Devious Devices Framework Development/Beta

[Kimy]

 

 

 

 

 

 

First of all thanks for the mods, its very obvious lots of hard work is being done. I never imagined there would be mods of this caliber, concerning bondage.

 

Quick question, the DDI option for "break key on use",  is it being phased out? I really liked choosing what restraint to remove in what situation, instead of (almost) all or nothing. Will there be something with similar functionality?

 

I'm running these github builds along with lots of other mods. So I may be missing something(s). But so far as good, I'm not noticing problems.

 

I'm a big fan.

    Thank you.

 

Most user settings affecting difficulty will be removed and replaced with item properties that the modder can set to their liking for each and every item they make. I already updated all items in DDI for the new system. The DDX items have still a 0% for key breaks to occur, but this will change as well.

 

 

I see that default values have been added for the devices properties, but considering previous answers, I really don't understand why it's fixed inside the code.

 

So If I want to just change the default implementation values from DDI for all existing devices by creating a mod:

- Will I have to recompile the main equip script with the desired values? [this does not sound like a good option]

- Or will I have to re-create every single device (pair - Inventory Item/Equipped Item) on the creation kit and set up the properties manually?

 

The first option seems really wrong (I should never have to edit the framework scripts directly), but is the second one the correct? It seems doable but feels strange  (Sounds like the DDI items work like an abstract class, but feels like doing something that has already been done just for a small change).

 

Maybe I'm not seeing something important. Sorry for rambling.

 

 

In short, the user is not supposed to be able to adjust item difficulty at a framework-wide level. Because in the past that affected -all- items, including these created by 3rd party modders. That's why these MCM controls got removed - we want DD mod creators to be able to set their own values and let them decide what the users can and cannot customize. 3rd party DD mods are still able and encouraged to provide difficulty sliders for -their- mods. E.g. Cursed Loot still has controls allowing users to influence difficulty for its own items and quests.

 

 

I get that, but I fear that many people will not like that. Maybe also include Mods to re-implement them if people want that. Like Key Breaking, timelimits and minimum struggles. Honestly, those are among the first things I change. If you cut things like that, you can end up making it less fun for a lot of people. I understand the intention, but I can only see needless frustration as a consequence of this decision, and people refusing to install it, or abandoning it altogether.

 

Long and short. You would be alienating people. I personally always remove time limits, and if the option to get rid of those are gone, then I will not be able to enjoy the mod. Too Frustrating.

 

 

 

We might provide a means to influence difficulty for the DDI/DDX standard item library, but these ONLY. There will never again be a means that lets users -globally- affect these settings. Providing difficulty settings for custom DD items is something that the DD content mod authors need to do for their own mods now. In the end that's the -much- better solution for everyone. Even for users, because they can make DD mod A more difficult and DD mod B harder, instead of having to apply a "one fits all" setting to each and every DD mod they are using, even mods that were not created with these settings in mind.

 

Just to drive the point home why global settings are not a good idea: For a while it was possible to break several quests in my content mod Cursed Loot by setting DestroyKey to True. The framework would then destroy the custom key when you unlocked the first item needing this key, but the quest had you wear FIVE items using this key. These items were simply not made with this setting in mind. With the new system, the modder can define whether or not the item will consume the key.

 

 

 

That makes sense, What about you rubber suits from cursed loot, will they be included? As long as I can turn off standard item struggle cool-down and manipulate key chances for standard library items, I will be happy, as will others. Custom settings, that is something for mod authors to work with. I can still see this update breaking a lot of mods though.

 

 

Backwards compatibility is a fundamental concern for DDI, and we're making changes very carefully for that reason. That's one of the major reasons why we're doing public testing for all new DD releases. I am not aware of any new feature breaking existing mods. Most new features are disabled by default and/or use default values that would seamlessly transition down to existing items. To make existing items use the new escape or key-break system, their authors have to enable it - it's disabled by default.

[barak43]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

First of all thanks for the mods, its very obvious lots of hard work is being done. I never imagined there would be mods of this caliber, concerning bondage.

 

Quick question, the DDI option for "break key on use",  is it being phased out? I really liked choosing what restraint to remove in what situation, instead of (almost) all or nothing. Will there be something with similar functionality?

 

I'm running these github builds along with lots of other mods. So I may be missing something(s). But so far as good, I'm not noticing problems.

 

I'm a big fan.

    Thank you.

 

Most user settings affecting difficulty will be removed and replaced with item properties that the modder can set to their liking for each and every item they make. I already updated all items in DDI for the new system. The DDX items have still a 0% for key breaks to occur, but this will change as well.

 

 

I see that default values have been added for the devices properties, but considering previous answers, I really don't understand why it's fixed inside the code.

 

So If I want to just change the default implementation values from DDI for all existing devices by creating a mod:

- Will I have to recompile the main equip script with the desired values? [this does not sound like a good option]

- Or will I have to re-create every single device (pair - Inventory Item/Equipped Item) on the creation kit and set up the properties manually?

 

The first option seems really wrong (I should never have to edit the framework scripts directly), but is the second one the correct? It seems doable but feels strange  (Sounds like the DDI items work like an abstract class, but feels like doing something that has already been done just for a small change).

 

Maybe I'm not seeing something important. Sorry for rambling.

 

 

In short, the user is not supposed to be able to adjust item difficulty at a framework-wide level. Because in the past that affected -all- items, including these created by 3rd party modders. That's why these MCM controls got removed - we want DD mod creators to be able to set their own values and let them decide what the users can and cannot customize. 3rd party DD mods are still able and encouraged to provide difficulty sliders for -their- mods. E.g. Cursed Loot still has controls allowing users to influence difficulty for its own items and quests.

 

 

I get that, but I fear that many people will not like that. Maybe also include Mods to re-implement them if people want that. Like Key Breaking, timelimits and minimum struggles. Honestly, those are among the first things I change. If you cut things like that, you can end up making it less fun for a lot of people. I understand the intention, but I can only see needless frustration as a consequence of this decision, and people refusing to install it, or abandoning it altogether.

 

Long and short. You would be alienating people. I personally always remove time limits, and if the option to get rid of those are gone, then I will not be able to enjoy the mod. Too Frustrating.

 

 

 

We might provide a means to influence difficulty for the DDI/DDX standard item library, but these ONLY. There will never again be a means that lets users -globally- affect these settings. Providing difficulty settings for custom DD items is something that the DD content mod authors need to do for their own mods now. In the end that's the -much- better solution for everyone. Even for users, because they can make DD mod A more difficult and DD mod B harder, instead of having to apply a "one fits all" setting to each and every DD mod they are using, even mods that were not created with these settings in mind.

 

Just to drive the point home why global settings are not a good idea: For a while it was possible to break several quests in my content mod Cursed Loot by setting DestroyKey to True. The framework would then destroy the custom key when you unlocked the first item needing this key, but the quest had you wear FIVE items using this key. These items were simply not made with this setting in mind. With the new system, the modder can define whether or not the item will consume the key.

 

 

 

That makes sense, What about you rubber suits from cursed loot, will they be included? As long as I can turn off standard item struggle cool-down and manipulate key chances for standard library items, I will be happy, as will others. Custom settings, that is something for mod authors to work with. I can still see this update breaking a lot of mods though.

 

 

Backwards compatibility is a fundamental concern for DDI, and we're making changes very carefully for that reason. That's one of the major reasons why we're doing public testing for all new DD releases. I am not aware of any new feature breaking existing mods. Most new features are disabled by default and/or use default values that would seamlessly transition down to existing items. To make existing items use the new escape or key-break system, their authors have to enable it - it's disabled by default.

 

 

on that point, i have to say that i use the new DDi, with my game like i would the official one. i use quite a few mods using DD, and none are broken by the new DDi.

 

personally i love this new DDi, thanks for you all who work on it

 

[naaitsab]

The elegant latex dress looks like a slowed down video when wearing, almost stuttering. The hobble (ankle long) variants don't seem to be affected but they move a bit faster than before.

Maybe a typo with the speed reduction of the elegant dress as part of the 'item based difficulty settings'? As it wasn't like this before.

[ssonly]

I have troubles with armbinders. Tested "White Armbinder" and "Red Ebonite Armbinder". I have disabled "Bound combat".

When I remove armbinder (using Sasha from dcur) I cannot fight ("R" does not work). After sex scene fighting ability returned.

[thefakebobdole]

I have troubles with armbinders. Tested "White Armbinder" and "Red Ebonite Armbinder". I have disabled "Bound combat".

When I remove armbinder (using Sasha from dcur) I cannot fight ("R" does not work). After sex scene fighting ability returned.

 

There is an option in the ZaZ MCM menu. "Player Control Center" choose the "Restore Player Control" on the right bottom of that tab, should fix your problem. I had a similar problem being stuck with the yoke animation that was removed via SD+ blacksmith option. The animation stuck around and persisted through save/load, quick travel, sleep, and a ZaZ bound struggle animation, but didn't effect game play. It fixed itself after som1 else put an armbinder on me. Also the break key function worked on my black ebonite corset, I was pleasantly surprised.

[ssonly]

 

I have troubles with armbinders. Tested "White Armbinder" and "Red Ebonite Armbinder". I have disabled "Bound combat".

When I remove armbinder (using Sasha from dcur) I cannot fight ("R" does not work). After sex scene fighting ability returned.

 

There is an option in the ZaZ MCM menu. "Player Control Center" choose the "Restore Player Control" on the right bottom of that tab, should fix your problem. I had a similar problem being stuck with the yoke animation that was removed via SD+ blacksmith option. The animation stuck around and persisted through save/load, quick travel, sleep, and a ZaZ bound struggle animation, but didn't effect game play. It fixed itself after som1 else put an armbinder on me. Also the break key function worked on my black ebonite corset, I was pleasantly surprised.

 

Yes, it helps.

I had no this trouble with stable build. Have somebody same trouble ? Is it "feature" of dev build or not ?

Of couse, new game, latest build.

 

[ssonly]

Found bug.

Function Game.DisablePlayerControls only disable controls. It does not enable already disabled controls even if parameter set to false.

So zadlibs.psc, function UpdateControls():

 

Looks like this:

 

 

 

Function UpdateControls()
    log("UpdateControls()")
    ; Centralized control management function.
    bool movement = true
    bool fighting = true
    bool sneaking = true
    bool menu = true
    bool activate = true
    int cameraState = Game.GetCameraState()
    if playerRef.WornHasKeyword(zad_DeviousBlindfold) && (config.BlindfoldMode == 1 || config.BlindfoldMode == 0) && (cameraState == 8 || cameraState == 9)
        movement = false
        sneaking = false
    EndIf
    if IsBound(playerRef)
        If playerRef.WornHasKeyword(zad_BoundCombatDisableKick)
            fighting = false            
        Else
            fighting = config.UseBoundCombat            
        Endif
        sneaking = false        
    EndIf
    ;zbfPC.SetDisabledControls(abMovement = !movement, abFighting = !fighting, abSneaking = !sneaking, abMenu = !menu, abActivate = !activate)
    Game.DisablePlayerControls(abMovement = !movement, abFighting = !fighting, abSneaking = !sneaking, abMenu = !menu, abActivate = !activate)    
EndFunction

 

 

 

Must look like this:

 

 

 

Function UpdateControls()
    log("UpdateControls()")
    ; Centralized control management function.
    bool movement = true
    bool fighting = true
    bool sneaking = true
    bool menu = true
    bool activate = true
    int cameraState = Game.GetCameraState()
    if playerRef.WornHasKeyword(zad_DeviousBlindfold) && (config.BlindfoldMode == 1 || config.BlindfoldMode == 0) && (cameraState == 8 || cameraState == 9)
        movement = false
        sneaking = false
    EndIf
    if IsBound(playerRef)
        If playerRef.WornHasKeyword(zad_BoundCombatDisableKick)
            fighting = false            
        Else
            fighting = config.UseBoundCombat            
        Endif
        sneaking = false        
    EndIf
    ;zbfPC.SetDisabledControls(abMovement = !movement, abFighting = !fighting, abSneaking = !sneaking, abMenu = !menu, abActivate = !activate)
    Game.EnablePlayerControls(abMovement = movement, abFighting = fighting, abSneaking = sneaking, abMenu = menu, abActivate = activate)    
    Game.DisablePlayerControls(abMovement = !movement, abFighting = !fighting, abSneaking = !sneaking, abMenu = !menu, abActivate = !activate)    
EndFunction

 

 

[Nazzzgul666]

Has the Armbinder MK II been renamed and does it still need testing? I can't find it, i have an elbowbinder, though.

 

And a maybe quite personal request: could the armbinder idle animation be optional? Don't get me wrong, i don't think it's bad, it's just... my character looks a bit like she's drunk (using Feuertins default animation if that matters). And worse, watching her makes me feel drunk which might be a cheap solution if i want to be, but that happens much less often than i'm wearing armbinders.

Or maybe if it would be a bit faster, more like struggling, that would be fine too, i think.

 

[tfjohnson]

Something I found while playing around with the devices.

 

Equipping that ball and chain while wearing the restrictive boots causes the top part of the boots to disappear.

 

Before:

 

After:

[SleepyJim]

And a maybe quite personal request: could the armbinder idle animation be optional?

 

I would also love this to be optional, though I think I remember some discussion about it when the change was first made and the team explained that the new system was much better from an inner-workings point of view. From an end-user's point of view (mine, at least) I much preferred it when only the arms were moved into the correct bound position and otherwise the full set of animations I'd installed for general play were still used.

 

The animation sets included in DD are good quality, but even the least exaggerated of the options are a bit too "I'm sexy and I know it" for my tastes, and somehow it makes having my character bound a bit less fun than it used to be. I can completely understand if it's not possible to do it, or if the team simply doesn't want to do it, but for what it's worth here's a +1 from me for Nazzzgul666's request.

[Nazzzgul666]

 

And a maybe quite personal request: could the armbinder idle animation be optional?

 

I would also love this to be optional, though I think I remember some discussion about it when the change was first made and the team explained that the new system was much better from an inner-workings point of view. From an end-user's point of view (mine, at least) I much preferred it when only the arms were moved into the correct bound position and otherwise the full set of animations I'd installed for general play were still used.

 

The animation sets included in DD are good quality, but even the least exaggerated of the options are a bit too "I'm sexy and I know it" for my tastes, and somehow it makes having my character bound a bit less fun than it used to be. I can completely understand if it's not possible to do it, or if the team simply doesn't want to do it, but for what it's worth here's a +1 from me for Nazzzgul666's request.

 

I think we're talking about two different things, at least i have no clue what you mean with "full set of animations". The single idle animation i have wouldn't make any sense to play with bound hands. I'm not talking about sex animations, or movement. Only standing around and doing nothing.

[barak43]

 

 

And a maybe quite personal request: could the armbinder idle animation be optional?

 

I would also love this to be optional, though I think I remember some discussion about it when the change was first made and the team explained that the new system was much better from an inner-workings point of view. From an end-user's point of view (mine, at least) I much preferred it when only the arms were moved into the correct bound position and otherwise the full set of animations I'd installed for general play were still used.

 

The animation sets included in DD are good quality, but even the least exaggerated of the options are a bit too "I'm sexy and I know it" for my tastes, and somehow it makes having my character bound a bit less fun than it used to be. I can completely understand if it's not possible to do it, or if the team simply doesn't want to do it, but for what it's worth here's a +1 from me for Nazzzgul666's request.

 

I think we're talking about two different things, at least i have no clue what you mean with "full set of animations". The single idle animation i have wouldn't make any sense to play with bound hands. I'm not talking about sex animations, or movement. Only standing around and doing nothing.

 

that's what he's talking about too. the idle when bound in armbinder is quite complex with lot of movement, and very well made. i can understand that it wouldn't necessary be to everyone's taste, even though i love it lol.

[Nazzzgul666]

Just to make that clear: i wouldn't want it to play other installed idle animations, the struggling is fine, though. Just standing and doing nothing would be fine, imho it would be quite weird if she starts touching her breasts...

[Princessity]

The old offset-based system is gone and never coming back ^^

 

I'm sorry that I can only give a harsh answer but this is non-negotiable. The old implementation wasn't just imperfect, it was thoroughly clunky, prone to issues and limiting functionality. It offered no meaningful advantages over our current AA-driven animations, it was simply objectively inferior.

 

I just made more definitive statements in this post than over the course of my entire modding career. Ewww! Feels dirty! Bad, bad! Hate statements!

 

But that is one thing I will simply never budge on. Going back to the old solutions that we discarded for many good reasons would be a massive regression and even making it an optional choice would involve... bluntly, a lot of wasted time on our part that we don't have a lot of and would rather spend working on more interesting and functional features that push the framework forwards, not backwards.

[LazyBoot]

Has the Armbinder MK II been renamed and does it still need testing? I can't find it, i have an elbowbinder, though.

From the github changelog (https://github.com/DeviousDevices/DDi/commit/c9aa91acb51d8b6ddd6fd43995452b11b44e5897)

- Applied the new system to all DDI items (except plugs, these don't need it)

- Converted the MK II Armbinder to use additional padlocks, named it "High Security Armbinder" and added it to the official library.

[Nazzzgul666]

 

Has the Armbinder MK II been renamed and does it still need testing? I can't find it, i have an elbowbinder, though.

From the github changelog (https://github.com/DeviousDevices/DDi/commit/c9aa91acb51d8b6ddd6fd43995452b11b44e5897)

- Applied the new system to all DDI items (except plugs, these don't need it)

- Converted the MK II Armbinder to use additional padlocks, named it "High Security Armbinder" and added it to the official library.

 

Oh, somehow i missed that, thanks.

 

 

The old offset-based system is gone and never coming back ^^

 

I'm sorry that I can only give a harsh answer but this is non-negotiable. The old implementation wasn't just imperfect, it was thoroughly clunky, prone to issues and limiting functionality. It offered no meaningful advantages over our current AA-driven animations, it was simply objectively inferior.

 

I just made more definitive statements in this post than over the course of my entire modding career. Ewww! Feels dirty! Bad, bad! Hate statements!

 

But that is one thing I will simply never budge on. Going back to the old solutions that we discarded for many good reasons would be a massive regression and even making it an optional choice would involve... bluntly, a lot of wasted time on our part that we don't have a lot of and would rather spend working on more interesting and functional features that push the framework forwards, not backwards.

 

 

I can understand that from your point of few, but i don't want to feel like i'm walking on a ship on a stormy day. Probably because of my medics that make me feel that way sometimes anyways, but this makes it worse and i won't be able to stop those any time soon. By no means i want to discourage you or your work (i have no clue how making me idle would be less prone to issues, but it sounds indeed like a lot of work).

I don't want the whole system reworked or optional, it's really only the animation used. Not that it's playing animations in general or overriding other idles or something. Probably it would already be enough to make the same animation a bit faster, or maybe use some struggle animations instead.

*edit: and i hope using a different animation is what could be done optional, so others can enjoy what was created.

 

And just to be sure i say it again: i don't say the animation is bad. It looks very well done, that it makes me feel some kind of sick is neither the fault of the artist or should be understood offensive in any ways, i just can't help it.

 

I assume i'm really the only one with that kind of problem and i can understand if you won't put a lot of work into something that only i want (in that form), but as a big fan of this framework i'd be sad if i can't upgrade it because of this. Currently, i wouldn't be able to use it with a mod which put put me in an armbinder often.

 

 

I know that cookies don't help everytime, but maybe you'll feel a bit cleaner *hands all cookies to princessity*. You ARE the dark side.   

 

 

 

[SleepyJim]

I think we're talking about two different things, at least i have no clue what you mean with "full set of animations". The single idle animation i have wouldn't make any sense to play with bound hands. I'm not talking about sex animations, or movement. Only standing around and doing nothing.

 

I meant that I have a set of animations and idles installed that my character uses whenever she walks or is simply standing still (nothing to do with sexlab.) With the old devious devices those animations and idles would still play when wearing a yoke or armbinder, except for the arms being forced into the correct bound pose. So her arms would be bound but the rest of her would move in the exact same way as when she was unbound. With the current system, all of her walking and standing animations are completely changed when bound. Sorry for the confusion.

 

And thanks to Princessity for the answer. The new system does make sense and certainly sounds like it was the right way to go. It's just a personal preference thing and I thought it wouldn't hurt to mention.

 

Thanks.

[barak43]

while going back to old way of animating the armbinder isn't possible, i think it'd be possible to have alternative animations for them, similar to the hobble that got 2 different ones.

 

if someone is willing to do those alternative animations, that is ^^,

[LazyBoot]

while going back to old way of animating the armbinder isn't possible, i think it'd be possible to have alternative animations for them, similar to the hobble that got 2 different ones.

 

if someone is willing to do those alternative animations, that is ^^,

Isn't that exactly what we got though? I seem to recall there being 3 or 4 different options you get when installing of animation sets for the armbinders.

[naaitsab]

Can someone else verify the 'you tug at your belt' animation keeps playing endlessly? I need to kill it by jumping.

 

Also is there some way to see a changelog on the Git? I only know how to see the latest change.

[LazyBoot]

Also is there some way to see a changelog on the Git? I only know how to see the latest change.

Make sure you're viewing brach "development" and then click where it says "[number] commits".

You can also click on the headers there and it may sometimes have more of a description.

[naaitsab]

 

Also is there some way to see a changelog on the Git? I only know how to see the latest change.

Make sure you're viewing brach "development" and then click where it says "[number] commits".

You can also click on the headers there and it may sometimes have more of a description.

 

The dev branch is (obvious) the one to get in this topic but I can't seem to find other commits/changes other than the last one.

Might be a missing feature but to prevent 'that was fixed x days ago' things it would be neat to have an active changelog at the ready.

[LazyBoot]

 

 

Also is there some way to see a changelog on the Git? I only know how to see the latest change.

Make sure you're viewing brach "development" and then click where it says "[number] commits".

You can also click on the headers there and it may sometimes have more of a description.

 

The dev branch is (obvious) the one to get in this topic but I can't seem to find other commits/changes other than the last one.

Might be a missing feature but to prevent 'that was fixed x days ago' things it would be neat to have an active changelog at the ready.

 

This it what I see when I do what I just said:

 

EDIT: And to get there, I click here

[Nazzzgul666]

Ok, new reports: with the new version i've switched from Feuertins animation to Cedecs and was very happy to learn that there it doesn't play the idle animation i've complained about.

 

I've tried the high security armbinder and had a problem that my arms would stay at my back if i use the "Can you help me?" dialogue from sexlab stories, but i think this was problematic before... after endless hours of trying to escape with the DD options,  my hands were freed properly.

Some things i'm wondering: 

- I've set minimum struggles to zero, start chances to 100%, but it took a lot of tries nevertheless (and it was the cut option that got me free at the end). Does those options have any influence at that armbinder at all?

- When lockpicking, do you check for skills/perks? I've cheated my skills to 100 and learned the perk to open master locks, but failed every time anyways. I've just thought, if those perks would make it easier, it would give me a reason to learn those perks in future play throughs what i never did before.

 

I've noticed the option to escape via destruction magic is removed, i had an idea for that but i'm not sure if it's possible and even if so, if it's worth the effort. Might be a nice addition, though. Ignore if you think it's too much work.

If it's possible to make the amputator framework a soft dependency, you can try to open locks (for non-quest items) with destruction magic, with three possible results:

-success, you are free

-fail, try again

-critical fail, you are free. From both your devices and the according body parts.

 

For obvious reasons, that doesn't work for plugs, belts, bras, gags, corsets or harnesses. To be freed from your torso or head would... well, exceed the limits of both frameworks.

 

I'm not sure if something like that even should be integrated in DD, but i'm also not sure if it could already be done by a mod that uses both frameworks. If there is a mid way just to give the option but not integrating it in DD, that would probably be the best way.

[Kimy]

No, these settings influence only the legacy armbinders. I am probably going to clean up MCM soon and remove these. Old devices will still work, but we do encourage content modders to switch to the new system, or at least not create any new devices using the old code.

 

The new escape system has a lockpicking bonus, but I didn't want to give high level characters an instant "get out of jail free!" card, so a high lockpicking skill doesn't automatically get you out of every restraint in the very first attempt. The highest lockpicking skill gives you five percentage points bonus on the default base escape chance (which translates to a 50% bonus). You will -still- usually need multiple attempts to get free, and that's how it's intended.

 

Amputation stuff is gross. If I'd add such features, I'd have to test them and they would make me faint! Better not! It's honestly also not too realistic - I removed this feature for a reason. Destruction magic does what it says. Shooting fire and lighting at a device that happens to be locked to your body is a fairly stupid idea, don't you think?