LoversStalkerM

[jh2014]

LSM needs to be able to detect I'm inside a quest dialogue before letting a stalker break the dialogue (and the quest). Also, same goes for the quest NPC that i'm doing the quest with, once I was told by NPC to follow him (for a quest), then he reversed back and stalked me.

[mem4ob4]

LSM needs to be able to detect I'm inside a quest dialogue before letting a stalker break the dialogue (and the quest). Also, same goes for the quest NPC that i'm doing the quest with, once I was told by NPC to follow him (for a quest), then he reversed back and stalked me.

 

Reading is Fun da mental

[rynak777]

By pure intuition, i'd expect the glitch to happen by any one or multiple of the following:

 

- Different logic for deciding about stalkers and dialogue

 

- Different logic for dialogue topic and answers

 

- Race conditions, possibly out of your hands - do you yourself explicitely trigger dialogue start, or do you ask oblivion to do so when certain conditions are met? If the later, there might be a delay

 

- Desynchronization: Change of situation might result in the stalker-code at a given moment acting on different information than the dialog code

[Kuwanzabot]

How make it works with Lovers Brutes? (I dont have any special answers in dialog when companions approaches me)

[mem4ob4]

How make it works with Lovers Brutes? (I dont have any special answers in dialog when companions approaches me)

 

I have not tried running both LoversBrute version 0.3 and LSMv2 together.

The version of LSM that you have installed: English or Russian?

What settings do you have for allow/ban in LSM?

In what load order do you have the 2 plugins?

 

Mem

[Kuwanzabot]

 

How make it works with Lovers Brutes? (I dont have any special answers in dialog when companions approaches me)

 

I have not tried running both LoversBrute version 0.3 and LSMv2 together.

The version of LSM that you have installed: English or Russian?

What settings do you have for allow/ban in LSM?

In what load order do you have the 2 plugins?

 

Mem

 

 

Well kind of false alarm.

 

I checked this on dummy in testinghall. He approach (talking about the shoes) but i cant answer him after taming with MCS.

 

Im using Mad Companionship Spells v2.5 and MCS extension_v1.15. 

 

LoversStalkerM_v2.0, english. LoversStalker is above MCS in loadorder.

[mem4ob4]

Kuwanzabot

What settings do you have for allow/ban in LSM?

Did you cast MCS order before or after the dummy began to stalk you?

 

Mem

[Kuwanzabot]

Kuwanzabot

What settings do you have for allow/ban in LSM?

Ban only women

Kuwanzabot

Did you cast MCS order before or after the dummy began to stalk you?

 

 

Before

[mem4ob4]

Test esp for LSMv2 female.

Using token for dialog checks.

added hotkey toggle on/off for scanning.

added strip/drop option.

For those having dialog problems, please try this one out and let me know how it does.

Thanks you,

Mem

LSM2.5f.7z

[sexcapades]

Yes!  That did the trick.  THANK YOU!

[mem4ob4]

Thank you all who has taken the time check out and/or use LSM and LSMN.

 

I am currently considering consolidating LSM v1.X (message system), v2.X (dialog system), and LSMN into one esp.

No guaranty that I can actually make it work... but that never stopped me before.

1. This would allow the player (in game) to toggle between messages or dialog.

2. A single hotkey to toggle LSM and LSMN on/off (one on, the other off, both on, both off
    etc.) at will.

3. There has been private discussion about including BreakArmor checks to influence the victims
desirability to potential rapists. Currently the influence is: Is various body slots filled?
If BA checks are included in the code, it would be a 'if available' setup so this plugin would
not require it. The only possible drawback would be that clothing would not be handled
realistically compared to armor.

 

4. Include 'demands' to masterbate for the stalker if MB2 is installed.

Other rambling thoughts:
The pluggy ini message file 'might' be able to be expanded to include messaging for NPCvNPC
stalking.

One thought has been to meld LSM and LSMN so that the player is included as 'just another npc'
rather then having dedicated LSM checks. This would give the player the same chances of being
raped as any other npc in the area.

Currently creatures are treated as having no responsibility (if creature stalking is enabled)
and can greatly influence any situation. I wonder if it would be better to allow them their
default responsibility?

I am sure most of you are aware of the 'back door' method of stopping a stalker
(raised fists or drawn weapon). I am thinking of replacing that simple check with stat
(willpower,strength) comparisons.
Results could be reflected in messages or dialog options. Also give the player the chance
to 'turn the tables' on the stalker, if the above checks allow it, to rape the npc.

Concerning player rapes: would it be desirable to base some dialog/messages on the number of times a specific npc has raped the player and consider players willpower, or even influence/boost
that specific npc's chance of stalking the player above others?

An option to allow only followers to stalk the player?

Let me know your thoughts and if you feel this kind of consolidation would be useful.

 

Mem

[varenne]

Thank you all who has taken the time check out and/or use LSM and LSMN.

 

I am currently considering consolidating LSM v1.X (message system), v2.X (dialog system), and LSMN into one esp.

No guaranty that I can actually make it work... but that never stopped me before.

 

1. This would allow the player (in game) to toggle between messages or dialog.

I like this option as I prefer messaging vs. dialog.

 

2. A single hotkey to toggle LSM and LSMN on/off (one on, the other off, both on, both off

    etc.) at will.

Also like this option too, as there are times that I don't use LSM. LSMN is almost always on or active, to support production of Hiyokos.

 

3. There has been private discussion about including BreakArmor checks to influence the victims

desirability to potential rapists. Currently the influence is: Is various body slots filled?

If BA checks are included in the code, it would be a 'if available' setup so this plugin would

not require it. The only possible drawback would be that clothing would not be handled

realistically compared to armor.

I have been testing with dynamic settings provided by WappyOne for this and it is working quite well for some armors; those that are one piece. Those that are multiple or separate pieces it is more complex but that I think is a durability issue and which parts get destroyed first kind of thing. Just mentioning it for those also experiementing with this type of RP.

 

NudeShy has an optional ESP, I forget the actual name, that does something regarding clothes, but I have not tested it yet. It may partly address your drawback here.

 

4. Include 'demands' to masturbate for the stalker if MB2 is installed.

I recently had a weird animation issue using MB2 (trying to recreate it), but this too may be useful functionality.

 

Other rambling thoughts:

The pluggy ini message file 'might' be able to be expanded to include messaging for NPCvNPC

stalking.

With an ini switch to turn it off I assume?

 

One thought has been to meld LSM and LSMN so that the player is included as 'just another npc'

rather then having dedicated LSM checks. This would give the player the same chances of being

raped as any other npc in the area.

Hmmm, this sounds interesting...

 

Currently creatures are treated as having no responsibility (if creature stalking is enabled)

and can greatly influence any situation. I wonder if it would be better to allow them their

default responsibility?

I think the default responsibility would be the way to go.

 

I am sure most of you are aware of the 'back door' method of stopping a stalker

(raised fists or drawn weapon). I am thinking of replacing that simple check with stat

(willpower,strength) comparisons.

Results could be reflected in messages or dialog options. Also give the player the chance

to 'turn the tables' on the stalker, if the above checks allow it, to rape the npc.

This functionality would provide for some interesting situations.

 

Concerning player rapes: would it be desirable to base some dialog/messages on the number of times a specific npc has raped the player and consider players willpower, or even influence/boost that specific npc's chance of stalking the player above others?

Interesting too, very RPish.

 

An option to allow only followers to stalk the player?

All followers? How would this affect followers of MODs like CM, Hiyokos, etc? Would this be group selectable; one group active others not, etc?

 

Let me know your thoughts and if you feel this kind of consolidation would be useful.

 

Mem

 

[mem4ob4]

@varenne

Concerning us of BA:
Hmm... I think my dim lightbulb just brightened concerning BA nif checks.
I was over thinking it.
"With an ini switch to turn it off I assume?"
That would be in the ini, yes. I would also try to get as many settings into
the ingame spell also.
"All followers? How would this affect followers of MODs like CM..."
I would use the same checks that are currently used to decide to add/not add a
follow package: xLoversCmnIsCompanion (LAPF) checks for MadCompanionShip, MCP, and Toaster says
share, plus a 'follow' package check for others (this covers LoversBitch dogs, slaves, etc).
Let me know of others that might not fall under the above checks. Adding and removing script
packages can really screw with follower type mods so I try very hard not to mess them up.
As far as putting them in groups... Can you give an example?
 

Thanks for your feedback/input,

Mem

[varenne]

One other rare but still used companion MOD is the one here GGC pack by Taka, based on the old Valeria companion MOD and scripts. A member in that thread did provide a new ESP that allows for using all 6 available companions. That one in particular could throw a wrench into what you are trying to do. More of a heads up than a discouragement, in case some member comes looking for answers to issues in the future. I still use the old ESPs, but only one is actively roaming around Tamriel. The other is I believe is under MCS control in one of the castles.

 

Example or scenario concerning companion groups would be, say Hiyokos which are added to MCS, maybe Human Touch also. Slaves is yet another group unto itself, as is LB canines. I think some exacting ini control may be what is needed, which it reads like you are already thinking that way.

 

In my extreme case, I use CM MODs, MCS (My main Hiyoko control), Human Touch (Only on rare occasion for some very stubborn Hiyokos), LB & two GGC NPCs. (If I try to use MB2, I will get the too many follower warnings more often than not.) I also have Bravil Underground and Slave Trader, but finished BU and not very active with slaving. Still, I really have to keep track of followers sometimes.

[rynak777]

One thought has been to meld LSM and LSMN so that the player is included as 'just another npc'

rather then having dedicated LSM checks. This would give the player the same chances of being

raped as any other npc in the area.

 

There's a lot of potential for consolidation between LSM and LSMN, but this i think isn't a good feature to axe in the name of simplification. Players might sometimes want different probabilities for player and NPCs, as well as "companions". The minimum in my opinion are on/off switches for all three groups. Though, i really think there needs to be seperate probability setting for the player. The other variables, like responsibility effects and so on can be merged, but IMO there should be a seperate "offset" setting for the player.

 

Currently creatures are treated as having no responsibility (if creature stalking is enabled)

and can greatly influence any situation. I wonder if it would be better to allow them their

default responsibility?

 

I'm unsure about this, and even more unsure if the majority can be satisfied in either case. This might be another candidate for a setting: Allow to set creature responsibility from 0-100, where 0 means "default".

 

I am sure most of you are aware of the 'back door' method of stopping a stalker

(raised fists or drawn weapon). I am thinking of replacing that simple check with stat

(willpower,strength) comparisons.

Results could be reflected in messages or dialog options. Also give the player the chance

to 'turn the tables' on the stalker, if the above checks allow it, to rape the npc.

 

I'm not a friend of bringing stats and the like into plugins like this. First, i think many people just want to set their prefered balance themselves, seperate from stats. Second: Even for players who might want stats to influence stuff - the results might be unpredictable, which would make it seem random.

Concerning player rapes: would it be desirable to base some dialog/messages on the number of times a specific npc has raped the player and consider players willpower, or even influence/boost

that specific npc's chance of stalking the player above others?

 

Feedback of course always improves immersion. It gives the player the feeling, that those NPCs are a little bit less like mindless robots, and actually have memory or react to things. If those messages are configurable, i'm all for it. Regarding stats, see previous comment (not a friend of them).

An option to allow only followers to stalk the player?

 

Hmm, i wouldn't know when to use it, but then again not everyone plays the game like i do. I guess it depends on how much interest there is from others, for such a setting.

 

[mem4ob4]

@varenne
I would say any companion mod will use a 'follow' package at some point (except when 'relax','stay', etc.) so at the very least, all followers can be banned at some point. At those other times, it would become a bigger issue. LB canines and Hiyos can be identified for a specific group but what if you have an LB canine hiyo? What group would it belong to. That is not to say things could not be worked out, it would be more a matter of how much
script processing will it take. This is one reason I did not rework to get stealing active. I hate to run frame loops just for the sake of running them.
But I can surely see need for player control on groups like Hiyo (player does or does not want that activity in their game), and SlaveTraderSlaves (Traders property needs practice/broken or gotta keep my property in good shape).
It is these kind of groups that need identified.
Remember, I am rambling outloud on these ideas too

@rynak777
 Thanks.
"There's a lot of potential for consolidation between..."
Right. LSM and LSMN uses two different kinds of scans and I am trying to see if they can be melded together. If it works as efficiently as I want, it would preserve the players settings in the context of the crowd. Having it use the each of the three groups settings would be perfection, but we will have to see if that can be done without dropping fps to the floor each time The framework I am working up is still just that- a framework.

"creature responsibility"
That will probably be the best method. It will allow the vanilla purist to take the game set stat while allowing those that think "They are animals, what do they care" or "they are domesticated so they behave" to set it how they wish.

"stats"
Ahhh but my whole system is based on the responsibility stat ;P
But seriously, there are points to discuss on this matter. There are as many different types of Roleplayers as there are Players. It can range from creating a character and playing them 'by the book (stats)' to creating a character and giving them a personality in opposition to their stats. In a publically released plugin in may be best to hit that range somewhere in the middle as far as mechanics. It is still up to the player to decide though if the character takes a chance and raises their fists or not. If they raise their fists it wont be 'just' stats. It would be diceroll modified by stats determined by profession, influenced by how close or far apart those stats are. I do agree that being too tied down to stats is not good.
And I am having a serious flashback to sitting around on the floor with painted lead figures on hexpaper. One hand in a bag of fritos and the other reaching for my favorite d20 while reading and writing this response.

Yes, the messages will be configurable as additional sections in the pluggy ini.
 

[Naruto12065!]

Im enjoying the mod, I am....its just I can't seem to find all the extra settings. The in game spell only gives me the option to change scan,responsibility,gender stalkers, creatures, essentials, and even the randy level for each one....(Im still not sure what that level does in game)

But I can't access quick mode, or verbal assault...how do I get this options?   

[hfhkqidhs]

3. There has been private discussion about including BreakArmor checks to influence the victims

desirability to potential rapists. Currently the influence is: Is various body slots filled?

If BA checks are included in the code, it would be a 'if available' setup so this plugin would

not require it. The only possible drawback would be that clothing would not be handled

realistically compared to armor.

 

I am sure most of you are aware of the 'back door' method of stopping a stalker

(raised fists or drawn weapon). I am thinking of replacing that simple check with stat

(willpower,strength) comparisons.

Results could be reflected in messages or dialog options. Also give the player the chance

to 'turn the tables' on the stalker, if the above checks allow it, to rape the npc.

 

Concerning player rapes: would it be desirable to base some dialog/messages on the number of times a specific npc has raped the player and consider players willpower, or even influence/boost

that specific npc's chance of stalking the player above others?

 

 

Some kind of strength/willpower check sounds excellent, but it obviously should not make high strength/willpower characters immune to rape. As far as clothing/armor is concerned, a way to control how sexy a specific attire is would be extremely welcome. Perhaps like in Joburg through weight or just as a selectable setting from the menu. I would also kindly remind about the dropped armor being repaired issue that WappyOne offered a solution to a while ago:

 

 

 

            set objhealth to tmpr2.GetEquippedCurrentHealth j

            tmpr2.UnequipItemNS EquippedItemr

            tmpr2.Drop EquippedItemr 1

            Let EquippedItemr := GetFirstRef

            EquippedItemr.SetCurrentHealth objhealth

 

 

 

[mem4ob4]

@Naruto
Double check the version that you downloaded and compare it to the information in the included readme and the OP. Options available depending on version in use.
Randy level: The higher the number, the less likely the stalker will continue to persue the player character after the first rape.
Any other problems/questions, let me know and thank you for useing LSM.

@h
Dropped armor issue has already been corrected in v1.51 and v2.5f
All branches will eventually be updated to include latest checks, hotkey, etc.

 set presrvhealth to Player.GetEquippedCurrentHealth 2 ;get original health of equipment
 Player.UnequipItemNS testob1
 if dors >= 1
     Player.Drop testob1 1
     Let dropob := GetFirstRef ;identify the dropped equipment
     set zpo to dropob.GetPos z + 75
     dropob.SetPos z zpo
     dropob.SetCurrentHealth presrvhealth ;give it back its original health
 endif

The past debate on the Joburg topic: 'what makes cloths sexy: weight/value' is just that, a past debate. If BA is available, I will use that to check its condition (based on its nif), and current slot checks will still be used.

The player always has the option to not raise their characters fists. The only time in my opinion that stats should come into play is to help the stalker decide if its worth taking a chance of getting the crap beat out of them by an amazon or burnt to a crisp by a

firewitch for touching their butt

Of course that now brings up the question: what if the stalker is not intelligent (creature). Perhaps checks to see if
they have been 'charmed' might work for that.

Bare in mind that nothing is set in stone on the consolidation and what is finally released to the community may be totally

different than what it started out as. The results will be a reflection of these past, present, and future discussions.

Side Note: First and foremost I mod for myself. The variations and differences from
what I release are based on my setup and my likes/dislikes.
I really enjoy sharing with others of this community and being a part of it. But
each one of us has our own likes/dislikes so I try to develop plugins that may not
be the best for each individual but includes ways that might help them get what they want.
This is why I will always encourage anyone who wants something different in a plugin
to setup the ConstructionSetExtender and bookmark the CSwiki. Check out how things
are done and see if you can find ways to make it do what you want for your world.
I am always happy to talk coding in PM even if it is to help you rip apart and totally
change one of my own plugins.
(geesh... is this a thread or a blog? I get long winded sometimes)

Mem

[varenne]

The past debate on the Joburg topic: 'what makes cloths sexy: weight/value' is just that, a past debate. If BA is available, I will use that to check its condition (based on its nif), and current slot checks will still be used.

 

That, IMO is the the best way to handle clothes and sexiness or nudity levels, as BA has the functionality for it already in an optional ESP. It continues the hand-off to other MODs, like you've done with WappyOne's RaperS, which in turn supports the modularity concept of MODs, allowing you to focus on the functionality you'd like to provide in your MOD, while leveraging others work and their MODs. IMO, it's the smart way to go.

 

Armor, and sexiness or nudity levels, is as mentioned above already addressed in WappyOne's RaperS dynamic mode. If anyone needs the preferred settings post here or PM me and I'll post 'em. (These are for RPing, as your PC will be raped much less, only as armor is nearing or at 100% destroyed.)

[Naruto12065!]

Im using the latest one V2

but maybe im just dumb and didn't understand something in the description. I thought V2 would have all of these said options but I guess that's only v1.4?

Ill attempt to download that one and see where it gets me, but feel free to correct me again in case i'm wrong. Im also not sure about the randy level still, I think I get the idea...but you may have to explain it little bit more. (such as the higher the level the least chance they will want to keep fucking you? and the lower the more they will stalk you?)

 

P.S It would also be very hot if you added a way for the stalker or whatever is trying to get some ass, to be able to paralyze your character with a touch spell or hell even a ranged one for those who like to run away lol.

Im no modder so I have no idea about all the complications and issues that might cause. (most things I come up always seem to back fire) but its just food for thought, something to think about that might add a more "RAPE" feeling to it. As its pretty easy to avoid getting raped in my opinion, I think it would fit the bill a little better if the PC had a few great disadvantages (optional of course) against who was ever trying to rape him/her to make it more like rape...but im just a mumbling on, throwing my thoughts around. 

 

P.P.S so yea, any help on getting these settings to work right would be greatly appreciated.

[mem4ob4]

Naruto

I do not always type clearly, or use the right words. (depricated is misspelled as well as not the right word to use)

v1.x is one branch of LSM and uses messages instead of dialog.

v2.x is a different branch of LSM and uses dialog instead of messages.

The two branches act and feel different. allow strip/drop. verbal harassment. quickmode. are not valid in version 2.X

 

v1.5 is an update to v1.4 that allows you to modify/make your own messages.

You might try v1.5 with quickmode on, if you want no warning of a rape comeing. You are correct on the Randy setting. It feels backwards.

 

Mem

[mem4ob4]

Within the next few days I will be releasing LSMv1.6 (final*)
change log so far:
adjustments in scripts and menu to allow more detailed use of RaperSv1.71+   Older versions/no versions still supported.
cleanup of nostrip/strip/drop/random options.
fix of cycletime drift not drifting.
added ini reload option.
Added Hotkey toggle.

If there are any other bugs with version 1.51, now is the time to let me know. I am not changing functionality, just cleaning it up before starting on an attempt at consolidation.

Mem

*except for bug fixes.

[FeebleFlies]

You should remove the CharGen Check in your new Version for better compatibility with AlternateStart mods. The check either stops the mod completly or is not needed in most cases.

[mem4ob4]

You should remove the CharGen Check in your new Version for better compatibility with AlternateStart mods. The check either stops the mod completly or is not needed in most cases.

 

Thanks for the heads up.

Let me know what AlternateStart mod you are using (a link please) and I will look in to it.

Having it run while CharGen is running can cause problems so I will need to make sure of the best time (in respect to the AlternateStart) to allow stalking.

Alternative Start by Robert Evrae (and AmethystLR addition) is compatable and I have not had any reports of specific others. UV2 raised issues in earlier versions but that was resolved also.

 

Mem