is no real consent when it comes to a slave submitting to preforming various sex acts with their owner/captor. It is all rape, it is just a matter of whether or not a slave chooses to be raped instead of beaten or killed. Nine times out of ten a captive slave regardless of how long that person has been in captivity as a slave will choose the less painful route including having sex even tho deep down in her mind she/he really does not want to. Thus it's all rape and that includes cases of Stockholm Syndrome. From a gameplay and immersion point of view the dialog change would come off as less of a brutish attack and more of a "need to be serviced or given attention" type of statement. I'd have to scroll back to see exactly how I worded it when I suggested it to you, but I think it was something along the lines of "Come with me, let's have some fun", or "Come with me I need some attention". I'd have to scroll back and see how I worded it but you get the idea. HSH uses something very similar to initiate sex without coming outright and stating they're about to be fucked/raped. I think there dialog is along the lines of "Come here slave I'm gonna have some fun with you", I think it's something like that but without going in game and looking I can't quote it exactly but you get the idea. Wording is everything when it comes to a slaves frame of mind right before they get fucked and can make a difference in how they "perceive" the act itself. A fully submissive slave if told they are "going to have fun" with their master/mistress, would be less tense and more open if they thought that they were not in trouble and not about to be punished. They most likely would be more receptive to the idea of preforming a sexual act if the tone of the dialog was more "playful" as opposed to the current brash and abrupt statement. They might even actually enjoy it and the master/mistress would most definitely enjoy it more, "unless they're a sadist", having sex with an at minimum semi-relaxed slave instead of a scared to death tensed up one balling their eyes out. Unless of course the master/mistress is a sadist and gets off on the slaves pain, then it wouldn't matter but imho it would still be more immersive than the current "Ok slave, I'm going to fuck you" option.

[CliftonJD]

18 hours ago, Antiope_Apollonia said:

Maybe best if there's an MCM toggle for it, but given the way that the vanilla outfit system spawns copies of items in their outfit when they're naked, I'd think it'd be good to be able to let it just delete those items instead of unequipping them.  Don't really know how your new mechanic is working under the hood, though.

delete the items or don't, still leaves them available at next cell change in the outfit. physically removing it from the outfit would cause the same damage to the bandit tables as adding the naked outfit, but on a broader spectrum of bandits using that outfit. mandate nudity strips those items from the slave at each cell change and i think at each reload too, basically anytime its been discovered that the bandit outfit would re-equip on the slaves

On 3/21/2022 at 1:16 PM, CliftonJD said:

On 3/20/2022 at 10:17 AM, Antiope_Apollonia said:

For followers, while crouching, you still get the normal interact option instead of pickpocketing; can this same mechanic be applied to PAHE slaves?

that's the player team mate setting applied to combat slaves

18 hours ago, Antiope_Apollonia said:

guess I'm missing something?  What does this have to do with combat?

that's vanilla behavior added to "teammates", but...https://www.creationkit.com/index.php?title=SetPlayerTeammate_-_Actor

what does it have to do with combat or even why would that be reserved for combat slaves is a valid question. according to the wiki, the 2 are completely unrelated so i can move that feature to be assigned to all slaves or all following slaves. think it would fit best moved to all following slaves

19 hours ago, Antiope_Apollonia said:

20 hours ago, CliftonJD said:

like this idea, will have to look into a reverse dialogue of didn't fight

"A reverse dialogue of didn't fight"?  I don't think I understand...

means i should be able to expand on the current dialogue or make a new dialogue for it based on the same process

19 hours ago, Antiope_Apollonia said:

Well, "a more immersive way to have sex" is a pretty big thing in and of itself.  Beyond that, though, the roles would be reversed.  Actor roles are a lot harder for those of us lesbian players, but for M–F sex, it's much more clear cut; e.g., a male player with a female slave may play fellatio animations for sexual service and cunnilingus animations for sexual reward.  As described in the original proposal, the training effects would also be a bit different, and if we're moving to a formulaic threshold consent system, the threshold for consenting to sexual reward should likely be a bit lower.  I could also see a case to be made either way for whether or not refusing sexual reward should generate a punishment reason, but refusing sexual service definitely would do.

ok so better role reversal when needed

8 hours ago, Martok73 said:

That MBBF mod is very very old, as the bug has been around since LE.

i remember the bug in Le, but i'm guessing the "modern" aspect of mbbf would be that the bug fix never worked in Le. in Se i haven't needed any brawl fixes

8 hours ago, Martok73 said:

suggested something very similar to this a couple of months ago the wording is almost identical. A simple dialog swap to make it more immersive and to not sound the exact same as the punishment option which in a nutshell translates into "hey slave you're about to be raped", lol.

 

Outside of the direct punishment sex or "training" sex, even tho there has to be different "conditions" flagged in the mod, there is no real consent when it comes to a slave submitting to preforming various sex acts with their owner/captor. It is all rape, it is just a matter of whether or not a slave chooses to be raped instead of beaten or killed. Nine times out of ten a captive slave regardless of how long that person has been in captivity as a slave will choose the less painful route including having sex even tho deep down in her mind she/he really does not want to. Thus it's all rape and that includes cases of Stockholm Syndrome. From a gameplay and immersion point of view the dialog change would come off as less of a brutish attack and more of a "need to be serviced or given attention" type of statement. I'd have to scroll back to see exactly how I worded it when I suggested it to you, but I think it was something along the lines of "Come with me, let's have some fun", or "Come with me I need some attention". I'd have to scroll back and see how I worded it but you get the idea. HSH uses something very similar to initiate sex without coming outright and stating they're about to be fucked/raped. I think there dialog is along the lines of "Come here slave I'm gonna have some fun with you", I think it's something like that but without going in game and looking I can't quote it exactly but you get the idea. Wording is everything when it comes to a slaves frame of mind right before they get fucked and can make a difference in how they "perceive" the act itself. A fully submissive slave if told they are "going to have fun" with their master/mistress, would be less tense and more open if they thought that they were not in trouble and not about to be punished. They most likely would be more receptive to the idea of preforming a sexual act if the tone of the dialog was more "playful" as opposed to the current brash and abrupt statement. They might even actually enjoy it and the master/mistress would most definitely enjoy it more, "unless they're a sadist", having sex with an at minimum semi-relaxed slave instead of a scared to death tensed up one balling their eyes out. Unless of course the master/mistress is a sadist and gets off on the slaves pain, then it wouldn't matter but imho it would still be more immersive than the current "Ok slave, I'm going to fuck you" option.

sorry i missed that or don't remember it

[Antiope_Apollonia]

2 hours ago, CliftonJD said:

delete the items or don't, still leaves them available at next cell change in the outfit. physically removing it from the outfit would cause the same damage to the bandit tables as adding the naked outfit, but on a broader spectrum of bandits using that outfit. mandate nudity strips those items from the slave at each cell change and i think at each reload too, basically anytime its been discovered that the bandit outfit would re-equip on the slaves

I get all that.  And I can imagine some players preferring how it works currently for one reason or another, hence my suggestion to make it MCM-togglable, but I'd be surprised if it weren't a minority.  But both for roleplaying and practical UX reasons, I think it'd be better to—or at least have the option to—remove the items from the slave's inventory completely when changing cells or reloading instead of merely unequipping them and leaving them in the inventory.  For one, there's some potential exploitation there by "harvesting" a valuable item from a slave's default outfit periodically as it keeps respawning.  More than that, it just leaves her inventory cluttered, making it a bit more tedious to manage the items you do want to be there.  Plus, if she's naked, where's she storing that junk?! ? If there are issues with implementing that, then fair enough—it's not a game-breaking issue—but if it functions mechanically something like how I'm imagining it would, then I'd think it shouldn't be any more difficult to remove the items than to merely unequip them.  

  

2 hours ago, CliftonJD said:

think it would fit best moved to all following slaves

I fully agree.  Non-combat following slaves are the most likely culprits for inconvenience, currently, since they have a bad habit of standing in your face while you're sneaking around.

 

2 hours ago, CliftonJD said:

ok so better role reversal when needed

That's definitely one good reason.

 

3 hours ago, CliftonJD said:

i remember the bug in Le, but i'm guessing the "modern" aspect of mbbf would be that the bug fix never worked in Le. in Se i haven't needed any brawl fixes

Well, "modern" is relative here—it's still from 2016, lol.  Thinking more about it, I think it's likely that SLTR is what necessitated the MBBF.  I switched from EFF to NFF at about the same time that I started using SLTR, so it's at least a confound.  I'll try to test it this weekend and figure out what's going on.  

 

---

 

By the way, did you have any luck with preventing slaves from picking up weapons off the ground?

[Martok73]

8 hours ago, CliftonJD said:

i remember the bug in Le, but i'm guessing the "modern" aspect of mbbf would be that the bug fix never worked in Le. in Se i haven't needed any brawl fixes

I have a couple mods that "require" it to be installed, don't remember which ones off the top of my head, but so far I haven't had the brawl bug happen in SE. I do not use NFF so I know that is not one of the mods I have that need it.

 

9 hours ago, CliftonJD said:

sorry i missed that or don't remember it

That's ok I struggle with remembering what I had for breakfast, or did I eat breakfast? lol. I am assuming tho that you got the jist and understood the brief recap tho right?

[CliftonJD]

20 hours ago, Antiope_Apollonia said:

I get all that.  And I can imagine some players preferring how it works currently for one reason or another, hence my suggestion to make it MCM-togglable, but I'd be surprised if it weren't a minority.  But both for roleplaying and practical UX reasons, I think it'd be better to—or at least have the option to—remove the items from the slave's inventory completely when changing cells or reloading instead of merely unequipping them and leaving them in the inventory. 

you seem to be missing that its first difficult(if not impossible) to remove an item that only exists in outfits and second it wouldn't reward any benefits. if you're looking to modify the slave's outfit to remove those items from the outfit, it would be both easier and more beneficial to apply the naked outfit we already have so atleast you're only effecting that bandit base as opposed to effecting any and all who would be assigned to that outfit you're looking to modify

20 hours ago, Antiope_Apollonia said:

For one, there's some potential exploitation there by "harvesting" a valuable item from a slave's default outfit periodically as it keeps respawning. 

those items can't be harvested by normal means, they only exist in the outfit, no exploit without some external mod to change that

20 hours ago, Antiope_Apollonia said:

More than that, it just leaves her inventory cluttered, making it a bit more tedious to manage the items you do want to be there. 

how so if you wouldn't order pizza for the ghosts in your house, its no different

20 hours ago, Antiope_Apollonia said:

---

 

By the way, did you have any luck with preventing slaves from picking up weapons off the ground?

on that i forgot to pay attention

14 hours ago, Martok73 said:

I have a couple mods that "require" it to be installed, don't remember which ones off the top of my head, but so far I haven't had the brawl bug happen in SE. I do not use NFF so I know that is not one of the mods I have that need it.

 

That's ok I struggle with remembering what I had for breakfast, or did I eat breakfast? lol. I am assuming tho that you got the jist and understood the brief recap tho right?

think so

oh and remind me which of the manor cells you wanted fixed, finally have a save ready to work on it

[Antiope_Apollonia]

20 minutes ago, CliftonJD said:

you seem to be missing that its first difficult(if not impossible) to remove an item that only exists in outfits and second it wouldn't reward any benefits.

I get that part, but it's very possible I could be missing something else, because I don't really understand how your new nudity enforcement mechanic works.  My understanding is that when the vanilla outfit system detects that the slave is not wearing the items specified by the outfit, it tries to equip the slave with those items, and it will spawn new copies of those items if they're not already in the slave's inventory.  My understanding of your nudity enforcement system is that it detects when the vanilla outfit system intervenes as so, and the items are immediately unequipped—or perhaps blocked from being equipped in the first place—so that the items remain in the slave's "backpack" so to speak.  I don't know how your system achieves this, which is likely where the confusion comes in, but I'm not trying to suggest removing the items from the outfit here.  What I'm saying is that, when your system does its thing and prevents the vanilla outfit system from equipping items, it would be better to remove those items from the slave's inventory/"backpack" rather than just leaving them unequipped in her inventory.

 

31 minutes ago, CliftonJD said:

those items can't be harvested by normal means, they only exist in the outfit, no exploit without some external mod to change that

Really?  So I'm definitely missing something about how your new nudity enforcement mechanic works, then.  Previously, if you didn't use the naked outfit option, but you stripped the slave manually just by taking the items from her inventory, then periodically, her inventory would "respawn" when the vanilla outfit system tried to re-equip her.  And that means you can keep taking new copies of those items from her again and again, which can be fairly valuable if she was wearing a Glass Helmet, for instance.  This is what I was proposing to change, but are you saying you've already changed this behaviour?

 

35 minutes ago, CliftonJD said:

how so if you wouldn't order pizza for the ghosts in your house, its no different

Lol.

 

35 minutes ago, CliftonJD said:

on that i forgot to pay attention

So here's a reminder, then! ? 

[CliftonJD]

22 minutes ago, Antiope_Apollonia said:

and it will spawn new copies of those items if they're not already in the slave's inventory. 

no or atleast not a visible form to the player in the slave's inventory. think about the only way to even force those items visible would be to strip the slave or give the slave something else to wear then try to pickpocket the outfit items, aside from pickpocketing those items are never in their inventory

34 minutes ago, Antiope_Apollonia said:

Previously, if you didn't use the naked outfit option, but you stripped the slave manually just by taking the items from her inventory, then periodically, her inventory would "respawn" when the vanilla outfit system tried to re-equip her.  And that means you can keep taking new copies of those items from her again and again, which can be fairly valuable if she was wearing a Glass Helmet, for instance.  This is what I was proposing to change, but are you saying you've already changed this behaviour?

never seen that behavior in pahe, maybe was a dom bug, dunno. in pahe the outfit could appear worn, but not in the inventory, it would still show an empty inventory when all she has is her outfit

i'll have to do some additional testing to see if there's an exploit to pickpocketing a stripped outfit

[TrollAutokill]

24 minutes ago, CliftonJD said:

no or atleast not a visible form to the player in the slave's inventory. think about the only way to even force those items visible would be to strip the slave or give the slave something else to wear then try to pickpocket the outfit items, aside from pickpocketing those items are never in their inventory

never seen that behavior in pahe, maybe was a dom bug, dunno. in pahe the outfit could appear worn, but not in the inventory, it would still show an empty inventory when all she has is her outfit

i'll have to do some additional testing to see if there's an exploit to pickpocketing a stripped outfit

In DoM you can strip actor from their clothes and have them added to the player's inventory (optional). Using this feature with the non naked outfit makes it a powerful cheat, yes. But it's not a bug, just another annoying feature of the outfits...

 

The rule as I understand it is, for unique you can use the naked outfit. For spawned you should not. As a consequence you should not enabled the auto outfit feature for spawned or they will constantly change their outfit to the default one.

 

If this is true and proves to be reliable, should we have that as default in PAHE?

 

I feel I am missing another important point, this can not be so simple. Ah Bethseda...

Edited March 29, 2022 by TrollAutokill

[Antiope_Apollonia]

57 minutes ago, CliftonJD said:

no or atleast not a visible form to the player in the slave's inventory. think about the only way to even force those items visible would be to strip the slave or give the slave something else to wear then try to pickpocket the outfit items, aside from pickpocketing those items are never in their inventory

Hm.  So basically, you're saying there's nothing to remove.  Okay.  That's inconsonant with my experience, but it's been a while since I've played without automatic naked outfit enabled, so maybe I'm misremembering something.  If nothing is placed in the inventory and you can only access the items with pickpocketing—especially if you get the interact with following slaves fixed to not offer pickpocketing—then I guess there isn't anything too important to worry about.  I distinctly remember being frustrated with junk spawning in slaves' inventories when I tried disabling automatic naked outfit in the past, but I guess I'll need to do some more experimentation when I get my new playthrough started this weekend.  (I'm trying to make peace with retiring the current batch of slaves at the minute.  This is definitely the best crop I've had yet, and I'm pretty attached.  I'm going to miss sweet Mindra and shy Griaund and fierce Minerva and great big softie Andrasephona and all the others!  What good girls!  With DoM, slaves are surely the most lifelike NPCs in the game.)  I'm waiting for your solution to let the nudity enforcement permit specific items of one's choosing before I'll be able to move away from the automatic naked outfit entirely, regardless, though.  

 

39 minutes ago, TrollAutokill said:

In DoM you can strip actor from their clothes and have them added to the player inventory (optional). Using this feature with the non naked outfit makes it a powerful cheat, yes. But it's not a bug, just another annoying feature of the outfits...

I'd half forgotten that was a thing.  Mistress's slaves aren't allowed clothes to begin with, so I never have anything to strip, and I never have a use for that feature.  There's an MCM configuration for it to delete the items upon stripping, though, right?  Instead of returning them to the inventory.  Which is what I was getting at here, but maybe I'm just confused and it isn't necessary.  

[Martok73]

4 hours ago, CliftonJD said:

oh and remind me which of the manor cells you wanted fixed, finally have a save ready to work on it

I'm using the original large open empty version and I am using the CC Fishing mod along with the SE Unique Display Room mod from the nexus. The main issue is that when the lakeview manor cell is used along with the cc fishing mod that adds the aquarium room, that is what I believe is causing the occlusion issues. If the CC Fishing mod is not used, there is no occlusion, but if using the fishing mod, the grey wall occlusion occurs. I have not tested the manor cell with the UDR without the fishing mod as I have no idea how to remove or disable CC content once it's installed. So I don't know if the occlusion occurs with the manor cell and the UDR mod or not.

 

Here are copies of the lakeview manor cell esp, along with the Unique Display Room mod and the patch that makes it work with the CC Fishing mod. I have them loaded in this order as well.

 

CC Fishing

pahe_lakeview_manor_cell

Unique Display Room

UDR fishing patch

 

 

pahe_lakeview_manor_cell.espHearthFires - Unique Special Edition Display Room For Vampires-4770-6-0-1592535001.rarudrfishingpatch.esp-59448-1-3-1638867728.7z

 

 

I am really hoping you can figure out what's causing it and are able to fix it. Oh and the navmesh is abit wonky for some reason because npcs won't walk from the cellar entrance into the dungeon and they won't walk into the aquarium room or the display room either. Player can walk anywhere just fine and can go right thru the grey occlusion wall without issue, just can't "see" thru it.

[CliftonJD]

9 hours ago, TrollAutokill said:

In DoM you can strip actor from their clothes and have them added to the player's inventory (optional). Using this feature with the non naked outfit makes it a powerful cheat, yes. But it's not a bug, just another annoying feature of the outfits...

ahh, that makes more sense why she thought an exploit

9 hours ago, TrollAutokill said:

The rule as I understand it is, for unique you can use the naked outfit. For spawned you should not. As a consequence you should not enabled the auto outfit feature for spawned or they will constantly change their outfit to the default one.

 

If this is true and proves to be reliable, should we have that as default in PAHE?

ya, i keep forgetting to add the check for the unique flag

8 hours ago, Antiope_Apollonia said:

I distinctly remember being frustrated with junk spawning in slaves' inventories when I tried disabling automatic naked outfit in the past, but I guess I'll need to do some more experimentation when I get my new playthrough started this weekend. 

your earlier mention of them picking up weapons they'd find is what always happened to me, annoying as hell...hopefully that's fixed now

8 hours ago, Martok73 said:

 

I am really hoping you can figure out what's causing it and are able to fix it. Oh and the navmesh is abit wonky for some reason because npcs won't walk from the cellar entrance into the dungeon and they won't walk into the aquarium room or the display room either. Player can walk anywhere just fine and can go right thru the grey occlusion wall without issue, just can't "see" thru it.

so far i figured the door issue for npc pathing, working the grey area

[Antiope_Apollonia]

4 minutes ago, CliftonJD said:

your earlier mention of them picking up weapons they'd find is what always happened to me, annoying as hell...hopefully that's fixed now

That's awesome if so.  I've always wanted to have a pugilist slave in my squad, and it's never really been practical with the stupid weapon pickups.

[trgdolors]

Request: Besides the earlier requests for the attack/retreat and follow/wait toggle hotkeys, it would be nice to have the ability to put someone INTO the cloning cell. Perhaps in the MCM or as a hotkey?

[Antiope_Apollonia]

39 minutes ago, trgdolors said:

it would be nice to have the ability to put someone INTO the cloning cell.

That doesn't sound very immersive... O_o

 

What's motivating that proposal?  I can't picture a use for such a feature.

Edited March 30, 2022 by Antiope_Apollonia

[Martok73]

14 hours ago, CliftonJD said:

so far i figured the door issue for npc pathing, working the grey area

awesome, yer awesome, in case we haven't told you, we love you and appreciate you thank you

[TrollAutokill]

6 hours ago, trgdolors said:

Request: Besides the earlier requests for the attack/retreat and follow/wait toggle hotkeys, it would be nice to have the ability to put someone INTO the cloning cell. Perhaps in the MCM or as a hotkey?

 

5 hours ago, Antiope_Apollonia said:

That doesn't sound very immersive... O_o

 

What's motivating that proposal?  I can't picture a use for such a feature.

In DoM putting a slave in the bag, actually sends the actor to the clone cell. You could always ask Clifton to add this to PAHE. I didn't finish debugging that part though.

[trgdolors]

Thanks for the replies! My thinking for the "put someone IN the clone cell" option was less about immersion, but rather more of a convenience thing. Just a way to help move npc's around. It seems logical to me to have control over the clone cell. We can get them out, so we should have some control of putting them in. I still think it would be helpful, but I did not realize DoM has that already.

 

Speaking of which, I tested DoM with ESPFE Follower - Eslify facegen and voices and it can be ESL-ified. Has anyone tried that? Is it safe? Some of the other ESP's associated with PAHE can be ESL-ified with that tool, too. And I mean not just the normal ESL methods, but this tool checks certain conditions, then compacts the ESP and ESL flags it if it thinks its safe. It handles the file renaming. I think it is really good, but not foolproof. You can test it without saving.

 

I don't have DoM active as I don't have many ESP slots left. But if I can ESL-ify it I could use DoM's bag method for the clone cell.

Edited March 31, 2022 by trgdolors

[TrollAutokill]

5 hours ago, trgdolors said:

Thanks for the replies! My thinking for the "put someone IN the clone cell" option was less about immersion, but rather more of a convenience thing. Just a way to help move npc's around. It seems logical to me to have control over the clone cell. We can get them out, so we should have some control of putting them in. I still think it would be helpful, but I did not realize DoM has that already.

 

Speaking of which, I tested DoM with ESPFE Follower - Eslify facegen and voices and it can be ESL-ified. Has anyone tried that? Is it safe? Some of the other ESP's associated with PAHE can be ESL-ified with that tool, too. And I mean not just the normal ESL methods, but this tool checks certain conditions, then compacts the ESP and ESL flags it if it thinks its safe. It handles the file renaming. I think it is really good, but not foolproof. You can test it without saving.

 

I don't have DoM active as I don't have many ESP slots left. But if I can ESL-ify it I could use DoM's bag method for the clone cell.

You would get much more than the bag... Maybe too much for your liking. Or maybe more of your liking.

[CliftonJD]

11 hours ago, trgdolors said:

Thanks for the replies! My thinking for the "put someone IN the clone cell" option was less about immersion, but rather more of a convenience thing. Just a way to help move npc's around. It seems logical to me to have control over the clone cell. We can get them out, so we should have some control of putting them in. I still think it would be helpful, but I did not realize DoM has that already.

this would be best for your usage:

• The Bondage House 0.5 by Vykroft
• (forgot that's Le, should be an se version also)

Edited March 31, 2022 by CliftonJD

[CliftonJD]

On 3/29/2022 at 4:48 PM, Martok73 said:

I have no idea how to remove or disable CC content once it's installed. So I don't know if the occlusion occurs with the manor cell and the UDR mod or not.

 

Here are copies of the lakeview manor cell esp, along with the Unique Display Room mod and the patch that makes it work with the CC Fishing mod. I have them loaded in this order as well.

 

CC Fishing

working on display room for now, will need ccbgssse001-fish.esm to check fishing

[CliftonJD]

23 hours ago, Martok73 said:

awesome, yer awesome, in case we haven't told you, we love you and appreciate you thank you

fixed the pathing for the cell expansion and fixed the greywall for cell expansion and unique displays...wasn't able to fix pathing for display rooms:

pahe_lakeview_manor_cell.esp Unique Display Room.esp udrfishingpatch.esp

[Antiope_Apollonia]

Quote

• current sex dialogues updated to inform the script its not punishment sex--this sets the framework in place for the dialogues to know its sex or punishment sex

This doesn't seem to have worked.  I'm still punishing for no reason with consensual sex.

 

Quote

• actor packages and factions should now prevent slaves from dancing to the bard in taverns, except when the slave is sandboxing

Neither does this.  Still got a slave in follower state dancing to a bard.

 

Using version 8.1.2.

Edited April 1, 2022 by Antiope_Apollonia

[CliftonJD]

1 hour ago, Antiope_Apollonia said:

This doesn't seem to have worked.  I'm still punishing for no reason with consensual sex.

ok, punishing for no reason would be a separate issue from the update you quoted. need voice type and dialogue that lead to a no reason punishment

 

1 hour ago, Antiope_Apollonia said:

Neither does this.  Still got a slave in follower state dancing to a bard.

that's what i've been noticing as well, but not sure what to do about it yet. do you know if its all follower slaves or is it just combat slaves. might not make any difference, but i think i might've noticed it seems to work better on sandboxing or parked slaves. just seems while the following slaves are dancing and swinging mugs around, the parked slaves sit there oblivious to any of it

[trgdolors]

18 hours ago, TrollAutokill said:

You would get much more than the bag...

LOL, I actually started the PAH stuff as a non-lethal way to defeat bad guys! A "get punished for evil deeds by doing labor instead of getting killed" thing.