Devious Followers - Continued

[Vigor]

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 :<

[Lupine00]

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.

[user9120975435]

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.

[user9120975435]

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?

[Lupine00]

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.

[kylexf]

@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

[Lupine00]

The Devious Follower life...

Spoiler

Spot the "follower".

 

Wait here. I have important alchemy to do!

Spoiler

 

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

Spoiler

 

Just two travelling companions, searching for adventure...

Spoiler

 

Nice weather this time of year sir!

Spoiler

 

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

Spoiler

 

[Lupine00]

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.

[keitsoru]

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.

[Lupine00]

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.

[keitsoru]

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.

[Lupine00]

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.

[keitsoru]

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".

[lcewolf]

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.

 

 

[Lupine00]

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.

[Lupine00]

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.

[Texmarker]

8 hours ago, Lupine00 said:

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.

 

After playing with mods for years, i much prefer fixes over new features. A small well performing mod gives you much more fun than a constantly growing abomination where nothing works beyond a superficial glance.

[Seeker999]

Been following the posts for the past couple of days and have some thoughts. Thinking - a dangerous thing I sometimes do ?

 

Games and Boredom and Willpower
 

Spoiler

 

I've seen a number of different ideas. You're right, boredom is an under-utilized stat. What if you have a Boredom game? Here's what I'm thinking:

You're building up your crafting stats or just traveling around, talking to people, whatever. No fights. No deals. Nothing for your follower to do. Maybe you've made them wait. Instead of your DF expecting more deals when they're bored, they say, "Hey, you're boring me to tears, babe. Let's play a little game. We'll roll the dice 3x's and see what happens. Maybe you'll get money, maybe you'll owe me money, maybe you'll get keys, maybe something else."

1st roll 6, 2nd roll 5, 3rd roll 2.

"652, that means a hobble dress for you. Let me help you with that." (In case you have shackles or something on and can't put it on yourself). "Looking good, pet. Don't worry, you can take it off in 15 hours." Any of the devices enabled can be used like they are in the modular deals, but they are timed.

P.S. I like hobble dresses. Would love to see them in a deal or even as optional whore armor.

or

"153, it's your lucky day, you get gold!" "You owe me some money, so I'll take that and give you the rest." or "Maybe I'll have better luck next time."  [the amount is a percentage of the current daily debt]

"255, ooh, a dare. Here's what you have to do: You have to walk up to 3 people [non-followers, non- combatants (obviously)] and say, 'I've been a bad, bad girl. Naughty girls like me need a good spanking. Will you punish me?'" It doesn't matter if the npc does so or not, asking is the important thing. Willpower/arousal/morality/devices can determine whether the npc agrees to 'punish' you.

 

The higher the debt and/or the lower the willpower can influence the type of device and time worn, or the severity of dare.  You get the idea.

 

I like the idea of a bad reputation meaning your next DF immediately takes payment in advance, or adds 2 days to your starting contract, or forces you into a deal (or maybe 2 if your willpower is < 5).

 

Dismissal ... I know, I know, but...
 

Spoiler

 

I'm sure you're tired of talking about it. I'm just wondering if there isn't an easier way to achieve your goal. As I understand what you were saying, your reasons had a lot to do with SLS. I don't use it, I tried it, just not my cup of java. However, if you don't want your DF to be immediately dismissable - and I totally get that - instead of doing all the work to set up location 'dismiss' zones, why not adjust the minimum contract slider? Right now, I can say the minimum contract duration is 0 days.

If you change the slider to a minimum value of even 1 day, then you can't hire them in Candlehearth Hall and then immediately fire them at the Windhelm Stables. I would even say 2 days is a good minimum. People will always have the debug/reset feature if that's what they want/need to do.

For the record, I'm glad that, if you keep the feature, it will be toggleable (try saying that 3x fast!). Followers can't follow you everywhere in vanilla Skyrim. And I actually have to dismiss a follower before I can follow Serana into Castle Volkhar to find Mommy Dearest. Not just ask them to wait, but to dismiss - never tried asking them to wait in Solitude, though. Wonder if that would even work? But I digress.

My point is that I would either have to 1) go there, or near the jetty, first so I can dismiss my DF and fast travel; 2) Dismiss them and slow travel w/o their assistance; or 3) Pause DFC, dismiss my follower, and later rehire them and maybe reset DFC entirely.

Just a thought.

 

FWIW, I totally agree with your approach of bugs first, features second. And I appreciate your patience in dealing with the hoi polloi, of which I am a long-standing member.

 

 

[Anunya]

On 3/12/2021 at 7:01 PM, Lupine00 said:

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

 

...

 

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

 

I think there's definitely some mileage that could be had from "Chaos Mode" but for other options.

 

In any case, thanks for listening and responding. My expectations will remain at a realistic level... and realistically, I'm sure I'll enjoy whichever features you prioritize to implement or polish

[Xiaron]

12 hours ago, Lupine00 said:

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.

Considering you're pretty familiar with SLS, would the method for device selection from that work for DFC? No need to reinvent anything if you get permission to use that code, and it's also user friendly on the player's end which is a nice bonus. 

 

12 hours ago, Lupine00 said:

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?

Letting people have the option to choose whore armor options in game by keyword might be easier than the custom folder setup now? Not that the current method is difficult, but making it an in game option would be a way to increase variety of outfits possibly instead of locking into one outfit per armor type. At least there's a handy feature in SLAX that lets you flag outfits as naked or slooty?  

[Deanevea]

Great Mod

 

I installed the DF Spank SLAL mini-pack and ran FNIS. When I started the game, all but the player  were in T-Pose. Help please.

[shiagwen]

anybody else has the problem " follower interrupts and convince them to fuck her slave "  interupting every dialogue and found a way to stop it ? i didnt found it in the ck.

the idea is really good but it needs a cooldown, not breaking the game by stop every , and i mean every, dialogue.

[Buridan]

16 hours ago, Lupine00 said:

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.

 

For what it's worth, I appreciate your approach to DFC.

 

One thing that undercut the experience quite a bit in earlier versions of DF was having to go into the MCM all the time to tweak settings, which really undermined the illusion of the follower's creeping dominance over you. Swapping over to the new scaling system last year probably wasn't very exciting for many people, but never having to touch the debt sliders after the start of a game has improved the core Devious Followers experience for me immensely.

 

In an alternate world where priority was given to shiny new features over making sure core features work really well, DFC would probably be yet another LL mod I rotate in and out periodically instead of being a perennial fixture of my load order.

[Lupine00]

6 hours ago, Deanevea said:

When I started the game, all but the player  were in T-Pose. Help please.

This is a straightforward mod-manager vs FNIS issue.

I'm guessing you have MO?

If you have Vortex you need to ask someone else  

 

First, make sure that you configure and start FNIS as a MO tool so that FNIS can see your 'final' file structure that you'll use when you run the game.

 

If it's MO, you should set your FNIS up to use the "File Redirection" feature:

Spoiler

 

But just ticking that box to turn it on doesn't do much unless you configure it first.

 

From the FNIS download page on Nexus:

Spoiler

FNIS Vortex/MO support (profiles), FNIS.ini

FNIS supports Vortex and MO with several features. All features use parameters either from the FNIS.ini file, or as command line parameters when used from the command line. See also FNIS.ini0 in your FNIS Behaviors download.

File Redirection. This allows you to redirect all relevant FNIS generated files into a folder outside Skyrim\Data (to support Vortex/MO profiles). It includes all files that change the Skyrim animation functionality. FNIS temporary files and logs will still be written to the regular places (under data\tools\GenerateFNIS_for_Users). To use this functionality, the following parameter needs to be defined (FNIS.ini, or command line)

• RedirectFiles=<folder outside of Skyrim\Data> e.g. RedirectFiles=D:\FNIS_Redirect

To activate File Redirection, you need to set the patch for "File Redirection (Vortex/MO profiles support)". If you start FNIS from command line, this patch is automatically implied. To see how this can be used together with your actual mod manager, refer to your mod manager's documentation.
Start FNIS from command line (done by Vortex, or from a user defined .bat file (not possible whith "virtual install"!). The commandline has the following format

• <FNIS_path>\GenerateFNISforUsers <FNIS_ini_parameters> e.g C:\Steam\Steamapps\common\Skyrim\tools\GenerateFNIS_for_Users\GenerateFNISforUsers InstantExecute=1 PSCD=0

The <FNIS_ini_parameters> are the same that can be specified in the FNIS.ini file. (see FNIS.ini0)
FNIS execution without GUI (FNIS window). FNIS can be started without opening the FNIS window. The parameters (patches) are the same as in the last FNIS run.The FNIS window will only pop up if FNIS has to report error or warnings. This execution mode is activated with the following parameter (FNIS.ini, or command line)

• InstantExecute=1

When you use this feature manually (not via Vortex), it is recommended that you use it only from a .bat file (and not for example by double-clicking from the Explorer). Because otherwise you will not see when FNIS is done.
IMPORTANT Notes:

• All possible parameters are listed and explained in Skyrim\Data\FNIS.ini0. Empty lines, and lines starting with ' (apostrophe) are ignored
• To take effect, this file (FNIS.ini0) has to be copied MANUALLY to Skyrim\Data\FNIS.ini.
• Vortex, MO and NMM Virtual Install users: FNIS.ini has to go to "real" SKYRIM\Data (NOT inside the virtual mod folders!)

 

I've highlighted the important line here.

FNIS has an example ini files FNIS.ini0

You need to copy this example to FNIS.ini somewhere FNIS will see it when you start FNIS.

The ini should be in the 'real' root of your Data directory, as it's what the instructions on the FNIS page recommend - and I have no need to do otherwise.

 

You need to customize this INI file. Leaving the example unedited probably won't work well for you.

Configure the path where you want FNIS to send its output.

Pick somewhere safe, outside of your Skyrim file tree.

 

Let's say you have your MO in "Y:\MO" and your Skyrim in "Y:\SteamLib\steamapps\common\Skyrim", the putting the output in "Y:\SkyrimTools\FNIS-Output" would be a sensible kind of place.

 

After you've run FNIS, and are happy it succeeded, you can open the directory containing the mod you made for your FNIS output before.

Delete everything.

Cut and paste everything from Y:\SkyrimTools\FNIS-Output to that mod's folder.

Refresh the "Data" tab in MO.

Go to your overwrite folder and delete all the junk that FNIS left there.

 

 

Why go through all this?

1) Why not generate the FNIS output straight into the MO mod folder?

     You can do that, but you need to make sure you clean it out first before running FNIS.

     Old FNIS data can interfere with the process otherwise.

     It's easy to forget and create garbage. While if you always cut+paste results from your output dir, you know it's always empty when you start.

 

2) Why bother with file redirection. You can generate the FNIS output into Overwrite can't you?

      This triggers a long standing issue with how FNIS and MO interact, causing FNIS to overwrite part of the FNIS install destructively.

      Definitely avoid.

 

And a general tip: if you make a new mod for your FNIS output, make sure that you enable it, and that you disable any other FNIS output mods you have in your MO list. Put your FNIS output waaay down at the bottom of your left-pane. The only thing I have after my FNIS output is stuff like SKSE json files.

[Lupine00]

5 hours ago, shiagwen said:

anybody else has the problem " follower interrupts and convince them to fuck her slave "  interupting every dialogue and found a way to stop it ? i didnt found it in the ck.

the idea is really good but it needs a cooldown, not breaking the game by stop every , and i mean every, dialogue.

One person has reported it.

If you read back through this page, and maybe the previous one, you'll see that.

 

Their problem was save specific.

 

It's not a general bug, but I can imagine that it could occur in an updated game for some people, because updating dialogs mid-save is unreliable.

(See my recent post on that).

 

You should be able to stop it for a specific conversation by doing this in the console:

 

Spoiler

 

set _DFSlutCount to 4.0

 

If that doesn't stop it immediately, your dialogs are definitely corrupt in the save.

In that case, see below...

 

 

 

For a more permanent fix...

Spoiler

 

Console yourself cash to pay off the deal.

Pay off the deal.

Disable the classic slut deal by setting its maximum stage to zero.

Ask for a new deal.

Or multiple deals if your Slut deal was at a higher stage than one.

 

If you like, then add enough debt via the debug menu to cover the benefit of the new deal.

Then add cash in the console to compensate for any excess debt you gained.

e.g.

Deal is worth 878.

You add 1000 debt.

Give yourself 1000 - 878 ... that is 122.

Now you're back where you started, but with a shiny new deal.

 

 

If you look back up the page, you'll see that I have made further improvements to this, so it isn't entirely dependent on the dialog conditions updating, and is also mitigated by the fragment code. That means even people who didn't get a clean dialog update should probably be fine.

 

That update isn't available yet, but I might push it out later today.

 

I think it's boring to get the same old words over and over. Slut dialog should be more interesting.

I'm delaying it because I want to improve the slut dialog more generally and add a Debug button for follower dismissal for anyone that has dialog update issues with the dismissal logic in an existing game, or whatever else might happen, who knows?

 

 

 

Addressing the point raised on the SLS forum that this annoying nonsense from the slut deal didn't happen "back in the good old days of Lozeak" is absolute fantasy.

The slut deal drove me FREAKING INSANE back in the days of DF 1 and it still wasn't fixed in 2.02. Read on if you care...

Spoiler

You can't tell me it was fine, because a casual observation of the dialog conditions and fragments from those older versions will confirm that there was no limiting on this whatsoever before I added it.

 

I have added a cap to the repetitions, which never existed before. You could repeat forever.

If you are still repeating forever, it's because your game is broken.

 

There was a delay mechanic even in the old version, but it was missing from a ton of fragments. If those fragments could even build and compile!

I found many that could not. Others had unset properties.

Also, as was pointed out recently, the delays could be too short if sex occurred.

Assuming the sex scanner didn't break your game, which it would do now and again. Or almost certainly if you were enslaved.

 

The reality is not that in the glory days of DF it was a bug-free wonder and all the deals were pure fun.

It was just new, and novel, and sometimes fun, and that makes up for a lot of other problems.

 

Original DF used blocking dialogs for most follower interaction. It conflicted with just about everything!

Lozeak himself removed that, but it was like that for a long time.

Yes... the same blocking dialogs that you're getting in the slut deal, right now.

Imagine that... Everywhere?

They still existed as an option in 2.02, but weren't properly complete any more, so not everything blocked.