Devious Followers - Continued

[Lupine00]

1 hour ago, PD_ said:

EDIT: The problem is - you can't dismiss (mercenary!) followers with DF and EFF installed. It was Marcurio in my case, although I'm pretty sure it's the same for all of them. Can't say anything about other followers as I haven't tested them.

The "patch" is a single script file. It doesn't change any ESPs, and that code in EFF is in the ESM anway.

 

If you look back at my previous post, I still can't see how changing that file made a fix.

 

 

If mercenaries weren't dismissing properly, it would most likely be down to their dialog calling the wrong script entirely, so the switch wouldn't make any difference.

I think at the time I traced through how EFF dismisses mercenaries, and it handles them like ordinary followers for the most part; it's the hiring of mercs that is funny. The dismissal is only complicated by the globals that make them say they're rejoining you vs recognizing you for the first time.

 

Maybe this wasn't a total loss, as I'm wondering why I mashed the rehire flags in such a brutal way, when it could be done nicely, per follower.

Can't remember what I might have been trying to fix. Too long ago.

 

Doesn't seem to have any bearing on dismissal failure though, any logic to block that is not even in that file!

[Lupine00]

1 hour ago, PD_ said:

Didn't know that, thanks. I would still prefer to dismiss them via dialog though.

If you do it and DF still thinks they are a DF, you will have debt silently piling up. Reset DF to fix.

[Lupine00]

2 hours ago, valcon767 said:

thats a win/win in my book (FWIW)

What I'm hoping for, but needs the right explanation.

 

I've already learned it's not completely obvious that you can just set the two values the same.

Some players might not expect that to be allowed.

 

Also, some people will be in TL;DNR mode before even hitting the stuff about curves and just go WTF, I want to add a fixed amount per level.

 

But I'm not going to default to linear scaling; the default with be the "normal" value shown in the example table.

I'd guess that is going to work out more fun than simple per-level every time.

 

Simple per-level always starts to get easy as you level up, just slower than a fixed fee does.

 

Having a scenario where you've set it up on purpose so that if you level too much, the DF will start to set impossible goals creates an interesting conflict. Farm like crazy and then level faster, or try to do less, and always use hard-to-level skills, so you lever slower.

 

That wasn't even an option before unless you just promised yourself to set it like that.

[slvsaris]

12 hours ago, Lupine00 said:

You MUST NOT use the old EFF/AFT patches with newer DF releases.

They have BUILT IN follower framework handling.

 

It is in BIG FRIENDLY LETTERS on the front page of the mod, and in the release notes and ... I do not distribute those patches any longer for a reason.

 

If you have an old DF, you should update ASAP. There is no reason not to update, and there are many problems that are fixed.

Despite 2.11 not fixing everything it sets out to fix, it doesn't make anything worse, and it makes modular deals a whole LOT less likely to ruin your play experience.

Doh!

 

Edit: I quess  I misspoke.  I have no Idea why I thought I had an EFF patch for DF.   I guess what I meant to say was that I saw DF overwrites a few EFF scripts. 

(EFFCore.pex and Eff_DialogeFollowerScript.pex).

 

I did have Extended Social Interactions installed at one point and noticed when I removed it that it also overwrote EFFCore.pex.  Unfortunately it was the winner.  After removing MCG, I reinstalled EFF (a few times now).  I am going to turn on logging to see if I can tell what is going on.

[Buridan]

9 hours ago, Lupine00 said:

What do people think?

I love that most things are now tied as a percentage to the daily rate. More generally I like the sound of the removal of the need to constantly tweak the numbers mid-game. This is imo particularly important for a mod like Devious Followers because so much of the 'magic' depends on the illusion of the DF being in control (and a bit of that illusion is shredded every time I have to go into the MCM to tweak something), so I'm thrilled that it sounds like I can largely "set and forget" once I find a setting that fits.

 

That said I think the thing with this curve system is that, to me, it feels a little oblique to tweak with any confidence. For instance, if I set the max and min at 500-5000, at the normal difficulty curve, what is the expected daily debt like at lvl 10, or 20 or 30? What if I set it to 100-8000, or 800-3000? What about at other difficulty levels? Without setting up an Excel sheet and plugging the numbers in, I really couldn't even give you a ballpark number off the top of my head.

 

This is probably not ideal given that by design, DFC relies on the user customizing the numbers to their liking instead of default settings working "out the box".

 

But ultimately, not a dealbreaker for me. Setting up that Excel sheet probably won't take that long. And in the last resort setting it to max will still work if I wanted the arithmetic to be dead simple.

[HexBolt8]

31 minutes ago, Buridan said:

That said I think the thing with this curve system is that, to me, it feels a little oblique to tweak with any confidence. For instance, if I set the max and min at 500-5000, at the normal difficulty curve, what is the expected daily debt like at lvl 10, or 20 or 30?

Perhaps that section could have a text field with projected daily payments that's updated whenever the relevant values are changed, something like (for a simple linear case):

 

1: 100.  10: 550.  20: 1050.  30: 1550.  and so on

 

No need to wonder or crunch numbers yourself to see what payments would be at higher levels, and probably fewer "how does this work?" questions having to be answered here.

[slicksly]

10 hours ago, Lupine00 said:

What do people think?

 

Is setting a level-one-hundred cost just too ... abstract? Too hard to guess at? Almost nobody plays DF near that level AFAIK.

I don't think I've ever leveled above 65. Many players start new games over and over before hitting level 40.

 

In practice, at higher levels income is limited by ability to sell, though you do get more gold as well.

The investment perk becomes essential.

I really have no idea what the typical PC earns at level 100... Or 50 for that matter.

In the games I play, income is distorted by mods removing all kinds of loot.

I like how everything is linked to a single adjustable factor rather than having to adjust several. This should make configuring the moneyed difficulty of the mod a lot more practical. Forseeing the difficulty scaling from set values and type of difficulty level seems impossible though, which on one hand could lend itself to the spirit of the mod by getting the character into unsolvable economic difficulty - but it could also end up as a frustrating point for the player, where the money demand from the mod would force a more time-to-income-efficient based playstyle than they'd be comfortable with.

As for 1 to 100 as a scale - I don't think this is a problem in visualizing the cost scaling really, rather that the curving scaling is something that's hard to keep track of. A problem with curved (or linear) scaling of payment increase, however, is that I think character income flattens out at some point. The income scale, in my head, is slow the first 10 or so levels, then rapidly increasing the next 15 levels, then flattening from level 25 and onwards. Maybe the payment increase curve could represent something like this? I mean, early on you make little money, then you start selling expensive magical equipment and crafted items which skyrockets income for a while, but then you hit a peak, and things flatten out, with merchants running out of gold. The realistic daily income ceiling, I guess, is then limited to the max money from each merchant (1250 per with invest?) plus a little here and there from radiant quests and coin loot (not counting non-Vanilla money features, of course).

Point being, the character income increase flattens at some point, but the debt accumulation does not. While this is how poverty schemes work, I would prefer the system to at least have a managable difficulty progression, rather than a "level up and you're fucked"-sort of thing.

Not sure if my perception here matches others', or if there's other factors to money gain and scaling I'm completely neglecting in my rapid-rise-to-slow-gain curve here.

[Buridan]

4 minutes ago, slicksly said:

A problem with curved (or linear) scaling of payment increase, however, is that I think character income flattens out at some point. 

If I'm not mistaken, I think this flattening of the income curve is what this curve is meant to imitate. For instance at normal difficulty the debt more than doubles by lvl 10, more than doubles again by lvl 20, then the percentage increase starts to fall off significantly after that.

[slicksly]

12 minutes ago, Buridan said:

If I'm not mistaken, I think this flattening of the income curve is what this curve is meant to imitate. For instance at normal difficulty the debt more than doubles by lvl 10, more than doubles again by lvl 20, then the percentage increase starts to fall off significantly after that.

Hmm I think you're right, it seems Hard and Very Hard are more to the nonlinear regressive scaling, which I think is what I'm asking for. I guess it's the labelling as "easy" to "hard" which is the problem for me here then, as using these terms are completely devoid of economic realities in Skyrim.

To elaborate, the "easier" the setting, the more exponetial the growth is, while the "harder" the setting, the more regressive. So "easy" would be entirely inconsistent with income scaling throughout, while "hard" would be inconsistent past the first couple levels, while eventually flattening out.

I suppose defining the level gap for exponential / regressive growth would be better? So anything outside these factors are linear, while inside is curving? So for instance, flat growth level 1-5, then curving growth during character expected income explosion, then flat again once the income has flattened out?

[Lupine00]

1 hour ago, slicksly said:

Point being, the character income increase flattens at some point, but the debt accumulation does not. While this is how poverty schemes work, I would prefer the system to at least have a managable difficulty progression, rather than a "level up and you're fucked"-sort of thing.

If the exponential factor is less than one, you get an initial curve up, then flattening.

The factors I've been playing with so far are greater than one ... but there are two things to consider.

 

You don't have to set an "out of reach" level 100 cost-per-day.

Most players are only going to see the first part of the curve.

 

The problem with a curve that flattens is you have to deal with some sharp increases early on.

The current values let you ease in gently (on easy).

 

One approach would be to add a couple of the exponent less than zero curves as options beyond linear, which is trivial to do.

With a top of 10,000, and a flattening curve, you're looking at 2170 a day at level 5, which is hard to manage, but it lets off.

With the "easy" curve, it really is an easy start, but by level 90, which you never reach, it's getting hard.

 

Of course, if you set the top at 5,000, the whole things squashes down to half, and the "balanced" curves become more livable.

 

You can take this chart and draw what you think is your real earning curve on it, but it probably won't be the same for your game as for mine.

If you have a curve to aim for, you can probably hit it.

 

I could have a "custom" curve where you set the exponent yourself, but if you're going to do that I recommend you model the values somehow.

Or just mess with it during play, like almost everyone does now.

 

If people want some kind of S curve, then it becomes way more complex to configure. At that point you're taking a vanilla game and running cost calculations on iterations of leveled loot generation. Someone else can do that  

BTW, the little 'kink' in max at level 5, which should be straight is due to some laziness in the chart axis setup, it's not real. There's another at the high end too, but you can't see it so easily.

[slicksly]

1 hour ago, Lupine00 said:

If the exponential factor is less than one, you get an initial curve up, then flattening.

The factors I've been playing with so far are greater than one ... but there are two things to consider.

 

You don't have to set an "out of reach" level 100 cost-per-day.

Most players are only going to see the first part of the curve.

 

The problem with a curve that flattens is you have to deal with some sharp increases early on.

The current values let you ease in gently (on easy).

 

One approach would be to add a couple of the exponent less than zero curves as options beyond linear, which is trivial to do.

Yea, I suppose my problem is trying to envision the entire 1-100 scale rather than the realistic playing scale of 1-40, in which your system makes sense for the easy-to-hard-labelling. 

Edit to chart: The 'balanced 2'-option looks closer to what I'd envision in relation to character wealth growth by levels.

[Darkwing241]

12 hours ago, Lupine00 said:

What do people think?

 

Is setting a level-one-hundred cost just too ... abstract? Too hard to guess at? Almost nobody plays DF near that level AFAIK.

I don't think I've ever leveled above 65. Many players start new games over and over before hitting level 40.

I like it, but I'm a math teacher.  Even for me this is complicated.  For the average person this may be too complicated.  That doesn't mean you shouldn't go ahead with it.  A good system is a good system, it just may need more support to create a good experience for a user.  This is also a situation where a graph is a much better representation of the function then an equation.

 

Maybe a have some automated "presets" with your estimates on the behavior

"long easy start"

"short easy start"

"even difficulty"

ect.

 

Maybe even just have a couple of curves to pick from and eliminate the infinite customization, so players can just pick a curve? That way even the stupidest possible person just has to test 4 or 5 different options and then pick their favorite?  Preventing a situation where a dumb person "does some testing" and just tweaks settings that make irrelevant changes and thus never learns anything.

 

Any way you decide to go, this is going to be a situation that needs a written guide to help players understand their choices, if only as a time saver to link people in the forums.  Maybe even two guides, one designed to build understanding, and another quick start guide that just gives instructions on how to get desirable results, and that avoids using any equations.

 

My personal want would be to go through with this system but provide presets either in the MCM or maybe in one of your blogs.  Automated is probably best though as I have been finding I spend almost as much time setting up kink mods as I do playing them.

[Herowynne]

16 hours ago, Lupine00 said:

When I make new releases, I upload the release first, then work on the front-page, so people shouldn't have the issue of being told there's a new release then being unable to find it.

Thanks, that is very helpful.

 

It would also be great to have the release date next to each version number in the mod’s change log. That helps avoid confusion from LL’s “updated” feature.

[Trill0]

Just thought I'd chime in to help with the scaling concept.  From what I understand, merchants only refresh their inventory and gold every 3 days or so.  In Whiterun for example there are like 6 merchants with about 1000 gold each.  My point is that there appears to be an innate cap of gold over time, even if you can clean out each merchant.  There are ways to get more money, like with perks, and traveling, but those require an investment which should probably be rewarded, and there would still be an innate cap because the perks only go so far, and traveling takes time to do.  Obviously if someone mods the skyrim economy this all changes...

[slvsaris]

Question, the comments for Max Debt Allowed say it should be greater than Enslave Debt Threashold.  Since the threshold says it is the debt at which the player will be discarded if enslaved, it would seem that the comment is backwards?  Or am I missing something?

 

I set the threshold really high because I did not want the follower to discard the player.

[valcon767]

top city for merchants (within city walls)

 

Whiterun = 9 merchants totaling 5750 gold, 4 can be invested in, 10 affected by master trader perk

 

Riften = 11 merchants totaling 4650 gold, 4 you can invest in, with 6 affected by master trader perk (without doing Thieves Guild questline)

Riften = 16 merchants totaling 9850 gold, 4 you can invest in, with 11 affected by master trader perk (if Thieves Guild questline completed and Ragged Flagon upgraded).

 

totals if master trader perk used without investing 

 

Whiterun = 15,750 gold with standard investments that brings total to 17,750 gold

 

Riften = 20,850 gold with standard investments that brings total to 22,850 gold

 

winner of top city depends on whether Thieves Guild questline completed or not.

 

top gold available (without mods, or perks used) without doing any quests is Whiterun at 5750 gold, with quests and perks (without mods) is Riften at 22,850 gold.

 

just some information for those who are wondering.

[Thelargir]

I've been experiencing somewhat of a problem recently: When my character gets tied up through Cursed Loot, and I ask my Devious Follower to help, they will say that the items are "too devious" for them to help. Even though it's just regular items like armbinder, boots, blindfolds etc. 
I've been trying to figure out how to configure the settings for this, but can't find it. Also, it just seems to be on some followers. 
Any ideas on how to fix this?

[slvsaris]

1 hour ago, Thelargir said:

I've been experiencing somewhat of a problem recently: When my character gets tied up through Cursed Loot, and I ask my Devious Follower to help, they will say that the items are "too devious" for them to help. Even though it's just regular items like armbinder, boots, blindfolds etc. 
I've been trying to figure out how to configure the settings for this, but can't find it. Also, it just seems to be on some followers. 
Any ideas on how to fix this?

I had this question as well.  I undserstand quest stuff, but just regular old devious restraints... I assumed it was because neither I nor the follower had keys.  If that is the case maybe the dialog could reflect that.

[Lupine00]

6 hours ago, valcon767 said:

Whiterun = 9 merchants totaling 5750 gold, 4 can be invested in, 10 affected by master trader perk

 

Riften = 11 merchants totaling 4650 gold, 4 you can invest in, with 6 affected by master trader perk (without doing Thieves Guild questline)

Riften = 16 merchants totaling 9850 gold, 4 you can invest in, with 11 affected by master trader perk (if Thieves Guild questline completed and Ragged Flagon upgraded).

totals if master trader perk used without investing 

Whiterun = 15,750 gold with standard investments that brings total to 17,750 gold

Riften = 20,850 gold with standard investments that brings total to 22,850 gold

winner of top city depends on whether Thieves Guild questline completed or not.

top gold available (without mods, or perks used) without doing any quests is Whiterun at 5750 gold, with quests and perks (without mods) is Riften at 22,850 gold.

Helpful research.

 

I had roughly estimated that I could easily get at least 10,000 from Riften or Whiterun with investment, so that was a safe "playable" default for a lot of people.

I didn't even figure the Thieves' Guild into that.

If you rotate what towns you go to, you can avoid being limited by the cash-refresh time.

In practice, even without TG, Riften is usually the best place to get rid of loot.

 

I have some extra merchants in my game, which push the limit up. But I also have reduced cash amounts on female merchants, which pushes it back down again.

Some mods add travelling merchants. TitD has its own town/city and merchants, and so do other uber-mods like Falskaar and BB.

Plus there are the revamps/overhauls of vanilla areas that add merchants.

And mods that just add a new shop or merchant in some odd location.

DCL, for example, adds the Dollmaker who has a substantial cash reserve, and once you can vend DD's they become an easy source of cash.

I don't vend DD's, I dump them in a barrel, but there's nothing that forces you to play like that.

 

More than anything, just these numbers show that with investments, the cash available changes enormously.

Players are more likely to add merchants to their game than remove them, but they can also be lost.

I once had a game where all the blacksmiths ended up dead other than Jorlund and Ulfberth - due to vampire attacks gone crazy and then the civil war.

 

There really isn't any predictable state for a non-vanilla game.

It's easy to demonstrate that 10,000 per day is achievable. A player who wanted to shift their day-rate up could safely set it higher, as likely they'd never get to level 100 anyway.

[Lupine00]

  

6 hours ago, Thelargir said:

When my character gets tied up through Cursed Loot, and I ask my Devious Follower to help, they will say that the items are "too devious" for them to help. Even though it's just regular items like armbinder, boots, blindfolds etc. 

 

5 hours ago, slvsaris said:

I had this question as well.  I undserstand quest stuff, but just regular old devious restraints... I assumed it was because neither I nor the follower had keys.  If that is the case maybe the dialog could reflect that.

 

This is not a bug. It's working "as intended".

 

It's a limitation of the dialog conditions and keywords really.

It would be possible to fix it, but only by rewriting all the device removal from scratch.

When you see a quest or block generic keyword, the dialog can't tell what slot it came from without a slow and expensive function call that probably should never be in a dialog condition - so a more complex solution is required.

 

BlockGeneric items are a worse problem, as DCL fits those more often than not if you get a yoke.

 

If you only have a block generic item, the follower WILL still remove items, if you ask them immediately after waking up in an inn or player home.

But they will want a deal per item to do it.

You can remove block generic items by this method. If you are penny-wise you will get the follower to remove those first and then things go back to normal.

I don't know of any situation where removing a block generic item is a game-breaker and nobody has yet put one forward.

 

Quest items can't be removed, and in some cases a follower will say they will remove the item, and charge you for it, but not remove it.

 

My personal position is that the quest-item and block-generic item flags should be deprecated and never added to any new item.

The correct way for a quest to handle removal of its "special" item is to recognize that and handle it properly.

Just jamming-up slots on the player creates irresolvable conflicts.

Needless to say, Kimy 100% disagrees with that.

So, quest and block-generic items probably aren't ever going away.

 

Even with a full rewrite of DF item removal, Quest items would not be removed, because those flags are saying you shouldn't remove them and that another mod NEEDS them there. BlockGeneric is a bit less cut-and-dried. In the case of BlockGeneric, the need is still not essential. DD rules say you can remove an item and then put it back, but you shouldn't remove it for good... Unless you put it on in the first-place, presumably?

 

The only use I know of for sure, of BlockGeneric is by DCL, which uses it for LBA yokes, but also fits the same yokes randomly until Kimy fixes that, if she decides she should, which I'm not sure she ever will.

DCL is also the main user of the quest flag.

Laura's Bondage Shop might one of them for the belt quest, or possibly not? My guess is that it doesn't.

Because DCL (and other mods on occasion, including DF itself, I suspect, due to LDC) can fit the yokes that have the BlockGeneric flag in inappropriate cases. BlockGeneric has had its meaning diluted, and I'm beginning to doubt it has any value now.

 

It's almost as if these flags are mainly for DCL use and internal signalling, because other mods really have no way to work around them.

If you write a mod that must fit its collar, and the collar slot is blocked by a quest collar from another mod, what can you do? Probably not start. That's it.

[cascen]

i have problem when followers equipe gag it doesnt show,and then she go over and over telling to put gag on or she will add debt,even using mcm fit gag,it doesnt work...any workaround?

[HexBolt8]

I installed the 2.11 version in preparation for a new game.  Overall it looks very good, but I noted some minor issues:

 

Spoiler

The Ignore Deals option says "This will ignore deals when punished for excessive debt."  I think I'm missing something.  If enabled, is it that the debt-reduction value for all active deals is added back to the current debt when checking if max debt thresholds have been exceeded?  That seems to negate the value of deals, and if desired that can be achieved by setting the deal values to zero (though not for active deals).  Or if the player just wants to trigger enslavement right now, lowering that threshold below the current debt would appear to accomplish that.  So I'm wondering if I've misinterpreted what this option does.

 

The info text for Max Allowed Debt concludes with "Set this higher than max debt."  Higher than itself?  Shouldn't that tip be moved to the Enslavement Debt, the point at which the PC is discarded?

 

Under Other Mod Settings, the info text for Deal Enslavement and Normal Enslavement is reversed:

* Deal Enslavement:  "Weight that you'll be enslaved when you are sent to this mod from Simple Slavery."

* Normal Enslavement:  "Weight that you'll have a set of deals to pay off when you [sic] sent to this mod from Simple Slavery."

The tags are correct but the text is switched between the two in the translations file.  It's confusing because the player can't know which is correct, the labels or the info text.  The distinction could be even more clear if, in addition, "Deal Enslavement" were renamed to "Deals Only", since that outcome is not "enslavement" in DFC terms.

 

The info text for Sent to Simple Slavery reads $DF_SSLVCHANCE_DESC.  In the translations file the tag is spelled differently, with braces:  $DF_SSLVCHANCE{}_DESC.

 

I couldn't get any follower to transition to devious normally.  If I'm looking at it right, the related quest priority is zero, which might be low.  But that's easily remedied with the Debug option for the dialog, and that's okay.  A minor thing (I was testing several scenarios so I kept seeing this) is that the line "As long as I get my share of the money, things will be fine... and if I don't, at least things will be fun. For me, at least." uses the phrase "at least" twice near the end.  It's awkward and repetitious.  If it ended with "For me, anyway" it would sound more natural, and the relationship with the DF won't start out with that character sounding goofy.

 

[Lupine00]

Thanks for taking the time to write all this up.

 

4 hours ago, HexBolt8 said:

The Ignore Deals option says "This will ignore deals when punished for excessive debt."

This isn't a new feature in 2.11. My memory of what it does exactly is vague, but I think it's related to a mechanic that changes HOW (or how much) you get punished for excessive debt if you have deals, not whether punishment occurs or not. TBH, I'd have to check. More waffle in the spoiler:

Spoiler

I also suspect it's mainly relevant to endless mode, where "excessive debt" is a meaningful thing. Endless replaces enslavement with "a lot of bondage items" basically, in particular the slave chains. I think it's related to how existing devices you'd have to wear are factored into that. Or possibly a different mechanic, where it does a check against the deal count before deciding to punish via path X or path Y. Perhaps both. I suspect that if I look closely into it I'll see there is only one way to set this that doesn't break DF; a few of the older Lozeak options were like that. The story is then, X got implemented, then Y is added, but it breaks X, rather than fix that, the option is added to pick X or Y, but X+Y is not possible. See modular deals as an example of this happening - there was an option to "optimize" deals. If they weren't optimized, you could get two deals for one device slot pretty easily - a deal for free in effect. This option seemed to exist simply because the "optimization" was added added later as a fix and he wanted to let people keep the legacy behavior.

 

 

4 hours ago, HexBolt8 said:

The info text for Max Allowed Debt concludes with "Set this higher than max debt."  Higher than itself?  Shouldn't that tip be moved to the Enslavement Debt, the point at which the PC is discarded?

Of course this means "Enslavement debt" not "Max allowed debt". This is a "half fix" in that enslavement debt and failure debt were historically badly described due to some translation string mistakes that go back ages. The names are still not great. Don't get me started on what the variables are called ...

I noticed this myself after releasing 2.11 but...

 

All these strings are being changed for 2.12 because they are no longer absolute values, and also the new failure debt is always "on top" of enslavement debt.

 

So actual failure debt will be

Calculated Enslavement Debt + Calculated Failure Debt

 

That means it will be conceptually impossible to set failure debt lower than enslavement.

The only people really impacted by this are new users who don't know what things do  

 

 

4 hours ago, HexBolt8 said:

The info text for Sent to Simple Slavery reads $DF_SSLVCHANCE_DESC.  In the translations file the tag is spelled differently, with braces:  $DF_SSLVCHANCE{}_DESC.

I'm aware of this one.

Been broken since I don't know when. The tag is corrupted by some random typing that probably happened when I typed to the wrong keyboard.

It should be cleaned up in 2.12 whenever that comes out  

 

4 hours ago, HexBolt8 said:

I couldn't get any follower to transition to devious normally.

I never have this problem in test. Actually, they are ok in my main game too.

A quest priority of zero seems rather low. Quest priority is also a thing discussed in the Serana thread.

 

It's not being caused by To Your Face by any chance is it?

Anything that limits the NPC's ability to perform Hello dialogs will block normal follower adoption.

This apparently includes mods that add a ton of new Hello dialogs, which can cause DF to never get a look-in.

 

I had a different way to pick up followers in the mod I was writing before taking on DF, specifically because I felt this approach was so uneven in DF.

Changing how DF does this now is sort of a pain. (Or all pain and no gain?)

It's not rocket science. Either a follower is in the vanilla alias or not, it's just when that gets checked.

Having multiple code paths for this is an old, and not quite eradicated, design flaw.

 

If I can get a bit more feedback on how much trouble it causes, maybe it could get more attention?

The problem with doing this "by forum" is that only a couple of interested people will ever post because that is how the forum is.

If they both say that it's not working for them, does that mean it's not working for only two people, or does it mean it's not working for 100% of users?

I can't even produce the issue, but I don't doubt it exists. But what makes it so bad for some users? I wonder if a dialog condition is breaking?

 

4 hours ago, HexBolt8 said:

"As long as I get my share of the money, things will be fine...

I agree it's not great. I'd say it's slipped past the editor, but there is no editor. If this is the level the dialog bugs are at, I am pretty happy. I suspect there are probably worse lines, but you just didn't have them rubbed in your face over and over.

 

...

 

"Come here! I've got a present for you... [Click] [Click] [Click]"

Don't you just want to say?

"Whenever you say you have a present for me, it's bondage gear. It's always bondage gear. It's not even funny any more."

"Next time you say that, I'm not coming!"

[HexBolt8]

30 minutes ago, Lupine00 said:

All these strings are being changed for 2.12 because they are no longer absolute values, and also the new failure debt is always "on top" of enslavement debt.

Thank you for that change!  The old labels never made sense, with "max" debt being less than "enslavement" debt, which in turn isn't the level at which enslavement occurs, that's max debt.  The revised system should be a lot more clear for new users.

 

34 minutes ago, Lupine00 said:

I also suspect it's mainly relevant to endless mode, where "excessive debt" is a meaningful thing.

This was in regard to "Ignore Deals".  The help text for that option actually ends with "Endless mode will not work with this!!!", but possibly that text is wrong if you're thinking it's for endless mode.  I was just concerned that I was missing something fun.  If the feature is that murky, I'll leave it alone.  ?

 

38 minutes ago, Lupine00 said:

It's not being caused by To Your Face by any chance is it?

No, I don't use that one.  I actually stay far, far away from mods that mess with the way that NPCs greet or detect the PC because of the potential for trouble.  Hellos from other mods (such as Sexist Guards) work fine.  I mainly wanted to note the very low quest priority, just in case that's worth considering.  The debug workaround does the job.

 

As you said, that greeting mechanism is awkward.  I suppose it's immersive in that the follower initiates it, but it works for some players and not others.  As a suggestion, if that hello hasn't fired yet, how about a simple dialog option when speaking to the follower, like "I hope we work well together"?  Or, combine that with my earlier idea for switching the DF follower alias among multiple followers, for which you had proposed "I want to talk to you about deals and things."  (I understand that your suggestion wasn't a pledge to make such a change, you were just thinking out loud.)  If the alias is empty, that follower becomes the DF and things get initialized as if the follower had performed the "I hope you don't cheat me."  If there is a DF, then this follower fills the alias and now acts devious (and the former one doesn't). 

[Lupine00]

I think the the motivation for not making it universal dialog, was that it would then be running those condition tests all the time, no matter what.

Speak to Haelga, and it has to check if she's in PotentialFollowerFaction to get an early out.

 

Or maybe there was never a clear reason for it. Or it "felt" better as a Hello?

 

If I start messing with the start, it will surely go further, and that's time not spent on other things.

 

I'd like the start to involve some kind of up-front trickery that actually sets the stage for the deal enslavement, rather than just having that happen when you never really agreed to it.

 

But that would mean the flow would have to be more like:

 

Recruit follower - Follow Me - I can't block this dialog because some mods replicate it

Follower is recognized by DF

Follower initiates a forcegreet (yuk) and sets their terms.

 

"I'm only going to go with you if you can pay me. You understand right?"

> "OK" 

> "I'm not going to pay you."

>> "I guess we can't work together after all."

And then the follower is removed and some kind of rehire timer set on them, so if you hire them again too soon, they'll just silently self-dismiss.

 

And from "OK"

>> "Great. Just so we're clear. I have a few rules you need to agree to. But it's really only a thing if you can't pay. You can pay, can't you?"

>>> "Yes" (conversation over, DF hired)

>>> "I don't know."

>>>> "If you owe me money, it will be up to me how to collect it. But if that happens, I'm sure we can make a deal so you can pay me back another way. OK?"

>>>>> "Sure" (conversation over, DF hired)

>>>>> "Sounds sketchy. Maybe we should go our own ways right away?" (DF removed)

 

And if you back-out of the dialog at any point, the follower says "I guess you're happy with all my terms? I love it when a deal comes together! Let's go then?"

 

Not a massive piece of work, but digging out all the old functionality and making it sure it doesn't mess stuff up is probably the harder part.

 

Just last night I was working on Enslavement Buyout, and it took me most of the time to locate the existing code for handling it.