Devious Followers - Continued

[Lupine00]

4 hours ago, KLongad Sirtup said:

unless someone has it downloaded somewhere as a backup.

If you desperately need it, obviously, I have it.

Possibly, some newer versions work too.

Or AFT and EFF haven't changed at all.

 

EFF is by far the best code base, it just has that much-too-convenient item store that is highly exploitable.

I could have patched that out, but I decided it wasn't worth bothering. People can simply choose not to use it if they don't like it.

 

NFF has most features, but are they really needed?

It's not just a follower framework, it's a relationship system. It's blending into a quest mod. I'd rather those things were completely separate.

So many options, so many features. I would never install all those things. Fortunately, they are optional.

I only installed NFF myself to prove it worked  and now too lazy to remove it.

There's no way I could test with all its different install configurations though. I don't have that much time, and certainly no interest.

 

All I really wanted to do was get a count of how many followers you have.

With a follower framework blocking dismissal is always a problem, as they have debug options to do it.

Should DF break those debugs? I don't think so.

Also frameworks tend to have a feature to leave a follower to sandbox in some location, such as the player home, while you go off with other followers.

Not really compatible with DF, but should I deliberately break it?

It was too much bother to sabotage that selectively, only for DFs in a way that wouldn't be pure confusion to players.

[Lupine00]

2 hours ago, KLongad Sirtup said:

There's been an update for Simple Slavery++ which allows for an exit event with the outcome reported. Could be very useful as part of a Devious Followers - Continued auction sell hand off, as you can then use it to transfer the ownership. Maybe even for final remark from previous owner, or other outcome response

Nice I suppose. If SS can reliably run at all. Or run without filling my inventory with three different sets of restraints. Or successfully complete a sale without crashing on slavery start.

 

I've had some ... robust discussions ... about what SS's responsibilities are, and where the lines should be drawn, but it is what it is.

I always install it, and then I get very little use out of it, and usually if it does run, there's at least one major problem, regardless of where I came from and where I'm destined.

 

The sell-on feature in DF is not well formed and probably needs a fair bit of attention. I find it very rarely triggers, but TBH, DF slavery is more likely to break before that happens due to the bad sex-partner scanner. At any rate, if using DF slavery, save often and be prepared to revert.

 

It's a pity, because I actually really like how DF slavery plays in most cases. You can go where you want, but you're given a lot of troubles outside of a dungeon, and once you are in a dungeon, you can't be sure how long the follower will let you stay there. It's hard, but you can always progress.

 

The excessive rape-iness of it can get tiresome in towns though.

[KLongad Sirtup]

5 minutes ago, Lupine00 said:

Nice I suppose. If SS can reliably run at all. Or run without filling my inventory with three different sets of restraints. Or successfully complete a sale without crashing on slavery start.

 

I've had some ... robust discussions ... about what SS's responsibilities are, and where the lines should be drawn, but it is what it is.

I always install it, and then I get very little use out of it, and usually if it does run, there's at least one major problem, regardless of where I came from and where I'm destined.

 

The sell-on feature in DF is not well formed and probably needs a fair bit of attention. I find it very rarely triggers, but TBH, DF slavery is more likely to break before that happens due to the bad sex-partner scanner. 

 

From Simple Slavery++ version 6.3.5 changelog:-

 

New:  An "SSLV Exit" mod event is now sent at the end of the auction, for any mod authors who might want to be notified when the auction ends and what the outcome was.  Details are on the mod description page.  If you own an enslavement mod, no action is needed.

 

New:  The MCM has a new System page.

 

New:  An "Enslave me now!" button on the System page will send you to the slave market by sending the "SSLV Entry" mod event, just as if you'd been sent there by a defeat mod.  Useful for testing, or if you want to get enslaved fast.

 

Changed:  The "SLUTS Resume" mod is now detected.

 

Changed:  The "Rescan for mod auctions" button is now on the System page.

 

Changed:  Player controls are disabled during the auction, to hide the prompt to open the platform gate.

 

Removed:  SS+ introduced functionality to constantly monitor the player if the player was freed from the auction for wearing quest or blocking devices.  If all such devices were ever removed (such as by completing the relevant quest), the player would be pulled back to the auction, which could have unwanted effects and disrupt the game.  It's been removed.

[Lupine00]

24 minutes ago, KLongad Sirtup said:

If you own an enslavement mod, no action is needed.

I was, in fact, familiar with the change log.

 

But I thought the point of raising this was to suggest that DF could have some kind of feature where the follower comes to get you after you've been enslaved into other mods as a result of a defeat or something else that separated you from your debt.

[KLongad Sirtup]

5 minutes ago, Lupine00 said:

I was, in fact, familiar with the change log.

 

But I thought the point of raising this was to suggest that DF could have some kind of feature where the follower comes to get you after you've been enslaved into other mods as a result of a defeat or something else that separated you from your debt.

 

I mean that it can be used in order to ensure that any processes that can't be handled before auction mod event call, could with the new event be monitored for auction outcome then processed. So basically it means that when the sale occurs to another mod then you can hand it off in a graceful manner, or if the player character is auctioned off and the winner is another Devious Followers - Continued. A custom auction could be scripted and utilise the new event to enable an humanoid actor that is sold to in a non-auction sale to be represented in the auction. Basically the buyer could be there or an agent representing them to bid on the player character, and depending on the winner the outcome can result in a graceful hand off, transferring or ending any currently running tasks and/or games from old owner. As well as maybe having some final comment following the auction for the player character. 

[Anunya]

8 hours ago, KLongad Sirtup said:

 

Thanks for telling us! However the earliest version of NFF you can download now still currently from Nexus Mods is version 2.6.8 thus people can't reach version 2.5.1, unless someone has it downloaded somewhere as a backup.

 

I'm using NFF 2.7.0 and DFC 2.12.2 (SSE) and haven't had any weirdness with followers or starting the Devious Follower relationship. I did have some difficulties getting rid of a devious follower (IIRC there's a way to do it, but it's irreversible) so I think playthroughs where you cycle in and out of devious follower relationships with the same person - or gracefully between multiple people - isn't going to work smoothly, but everything else has been problem free for me.

[Lupine00]

4 hours ago, KLongad Sirtup said:

So basically it means that when the sale occurs to another mod then you can hand it off in a graceful manner,

The way SS is written, is that the enslaving mod should complete the hand-off before the auction begins, at the point of entry  to SS.

Originally, SS only handled one event "SSLV Entry" which strips you and puts you in the starting cage, that is all.

 

A slavery mod that saw that event would need to know it wasn't the originator and ensure that PC was cleaned up, if it "owned" the PC.

But that was always a bit of a sketchy proposition.

 

 

Since then, we've gained PlayerRefEnslaved, PlayerRefFreed, and PlayerRefIsFree ... the latter being particularly strange in that it can result in the Enslave event being sent!

 

And of course, documentation for this was never a thing. So modders weren't really sure what their obligations were to properly interoperate.

Enslave and freed simply added faction handling for zbfFactionSlave.

 

Check resets the current existing faction state exactly as it already is, but generate the event that would have set it.

It's a way of interrogating the state without actually checking the faction, but I think the implementation of the check the way it is not very useful. It means your handling of those events has to be additionally stateful. In any case I'm not sure much uses them. And it's not like checking the faction is hard to start with, so why you need an event that just requires the other events to be more complex I don't know.

 

So, even in fairly recent incarnations of SS, e.g. SS++ 6.34 you have that one single enslave event, which does almost nothing to prepare the player.

 

The design of SS means that there is no mod that knows for sure it's responsible for cleaning up the PC when they enter SS, and SS sure doesn't do it.

And Hexbolt argues it can't ... and I'll accept that on principal it cannot handle everything - though it could certainly have done a large set of things that all mods could rely on - such as dismissing followers or raising some event to tell mods that they needed to do so.

 

As it is, mods have to listen for that event and try to handle it if they think they might have a finger on the PC, but they can't know what shared aspects other mods are handling, and there is no single point for that shared handling - which should have been in SS from day one.

 

Post clean-up is neither here nor there in that context - the PC needs to be cleaned ASAP otherwise their follower is going to port into that cage with them, probably fully geared, or who knows what?

 

So, let's say you are in the middle of a DD quest that has quest devices that can't be removed, and somehow you end up in that cage, the quest is responsible for decided what to do, but very few quests were written to support this event in SS. Try it with DCL and see what you get! (I can tell you. The quest will do nothing, and SS will eventually realize you are toxic and throw you out without enslaving you). That feature is comparatively recent, before that you'd just have a conflicting situation and have to resolve it manually.

 

I could go on.

 

SS created problems by not making good provision for that split responsibility, or any provision at all really.

A flaw it compounded through poor documentation for modders.

 

So we have a situation where neither SS, nor the mods it impacts accept responsibility for handling the situation, and behaviors are chaotic.

On top of that we have immersive issues too.

e.g. You're an escaped slave, and you are caught. You aren't returned to your previous master, you're re-sold, possibly back to that same master.

e.g. You're a Slaverun slave and you're sold into SD+, but your Slaverun master thinks you are still working for him and sends thugs to get you. But shouldn't they be running the AH? Well maybe that's a Slaverun issue, but few mods were actually designed to work in an immersive way with SS, DF included. Guidance to modders on expectations might have stopped that problem before it started.

 

I chose not to go in and fix it - despite the code being rather simple and completely open - because I didn't want to invest a single minute in keeping that thing alive.

I don't actually like the auctions, or the auction house cell, or its location, or the NPCs that show up, or the things they say.

It took what could have been an awesome immersive experience and made it sort of silly, and limited, and random.

The little interactions between buyers are sometimes good, but when it comes to awareness of the PC, there is none.

That probably sounds a bit strong. It's not that I hate it, but I am ... a little disappointed.

And I dislike the implementation even more.

It's an Oblivion mod masquerading as a Skyrim mod in so many ways.

 

All I can say is that I didn't make anything better.

Possibly, I regret not doing something about it earlier, but at this point I'm probably over it.

[Lyreal]

On 1/24/2021 at 2:52 AM, Lupine00 said:

I can't really speak to SE. Maybe NFF is different in SE, or maybe your NFF is too new.

Or maybe you let NFF overwrite DF files.

DF should overwrite NFF files.

 

I am sure the problem is not NFF.  I have the same problems in Skyrim SE with the SE version from nomkaz and also with your LE version (+SE converted animation files) and dont use it. (Vanilla follower works, mod followers dont.)

But I dont think the problem comes from DF neither, many wrote they had this problems months before me and nomkaz dont release any updates since then. I got them since I reinstall my skyrim at the beginning of this year and because I always use backups of my mods, except the few files that are installed directly into the skyrim folder, I think the problem comes from one of that mods, e.g. SKSE, CrashFixes, EngineFixes (which shall use older dll files on nexus), etc...

 

 

[Lupine00]

2 hours ago, Lyreal said:

But I dont think the problem comes from DF neither, many wrote they had this problems months before me and nomkaz dont release any updates since then. I got them since I reinstall my skyrim at the beginning of this year and because I always use backups of my mods, except the few files that are installed directly into the skyrim folder, I think the problem comes from one of that mods, e.g. SKSE, CrashFixes, EngineFixes (which shall use older dll files on nexus), etc...

 

I think it's probably a single mod, and not a mod that uses C++ like CrashFixes. There's absolutely no reason they would cause problems.

None of those C++ mods have had meaningful updates in LE for years, or -any- updates in most cases.

 

I rebuilt my entire game recently, and I don't have this issue.

More accurately, two entire games: a new dev PC in a VM and a seriously reworked configuration on my main PC.

 

If it's not NFF, it's some other mod that the people with problems have brought in, and the odds are it writes over follower scripts, or dialog records and is pretty easy to see either in MO or Tes5Edit if you know what to look for.

 

Give the amount of looking done already, it probably isn't completely simple. It's not a mod that changes the main vanilla follower script directly. It's something that changes a mod that vanilla follower recruitment can trigger or rely on. 

 

It could be something to do with marriage, or a faction change, but what it is very, very unlikely to be, is SKSE, CrashFixes or EngineFixes.

 

It could be PapyrusUtils though. That's almost the only C++ mod that could impact DF.

 

 

Until somebody with this problem engages properly, so it can be debugged, I can't do a thing about it.

Also, the DF SE version is not really made or supported by me. Unless it can be shown to occur on LE - and I don't think I can confirm that with confidence - it's an SE issue, and probably caused by some SE-specific mod.

 

 

Here's what needs to happen for this to get fixed, and I'm not going to repeat this over and over, as I've been doing previously.

 

a) a user diagnoses the cause themselves and gives us an explanation and fix that can be reproduced, OR,

b) an SE user who can build the mod engages with me to debug it on SE, OR,

c) we confirm the problem occurs on LE, and the LE user engages with me to debug it, OR,

d) the problem magically goes away by itself.

 

Otherwise, you can just wait for the new version and hope that fixes it. I have no idea why it would.

[Lupine00]

I think I've got past all the obvious bugs and now I'm just down to implementing the key deal and milking deal.

 

I have a quick and dirty version of the key deal working.

This raised some questions...

 

 

Currently, during the key deal, the follower will periodically say they're going to check your keys.

It becomes rather tedious. At least it's not a force greet that interrupts everything.

 

Should they only every announce this if they (internally) know you have keys to find? Cheating, but to save you spam.

That would mean that by bizarre coincidence, they would only ever check when you were breaking the rule.

 

I guess they could do a random key check rarely, and the rest of the time it would only fire if you had keys.

A compromise between immersive and practical.

 

DCL used to forcegreet you and be really intrusive about key searches. Should that happen? (I don't think it should).

However, I think you should get an animation or something briefly forced if you are caught with keys and they are taken.

(Like skooma whore collapse animation maybe?)

 

 

 

Is the intent of the key deal to stop you having any access to keys, or just to make it hard?

 

I see two possible approaches:

 

1) the mod immediately scans your inventory if you pick up something that could be a key, so it's practically impossible for you to use keys.

You aren't punished if that happens.

The key roulette game is disabled by the key deal.

 

2) the mod scans once per game-hour, so you can find a key and use a key, if you're quick.

You have a chance to hand over keys voluntarily, and you're punished if you keep them too long?

The key roulette game is still available, and you have a brief grace period before you have to hand back any surplus keys?

 

 

This is a level three deal, so it should be quite punitive. I'm leaning towards you being able to use keys, if you find them and you're quick, or you get them via the roulette game and you're quick. While this is a bit "soft", locks aren't usually the thing keeping you bound in DF, and there is no key deal for slaves.

 

 

On that topic, should the follower periodically rob keys from slaves, just as a matter of course?

I think maybe that makes sense.

[Baltasarr80]

1 with asking the followerto help you with removing i think would be my wish to continue forward

[loniceraa]

44 minutes ago, Lupine00 said:

Is the intent of the key deal to stop you having any access to keys, or just to make it hard?

 

My first instinct is that it should behave similarly to gold control, though that does seem to be at odds with this being a stage 3 deal. Does it need to be a stage 3 deal?

 

I do think it is somewhat interesting to have to voluntarily give the follower your keys, but I also like how gold control functions. You could be given 0-2 keys of random types per day to use, dependent on willpower, and could sometimes ask your follower for more. But if you ask for more, there could of course be drawbacks: e.g. your follower gives you far too many keys (perhaps also of the wrong type?), and if you lose them, suddenly you're in major debt. And, of course, the number of keys that are actually *yours* is hidden information, maybe even until the deal is over.

[Buridan]

2 hours ago, Lupine00 said:

Should they only every announce this if they (internally) know you have keys to find? Cheating, but to save you spam.

That would mean that by bizarre coincidence, they would only ever check when you were breaking the rule.

 

I guess they could do a random key check rarely, and the rest of the time it would only fire if you had keys.

A compromise between immersive and practical.

 

This feels like the right approach to me. The DF being a little bit omniscient really enhances the illusion of dominance of the DF. But if they only ever check you when you actually have keys then it would become quite obvious that the mod is 'cheating' by peering into your inventory. The rare random key checks in addition to the omniscient key checks would contribute a lot to the illusion that the omniscient key check is also a random check.

 

I feel like a periodic check when you have nothing might end up feeling a bit like the "I'm a slut" deal in that it feels repetitive because the same thing happens over and over.

[Kissinger]

I think the better outcome is to mix the approaches.  That way the player is programmatically kept off balance and prioritizing the follower's judgement.

 

For example: Let the follower ask the player before a check.  If the player has a key and volunteers it, the follower gives a concrete reward.

 

If the player denies having a key and is found out, obviously the follower inflicts a punishment or penalty.

 

If the player denies having a key and does not in fact have one, then the follower can elect to either punish the player for the effort of checking (sheer abuse) or reward the player for honesty.  The follower can make this decision based on some factor (randomness or disposition or whatever)

 

If the player admits to having a key and has none, then obviously the follower again inflicts a punishment for wasting time on an unnecessary check.

 

If the player approaches the follower instead, giving the key should lead to a reward even a temporary relaxation of the checking rule.  The follower can then randomly check the player in this duration (abuse) at which point if the player holds a key the player is punished.  Or the follower can not check at all per their own word (based on some factor or just random again). 

 

And yeah in this case key casino has to be disabled otherwise the whole thing is pointless.  I guess this suggestion is thematically in line with DF's nature of increasingly overwhelming the player with the details of their exploitation.  In this view, the point of the key deal is not to make it impossible or hard to obtain keys but to turn it into another rigged power struggle.  So the key itself is actually irrelevant, it's converted to a contraband item in the context of the existing player-follower dynamic.  The player doesn't win much freedom by having keys as was pointed out, but they do lose freedom by having to struggle over something with only niche value or use given their deals.

[Lupine00]

I spent all night trying to make my key check forcegreet work. Trying every arcane trick because the package would not run.

Ah... that's what happens when you take so many months off.

It was simply that the quest priority was zero, and the package would never get selected.

Amazing how the CK can suck up your time.

I had the exact same problem last time I was making packages, but it was over a year ago.

Took until the end to remember.

 

But keys is done apart from a little tweak to timings based on what location type you are in.

And it could be different, but I think it should be effective.

 

Now I need to sort out the milking.

[delgathar]

Hello,

 

I'm really loving this mod and am looking at it more and more as a must have but I do have a suggestion.

 

It is not so much an interaction, but a negative synergy this mod has with Survival and any mod that places time limits on the player, especially a lot of short time limits.  So the mechanic of having the follower sleep (while the player stands around) just means I have to spend 16 hours sleeping at an inn instead of 8.   Fashion places short limits, Survival places short limits, etc.  So I'm spending thousands of gold for licenses and cosmetics and all, and having to sleep a significant amount of that time away.  Since fast travel is disabled, I'm spending a lot more time in the wilderness than maybe this mod intended.

 

Instead, or maybe in addition to the current choice.  Could you add a 150 dialog where the follower sleeps when the player sleeps?  Or instead of advancing time automatically, just make the follower unavailable for the next eight hours, encouraging the player to go ahead and sleep too, or at least, walk away and come back in eight hours. 

 

Thank you.

 

[Lupine00]

18 minutes ago, delgathar said:

It is not so much an interaction, but a negative synergy this mod has with Survival and any mod that places time limits on the player, especially a lot of short time limits.  So the mechanic of having the follower sleep (while the player stands around) just means I have to spend 16 hours sleeping at an inn instead of 8.

I'm not sure I understand this at all.

I use SLS with DF myself. I sleep for 8 hours. That is more than the 6 hours DF requires, and enough for RND/KuNeruNomu/etc to give you enough rest in most cases, assuming you don't have huge SLS penalties - and SLS is trying to make you avoid those penalties using this mechanic so...

 

 

How does 16 hours sleep become a requirement?

Something is going on I haven't followed here.

 

 

If you find that DF is imposing too high a cost for the follower then scale it down,

 

There's not an insurmountable difference between a situation where you have 16 hours of adventuring a day, and the cost is 1000 per day, and a situation where you have 8 hours of adventuring a day and the cost is 500. The main difference in that if you can somehow get 16 hours at 500, then the cost is halved - but you're saying you can't reduce your sleep times etc.

 

 

I've haven't had a problem where the PC sleeping for a long time was raised as an issue before. DF only requires 6 hours sleep to restore as much willpower as you can get back in a single sleep, or to restore the follower's lives.

 

 

Personally, I used SLD and FM to apply massive penalties to pregnancy, so if the PC is late-stage pregnant, they will need to spend several days in town unable to adventure - to purposely create a cash crisis as a result of pregnancy. Things like that are interesting, but DF neither prevents nor encourages them - they're just something you can have in your game if you want, and DF will make the situation more hazardous.

 

 

One way to look at it, is that the follower is charging for their time, and if you're sleeping extra, you're wasting their time and they want compensating, but the follower's normal rate is set up for a normal amount of sleep.

 

 

 

18 minutes ago, delgathar said:

Instead, or maybe in addition to the current choice.  Could you add a 150 dialog where the follower sleeps when the player sleeps?  Or instead of advancing time automatically, just make the follower unavailable for the next eight hours, encouraging the player to go ahead and sleep too, or at least, walk away and come back in eight hours. 

Sorry, not really understanding this either. "150 dialog?" 

 

I'm loathe to try and manage follower sleeping, because follower frameworks are all over that behavior, doing their thing.

And DF doesn't do much with inn prices, because there are several mods that change them, including SLS.

DF does have a basic mechanic to increase inn prices but SLS overrides that.

 

 

Maybe if you can explain this all differently, I can understand and think of a solution?

[Anunya]

44 minutes ago, delgathar said:

Hello,

 

I'm really loving this mod and am looking at it more and more as a must have but I do have a suggestion.

 

It is not so much an interaction, but a negative synergy this mod has with Survival and any mod that places time limits on the player, especially a lot of short time limits.  So the mechanic of having the follower sleep (while the player stands around) just means I have to spend 16 hours sleeping at an inn instead of 8.   Fashion places short limits, Survival places short limits, etc.  So I'm spending thousands of gold for licenses and cosmetics and all, and having to sleep a significant amount of that time away.  Since fast travel is disabled, I'm spending a lot more time in the wilderness than maybe this mod intended.

 

Instead, or maybe in addition to the current choice.  Could you add a 150 dialog where the follower sleeps when the player sleeps?  Or instead of advancing time automatically, just make the follower unavailable for the next eight hours, encouraging the player to go ahead and sleep too, or at least, walk away and come back in eight hours. 

 

Thank you.

 

 

I haven't played with the "follower needs sleep" part of the mod yet. Are you talking about the "get a bed for your follower only" at the inn dialogue? Personally, I've never used it - instead I default to getting a bed for the player character and filling in the blanks (and assuming that part of the follower maintenance fee goes to appropriate accommodations).

 

I do like the idea of having to worry about getting your follower sufficient accommodations rather than abstracting it, and I agree that something where the follower sleeps and it effectively eats up a third of your day would not feel too good. And like you I use SL Survival (though not with everything turned on); in particular, sleep quality matters to me.

 

Some thoughts on ways that could work from my perspective:

• When you rent a room/ bed you pay double the implemented price (whatever it is), to simulate getting a bed for your devious follower as well. It might be made explicit with a dialogue.
• Alternately, you get a choice whether to pay double or not. If you don't, when you fade to black you get a pop-up/ dialogue line that says something like "your follower kicks you out of bed, and you sleep on the ground". This results an a sleep quality penalty for SL Survival Users (which for me personally has turned out to be a big driver for gameplay and RP immersion).
• For non-inn sleep, when you go to sleep in a bed/ bedroll somewhere else the mod scans for available beds/bedrolls within a certain area. If there's a free one for the devious follower, no problem. If there isn't, you get the same "your follower kicks you out of bed, and you sleep on the ground" result. This would incentivize you to carry additional follower bedrolls etc, which is worthwhile IMO.

This is all from a "this would work well with how Anunya likes to play the game" perspective. There are probably reasons why implementing it would be a pain in the ass  

 

Alternately, if there's no bed available for the follower you get penalized in some other way - punishment debt or loss of follower life or the like.

 

[Anunya]

... but to be clear, for my personal playstyle the sleep part of the mod as it is today is not a problem at all. I just like kicking design ideas around

[Darkwing241]

25 minutes ago, Anunya said:

my personal playstyle the sleep part of the mod as it is today is not a problem at all.

I second this, while it would be cool to have the perfect follower sleep system.  Of the million wishes I have for DF this is #1000001.

 

I think any sort of "I'll just roleplay this in my head" work around is going to be better than what skyrim can handle anyway.

[Buridan]

8 hours ago, Kissinger said:

For example: Let the follower ask the player before a check.  If the player has a key and volunteers it, the follower gives a concrete reward.

 

If the player denies having a key and is found out, obviously the follower inflicts a punishment or penalty.

 

If the player denies having a key and does not in fact have one, then the follower can elect to either punish the player for the effort of checking (sheer abuse) or reward the player for honesty.  The follower can make this decision based on some factor (randomness or disposition or whatever)

 

If the player admits to having a key and has none, then obviously the follower again inflicts a punishment for wasting time on an unnecessary check.

 

If the player approaches the follower instead, giving the key should lead to a reward even a temporary relaxation of the checking rule.  The follower can then randomly check the player in this duration (abuse) at which point if the player holds a key the player is punished.  Or the follower can not check at all per their own word (based on some factor or just random again). 

 

Sounds like the feature is done so it might be too late, but I really like the idea of being asked then having the option to lie about not having keys (if you in fact have some). Fits quite well with the general theme of making you an active participant in your own submission.

 

2 hours ago, delgathar said:

So the mechanic of having the follower sleep (while the player stands around) just means I have to spend 16 hours sleeping at an inn instead of 8. 

 

I think what you might be missing is that when you sleep normally it counts as the follower having rested as well.

[delgathar]

3 hours ago, Buridan said:

 

I think what you might be missing is that when you sleep normally it counts as the follower having rested as well.

 

It does?  It was a separate dialog topic so I thought I had to have the follower sleep specifically, and the only place I could specify that the follower sleeps was at an inn.

Getting to an inn from deep in the wilderness in full hobble suit blindfolded with no fast travel was getting to be a pain with my follower piling on the punishments because I couldn't get to the inn fast enough.  As if losing every single fight, and having to re-fight the same npcs because I couldn't get far enough away before they attacked me again, and again, and again....was a pain.

 

I guess having that second dialog confused me.

[Lupine00]

11 hours ago, Anunya said:

I haven't played with the "follower needs sleep" part of the mod yet. Are you talking about the "get a bed for your follower only" at the inn dialogue? Personally, I've never used it - instead I default to getting a bed for the player character and filling in the blanks (and assuming that part of the follower maintenance fee goes to appropriate accommodations).

 

I do like the idea of having to worry about getting your follower sufficient accommodations rather than abstracting it, and I agree that something where the follower sleeps and it effectively eats up a third of your day would not feel too good. And like you I use SL Survival (though not with everything turned on); in particular, sleep quality matters to me.

 

The follower bed is simply a cheapskate option you can opt to use if you are desperate to repair your follower's lives but cannot afford the full price.

 

If you're in that bad a situation, you are supposed to be inconvenienced. You are probably going to hit the wait button after the follower goes to sleep.

You don't sleep in that scenario. The follower sleeps. You wait and get more tired. Maybe you use Campfire "sit" option.

 

But normally, you would buy a bed for yourself and not worry about the follower. The follower is assumed to sleep when you sleep and gets their lives reset anyway.

 

 

Perhaps some people are confused by this option and think that they must pay for the follower AND for themselves?

DF creates no need to do that.

That's not the intent. You pick one option OR the other. You pay for a room for yourself (and the follower is included automatically), OR for the follower-only.

 

 

There is absolutely no option to buy a bed just for yourself and not for the follower.

DF does not support that. Presumably the follower will not permit it. It's just not how it works.

 

It is assumed the follower always sleeps when you sleep.

 

But DF never bothered actually running a package to make the follower get in a bed and sleep when you sleep because there are a risks and costs with AI packages; it's much better not to run one unless you really need to, and if you're asleep you aren't going to see whether the follower is sleeping or not!  It's a tree that falls in the forest with nobody to hear it, and it's a waste of time to worry whether it makes a sort of cracking sound, or more of a rustling. How is the follower sleeping? On their side? On their back? You don't know because you are asleep!

 

If you have some follower-framework mod that is demanding that followers be bought a bed to sleep, the problem is the framework - maybe disable that feature in it? Because in that case, it's really that marginal feature that achieves nothing meaningful that is the cause of the problems, not DF's decision to avoid unnecessary AI packages.

 

 

  

6 hours ago, delgathar said:

I guess having that second dialog confused me.

That dialog was only added by Lozeak in 2.X and I expect he imagined most people would either already know, or would read the front page notes about the feature (which are probably not terribly explicit about it either).

 

This is really the first time it's come up, and now a couple of people are saying it confused them, so ... they know now ... and the front-page can cover it in future.

[Anunya]

That all makes sense to me. Thanks Lupine00.

[Lupine00]

I now have a working milking deal.

However, I'd like Ed to make a change, which me may, or may not.

If he does, I'll modify how the deal works.

 

So before a beta, I just need to add the ability to control the "forced start" better in the MCM, and make disabling that feature also terminate it cleanly if it's in progress.

That should put an end to people complaining a guard ambushed them ... when they had around zero points of resistance ... hmm ... I think the guard's right: definitely a slave!