Sexout Intimacy

[LadyM]

I'm starting a new post for this question.  I was having supper with Scrambler and he passed out.  He didn't come around so I waited an hour and he popped up but this isn't a good thing.  The activity cancelled out so I lost that too.  Here's the screens from him being passed out.  If you need anything else, let me know!
 
 

[t3589]

I'm starting a new post for this question.  I was having supper with Scrambler and he passed out.  He didn't come around so I waited an hour and he popped up but this isn't a good thing.  The activity cancelled out so I lost that too.  Here's the screens from him being passed out.  If you need anything else, let me know!

 

 

 

New one on me.  I'd suspect any mod that renders NPCs unconscious.  This one only does that sort of thing to the player so far.

 

[LadyM]

 

I'm starting a new post for this question.  I was having supper with Scrambler and he passed out.  He didn't come around so I waited an hour and he popped up but this isn't a good thing.  The activity cancelled out so I lost that too.  Here's the screens from him being passed out.  If you need anything else, let me know!

 

 

 

New one on me.  I'd suspect any mod that renders NPCs unconscious.  This one only does that sort of thing to the player so far.

 

 

 

I thought that too, T but it only happens when they're in an activity together.

[t3589]

OK I've started to piece together NPC to NPC tracking/interactions.  So far, only one small bit is in and it's not at all complete.  Tension is set to run at an abnormally high rate in this latest copy.  It's very one sided atm.  In short, these are the beginnings of the negative aspects of NPC to NPC interaction, and there is not yet any positive tracking.  Just a heads up so you don't get too frustrated when your NPCs are at each others throats.  Also note that Envy mitigation isn't in yet either.

 

You may notice the new 'Social' dialog option.  The intent is something along the lines of 'You're causing a scene/You're embarrassing me' as a method of expressing the PCs displeasure with the NPCs attitude towards others.  The function it serves is to mitigate social tension.  Which NPC gets along with which NPC is still very 'up in the air', and will most definitely require some tweaking and balancing.

 

More to come.

 

EDIT: The key factor for tension is the jealous attribute btw.

Edited October 27, 2015 by t3589

[MRM18870]

 Don't bother with "con_" when typing in the console -- those commands are NVSE shortcuts to console commands for use in scripts, but you can just directly use the console commands as "TFC" and "ToggleMenus". ;-)

 

I also recommend jogging the NPC out of any frozen AI/animations by opening the console, clicking the NPC (roll the mousewheel after clicking if you can't click the NPC correctly), checking their reference ID at the top, and then typing 'pushactoraway [refID] 1".  This will cause them to ragdoll, which normally resets their animations and AI state.

 

Don't forget the always-helpful "EVP" (EvaluatePackage) command to break them out of any scripted package funk -- but use that one as a last resort, since they'll revert to their vanilla unscripted packages instead of whatever the mod wants them to do.

 

Works fine for me exept one little problem, afterwards I can not interact via SOI Hotkey with NPCs - according to debug massages SOI regard  my char as "busy" ( otherwise FONV seems to work as intended )

 

 

BTW cool that we have now the first NPC -NPC interactions   

 

Edit: Maybe a bug? A NPC had the Opinion "Unfaithfull" - i clicked "deny" ann get as an answer "is not famous" - I remembered i had this before when ( sucsessfully ? )dening an opinion, the NPC changed the opinion about an complete different issue.

[t3589]

 

Works fine for me exept one little problem, afterwards I can not interact via SOI Hotkey with NPCs - according to debug massages SOI regard  my char as "busy" ( otherwise FONV seems to work as intended )

 

 

BTW cool that we have now the first NPC -NPC interactions   

 

Edit: Maybe a bug? A NPC had the Opinion "Unfaithfull" - i clicked "deny" ann get as an answer "is not famous" - I remembered i had this before when ( sucsessfully ? )dening an opinion, the NPC changed the opinion about an complete different issue.

 

 

I'll look into it.

 

 

EDIT: Does it say "fnSOIHotKey:FAILED:HotkeyBusy!" ?  If so, wait 3 seconds and try again.  This is in place to prevent hotkey spamming.  If not, I need to know exactly what it says.

 

Also, opinions must be confirmed, so to speak, before they take hold.  It is not a bug.  What happened is that you avoided being viewed as unfaithful, but in the process the NPC decided you weren't famous as well.  If you want to be absolutely certain that an NPC will not form an opinion, ignore it.  Ignoring runs the risk of starting an argument, while denying runs the risk of the NPC changing their minds about currently held opinions.

 

 

EDITx2:  If you were denying an opinion presented during an activity as opposed to a rumor (Ask Thoughts).  You were correct to do so, as denying is how you change their minds.  If this was the case, you were simply unlucky, in that they changed their mind about a currently held opinion.  It just wasn't the opinion you wanted them to change.

 

Edited November 1, 2015 by t3589

[MRM18870]

Ah, o.k. i did not know that. 

 

However , now I have found something that seems to be realy a bug, but I did not see what effect it has.

 

I have sometimes ( but not very often ) seen this debug massage in the console

 

Error in script 1905c015

Attempting a call function on a Null reference or base object

File: SeyoutItimacy.esm Offset:0x01D8

Command let

 

 

[t3589]

Ah, o.k. i did not know that. 

 

However , now I have found something that seems to be realy a bug, but I did not see what effect it has.

 

I have sometimes ( but not very often ) seen this debug massage in the console

 

Error in script 1905c015

Attempting a call function on a Null reference or base object

File: SeyoutItimacy.esm Offset:0x01D8

Command let

 

Good eye.  Ty.  New one should fix that.

 

[t3589]

Just a heads up while I'm thinking about it.  I've updated the second post and am slowly adding variables.  For example: Open the console, click on an NPC and type

NX_SetEVFL "SOIntimacy:Reserved" 0

to un-reserve an NPC.  Should save you from reloading due to my recent shenanigans while working on inclusions.

[LadyM]

T, are we back on this board now?  I'll start using it instead of the other board.  Also that new upload, is it the same one from the other board?  Seems to be  have it in place already.

[t3589]

T, are we back on this board now?  I'll start using it instead of the other board.  Also that new upload, is it the same one from the other board?  Seems to be  have it in place already.

 

Yeppers.  I've got a new copy to post up as well.  Will do it here sometime today.

 

EDIT: New one up.  Posted on this site.

 

Edited December 7, 2015 by t3589

[MRM18870]

Your latest upload seems to be broken, at least nexus modmanager says it can't be added Status:incomplete 

[moldyhotdogs]

I really liked this mod, played with v0.93 for about 40hrs of gameplay. NPC Initiated dialog, Relationships, activities and all seem to fire off well. Minor bug I encountered a few times was an activity would sometimes never end, but the npc would get up, without dialog prompt, and return to follower behavior. Then the npc kept returning back to the activity behavior after every dialog interaction, even days later (game time). leaving the cell put the npc back to just follower behavior, but after dialog interaction to give ammo or anything, they'd wander off the nearest idle markers wandering around until leaving the cell, also were unresponsive to combat situations and wait/follow instructions. Poked around fnvedit and geck didn't notice any obvious conflicts , also running spunk lust and Unethical deeds. Could be just too many scripts running against npc at once and occasionally conflicting causing and bad value return or not allowing the return call at all. Other than that GREAT mod!, can't wait until dialog is implemented. 1 of the few mods I'm actually following

[t3589]

Your latest upload seems to be broken, at least nexus modmanager says it can't be added Status:incomplete 

 

I have no idea what that means.  I've never once used nexus mod manager.

 

I really liked this mod, played with v0.93 for about 40hrs of gameplay. NPC Initiated dialog, Relationships, activities and all seem to fire off well. Minor bug I encountered a few times was an activity would sometimes never end, but the npc would get up, without dialog prompt, and return to follower behavior. Then the npc kept returning back to the activity behavior after every dialog interaction, even days later (game time). leaving the cell put the npc back to just follower behavior, but after dialog interaction to give ammo or anything, they'd wander off the nearest idle markers wandering around until leaving the cell, also were unresponsive to combat situations and wait/follow instructions. Poked around fnvedit and geck didn't notice any obvious conflicts , also running spunk lust and Unethical deeds. Could be just too many scripts running against npc at once and occasionally conflicting causing and bad value return or not allowing the return call at all. Other than that GREAT mod!, can't wait until dialog is implemented. 1 of the few mods I'm actually following

 

I'll look into it.  Currently reinstalling everything due to a bad drive.  Might be a couple days.

 

Thank you for the kind words.

 

[antediluvian]

Sorry for the late reply... lost interest in Fallout 3/NV for a while (actually it was directly related to not buying Fallout 4 and being frustrated with Bethesda pushing out increasingly console-oriented games).  Back now!  As a fair warning I'm not caught up on any updates to the base mod since the 5th of November or so.

 

 

 

Actually there is 'pfft, not my type' going on.  It just doesn't use that term for one.  Secondly, not being the PCs type doesn't lock them out or write them off, so that they can change their mind at some point.

 

Ehh, they're still "compatible", with all that entails: flirtatiousness, affection, random offers for dates, etc.  Even the most curmudgeonly person is always asking me if I want to hang out or grab a drink or whatever. =)

 

 

 

So what are you saying here exactly?  Is this a vote for an all inclusion setting, or did you have something else in mind?

 

Yeah, I just wanted to defend the option of having an optional all-inclusion.  If the game was solely oriented towards "pick your friends", it would make me lose interest (and cost me a lot of work in my own addon ;-)).

 

 

 

EDIT:  I mean, I can hard line personality conflicts and make them incompatible if they're 'not the PCs type'.  As I've stated, this mech is in fact in play.  It just isn't an in or out finality.  For example: 'Not your types' might be fine with sleeping with you, while at the same time having zero interest in committing.  See what I mean?  I think that's what you're experiencing.  Is that your NPCs 'all' wouldn't mind nailing your PC.  Which, imo is par for the course with human males.  In general, males don't have to like you to get in bed with you. lol

 

I was leaning towards making them incompatible, yeah.  I tended to notice the opposite: that just about every male who isn't a pure gang member is affectionate after a short time.  Maybe it's just symptomatic of "normal" people being fundamentally "good" in the mod (...or the fact that I usually Mary Sue myself as a hottie).  Perhaps what I really want is more randomized personalities amongst non-gang level populations?  I'm fine with non-commital, but them telling me how much they like me (affection) is a counter-argument even if their max commitment level is only 1 or 2.  Perhaps the maximum commitment level could be used to gate a few of the affections (not so much the flirtations), so that people with lower max commitments are still as likely to flirt and less likely to give affection -- so for any girl worth her ovaries, she'll be able to tell what he's really after.

 

One way or another, the reverse is crazy crazy crazy, though.  Women are just as likely as men in the mod to approach male characters and start (sexual) relationships (or at least are easy enough that they're happy to flirt anytime).  I won't say that's completely contrary to reality, but I'd say women are at least a little more selective than that.  (I was playing as a real jerkass of a male character, and merely wearing pre-war businesswear had the women falling all over themselves.  A guy looks good in a suit, don't get me wrong, but... ;-))

 

 

 

EDITx2: Also, what I meant by 'NPCs that the PC will never establish a relationship with...', I was speaking of NPCs that you will most likely ignore and never talk to at all.  Establishing a relationship doesn't have to mean intimacy.  e.g., I add some NPCs for the sole purpose of purely platonic relations.

 

True, I was mostly focusing on the intimate parts, but my point is that it still feels too... gamey.  It feels far more natural to play the game as a reality simulator than as a Facebook with bodies -- "click Like on this person?" =)

 

NPCs interacting with NPCs looks like one of the better ways to go with this one, and development on that has progressed, I see, so I'll jump in sometime later with feedback if necessary.

 

 

 

EDITx3: What about brining back a 'friend zone' setting?  Something like 'friend zones = enabled', then if the NPC decides they aren't your type they 'friend zone' you?  It would give the PC an option to friend zone NPCs as well.

 

I'm all for Friend Zone!  I actually had one TODOed on my addon for myself.  I do think it should only stick them into 'incompatible' -- instead of being an additional hurdle to overcome before they're even considered incompatible -- just to take advantage of existing friendship mechanics and the ability to drop hints.

[LadyM]

Please don't make the mod too selective, I want my ceratin NPCs to remain untouched by incompatibiliy or turn off.  If the mod gets too picky and selective, I'll lose interest.

[antediluvian]

I recall one person made a post on another forum saying that "options are not the answer to avoid making design decisions", but that only applies if the content wasn't already there to begin with -- new radical paradigms in existing content should always be optional.  I can't imagine that t3589 would strip out any features without suitable remedy, especially now that I've seen what he meant by getting rid of the auto-include (i.e., no pre-programmed lists of NPCs per area when the map marker is visited).

 

To simplify what I just said, since even my own brain is going "zuhwha--?", I don't think he'd implement pickier NPCs without an option to enable the existing lovin' -- much like hardcore/classic/fantasy stalking, there'd be a toggle switch for choosing your level of (in)fidelity.  (Actually, given how much I've been elbow deep in the guts of the mod, I would be fine with no changes at all as long as it stays possible for me to hack stuff in. ;-))

[darklord36]

I'm totally new to this, so I need ALOT of explaining.

First of all, I have no idea what are the Conviction, Inhibition, Disposition ect... 

Also, respect and disposition seems to drop with every npc I interact with and I'm sure it's a bad thing.

 

So far I'm really loving the mod, it brings a whole new way to play the game, interacting with npc is so much fun now and you never 

get tired of it, all it needs is small little guide at the start.

Anyway, keep up the good work, I'm really looking forward to this, and hope you don't mind explaining a bit to me 

[t3589]

Sorry for the late reply... lost interest in Fallout 3/NV for a while (actually it was directly related to not buying Fallout 4 and being frustrated with Bethesda pushing out increasingly console-oriented games).  Back now!  As a fair warning I'm not caught up on any updates to the base mod since the 5th of November or so.

 

Ehh, they're still "compatible", with all that entails: flirtatiousness, affection, random offers for dates, etc.  Even the most curmudgeonly person is always asking me if I want to hang out or grab a drink or whatever. =)

 

Yeah, I just wanted to defend the option of having an optional all-inclusion.  If the game was solely oriented towards "pick your friends", it would make me lose interest (and cost me a lot of work in my own addon ;-)).

 

Right, in the new copy I made some changes to try and balance it out more.  Though I never saw it as picking your friends.  My thinking was, the PC should have the power to 'write off' NPCs that they decide are simply 'out of the question' in terms of a deeper relationship.

 

The idea with the esm engine is to create a baseline, with which you can use to create a mod that takes things beyond that baseline.  This is mainly why I decided to change the way inclusion works.  Essentially, I'm trying to place inclusion/exclusion into the hands of the modder, while retaining some player choice in the absence of a modder.

 

If you're working on an add-on, and you need changes made, feel free to PM or post the details here.  That's precisely what this mod is for.  You shouldn't have to hack it (unless by 'hack it' you mean using it as intended).  Check out the second post.  Eventually I'll have all the variables listed there.

 

Pulse should still work.  Currently the system excludes very few NPCs, but reserves some.  If you find NPCs that you think are incorrectly set by default, just say the word.  I could probably add some setting if you want something easier than pulse that just includes everyone.

 

The new copy has better control for modders imo.  It works like this:

Set SOIntimacy:Include to 1 ;This includes them.

Set SOIntimacy:Reserved to 1 ;This reserves them.

 

Then in a script you can do something like (if queststage = somestage clear the reserved flag).  This way you can keep them from adding until you're ready for them.  For example if you don't want  an NPC to start doing approaches while they're tied to some quest package.

 

Further, you can clear the reserved flag in a dialog results script.  For... let's say a modder doesn't want to add an NPC until they've completed some kind of special dialog.  Or just set include and don't set reserved at all to add them instantly.

 

 

I was leaning towards making them incompatible, yeah.  I tended to notice the opposite: that just about every male who isn't a pure gang member is affectionate after a short time.  Maybe it's just symptomatic of "normal" people being fundamentally "good" in the mod (...or the fact that I usually Mary Sue myself as a hottie).  Perhaps what I really want is more randomized personalities amongst non-gang level populations?  I'm fine with non-commital, but them telling me how much they like me (affection) is a counter-argument even if their max commitment level is only 1 or 2.  Perhaps the maximum commitment level could be used to gate a few of the affections (not so much the flirtations), so that people with lower max commitments are still as likely to flirt and less likely to give affection -- so for any girl worth her ovaries, she'll be able to tell what he's really after.

 

One way or another, the reverse is crazy crazy crazy, though.  Women are just as likely as men in the mod to approach male characters and start (sexual) relationships (or at least are easy enough that they're happy to flirt anytime).  I won't say that's completely contrary to reality, but I'd say women are at least a little more selective than that.  (I was playing as a real jerkass of a male character, and merely wearing pre-war businesswear had the women falling all over themselves.  A guy looks good in a suit, don't get me wrong, but... ;-))

 

I see what you're saying, and I can probably fine tune it a bit more.  But remember a. This is a baseline, and b. I need things to work to a certain extent to test.  I did set females to be a little more 'loose' than they're supposed to be.  Previously in testing I was having a hard time getting into their pants as a male PC.  I just haven't put it back yet.

 

I agree I will probably condition the dialog out a bit more based on limits.  Though not forgetting that affection is a very generic and broad term for the baseline.  It could range anywhere from 'You know what, you're OK?!' to 'I adore you!'.  But because this is a baseline, it doesn't flesh those things out too much, preferring to maintain an example for modders to build upon.

 

 

True, I was mostly focusing on the intimate parts, but my point is that it still feels too... gamey.  It feels far more natural to play the game as a reality simulator than as a Facebook with bodies -- "click Like on this person?" =)

 

NPCs interacting with NPCs looks like one of the better ways to go with this one, and development on that has progressed, I see, so I'll jump in sometime later with feedback if necessary.

 

Well that's kind of by choice isn't it?  I mean speaking for myself, I add every NPC that I have a dialog with, as I go.  I disqualify mainly NPCs who I'll never see again.  I also choose to add in NPCs that aren't my PCs type, for the chance that they may impress/grow on the PC.

 

I think if people want to make it 'gamey' they're going to do that regardless of what I make the baseline engine do.  lol  On the other hand, I think modders should be able to add in their own set of choices that circumvent the engines defaults.  The idea being for modders to make their NPC mods using this engine 'not gamey'.

 

I started working on NPC > NPC stuff then got hijacked on the inclusion system (again).  Currently it's only half there (the part where they don't get along with one another).  The part where they get along, not so much yet.

 

 

I'm all for Friend Zone!  I actually had one TODOed on my addon for myself.  I do think it should only stick them into 'incompatible' -- instead of being an additional hurdle to overcome before they're even considered incompatible -- just to take advantage of existing friendship mechanics and the ability to drop hints.

 

So you're saying there needs to be more incompatibles?  Or what if all NPCs were incompatible, then you had to go through friendship to make them compatible?  Or you're just saying that there needs to be another reason added for incompatibility?  Currently compatibility is determined by orientation, alignment, level difference, and being exed.

 

Currently being exed works that way.  So if you break up, that NPC becomes incompatible, and you have to work through friendship again for them to become compatible.  What if I added friend zone to that same mechanism?

[t3589]

Please don't make the mod too selective, I want my ceratin NPCs to remain untouched by incompatibiliy or turn off.  If the mod gets too picky and selective, I'll lose interest.

 

On the contrary.  The engine is meant to be as 'non-selective' as possible.  Almost every decision the engine currently makes for players, is there as an example for modders, and is designed to be set up however anyone chooses.

 

[t3589]

I'm totally new to this, so I need ALOT of explaining.

First of all, I have no idea what are the Conviction, Inhibition, Disposition ect...

 

They are internal attributes that represent the NPC decision making process.

 

 

Also, respect and disposition seems to drop with every npc I interact with and I'm sure it's a bad thing.

 

The most common cause of this is the way the PC behaves and the image they project (what the PC is wearing).  The way to get respect, is to be respectable.

 

 

So far I'm really loving the mod, it brings a whole new way to play the game, interacting with npc is so much fun now and you never 

get tired of it, all it needs is small little guide at the start.

Anyway, keep up the good work, I'm really looking forward to this, and hope you don't mind explaining a bit to me 

 

Glad to hear it.

 

[BruceWayne]

Btw, I'm coming back soon-ish (probably in January). I'm not going to get any meaningful work done on SOIR throughout December, but I have enough motivation and drive to resume where I left off, once I have a little more time on my hands again.

[t3589]

Quick heads up.  Just got my gaming rig back up to par.  Thought I lost all my files, but found a backup tucked away somewhere.  Won't be long I'll start working on this again.

Btw, I'm coming back soon-ish (probably in January). I'm not going to get any meaningful work done on SOIR throughout December, but I have enough motivation and drive to resume where I left off, once I have a little more time on my hands again.

 

Whoot!  (Do they still say 'whoot' on the interwebs?).  Always welcome, anytime.

 

It's the snow.  The snow always drives us back here in the winter months. lol
 

[LadyM]

Hi T!  I played for a little while today and had that pop count to 0.  Matter of fact, we had a date, nothing happened, and when I clicked on him after the date was complete, it was Friend Greeting.  I slept for awhile and clicked on him again and it was back to casual but still a pop count of 0.

[Sagebrush61]

Is it intentional that the download link here points to www2.loverslab.com?  My system security settings don't allow connecting to an off-site link.

 

Also, I'm having troubles with dancing.  Early in my current playthrough Sunny Smiles asked my PC (female) to dance, it worked fine, music played, animation played and it ended normally.  Since then it just doesn't work right, if a male asks my PC to dance there is no animation or music and it ends immediately (which is at least workable).  If a female asks my PC to dance the Camera shifts but there is no music or animation and it never ends (ever, I have to use task manager to end New Vegas because the escape menu can't be accessed.  When I look at the console the NPC is cycling like they normally would in an activity, on one occasion trying to dance with Francine Garret there was something in the console about setting a z-axis and also that PC was busy but I don't know if that is related to dancing.  I tried dancing on stage at the Atomic Wrangler and there was music and animation, the first time, every subsequent try ends immediately, but at least it ends.  I don't have a clue why dancing would work right the first time and then never  again, the only install changes I've made were to update Intimacy.  Any ideas?