Jump to content

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Lupine00 said:

1) Would be nice, but I don't really know how I would do it. How do I even know you're about to go in? I could know you have gone, so maybe that part can be solved. Some players would see the follower waiting at the entrance a convenience feature though - no stupid follower in the way. Not all of course.

I don't rule this out. it could work.


Triggering this event inside a dungeon is perfectly fine, but now I think that PC can still "cheat" and drag enemies to the follower either he waits inside or outside. I guess I'm just bad at roleplaying and always looking for workarounds :D My character relies on a follower a lot to kill mobs and carry stuff and when he is willingfully doing all of these, it loses the "devious" nature a bit.

Btw, is the event when a follower equips pony gear and tells PC to visit a stable from this mod? If yes, I tried 2 stables (Whiterun and Windhelm) and both times my follower couldn't find a horse. I don't have any special horse mods.

Link to post
9 hours ago, Lupine00 said:

3) NFF will do cash splitting for you, but it's not that great really.

I thought this is a redundant feature, because you aren't getting all the gold, the follower charges you for their help, and if you want them to charge more, or more randomly, DFC already has those features.

 

I like the way SubLola does it more than NFF's method. The follower skims all incoming gold automatically.

 

Might work as an tier addition/alternative to gold control? Follower says "from now I'll hold on to half of your gold" and takes five out ten coins you loot.

 

It feels better than a scarcity mod, because you still get that "ooh, shiny" endorphin rush when you open a container, but then your follower skims off the top. It's a constant reminder of his domination over you. With scarcity mods dungeons are just less exciting because you find less stuff, period.

Link to post

My perspective on switching followers/ familiarity etc. The intention here is not to say "do it this way" but to share my specific use-case and priorities, and to brainstorm a bit in case anything useful comes from it:

  • Sometimes I need to switch/ dismiss followers for debug or narrative reasons and I'd like to be able to do so with minimum hassle (this has already been covered, I'm just including it for completeness).
  • The idea of being trapped and unable to leave is obviously a key part of DFC, and expanding on the way that is implemented is interesting and worthwhile as long as it's clearly communicated in game and configurable (which it sounds like it will be). Layering on additional conditions or requirements can add flavour. Some potential ideas for additional conditions (with no strong suggestion that any one of them are actually GOOD ideas ^_^ ) :
    • "Sorry, only on Mondays or Tuesdays... you'll have to wait a few more days."
    • "You're not ready to make it on your own as long as you're wearing devious devices...."
    • "We're not parting ways until we're in [randomly selected walled city]..."
    • "Sure we can part ways. As a parting gift, here wear this devious device as a souvenir of our good times together..."
    • "When we part ways, we have to do it at one of the standing stones to formalize the ending of our relationship properly." - "Okay, I'm not your follower anymore, bye bye" - "Oh, what is this a tough levelled bandit encounter and you don't have anyone to help you? I sure hope you win or at least don't have harsh defeat mod settings...."
    • "Sure we can part ways. By the way, there's now a bounty on you in this hold for some shit I did but you got blamed for...."
    • "I expect a parting gift. How about [some item which is somewhat expensive and inconvenient, but not impossible to get]. Bring it to me in two hours." (bonus for having the item change from a random list each time the player asks). "If you can't, I'll add debt and you try again tomorrow."
    • "We met [at location], we part at [location]. We have to go back."
    • "At least give me a quick good-bye fuck... or maybe a gang-bang with a few other people..."
    • "Let's play this gambling game that has 1/3 chance that you go, 1/3 chance that I add a bit of debt "for fun", and 1/3 chance you can try again tomorrow..."
  • I'm really keen on the idea of distinguishing between different DFC in the same game. If you add a familiarity stat, that could make a difference. Some ways to potentially use the familiarity stat:
    • Discount on daily debt for high familiarity.
    • Lower (or higher?) rate of boredom accumulation.
    • Lower deal duration.
  • What I REALLY would like is a way to differentiate the DFC personalities of different followers. This could mean trying to keep the current follower because the next one might be worse, but it could also mean working really hard to escape a particularly demanding follower in the hope that the next one is better. It would also add a bit of uncertainty to being sold into DFC slavery and the like. To that end (and this is potentially non-trivial) I propose a few features:
    • For any ON/OFF MCM toggle (especially deal availability, but also things like gold theft after sex and what have you) add a MAYBE option. When you start a DFC relationship, that follower either does or does not use that option but you have to find out through play. If/ when you go to a new follower a new set of MAYBE outcomes are calculated. Maybe your new devious follower will want to impose the maid deal, or maybe they won't... you'll have to play to find out.
    • For anything with numerical ranges (Boredom, Number of Lives, Daily Debt, Deal Duration...) add the option to use a range on a per follower basis. That way one follower may charge less per day, but get bored more easily and so on.
    • This would allow a different feel for different followers in the same game, but it could also add some replay value across multiple games without too much MCM fiddling beyond set-up. A bit of unpredictability can be good that way.

Those are my thoughts, take them as you will :)

 

(and now I want to start a new game to try out the most recent version of DFC... especially since Maer is not DFCing right now and she's a while away from where it would make sense narratively)

Link to post
3 minutes ago, Anunya said:

"Oh, what is this a tough levelled bandit encounter and you don't have anyone to help you? I sure hope you win or at least don't have harsh defeat mod settings...."

 

Ooh. I like the sound of this a lot. Might be a good way to punish dismissing DFs out of walled cities while not hard-locking the possibility.

Link to post
15 hours ago, keitsoru said:

"Hey, you owe me a lot of money, and I'm putting my life on the line, so I'd like a share of what we find in here."

That sounds OK. I'm not against it, but I am trying to give it a ... priority against other features.

 

For me, the gameplay mechanic is "cash scarcity".

 

In terms of play, there's little need to limit the cash supply to a high-debt character with low willpower, as they already have insufficient income, and actively reinforcing that creates an insta-slavery mechanic that shortcuts one of the best bits of the experience: where you're tottering back and forth on the border between your deals being a little humiliating, vs deals that make you into a sex-slave pet who acts as a loot mule for the follower.

 

It adds more "play" if it kicks in when the PC is doing a bit too well rather than already in trouble.

So I guess the cop-out answer to that difference of approach is "configuration options".

 

Most money you get it ultimately from item sales not looted. You aren't in a dungeon - you're in a shop when you get that cash. It's certainly detectable, the question is should it be split? Again ... options ... the player could choose whether splits apply to vendors, or the vendor split could be an escalation.

 

A bigger question for me with splitting is how is it immersive in a dungeon? If you split on every loot, it's weird that you're constantly teleporting cash to your follower. (Yeah, I know, gold control already waves past that, but it's much less frequent).

 

So, for it to be forced, the follower has to forcegreet you, and forcegreets are fragile. Sure, they can be tweaked to try and occur at sensible moments, but they need to be kept relatively sparse or else they will happen at game-breaking times.

 

 

If you can delay handing over the split for a time, maybe a long time, it starts to look a lot like your ordinary debt payments.

This is especially true in gold control, where the player is manipulating your held cash on cell changes. And a high debt character is likely to be in gold control.

 

 

So, while it's possible to put some nice messages and atmosphere around it, and there's potentially a lot of ways for the player to customize the feature, there's a lot of work in it too - and it will always have some amount of risky/annoying forcegreets as part of the immersion.

 

 

You can get a lot of the same effect simply by changing your debt curve, or base daily debt.

That doesn't add a new, sometimes fun, interaction, but it's also zero effort because it's already implemented.

 

 

If what you're really looking for is a "debt accelerator" where low willpower increases daily debt, that's something else again, and there are easier ways to do that than loot splitting.

 

 

Maybe it would be nice to be able to enter gold control simply because you have low willpower, even if your debt isn't high?

Because once you're in gold control, the difference between loot splitting and paying debt is nuanced.

(Splitting is an income divider, while the debt accrues regardless - there is a mechanical difference, I don't dispute it).

 

Eager gold control could be combined with an optional "follower overcharges at low willpower" mechanic, which could also stack with the enslaved penalty, so slaves with low willpower pay back very slowly...

 

Probably most players aren't aware this happens - but if you're enslaved, any debt payments you make are halved.

The difference between reducing the player's income and scaling what they have to pay to reduce debt - without changing the actual debt per day - is mechanically almost the same as a loot split that eats a part of your income - because you can only pay money you earned.

 

I can see that as a single slider - where you set the penalty percentage at zero willpower, and something I could do very quickly.

Combine with a feature that forces you into gold control at low willpower and it gets more interesting.

Those two things also fit nicely with that idea of low-willpower/boredom leading to forced deals "early", before you have the high debt that would normally trigger them.

 

This leads to a triplet of new features:

  • Willpower gated gold control entry at low debt
  • Willpower based payment reduction at any debt level
  • Willpower gated eager forced deal-making

 

Those three could lead to a follower who is a bit more pro-active in terms of pushing you into total servitude.

 

 

I have a new game where I'm testing DFC and just playing the game, and I find that compared to SLTR, it feels very hands off.

 

SLTR is constantly in your face, making sure you do things, setting you disruptive chores to complete, messing with your equipment, and so on.

It feels like "stuff is happening" right from the start, and the requirement to ask for tasks keeps up a feeling of things going on.

 

Bearing in mind the SLTR experience, I think it's good to have some stuff where DFC can act sooner and more aggressively, especially for players who aren't long-term users. Or put another way, new users can feel that "nothing is happening" when they get their first DF.

The DF as patient spider doesn't work for everyone. They want "stuff going on" right away and all the time.

Once you've played weeks of the game, the hands-off approach of DFC can feel very welcome, and playing something else made me appreciate that.

There are times you want one thing, and times you want another.

It's very hard for a mod to deliver both well, and harder still to deliver them at the right times.

 

But... making willpower a lot more important (if you choose) would let players choose a spicier and more immediate way of playing without massive effort.

 

A splitting mechanic still fits somewhere, but feels less urgent than easy high-impact stuff like this.

Link to post
14 hours ago, Vigor said:

Btw, is the event when a follower equips pony gear and tells PC to visit a stable from this mod? If yes, I tried 2 stables (Whiterun and Windhelm) and both times my follower couldn't find a horse. I don't have any special horse mods.

Yes, that is DFC.

 

When you say "couldn't find a horse", do you mean it didn't progress?

Or do you mean it started horse sex, then nothing happened?

 

I know that the horse sex is super-reliable, but the precursor part may still be some old code that won't work if you aren't playing in English.

 

If you can confirm the specifics, I'll look into it ASAP.

 

I looked into this and observed that:

  • The quest should progress even if a horse isn't found, so it's not a blocker.
  • In my version, you only see the message about not finding a horse if there's no sex, and no sex usually occurs because no horse in range.
  • I tested this at Whiterun when I updated it, so I'm reasonably sure it works there. I'll check again.

 

Was there actually a horse present at Whiterun for you?

 

It might be that you don't have a properly set up range value.

Try this in the console please:

show _DFSexScanRadius

 

Also, have you done this game more than once recently?

Link to post
7 hours ago, Anunya said:

in case anything useful comes from it

It's a great list of story-driven consequences or obstacles for dropping a follower.

I love it in principal, but OTOH, I probably wouldn't give a high priority to making the most interesting part of the mod be when you try and dismiss a follower.

One one hand, if it stopped you being able to conveniently dismiss a follower, some players would both disable it AND complain bitterly that they can't enjoy the feature.

On the other hand, players who are stuck with their follower don't get to experience it.

 

And yet, I agree this sort of thing should be what happens - to the point where "hard gating" of follower dismissal shouldn't be a thing.

 

It would be so much nicer if your options were determined by a combination of your stats (willpower, debt, credit, boredom, expected deals, past enslavements, worn devices, current cash, etc), and the follower "personality", along with a hearty dose of unexpected randomness.

 

That's how it should be.

 

Also, follower personality differentiation was a huge topic last year, but in 2020 things hit July and I did literally nothing until 2021.

 

 

Being realistic, the DF code base is a terrible place to try and make these kinds of changes.

If these things are to happen the "best" way, there needs to be a DFC 3, rebuilt from scratch.

 

This year's roadmap will easily fill the year - certainly it won't all get done - and DFC3 is not on that map.

I won't say there's no possibility for a DFC3, but it sure isn't on my current TODO list.

 

 

 

As well as being a list of neat dismissal scenarios, there are some gameplay points that resonate strongly for me:

 

7 hours ago, Anunya said:

This could mean trying to keep the current follower because the next one might be worse, but it could also mean working really hard to escape a particularly demanding follower in the hope that the next one is better.

This is a big opportunity. Yes. SD+ actually has this sort of thing, and has since ... years anyway. But it doesn't work as well as might be hoped.

 

 

Also, the general approach to deeper follower differentiation suggested is close to what I was thinking of.

Like "Chaos Mode" but for other options.

 

Right now, the options available don't say much about the follower.

But with the willpower concepts being floated just above, it could work better.

 

Also, I could add (very quickly) a feature so that chaos mode only changes on follower recruitment.

I think I said I'd do this before, and forgot about it... I'll put it in the roadmap so I don't forget.

Chaos Mode as is, is an underused feature, and I highly recommend it - particularly if you use it selectively and pin the range for stuff you don't want to change.

 

For now, I think the first step to follower personalities is still "default deal paths", where certain personalities offer their preferred deals in a given order.

 

Putting other options under personality control is much more work, and poses MCM problems. It's not really feasible to offer a choice about what options are taken away from you, because that's so complicated to do in the MCM, it would confuse a lot of players and we'd have a SexLab Disparity MCM that scares people away, or that they never find features in. For the pure toggles, replacing with a drop-down and the "maybe" approach can work. It won't become clear how much can be done until I go to implement it I expect.

 

The consequence is that the feature would be very much "how I made it" and some people won't like that  (possibly) "follower steals gold" will no longer something they can choose without disabling the personality feature completely.

 

This isn't a reason not to do it, but I do want to set expectations :) 

Link to post
On 3/11/2021 at 5:10 PM, Lupine00 said:

Is this with the "real" 2.13.4 ?

 

If so, what was the exact dialog your character used, and what was the dialog that NPCs responded to you with?

 

But even with older (recent) versions, there are mechanics to prevent this scenario, and I went over them again yesterday and saw no sign of them being broken except in the one case where you could get a lot of sex events.

 

I use the last version 2.13.4

 

It's was my first deaI. I was trying to talk at my second follower at Whiterun inside the Drunken Huntsman.

 

My PC say something like that ( I... i am .. a slut)

 

Follower (Playing daring game.)

 

I wait few second and try again and it do it again and again.... Until i was tired and i speak again with the Devious Follower which is my husband too. Next I accept another deal (Got the anal plug deal)

 

Then i spoke again at my second follower(  I don't know if it is important but She is my mistress with Submissive Lola) and after 7 at 10 other try i did receive the normal dialogue.

 

Just before i could  have a normal dialogue the Follower said (I can see that)

 

I did try to speak to other fellow but the same thing happen again.

Link to post

  

3 hours ago, lcewolf said:

I use the last version 2.13.4

Does it actually read 2.13.4 on the stats page when you open up the MCM?

 

 

3 hours ago, lcewolf said:

I did try to speak to other fellow but the same thing happen again.

I can't reproduce anything like this. I went through all the dialogs over and over.

 

All I can think is that you keep terminating the dialogs before they've finished and the end scripts get skipped.

 

I did find an issue if you refuse to say the words, but it still won't loop like that.

I've also moved the script to the start of the dialog, so people who escape out of it should get proper script behavior.

 

All I can suggest is pay off that deal, then disable it.

See if it's resolved in next update or a new game.

Link to post
6 hours ago, Lupine00 said:

I know that the horse sex is super-reliable, but the precursor part may still be some old code that won't work if you aren't playing in English.

 

I guess it's the reason. My Skyrim only has english voices. I wish I could change all texts to english without reinstall, because I prefer to use mods in english anyway since translations are usually unreliable, and now I see it can even break mechanics too :<

Link to post
2 hours ago, Vigor said:

I guess it's the reason

If you have latest DFC, it shouldn't be though. I checked, and that old code is gone.

So, it could be the zero radius thing.

Did you check that? (See my earlier response).

 

The new code decides if something is a horse by checking its race. Horses are important enough to get a race of their own, apparently.

Link to post

It's been a while since I used DF and last night I recruited Bruiser from Troubles of Heroine. I couldn't dismiss him with dialog because the system would always underpay by 1 gold so I would always be in debt to him. On a fresh new game. Not sure what's going on, tbh. In the end I dismissed him with debug to remove follower.

Link to post

Unrelated: a long time ago I read a post of yours debating making two mods: one where the PC is actually the supporting character and I think a ryona mod. How are they coming along or has work on them even started at all?

Link to post
1 hour ago, user9120975435 said:

I couldn't dismiss him with dialog because the system would always underpay by 1 gold so I would always be in debt to him.

That means you didn't use the "follower will be dismissable" dialog.

You probably had too low a willpower to leave Bruiser.

It's supposed to work like that...

 

And Bruiser is very charismatic.

Link to post

@Lupine00 Spent some time trying to figure this out and I'm reasonably confident I found the issue.  I'm pretty sure the PetProject mod was causing some sort of conflict.  It ended up spazzing out on me and I had to do a full reinstall, but this is the first playthough i'm doing without it, and with DFC and I'm suddenly not having any issues (had never seen the "lets work it out" dialogue in a bunch of different playthroughs).

 

All's good at this point, but wanted to make sure I at least reported back

Link to post

The Devious Follower life...

Spoiler

943091374_enb2021_03_1401_21_41_58-welcome-to-riverwood.thumb.jpg.b185adcb787d7f8d18c916a69475b35b.jpg

Spot the "follower".

 

Wait here. I have important alchemy to do!

Spoiler

1627824443_enb2021_03_1401_27_45_86-riverwood-know-your-place-wide-crop.thumb.jpg.e4420c73d4b56f8a65d30d6d9ada216c.jpg

 

What is it? It better be important this time, I'm busy...

Spoiler

2133792763_enb2021_03_1300_39_06_37-eating-bread-in-windhelm-crop.thumb.jpg.fca52eff46ef2ffa72747ae275da1f94.jpg

 

Just two travelling companions, searching for adventure...

Spoiler

28184014_enb2021_03_1301_47_16_11-shors-stone-forge.thumb.jpg.e1ceb13be09d6038b96ab5ce0f7238d3.jpg

 

Nice weather this time of year sir!

Spoiler

1187404591_enb2021_03_1400_57_36_68-arriving-Helgen-Thalmor-on-the-road.thumb.jpg.e3ee0ed8e091e0574931c2db8cd12539.jpg

 

Sometimes it doesn't feel like you're really my friend at all...

Spoiler

891187085_enb2021_03_1401_00_53_66-chair-crop.thumb.jpg.a8d981ec25162e3a738e5010cc11a850.jpg

 

Link to post
17 minutes ago, kylexf said:

I'm pretty sure the PetProject mod was causing some sort of conflict.

I used PP before with DFC and in that case it didn't block my dialog. But you never know...

 

13 hours ago, lcewolf said:

My PC say something like that ( I... i am .. a slut)

I can see a mild issue on my main PC with current release, but I don't see it on the latest dev test.

 

You always get the three allowed repetitions of the slut event one after another.

At most three times, then a break.

This is clearly caused by some issue with the random value condition in the dialog not doing what might be hoped.

 

Personally, I find that always saying the same thing is the worst part of it. It's not the repetition at one time, it's that it's the same dialog day after day unless your willpower shifts.

I have to fix that aspect of it, because it's just ... not fun to play.

 

I will probably release a version that just has the MCM for the dismiss, and some dialog improvements for slut deal within a day or two.

 

License support is sort of ... I don't know ... I wrote the dialog and conditions for it ... that's fine ... but I'm unsure that SLS will respect follower licenses, which makes the whole thing kind of pointless. Maybe I'll try to get it at least to proof of concept, but I'm thinking it won't be worth investing the effort to polish it up properly.

 

I might be better off spending time on something else and just disabling licenses in SLS. So many things I need to do, no point putting in effort where it won't get a result.

Link to post
1 hour ago, Lupine00 said:

I used PP before with DFC and in that case it didn't block my dialog. But you never know...

 

I can see a mild issue on my main PC with current release, but I don't see it on the latest dev test.

 

You always get the three allowed repetitions of the slut event one after another.

At most three times, then a break.

This is clearly caused by some issue with the random value condition in the dialog not doing what might be hoped.

 

Personally, I find that always saying the same thing is the worst part of it. It's not the repetition at one time, it's that it's the same dialog day after day unless your willpower shifts.

I have to fix that aspect of it, because it's just ... not fun to play.

 

I will probably release a version that just has the MCM for the dismiss, and some dialog improvements for slut deal within a day or two.

 

License support is sort of ... I don't know ... I wrote the dialog and conditions for it ... that's fine ... but I'm unsure that SLS will respect follower licenses, which makes the whole thing kind of pointless. Maybe I'll try to get it at least to proof of concept, but I'm thinking it won't be worth investing the effort to polish it up properly.

 

I might be better off spending time on something else and just disabling licenses in SLS. So many things I need to do, no point putting in effort where it won't get a result.

SLS has a player centered option. You're right, it would be nice if you could make the license apply to the follower too, but even if you can't, having the Devious Follower force that debt of paying for the PC's licenses is still enough, imo. The premise, at least purely from what the mod presents, is that the PC is paying the follower to be their extra pair of hands, and in the case of SLS, probably to be an extra body to get them out of the city. How can the follower do their job if they literally have to do everything for you? That's the rationale I'd approach it with. Not only that, but depending how the player configures SLS, the licenses for the PC, on their own, are potentially a huge gold sink. Worst case you could do a player-centered version for now, and figure out the party-wide version later.

Link to post
10 hours ago, keitsoru said:

SLS has a player centered option.

The issue is that the player centered option - which claims to make it as if followers are always licensed (but) separately from the PC - doesn't work.

The followers are still searched, and their critical equipment is removed.

Their weapons, ammunition, armor, and enchanted clothes are taken, reliably and reproducibly.

I know this from testing the license integration feature...

 

SLS leaves only items that are equipped, but that isn't enough to ensure your follower doesn't have their stuff taken.

It also contradicts the supposed behavior of the mode, where the follower is supposed to be fully licensed but is clearly still treated according to player licenses, just ... differently. The only difference being (as far as I can see) is that equipped items are left in place.

 

Clothes and armor can get removed by SexLab, and if not replaced for some reason, won't be replaced until combat starts.

Weapons get removed for all kinds of reasons, including ammo hiders etc, and again, won't be equipped until combat starts.

 

I have been asking for SLS to support a mode where followers are never checked at all since the license feature was introduced.

 

Monoman refuses* it, based on ... reasons ... but I believe players need this option to work around issues an anti-smuggling mechanic in SLS that can never work reliably, and those that don't want it can always not enable that option.

 

Players enable the licenses because they want them, so they will only enable a loophole if they have no choice. I don't believe denying the simple loophole of disabling license checks on followers entirely breaks licenses; it should be a player choice.

 

Unless this is changed, DFs who purport to help with your licenses will always be problematic - I'm not saying totally broken, but it can certainly be randomly broken. You're paying a DF who is supposedly your assigned escort, and they can't even fight because they have no weapons or armor! It's a bit annoying.

 

But ... if your follower successfully keeps you licensed ... ironically it will mitigate the SLS bug feature, because you'll be licensed, and thus the checks won't occur.

Of course there are situations where you might not be licensed, even if the follower is handling them.

The most obvious is where you stay away from a city longer than the license duration.

I could simply ignore that and license you anyway, but it seems like it would be more fun if I didn't.

 

 

* As I understand it, he recognizes the problem, at least in part, but he won't add an option to never search followers. Also, because this is bound to "anti-smuggle" logic, I suspect it impacts male followers too, but I haven't tested that yet. If doesn't impact males, I think it would significantly undermine the argument that the behavior should never be disabled, but at least it would give you a workaround.

Link to post
44 minutes ago, Lupine00 said:

The issue is that the player centered option - which claims to make it as if followers are always licensed (but) separately from the PC - doesn't work.

The followers are still searched, and their critical equipment is removed.

Their weapons, ammunition, armor, and enchanted clothes are taken, reliably and reproducibly.

I know this from testing the license integration feature...

 

SLS leaves only items that are equipped, but that isn't enough to ensure your follower doesn't have their stuff taken.

It also contradicts the supposed behavior of the mode, where the follower is supposed to be fully licensed but is clearly still treated according to player licenses, just ... differently. The only difference being (as far as I can see) is that equipped items are left in place.

 

Clothes and armor can get removed by SexLab, and if not replaced for some reason, won't be replaced until combat starts.

Weapons get removed for all kinds of reasons, including ammo hiders etc, and again, won't be equipped until combat starts.

 

I have been asking for SLS to support a mode where followers are never checked at all since the license feature was introduced.

 

Monoman refuses* it, based on ... reasons ... but I believe players need this option to work around issues an anti-smuggling mechanic in SLS that can never work reliably, and those that don't want it can always not enable that option.

 

Players enable the licenses because they want them, so they will only enable a loophole if they have no choice. I don't believe denying the simple loophole of disabling license checks on followers entirely breaks licenses; it should be a player choice.

 

Unless this is changed, DFs who purport to help with your licenses will always be problematic - I'm not saying totally broken, but it can certainly be randomly broken. You're paying a DF who is supposedly your assigned escort, and they can't even fight because they have no weapons or armor! It's a bit annoying.

 

But ... if your follower successfully keeps you licensed ... ironically it will mitigate the SLS bug, because you'll be licensed, and thus the checks won't occur.

Of course there are situations where you might not be licensed, even if the follower is handling them.

The most obvious is where you stay away from a city longer than the license duration.

I could simply ignore than and license you anyway, but it seems like it would be more fun if I didn't.

 

 

* as I understand it, he recognizes the bug, but he won't add an option to never search followers. Also, because this is bound to "anti-smuggle" logic, I suspect it impacts male followers too, but I haven't tested that yet. If not, I think it would completely undermine the argument that the behavior should never be disabled, but at least it would give you a workaround.

That's odd. I feel like I've successfully given my follower contraband before, unlicensed, and not had it taken. Maybe I'm misremembering, though.

 

Would Monoman allow you to create and post a fix? If so, that would solve the problem, and as long as you aren't reproducing the entire mod, it potentially wouldn't be that much added to the plate.

Link to post
1 hour ago, keitsoru said:

Would Monoman allow you to create and post a fix? If so, that would solve the problem, and as long as you aren't reproducing the entire mod, it potentially wouldn't be that much added to the plate.

I'm not sure where we are on deny ... allow ... prefer.

I sort of did offer to create one, and the answer was ... crickets ... interpret how you will.

 

I probably can't do it right without making ESP edits, and that's not so easily organized.

I'd also need to rewrite the refuse contraband check code so that works rigorously instead of just guessing, if it's to be properly fixed.

It is probably possible to create a hack that lets a mod disable checking on followers without any ESP edits, but the give contraband check would still be unreliable.

 

 

It would be a lot of effort to make a fully-featured solution that goes beyond simply disabling checks on followers, so on reflection I don't want to do that anyway.

I could be working on features that deliver immediate value in DF instead of solving an SLS problem in a way that the author may not prefer.

 

In practice, if the follower ensures you are licensed nearly all of the time, you won't have a confiscation issue anyway, so it's a bit of a niche case.

Sometimes you will lose your licenses due to a mishap, and then it will show up.

 

I think the correct approach is for people to report the bug to Monoman if it really troubles them, and he can fix it how he likes, or not at all.

 

 

The DF could have a lot of fun taking licenses away from the player (rather than just providing them), but if that results in the DF getting robbed by enforcers it's not a good feature.

I could do some things there, but it is still evolving.

 

Like every other feature, just getting in a basic version of it is probably not so hard. Polishing it up and having it work nicely and mostly reliably is another thing entirely.

Link to post
17 minutes ago, Lupine00 said:

I'm not sure where we are on deny ... allow ... prefer.

I sort of did offer to create one, and the answer was ... crickets ... interpret how you will.

 

I probably can't do it right without making ESP edits, and that's not so easily organized.

I'd also need to rewrite the refuse contraband check code so that works rigorously instead of just guessing, if it's to be properly fixed.

It is probably possible to create a hack that lets a mod disable checking on followers without any ESP edits, but the give contraband check would still be unreliable.

 

 

It would be a lot of effort to make a fully-featured solution that goes beyond simply disabling checks on followers, so on reflection I don't want to do that anyway.

I could be working on features that deliver immediate value in DF instead of solving an SLS problem in a way that the author may not prefer.

 

In practice, if the follower ensures you are licensed nearly all of the time, you won't have a confiscation issue anyway, so it's a bit of a niche case.

Sometimes you will lose your licenses due to a mishap, and then it will show up.

 

I think the correct approach is for people to report the bug to Monoman if it really troubles them, and he can fix it how he likes, or not at all.

 

 

The DF could have a lot of fun taking licenses away from the player (rather than just providing them), but if that results in the DF getting robbed by enforcers it's not a good feature.

I could do some things there, but it is still evolving.

 

Like every other feature, just getting in a basic version of it is probably not so hard. Polishing it up and having it work nicely and mostly reliably is another thing entirely.

That's fair. From what I did see on the SLS thread, he did appear to clarify he would be willing to add the setting... At some point... In the far off future.

 

One would think if he's so burnt out, he would allow someone to step up and work on SLS in the interim. It ls becoming a big name mod at this point, and it's a shame to see mod authors who want to support its features unable to because, well, "muh muse".

Link to post
12 hours ago, Lupine00 said:

I used PP before with DFC and in that case it didn't block my dialog. But you never know...

 

I can see a mild issue on my main PC with current release, but I don't see it on the latest dev test.

 

You always get the three allowed repetitions of the slut event one after another.

At most three times, then a break.

This is clearly caused by some issue with the random value condition in the dialog not doing what might be hoped.

 

Personally, I find that always saying the same thing is the worst part of it. It's not the repetition at one time, it's that it's the same dialog day after day unless your willpower shifts.

I have to fix that aspect of it, because it's just ... not fun to play.

 

I will probably release a version that just has the MCM for the dismiss, and some dialog improvements for slut deal within a day or two.

 

License support is sort of ... I don't know ... I wrote the dialog and conditions for it ... that's fine ... but I'm unsure that SLS will respect follower licenses, which makes the whole thing kind of pointless. Maybe I'll try to get it at least to proof of concept, but I'm thinking it won't be worth investing the effort to polish it up properly.

 

I might be better off spending time on something else and just disabling licenses in SLS. So many things I need to do, no point putting in effort where it won't get a result.

I just load a previous game and try again and i don't have or find any bug like before.  It's stop after three time now.

 

I try it twice and i work fine. I was probably unlucky.

 

Thank you for helping me @Lupine00 and keeping this mod alive.

 

 

Link to post
36 minutes ago, keitsoru said:

One would think if he's so burnt out, he would allow someone to step up and work on SLS in the interim.

In his defense, that may misapprehend or misrepresent the situation.

 

 

Though this is at a tangent in some ways...

 

Some people probably find the existing situation with DFC very boring.

From their perspective, it's mostly bug fixes, and some of those are taking iteration after iteration to work through.

They aren't seeing new features and games that they want.

 

Lozeak was feature-first, and he would add new stuff that got people excited.

Those bored people would much rather have Lozeak still making DF.

 

But all those bugs that sent you crazy and made your game mostly unplayable get glossed over in the nostalgia.

What is remembered are the few high-points where it all came together and it was awesome.

 

Meanwhile, I'm still plugging away at making "I'm a slut..." into a feature that doesn't bore and infuriate everyone that gets that deal...

...and the LDC is still a big TODO item on my list.

 

And about 20% of the time I "fix" something it gets worse, or still not fixed, so it's not like it's easy to make nice things.

 

 

The bored people maybe preferred it when DFC was kind of fiddly to use, and you were in the MCM or the console every five minutes, tweaking a cost, or fixing something stuck, or repeating, or unfair, or not happening at all.

 

That sort of thing at least puts the mod in the center of your attention space.

 

 

As it is, you can often install it, and not notice much beyond "Your follower added some debt" and then you pay up, and it's fine... for a long time... until it isn't.

 

People want a mod that is changing their game all the time. That's not easy to do and still be able to play the vanilla Skyrim stuff.

 

Last night I was playing and the innkeeper gave my PC a new outfit for whoring.

I put it on, and the follower fined me for not wearing my whore armor.

 

Bug? Feature? Fun? Annoyance?

I felt all of those things.

I had agreed to wear the whore armor, hadn't I? So why should I be surprised when that was enforced.

But DFC should have known that the new outfit was also whorish, right?

And RP should have recognized my whore armor.

And I could flag the whore armor as an outfit in RP, so that was my mistake.

And I maybe DFC should treat sufficiently whorish outfits as "naked" and let them slide, which it could. But maybe it shouldn't do that?

 

One tiny feature. One little experience. So much to unpack.

Link to post
16 minutes ago, lcewolf said:

I try it twice and i work fine. I was probably unlucky.

I find that Skyrim dialog conditions are the most brittle and time wasting thing I work with.

They are so unreliable, and what  happens when you update into an existing save is ... not obvious ... sometimes you can overwrite conditions and sometimes you can't.

I see conflicting results for simple tests.

 

The conditions are all in the INFO record, so they should come as a lump, and they do when you merge unless you do something special.

But even adding extra conditions on the end doesn't work reliably.

So I make completely new dialogs INFOs and put conditions on the end of old ones to lock them out, and the old ones still show up.

 

I wasted most of yesterday on trying to get a handle on it. Still no wiser.

 

Then you have conditions that should vary from test to test, but don't. Like the random percent, or checks against quest properties.

I've even had checks against a simple global value not update for a while, despite seeing the new value in the console, and then after a while ... maybe a few more seconds ... they work as expected.

Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...