Deviously Cursed Loot LE 9.0 (2021-03-09)

[thedarkone1234]

A wierd bug (older than 8.0) that I encountered again: Jullius from the bound queen quest often uses wrong sex animations. I mean REALLY wrong, like me holding him in Zyn Lesbian and such. It happens almost every time I return to him after a mission. Reloading a save that I make just before talking to him and trying again gives an acceptable animation. Is it a bug on DCL side or do I have some problematic settings in Sexlab or something?

[thedarkone1234]

1 hour ago, stas2503 said:

@Kimy Is there a way to advance the quest Bound Qween without talking to Gillius? That is, go directly to the search for items?

The game still forced me to upgrade the Cursed Loot to 8.0 ... 

Version 7.5 for some reason refused to work ...

I didnt know the game can know about updated versions for its mods. If you mean 7.5 refuses to work with POP, that is because POP stopped working as soon as the walk of shame was up.

[stas2503]

19 minutes ago, thedarkone1234 said:

I didnt know the game can know about updated versions for its mods. If you mean 7.5 refuses to work with POP, that is because POP stopped working as soon as the walk of shame was up.

No, the mod does not know how to do it  ... The mod just stopped working for me ...   And if this is the case, then I reinstalled a more recent version of the mod ...

And I don't use POP...

[MaikCG]

7 hours ago, Kimy said:

Oh right! Apparently I got an obligation to support iNeeds too!

 

Anybody else got any demands what I need to support, while we're at it? Because it seems by publishing a mod I somehow entered a contract with each and every one of you, that I am your personal coding slave. Or something like that. 

Instead of supporting another mod, You can wrong in the description of the object properties. I looked through all the mods I had, all the new food has the necessary keyword.

 

You made dcur_smellysalve, dcur_stinkypaste, dcur_stinkybase and they have the keyword "VendorItemPoison" Why for dcur_prison_stew and dcur_prison_water you forgot to use the correct keywordword that any Skyrim food has? So it's your personal inattention when creating content and ignoring the possible work of other mods.

 

Great. You need redo the system of needs, the new food, drink, the need for sleep, their buffs and debuffs. And after this block RND, iNeed, MiniNeeds, etc, if you consider it possible to block a vanilla arrest (payment of fine, thane privilege) or POP.

[DonQuiWho]

1 hour ago, MaikCG said:

Instead of supporting another mod, You can wrong in the description of the object properties. I looked through all the mods I had, all the new food has the necessary keyword.

 

You made dcur_smellysalve, dcur_stinkypaste, dcur_stinkybase and they have the keyword "VendorItemPoison" Why for dcur_prison_stew and dcur_prison_water you forgot to use the correct keywordword that any Skyrim food has? So it's your personal inattention when creating content and ignoring the possible work of other mods.

 

Great. You need redo the system of needs, the new food, drink, the need for sleep, their buffs and debuffs. And after this block RND, iNeed, MiniNeeds, etc, if you consider it possible to block a vanilla arrest (payment of fine, thane privilege) or POP.

FWIW, that sounds reasonable if you read it carefully 2 or 3 times

 

But if you are using Google translate or something else to provide an English version, when first read, you should know that it makes you sound very rude. 

 

I expect that is probably not what you intend, but Google may not your friend on this

 

I hope that helps

[Azengar]

9 hours ago, Lupine00 said:

Isn't this restating the monopoly thing?

 

Kimy has a right to protect DCL however she sees fit.

 

If you happen to have a very popular mod - and then you disallow anything that modifies that mod, or any of its code, and then you use that mod to lock out another mod - and then make a statement that any patch that overcomes that lockout is a license violation...

 

Is this a reasonable policy with regard to support - which is offered primarily by the community anyway - or is it explicit leverage of a user-base to hurt another mod?

 

You can interpret it either way. To put the most malicious spin on it without any evidence is simply "trial by smear". 

We simply cannot know why a thing is done, but we can see the results.

 

 

People should be aware that DD also has similar licensing terms to DCL, which prevent any distribution of a modification of DD, despite provision of the source. The basis for DD - of course - is not simply its code base, but also the assets it uses. Some of those assets are taken from elsewhere, and open to use by anyone, others are the sole property of DD.

 

Personally, in the case of a shared framework, like DD, I find this somewhat obstructive. DD contains code and assets from many people, and copies code snippets from many other mods that came before - as does DCL for that matter. People should be aware that when they use DD, it's not in any real sense open source, because if you used the code in it to make anything like DD, the proprietors of DD could (or would?) come after you. The value of the DD source is as a document that allows you to interoperate successfully with DD, because you aren't really allowed to use it for anything else. At least, I cannot think of many useful applications for the majority of the original parts of that code beyond implementing something exactly like DD.

 

That a shared framework in a largely open-source modding environment, is so tightly controlled, on a site where people are frequently very permissive about use, and give freely to the community, seems counter to the spirit of LL modding. While DD itself is given freely, just as DCL is given freely, they are not technically given, they are loaned, and you may lose the right to use them at any time in the future. As a modder, when you build on top of DD, you cannot be sure it will be there tomorrow, and you cannot be sure it won't be arbitrarily changed to deliberately block your mod (though this has never been done, and hopefully never will). If DD adds a check for your ESP and shuts down if it finds it, you can't patch that out, because you aren't allowed to modify DD.

 

Now seems an interesting time to raise this, what with Oracle now charging for the use of Java, a language and framework they promised they would never charge for.

 

Kimy has never shown any sign of making such egregious moves as described above, but what if Kimy walks away from Skyrim tomorrow? Who will end up controlling DD, and what will they do with it? Personally, I have no idea.

 

So that's one of my little cavils about how the DD team operates. Contributions are not invited, offers of help are silently ghosted, and lost members are not replaced, and there is no possibility to extend it independently because that is explicitly prohibited. Instead of being the shared responsibility of a decent sized working-group that would be resilient to churn of its members, it's in the hands a tiny group. If it is ever taken down, then it's gone, you cannot recreate it without remaking every script file and DD-owned asset from scratch.

Sorry if I'm late to answer, I was sleeping.

To be honest I understand your concern but what I want to say is that the decision belongs only to her, and she bought so much to the community that she has every right to have the final word. If someone wants to write a custom DD framework completely open they can always do so.

Besides you say that there is no possibility to extend it which is wrong, as stated in the permission section of DDi:

 

• You can NOT publish a fork of this mod (as in using it as a base for a project offering similar functionality) without permission. That includes porting it to other platforms/games.

 

Which mean that you have to get permission first but not that it's completely impossible.

[Guest]

7 hours ago, Lupine00 said:

It's confusing when you write things that have already been said in a way that specifically looks as if you're correcting something, when you're simply repeating it.

 

As I already observed, owning a copy of the repository is no help to the people who don't already have one, because you aren't allowed to distribute it, because of the mod it contains, which you have no rights to.

 

" You can NOT post this mod or any of its parts (including any derived works) outsides of LL without my explicit permission. "

 

You can post the full mod on LL. Maybe future versions will say you can never repost anywhere without permission (they won't say that, probably). But for all released versions permissions say they can be re uploaded if for some reason they go away.

[Lupine00]

45 minutes ago, Azengar said:

Which mean that you have to get permission first but not that it's completely impossible.

I think in that case getting permission would be perfectly described by verging on impossible.

 

As I intimated, the biggest obstacle to creating a DD alternative is not the code, but the assets.

I guess if you wanted to do it that badly you could just pay an animator.

 

There isn't a reason to make a competitor to DD though. It would be a huge amount of work setting up all those items. It has taken years to make DD what it is.

 

A more pertinent issue is how would things play out if it was taken down and its use prohibited by its creators?

When people get this angry about things, such things do happen.

It's happened to other mods in the past, it can happen here.

Though I would imagine at this point, the person most likely to quit Skyrim mods is Inte.

[MaikCG]

You like the DCL, but you don’t like its prison implementation?
You Thane and you want to send a guard on a pedestrian trip?
You oligarch with a million in your pocket and just want to pay the guard?

 

Open Deviously Cursed Loot.esp in Tes5Edit, find dialog topic xx0FE4EA and change condition:

Subject.GetCrimeGold > 0 AND
to
Subject.GetCrimeGold > 10000.000000 AND

Now, until your fine exceeds 10,000 gold, using the standard arrest dialogues. POP works. This is the easiest way to disable this version of DCL jail.. But if you want adventure, deserve a high fine and go ahead.

[Kimy]

All right. Seems the last few pages were mostly about how sinister I am as a person, whether or not there is a way to wrestle control over my own mod from me in case the "community" deems necessary to do so, and how to best defile features I purposefully included in my mod without violating my licence terms.

 

I find this offensive and insulting.

 

I am currently mulling about how to go forward with this. Don't be surprised if you don't like the conclusions I might draw from it.

[Zaflis]

44 minutes ago, Kimy said:

I am currently mulling about how to go forward with this. Don't be surprised if you don't like the conclusions I might draw from it.

I would think that gaining acceptance back from the community would require some level of reducing some of those special rules in place. Also being so hateful against others is not the best way to gather supporters. It's a bit like dealing with teenagers, if you set too strict home-rules they're gonna bite back and hate you in the end. So think about how you're gonna turn that around.

[Tenri]

It is about time to stop talking about this, the update was just 2 weeks ago, Kimy has a life outside of modding Skyrim. Things take time to make and change, sure some of the requests have been simple changes but from what i remember of the history of DCL's updates, small uploads to fix one or two things only happen if they are to fix gamebreaking issues. Things that have a workaround or are problems of mod interaction with mods that are not requirements of DCL are lower priority.

The issues are known some maybe even fixed for the next release already so we can drop it now please?

[naaitsab]

46 minutes ago, Kimy said:

All right. Seems the last few pages were mostly about how sinister I am as a person, whether or not there is a way to wrestle control over my own mod from me in case the "community" deems necessary to do so, and how to best defile features I purposefully included in my mod without violating my licence terms.

 

I find this offensive and insulting.

 

I am currently mulling about how to go forward with this. Don't be surprised if you don't like the conclusions I might draw from it.

Been following this "discussion" quietly for a while now. I find it quite bizar that people keep missing the point of a mod and that the creator of the mod decides what way to go. If you don't like it than just don't use it. Or give constructive and normal feedback. Not some unfunded barking and even going as far as demanding things. It's a shared piece of content from a creator, not something you pay a company/person for custom work. It's like going to a art studio and whacking a can of red paint on a painting of a seaside vista because you don't like blue and blaming the painter for that.

 

And about the hostile stance that some people claim Kimy to be, that's quite understandable as every release comes with a seemingly endless shitstorm of complaints, aggression and demands from a few people. I can only imagine what after a while you get a bit aggressive about all this. I know I would.

 

In my opinion a zero tolerance policy limiting reactions to constructive feedback for bugs and normal talk for things like feature idea's would be a good start. As the "I want this changed because X" discussions are endless and only result in hostilities as the latest release shows again (sadly).

 

Just my 2 cents about all this. Would be a shame if the mod goes to another platform like Patron because of all this.

[tuxagent7]

1 hour ago, Kimy said:

I am currently mulling about how to go forward with this. Don't be surprised if you don't like the conclusions I might draw from it.

Don't forget that for the few who aren't happy there is a lot more that loves your content and support it.

[Clockwinding]

Hello,

 

Out of all the ownership rights debate and all that, i'd like to report some bugs :

-With combat surrender, i was sent to prison by draugrs/monsters because i had a a bounty in the hold.

-Having spells in both hands consider you unarmed for surrendering purposes

-And i know you've fixed the werewolf one on your side already.

 

Thank you for creating this mod.

[Kimy]

5 minutes ago, Zaflis said:

I would think that gaining acceptance back from the community would require some level of reducing some of those special rules in place. Also being so hateful against others is not the best way to gather supporters. It's a bit like dealing with teenagers, if you set too strict home-rules they're gonna bite back and hate you in the end. So think about how you're gonna turn that around.

Nothing about my rules is especially restrictive. It's one of the more lax licences on LL, even. If you compare that to the average permissions set by most modellers and animators who tend not to allow ANY reuse of their assets, or the average modder on Nexus (where providing source code is NOT the norm) the notion that my licence (that allows re-using my code pretty much freely so), would be restrictive is actually pretty odd. With the two notable exceptions that I do not wish to see my code appear outsides of LL and that I do not wish to see my own code used to compete against me, it's the closest possible thing to a copyleft open source licence. Regular copyleft licences don't rule out forks and hostile changes to somebody's project, but that's because these practices are frowned upon in the open source community, while - as the last few pages of this thread nicely demonstrated - certain parts of the modding community seem to have no moral objections about it. It's probably because the open source community largely respect other people's work, while said parts of the modding community...well...don't.

 

 

[Laura]

3 hours ago, Kimy said:

All right. Seems the last few pages were mostly about how sinister I am as a person, whether or not there is a way to wrestle control over my own mod from me in case the "community" deems necessary to do so, and how to best defile features I purposefully included in my mod without violating my licence terms.

 

I find this offensive and insulting.

 

I am currently mulling about how to go forward with this. Don't be surprised if you don't like the conclusions I might draw from it.

Don't worry too much about the stuff here. It's supposed to be fun, and responding to stuff like that isn't fun. Focus on the mod and do what you love.

Although there is sometimes good feedback hidden in a mean comment, don't let it get to you.

Try to pick the feedback from the nastyness and filter out the rest.

It's also good to keep in mind that people are this harsh because they love the mod so much. They wouldn't care if they didn't like it.

While 0.05% is complaining here and making it a personal attack, the other 99.95% are quietly enjoying your mod.

[thedarkone1234]

57 minutes ago, Kimy said:

All right. Seems the last few pages were mostly about how sinister I am as a person, whether or not there is a way to wrestle control over my own mod from me in case the "community" deems necessary to do so, and how to best defile features I purposefully included in my mod without violating my licence terms.

 

I find this offensive and insulting.

 

I am currently mulling about how to go forward with this. Don't be surprised if you don't like the conclusions I might draw from it.

Look at it that way: The fact that people are expressing frustration and are attempting to find ways to force compatibility with your mod rather than simply uninstall it, proves that at least in the eyes of all these complainers, dropping DCL completely is worse than dropping all the stuff its incompstible with. In other words, even the most negative and offensive people here (perhpahps except for 1 or 2  other modders) value DCL more than everything it disturbs combined. 

 

This doesnt excuse the hostility, of course. I would just find it kinda bittersweet that people get angry at you because they have grown to worship your creation.

 

Anyway, I can still understand how annoying it is to be on your end of these things. But think of all the playerbase that are simply not vocal on the forum, or are inactive.

Whoever is not making noise here isn't mad or otherwise he would also make noise. That means that aside for a few requests for helps, bug reports and the extremely rare ''pointless'' appreciation posts, it shouldn't be suprising that all the rest are negative.

 

So I hope you remember that the percentage of negativity you see in the posts does not at all reflect the feeling of the majority your playerbase (fanbase?), and that even the toxic ones are only so because they value your mod above all else, even if they fail to realize it for themselves and/or lack in self expression. [Tbh I was at first suprised how relatively civilized LL is considering its full of internet personalities who comr together to do ''incognito things'' ?]

[UnEvenSteven]

If Kimy doesn't want Cursed Loot to be modified by anyone but herself then that should be respected. Cursed Loot is her mod, she gets to decide what can or can't be done with it. If Kimy no longer wants CL to support a certain mod then once again that is her choice and hers alone. If you don't like it then move on and don't use CL anymore, you're not entitled to anything a mod author does with their mod.

 

I wouldn't really blame Kimy at this point if she deleted this thread, pulled CL from LL and move it to her Patreon. At least that way she could restrict any discussion regarding CL to herself and her supporters. I hope Kimy doesn't take this course but then again wouldn't blame her either.

 

Kimy, I can only ask politely but please doesn't punish the rest of us because of few bad apples. I'm sure there's plenty of us that do appreciate the work you do on the framework and CL. If possible you should just ban these people in question from either downloading CL or posting in this thread or both.

[Kimy]

6 minutes ago, Clockwinding said:

Hello,

 

Out of all the ownership rights debate and all that, i'd like to report some bugs :

-With combat surrender, i was sent to prison by draugrs/monsters because i had a a bounty in the hold.

Draugr are considered humanoids by the code, but I think I need to rule them out. I don't think they are interested in money all that much!

6 minutes ago, Clockwinding said:

-Having spells in both hands consider you unarmed for surrendering purposes

Already fixed this for the next version!

6 minutes ago, Clockwinding said:

-And i know you've fixed the werewolf one on your side already.

Yes, I did!

 

[crazyduck]

12 minutes ago, Kimy said:

Nothing about my rules is especially restrictive. It's one of the more lax licences on LL, even. If you compare that to the average permissions set by most modellers and animators who tend not to allow ANY reuse of their assets, or the average modder on Nexus (where providing source code is NOT the norm) the notion that my licence (that allows re-using my code pretty much freely so), would be restrictive is actually pretty odd. With the two notable exceptions that I do not wish to see my code appear outsides of LL and that I do not wish to see my own code used to compete against me, it's the closest possible thing to a copyleft open source licence. Regular copyleft licences don't rule out forks and hostile changes to somebody's project, but that's because these practices are frowned upon in the open source community, while - as the last few pages of this thread nicely demonstrated - certain parts of the modding community seem to have no moral objections about it. It's probably because the open source community largely respect other people's work, while said parts of the modding community...well...don't.

 

 

Sorry Kimy i dont get it.

you say your Licence would be one of the more lax Licenses and that you only dont want that your Code appear outside of LL and its not used compete against you, if thats true tell me how would a Patch for your mod compete agaionst you?

Its impossible  a patch could compete against your work without your mod this patch would not work.

 

i looked into your arrest script today, tell me would it be that much work or impossible to add the POP Prison outcome to your total 9 outcomes ?

And if you dont want to do that, would it be that much work allow people to set a % slider in your crime MCM to use 2 different Dialogues? Its not like your cime dialogue always must trigger.

 

and that is something i really dont get, you say you only want to do the stuff you like make sense at same time you dont allow people to make patches for your mod and at same time say your license is not restrictive.

 

Oh and yes Kimy if this People who complain about something woudl not honor or like your Work and your Mod this People would not complain but remove it from Load Order and use other Mods.

For me i still like your Mod and i know its muhc work to make a Mod but at same time this does not mean i should not complain if i dont like something.

[DonQuiWho]

@Kimy

 

Started a new game with 8.0 and the probs I had with human molestations seem to have vanished - although I've still to test with followers.  I guess it was just some in game cross mod weirdness

 

On a slightly different tack, if i HAVEN'T ticked the 'Hardcore' post rape option, what is supposed to happen?  Forgive my confusion, but I've always struggled a bit with this 

 

Are none of the possible outcomes listed below that supposed to occur?

 

Reason for asking is that I opted to 'untick' hardcore, but just left the default chance values for the listed options, eg 100 for robbery etc.  The rape event happened OK, the PC was bound up, but was then whipped off to the wilderness with a big message saying 'They Stole My Stuff' (or similar) appearing.  I wasn't expecting that to be a valid progression

 

So are we supposed to set the alternative hardcore option chances to 0 as well, to avoid their occurring? 

 

And if none of them then do happen, what should I expect will happen? ?

 

 

As for all the dramalamadingdong, please just ignore it!  It's not worth losing any grey matter over.  As ever, 99% of the ppl will be happy, and it's only the 1% that jump up and down ?

 

EDIT: and 'complain' instead of trying to be 'constructive'

[Kimy]

Adding a handover point to a mod that's STILL declared by its own creator to be "untested" (in colorful letters!) with the version of the DD framework required by DCL makes no sense. I am not going to hand over the character to a mod that explicitly states that it might or might not be compatible with mine. I said that at least a half dozen times, and I am not sure what part of this stance isn't clear enough. I gave Inte more than a year to update his mods and declare them compatible with DD4, but he has clearly no intention to and said so. That's what compelled me to remove the POP integration a few months back.

 

I might reconsider, once Inte stops his personal crusade against DD4 and makes his stuff officially work with it. Not a moment earlier. Until such a time, I will continue to assume that his mods don't work with mine, because that's what he keeps telling his users in his own download thread. It's his mod, and his decision. *shrug*

 

Ironically, handing over the character to POP from DCL would solve most of the possible clashes between the two mods, because I could do that from my end in a controlled fashion, and when POP wouldn't break DD quests etc.

[JulioRosario89]

Hi Kimy,

 

just wanted to chime in on the chorus of the (previously silent) people that wanted to say that the would really miss your mod if taken down. To be honest, I actually am happy that you expanded your features. I was about to just give up on combat surrender (DA+Defeat and occasionally also Submit) since it stopped working for me a few months back, but then fell your version of it from the sky and I'm kinda grateful for that ?

 

Anyway, love your take on the prison system as well and hope you'll manage to expand it!

[DoctorFateMX]

On 3/23/2019 at 12:02 AM, Lupine00 said:

Spoiler alert: it's actually Glados. Later on the potato will try to kill you.

Can't wait to get out of jail so I can get some cake.