Devious Devices Framework Development/Beta

[MrBig]

I feel like there is a lot of confusion going on about what the DD framework constitutes, what it's supposed to do and why.

 

• Third of all, I'm sorry to be harsh about it but I feel that arguments against taking control away from users are overemphasising the control that they had in the first place.

The truth is, we are not taking that much away. But the options that are being removed from MCM are critical, such as the behaviour of keys, their chance of breaking and jamming locks. Truthfully, it should never have been open to user control in the first place and we apologise to all modders who have run into design issues on account of those options being available for as long as they were. Centralised key behaviour was a mistake that the new system attempts to fix by localising it on a per-device basis.

 

The thing is having the option of keys breaking or locks jamming for example was a huge plus. Having keys break every other device for example would be a real chore (yes im exaggerating slightly I know the rate isnt THAT high)

 

• Fourth of all... why are we receiving all this feedback and ideas now?

The system was implemented weeks ago, prototype devices were available for testing and we were gathering feedback on them before rolling the changes out to all the other devices. Several people offered that feedback and we discussed our intentions here. We were aware of user concerns and still are, which is why we're open to changing the default values and even offering a (limited) difficulty slider as a compromise.

 

But I also still believe that the new system was the correct way to go and (I'm sorry to be harsh again) most of you are too late to the party. Reverting to the old system was off the table the moment Kimy had finished working for 3 days to bring all the generic items under the new one. I'm sure it's easier to complain about a decision than to have been involved in making it, but it's a bit too little too late.

 

So anyone who wishes to continue discussing it, I would like to ask you to accept that the old system is gone and from now on we will be operating within the framework of the new system. All ideas, suggestions and feedback should likewise align with the ruleset we are now operating under.

 

In other word, anything along the lines of "please go back to the old system" is no longer a viable suggestion and will not be taken into consideration.

 

To be fair not everyone has chance to test every new build; this has been one of the bigger build updates so of course it will raise concerns. Personally I agree that the system needed work and I'm fine with, that I don't think reverting back would be a good idea regardless of if it was an option or not. The main concern is making things more tedious than they need to be (continued below as it directly relates to one of your points)

• However, I can assure you that your feedback (the viable feedback at least) has been heard.

I personally agree that generic devices should not have lock shields, overly long escape cooldowns or other features that are better off being reserved for custom items. I agree that generic devices should be the baseline, not the bar, and that default values should be adjusted accordingly. We will see what we can do to make the default user experience better. We will not be able to please everyone but we do want to make it feel good to the average user.

 

Between Kimy and myself, the DD team has a very wide perspective on what constitutes the perfect balance and enjoyable experience. Believe me, if you think we are overly sceptical of your suggestions, you have never seen any of our DD Balance Meeting Ultimate Showdowns where we catfight over every point movement speed penalty on this or that device. But somehow we always manage to find the happy medium. It's no different in this case: we intend to iterate as many times as it takes, adapt where we have to, compromise where we need to.

 

I think this is the main problem; an enjoyable experience to you may not be an enjoyable experience to someone else. Kimy made a similar comment earlier in a post about armbinder struggling in place and not seeing the appeal or enjoyment in it which again is fine but others do see the appeal/enjoyment in doing just that to escape. People get enjoyment in different ways. Essentially hardcoding your enjoyment into the framework is like saying play this way to play correctly.

 

Look at it this way; what if bethesda patched the game and removed magic and said well you should only be using a sword its more fun with a sword.

 

• But last of all: just one caveat...

We do consider your suggestions but PLEASE do not mistake this statement for a promise that we'll do everything you want us to exactly how you want it. Every suggestion, both from testers and internally, goes through the grinder. it's weighted against our design philosophy, the Princess OCD test, against our plans (present and future), our capabilities, priorities and availability. Please do not be upset if we deem your suggestion low priority or discard it completely. Sometimes we may appear stubborn and selfish but I don't believe that's true and it's unfair to call us that. If it were, none of us would be investing so much time and unpaid work hours into this.

 

Oh yes, my time investment into modding yields me a grand total of $4 a month from Patreon donations. If I was selfish, that wouldn't be cutting it for me, it wouldn't be worth my time. But I'm driven by a desire to create something that brings other people enjoyment, hearing encouragement and seeing people having fun playing my stuff feels wonderful and justifies the effort I could have otherwise spent playing video games, watching anime, going to dancing classes or getting an actual second job that would at least offer material compensation for killing my health and sanity.

 

What I'm trying to say is: we are not fighting you. None of our decisions are made with malicious intent. We make changes that we fully believe to be good and progressive; that open up more options and make the framework more powerful, stable and accessible. We prioritise modders over users, yes. That's true, we have stated that multiple times and we stand by that decision because that's what a framework is, it's what DD has always been, it didn't change or suddenly become a thing when our "next generation" inherited DD from Min and Zad.

 

Please trust us? <3

 

I do but I would also be remiss to not voice any concerns what so ever. I trust you will both do whats best for the framework overall and I realize that criticism can often come off as unappreciative so I'd also like to take the opportunity to thank the both of you for all of your hard work.

 

You're in somewhat of a damned if you do damned if you don't situation at the moment and will probably get flak what ever you decided

[UnEvenSteven]

Here's an idea for an addition to the gag-talk mechanism, being able to use an inkwell, quill and a roll paper (all vanilla items) to start dialogue with NPCs. Sacrificial Spriggan has done this and worked fairly well.

 

If the player is gagged and has the aforementioned items in their inventory then they can "talk" to NPCs right away avoiding the gag-talk mini-game. From here the player can continue normal dialogue with NPCs, trade, quest updates, ask for help, etc. However when using writing to bypass gag-talk the player's Speech skill should be reduced to 0 as they aren't actually talking to NPCs.

 

If possible the inkwell, quill and paper should be removed after a using them a few times requiring the player to search for more.

 

Of course if the player is wearing mittens or locked in an arm restraint then they'll have to resort to gag-talk as they're in no position to write. Also if the player is blindfolded they can still attempt to write but there is a chance it'll just be gibberish and the NPC will ignore them.

 

Just a quick idea thrown out there.

[bicobus]

 

 

This is not an issue in any way. The default gag-talk is just that - default. It is completely overridable.

For the modders, not the players. Make it overridable for both while a new system it designed, please. Just for the default thing, not the third party implementations of the system. I'm perfectly fine with whatever DCL has to offer.

 

I had the issue with shout like a virgin, of the gag keeping me for going forward with the mod story. The work around provided by VirginMarie was to disable the gags entirely (from SLaV, not from the game). If that is also your solution then please give us, poor users, the ability to disable them.

 

From what I have seen, nobody has implemented another gag talk mechanic but kimy's DCL, making the obnoxious mechanic present in the framework a standard and a default.

 

 

 

Fourth of all... why are we receiving all this feedback and ideas now?

[...]

I'm sure it's easier to complain about a decision than to have been involved in making it[...]

Because only now that I have learned about the new things. I don't have time to test the development version of DDi as it is way too unstable, and there is no document detailing what is being worked on. We came here recently on here say, from somebody who tested the development version and didn't agree with the general philosophy. Since there is no data explaining what is going on confusion sets in and a giant shitstorm follows. Beside, modders don't necessarily have time to setup a test environment for a version of DDi that isn't in beta (as in, no beta releases). There are too many unknown and it is assumed that the core team do not believe DDi to be good enough for general testing. You want feedback, but for which area? What need to be tested? What constitute a bug or glitch? I don't know, there is no document telling me what a proper behavior should be like.

 

Guesswork is what we have been doing, guessing we won't like the new system. However I do agree with the vision you put forward, those are good changes.

 

To be totally honest, and this is a user feedback, I do not use a lot of mods because of the annoyances created by the current escape mechanics. Helpless, Captured, DCL: they put devices on the character and then ... Nothing. What do I do with those devices? How do I remove them? All I can do is wiggle out of those and hope to not proc the shield protection. I could have used Captured dreams, but the mod was being reworked for the past months. DCL could drop keys, but had an equal chance to put more DD items on the character. I could try to talk with a blacksmith, but the gag talk just keep failing. All in all, it is really difficult to remove a device because the venues proposed to the player aren't as straight forward. It is good to see you are addressing the problem though. I just hope that it'll be as easy to remove a generic item as it is to put it on.

 

Up until now, the best mod I had to experience are those who bypass the DDi system entirely because they respect the wishes of the user. In those mods, if the user want something removed it'll then be removed provided an exchange of goods: work (time) or gold. Wiggling out of a device has never been on my mind because of the random nature of the mechanic and the sensation as a player of doing nothing to watching math1 and math2 having a nerd fight over a dice roll.

 

 

 

Anyway I don't know what you consider being viable feedback, and I hope what I just wrote can be consider as such.

 

Cheers.

[Veladarius]

This is what started all of this (from me at least):

 

#1 from my DD Cock Cage Addon mod

 

minibw, on 25 Jun 2017 - 07:08 AM, said:

Awesome!  Thanks so much for this mod (and to Vivi and darkconsole for the base mods!)

 

If I can make a suggestion...from what I can tell the cages seem to block anal animations right now, because its code is based on the standard DD belt, right?  But that doesn't really make sense, since these cages just cover the cock and not the rear.  So wouldn't it make more sense for its code to be based on the "open back" belts instead? 

 

I added the allow anal keyword to the devices which is what the DD open back belts use but DD's animation filter sucks so I turned it off in DD's MCM menu.

 

Veladarius, on 25 Jun 2017 - 09:15 AM, said:

 

DD's animation filter sucks

 

 

Just out of curiosity, what about the DDI filter sucks? I haven't heard any major complaints about it yet. oO

This was about the filter in the current release. My experience with the filter was it defaulting to the Attempted Masturbation animation during a sex scene when the only thing worn was by my character and was an open back belt, even just using the basic animations from SexLab there were plenty of other choices.

 

 

#2 from the DD Integration thread:

 

Kimy, on 03 Jul 2017 - 12:32 AM, said:

 

pavelius_pavlentius, on 02 Jul 2017 - 05:20 AM, said:

Hello, found 2 bugs.

 

First, you can not take out anal plug or insert one if you are wearing open back belt, which should be allowed in my opinion. 

 

Second, if the plug is deflated (just inserted), and you try to deflate it, it mentions that due to inflated state of plug you cant attempt to deflate it by yourself.

 

It's not technically a bug, as the code is just doing what it's told to do. And it just doesn't distinguish between open and not open belts. I have to admit that open belts aren't terribly high on my list of priorities (honestly, they are not something I'd have implemented to begin with), but if I get to it I might teach to code how to properly handle that.

 

 

I was able to change the plug script in about 15 minutes including testing with open and closed back belts, wasn't very difficult.

Then this:

 

Veladarius, on 03 Jul 2017 - 3:13 PM, said:

 

I know that it isn't something high on your list of things to fix but it has been an issue for years and was never fixed and something that has been requested for just as long.

 

Do what  you want with it, this is as far as I am going with it.

 

Judging from our last few exchanges and the way they are phrased, I think you seem to hold quite a few grudges about how the team and I in particular have handed DD development lately. For starters, you wrongly assume that I have memorized every single bug report and request since DD was started. I do not. I am human and prone to error, like everyone else. I had very little to do with DD development before Min asked me to take over and most of what happened before I did is now lost in impossible to search private messaging threads. If you made any requests regarding DD development that went unanswered, give me the benefit of the doubt and assume that I just overlooked them or never had a chance to see them to begin with. I do not go through old threads, ever. If there is something you want to tell us/me, post it in the new public dev thread. I read it daily. If there is old stuff we didn't react to, you're welcome to remind us.

 

Next thing, and I feel the need to point this out very clearly so, is that no matter how often somebody requests something, there is still no guarantee that we will do it. As I said above, my time is limited. So is everyone else's in the team. That and we do this for free. I cannot remember me ever refusing to merge contributed code, but if you refuse to even look at the development of the framework your -own- mods are relying on, I can't help you. You seem to be very upset that we/I didn't add your request(s), but at the same time you refuse writing a proper patch for it despite you easily could, and instead basically demand me to put in work for a feature you seem to want more much more than I do. That makes very little sense. Or rather, isn't terribly fair. If you refuse to be a part of DD development you have no right to complain about how we're handling it and about what features we're adding and when.

 

The open belt issue isn't even a bug, so please spare me the "You don't fix your bugs!!!" treatment. The code works fine, it just doesn't properly support these items, because they were never implemented properly. That's NOT a bug.

 

I have nothing but respect for you and your work. CD has been a staple in my own load order since the day I started modding. It always has been a mod I looked up to. I have no idea what I ever did to wrong you, but yes, I did of course notice the passive-aggressive tone you're using when talking to/about me lately, and the fact that you stepped away from the DD development conversation basically the very moment I took over (even in the old thread you barely ever posted in). Which is your prerogative, but if you make the choice not to talk to us/me anymore, or contribute code, you can't complain about your wishes not getting implemented. And I'd totally appreciate if we could switch back to communicate respectfully with each other.

 

Pink part was from Kimy

Orange is my highlighting - I created and uploaded the fix for the issue a few posts prior to this and was an issue with DD from the start.

Then this was my and Kimy's reply

 

I have no clue as to how to use GitHub, never have other than downloading things as a zip file and writing some of the instructions for Min. I know that a number of the people contributing to scripting and such work in programming or others that use GitHub, I worked as a financial auditor so I had no clue to what it was when DD switched to using it and I have never been able to make much sense out of it.

 

Downloading stuff as a ZIP is all you need to get the newest package. I will gladly merge any code contributions for you. I do that for other contributors, too. But it makes life for me MUCH easier if I can rely on the code being based on the recent dev build and not some old version of DD.

 

As to the direction DD has been taking, no I have not been pleased with it starting with the addition of the Questitem keyword and removal command and voiced my displeasure with it when it was added during development, this is when I pretty much quit. Just that change required months of rewriting scripts and adjusting devices, dialogue and scenes including the time it took to test it and track down all of the scripts that reference quest device removal. 

 

You wouldn't have need to change anything at all, and I told you back then. The new quest item feature is 100% backwards compatible. Your items would have worked for all eternity the way they were.

 

 

As for my tone I will say it is a combination of my dislike of the direction DD has been going.

 

Well, then talk to me about it. I think it beats holding grudges, no?

 

Pink is Kimy

Finally this:

 

Kimy, on 03 Jul 2017 - 5:10 PM, said:

 

Veladarius, on 03 Jul 2017 - 4:57 PM, said:

As to the direction DD has been taking, no I have not been pleased with it starting with the addition of the Questitem keyword and removal command and voiced my displeasure with it when it was added during development, this is when I pretty much quit. Just that change required months of rewriting scripts and adjusting devices, dialogue and scenes including the time it took to test it and track down all of the scripts that reference quest device removal. 

You wouldn't have need to change anything at all, and I told you back then. The new quest item feature is 100% backwards compatible. Your items would have worked for all eternity the way they were.

 

My only problem with this is any mod could decide to remove my quest items because they were not tagged as such, hence back to my original argument: If blockgeneric was all that was needed to show an item was a quest item then why add the new keyword and removal function? Your 'removable' items are all tagged with blockgeneric so any other mod could have decided that they were the same sort of item and removed them thinking they were the same sort of item.

 

 

As for my tone I will say it is a combination of my dislike of the direction DD has been going.

 

Well, then talk to me about it. I think it beats holding grudges, no?

 

- Shield Lock feature that keeps the player from using a key immediately.

- Debug function that removes Quest Devices. Yes you are sending a mod event out but most of my quests that use the items are not made to be reset. My only option is to have them automatically reapplied.

- Limiting how often an attempt to escape from a device can be made. Picking a lock should only be limited by how many lock picks you have (I never used the lock jamming feature either).

 

This is from things listed in GitHub that were added that have a description. As it was the entire new escape system that was added to DDi in v3 I did not like and always disabled. There were things that I remember reading about in the forum thread that went back and forth but I don't know what is or isn't being implemented or how they were to be managed.

 

I have no issue with making restrictive items more restrictive but not basic restraints.

 

Eventually the discussion was moved here.

 

I use an old version of NMM (v.56 I believe) so everything I have is in the data folder and I don't plan on moving to a mod manager that would allow for different setups so what I develop for is what I use when playing. I have not used a beta version of DD since sometime prior to v3 of DDi and don't plan to, I have enough difficulty developing CD to be testing DD dev versions at the same time. I never liked the optional escape mechanisms as I found them to be nothing but a hassle and seriously killed my enjoyment of using DD. Since most of the time it is basic items from DDi and DDx that are placed on my character through various mods being forced to use those escape mechanisms was not what I wanted to do so I decided that I would not update which in turn also meant I would not update CD. Kimy kept going on that the update would not affect my mod at all which I knew as most all of my items are escape proof custom items. My primary opposition to all of this was as a player not a modder. Apparently this discussion brought up features and such that a number of people were not aware of or didn't understand how it would affect their game and playing style. The only issue I see with not updating CD is that any items with new device keywords will not be detected or removed in the CD Device Removal feature.

 

 

The features may be interesting to try a few times but they got annoying rather quickly, I have disabled most of DCUR for the same reason, interesting a few times but not for general play.

[Princessity]

 

I think this is the main problem; an enjoyable experience to you may not be an enjoyable experience to someone else. Kimy made a similar comment earlier in a post about armbinder struggling in place and not seeing the appeal or enjoyment in it which again is fine but others do see the appeal/enjoyment in doing just that to escape. People get enjoyment in different ways. Essentially hardcoding your enjoyment into the framework is like saying play this way to play correctly.

 

Look at it this way; what if bethesda patched the game and removed magic and said well you should only be using a sword its more fun with a sword.

 

Oh this is not what I meant. What I'm saying is because Kimy and I have such different views on what's right, we understand perfectly well that there are many perspectives and preferences to take into account. That's why we invite user feedback on those values, it keeps us grounded and lets us come to a consensus.

 

I'm personally in favour of devices being a modifier rather than a game changer, on the other hand, Kimy is Kimy, she's the author of DCL well known for its mercilessness. You'd think we'd never be able to agree on anything, but that's also our strength - with such drastically different standards, we can see a wide spectrum in between our two points of view. Using test results and feedback from users provides the third and final set of coordinates that allows us to triangulate the sweet spot. But to reach that, we need to iterate, iterate, iterate.

 

Some people have apparently married the idea that all numbers are final because that's what the first (FIRST) iteration ended up with but that can't be further from truth.

 

In short: balancing isn't over. It has just started. We don't want useless arguing and drama here, we want people to actually go and test the build, see how each individual device feels and tell us how they think it should feel.

 

The only constant is that the new system is here to stay, we believe in it and have not heard any arguments that convinced us otherwise. Everything else is variable. Variables are meant to change.

[rjn]

I like the idea that the dev version is promoting different escape mechanics for different devices, but if you want to do that you should go all the way.  The current messaging boxes and escape options still seem to be one-size-fits-all.  Take the armbinder, for example:

 

• When an armbinder is equipped from inventory it goes on like piece of clothing (equipped with no message box).  Used to have a message about slipping it on and fastening straps etc. (even if it is impossible to imagine how someone could put one on themselves without help)
• When you click it in inventory you get "Unlock" , "Try to Escape" and "Carry On".  Why "Unlock"? There's no apparent locking mechanism on this device and if you select "Try to Escape">"Try to Escape">"Pick Lock" isn't that the same option?  In testing, it appears it isn't.  If you select "Unlock" from the top choice enough times you will escape the armbinder, where if you choose "Try to Escape">"Try to Escape">"Pick Lock" you get "Can't reach the lock" messages and occasionally break a lockpick.  I don't think any messages or option involving locks should be part of the armbinder escape mechanics (Now, the new elbow binder is a different matter, but frankly you could never unlock one of those yourself.)
• When you click the armbinder and choose "Unlock" you start a struggle animation. If you try this again right away you get another struggle animation then a message saying you are too tired to try again for a while.  If you are too tired to struggle you shouldn't be seeing that second struggle animation.
• When you choose "Try to Escape">"Examine Device" you get a message which refers to the lock being "secure but pickable" I'm not sure it could be both but, again, there's no apparent lock and I've never been able to pick it.
• It seems some escape parameters are now set a defaults for different devices so modders know what mechanics to expect, but the armbinder is different?  Aren't things like "# of struggles" and "sharp object chances" still settable? 
• I don't understand how the armbinder is not functionally equivalent to the bondage mittens except maybe for some historical reason?  I can see how you could use keys with steel cuffs but how could you with an armbinder?

[Princessity]

Here's a list of useful feedback I've taken away from the last couple of pages:

• The current implementation of gag talk is generally disliked. Long, random, repetitive and more annoying than immersive. Added to my to-do list. Open to suggestions.
• Lock shield and escape cooldowns on generic devices are generally disliked. Can be easily addressed, the next iteration will remove those.
• Some degree of difficulty control is desired. A reasonable request that can be implemented without violating the new structure. Kimy is already on it.
• Device interaction UI needs expansion and polish. Yes, this will be addressed, the UI part of the system isn't fully in place yet and there are still some bugs left over from the transition.

[Kimy]

 

I looked at this, and unfortunately Kimy, you are being passive-aggressive yourself. You are not accepting any critique,

 

Looking at my change logs, and at how many thing I added or changed based on user suggestions, I find this more than a little unfair tbh. But I guess the 10,000 things I DID add/change by user request count nothing when I said nay to the ONE thing YOU wanted me (not) to add, huh?

 

and I HAVE told you that some of your ideas were bad months ago.

 

I remember. That doesn't meant that I agree with you. I don't. I -did- weigh yours and other people's concerns and I still don't think the idea is bad.

 

Basically, You let this go to your head. You are not always right. Granted, what you did with the keys for the sake of other modders was the right thing to do. Adding new binding was cool too. You just need to tone down the system changes alot.

 

This is what I offered many pages ago. I pushed out the changed items only days ago and -specifically- asked for feedback on the difficulty etc. I said at least half a dozen times that I am willing to talk default values. I am not sure what part of that didn't signal readiness to make changes to the system.

 

Also, this is the reason you make builds smaller and more frequent. With a big build, a lot is changed, and if a lot of those changes are unwanted, it is hard to correct later. With smaller builds, unwanted changes by the masses are easier to fix. This is the logic behind most game patches.

 

I had to change all items or none at all. Or testers would have been largely unable to tell changed items apart from unchanged ones. I did release a DDI prototype build MONTHS ago. The feedback I got was overall positive, so I went ahead and changed DDX as well. Look at GitHub - we push fairly small changes each time. People have every chance to get them and test individual features.

 

Edit: One thing I should clarify, You did most things right, but removing options like the shield, difficulty and timer settings were the real problems for me. Everything else was great.

 

Thanks. And again, I am willing to listen and always have. I will eliminate lock shield by default AND implement a "difficulty modifier" affecting escape changes. People will still not to be able to flat out disable features globally (I explained time and again why this was a bad idea to begin with and why we removed it), but we WILL deliver something users can customize their experience with. I don't know what about that isn't good enough, really. I find it still funny to accuse a person how made one of the most customizable mods in all of Skyrim is getting accused of not listening to user feedback and just doing "her own thing" and being arrogant. Looking at the evidence to the contrary, it's quite frankly irritating.

 

 

 

[neosuduno]

 

 

I looked at this, and unfortunately Kimy, you are being passive-aggressive yourself. You are not accepting any critique,

 

Looking at my change logs, and at how many thing I added or changed based on user suggestions, I find this more than a little unfair tbh. But I guess the 10,000 things I DID add/change by user request count nothing when I said nay to the ONE thing YOU wanted me (not) to add, huh?

 

and I HAVE told you that some of your ideas were bad months ago.

 

I remember. That doesn't meant that I agree with you. I don't. I -did- weigh yours and other people's concerns and I still don't think the idea is bad.

 

Basically, You let this go to your head. You are not always right. Granted, what you did with the keys for the sake of other modders was the right thing to do. Adding new binding was cool too. You just need to tone down the system changes alot.

 

This is what I offered many pages ago. I pushed out the changed items only days ago and -specifically- asked for feedback on the difficulty etc. I said at least half a dozen times that I am willing to talk default values. I am not sure what part of that didn't signal readiness to make changes to the system.

 

Also, this is the reason you make builds smaller and more frequent. With a big build, a lot is changed, and if a lot of those changes are unwanted, it is hard to correct later. With smaller builds, unwanted changes by the masses are easier to fix. This is the logic behind most game patches.

 

I had to change all items or none at all. Or testers would have been largely unable to tell changed items apart from unchanged ones. I did release a DDI prototype build MONTHS ago. The feedback I got was overall positive, so I went ahead and changed DDX as well. Look at GitHub - we push fairly small changes each time. People have every chance to get them and test individual features.

 

Edit: One thing I should clarify, You did most things right, but removing options like the shield, difficulty and timer settings were the real problems for me. Everything else was great.

 

Thanks. And again, I am willing to listen and always have. I will eliminate lock shield by default AND implement a "difficulty modifier" affecting escape changes. People will still not to be able to flat out disable features globally (I explained time and again why this was a bad idea to begin with and why we removed it), but we WILL deliver something users can customize their experience with. I don't know what about that isn't good enough, really. I find it still funny to accuse a person how made one of the most customizable mods in all of Skyrim is getting accused of not listening to user feedback and just doing "her own thing" and being arrogant. Looking at the evidence to the contrary, it's quite frankly irritating.

 

 

 

Fair points, but you need to at least -Try- to understand that not everyone will think it is a good idea. The global effects, sure, but I think a form of global effect on items marked as standard, like the common Chasity belt, binders and things that are not tagged with quest would be something to modify. Basically, have the options affect common tags used on some items (i.e. The items that use standard keys) but set them so the only one who is affected by the rules of a lock shield is the player. This could help prevent breaking quests.

 

Global settings for all items are bad, but not common ones. I would be surprised if there is not a -common- tag that could be applied to devices.

 

[Nazzzgul666]

I feel like there is a lot of confusion going on about what the DD framework constitutes, what it's supposed to do and why.

I feel so, too. 

So let me clear up some of the misconceptions before this back-and-forth goes too far.

 

• First of all, the idea that certain features such as gag-talk do no belong in the framework and instead it should be handled by other mods.

ACK

• Second of all, the idea that generic devices do not belong in the framework and should be removed.

Missed it if it was even suggested, but i think you might have gotten something wrong. More later.

 

• Third of all, I'm sorry to be harsh about it but I feel that arguments against taking control away from users are overemphasising the control that they had in the first place.

The truth is, we are not taking that much away. But the options that are being removed from MCM are critical, such as the behaviour of keys, their chance of breaking and jamming locks. Truthfully, it should never have been open to user control in the first place and we apologise to all modders who have run into design issues on account of those options being available for as long as they were. Centralised key behaviour was a mistake that the new system attempts to fix by localising it on a per-device basis.

 

And as I said earlier in this topic, there is also another reason why we want the API to control escape difficulties and item properties. And ironically that is for users' benefit. By being able to define the values on a per item basis, we can establish standards (within the confines of the generic items of course, modders are free to do whatever they want) that will allow users to intuit the properties and difficulty of any given device at a glance.

Examples: latex devices are easy to destroy. Rusty devices carry a greater risk of jamming when tampered with. Yokes are much harder to wiggle out of than handcuffs.

 

This will streamline user experience while preserving the same range of options they had before. Some devices will be easier to escape from and others more challenging so now, instead of messing with MCM, it will be possible to customise the experience by equipping certain types or variants of devices. This goes for both users and modders.

And here is the point, or, several points. Nobdoy complains about the option for modders to create custom items with custom settings. Me and several others are worried a lot about the generic devices and the mods using it. Your own mod Deviously captured uses them to 100%. I as a user don't have any control at all which one will be added. And i do not want that kind of control. Several mods using generic devices will maybe never upgraded to use it, and here technical backwards compatibility becomes pretty much pointless if i can't use those mod anymore. I don't use DD for fancy screenshots or something but for gameplay. It does not make any sense for my character to put those items on her, she is forced to wear it. And i like to have variations here, but not in all circumstances. 

 

Maybe an example will be better:

Setting one: Let's say i'm in a belt from CD doing a retrieve delivery mission for CD, and i really want to do that mission right now. But i get beaten by Defeat and the bandits put me in an armbinder, by captured or DEC or anything. I just want to get out of that thing asap because i want to finish my mission and i'm not in the mood to run through half Skyrim to find help. I don't want to use any save words or stuff because that would break the CD quest. So i need easy settings to escape.

 

Setting 2. I have finished that mission, no new job is avaivable right now and i want to have an adventure. Atm i go to the DDi MCM, make settings quite harsh, and enter the next cave. I'm beaten again, put in devices and have to sneak and run may way to the next city to get out of this stuff. Pointless in terms of progress in game, but it can be fun if i'm in the mood to do that.

• Fourth of all... why are we receiving all this feedback and ideas now?

I have asked about that several times, several weeks ago. That i didn't insist more was partly because i got your answers wrong. Besides disliking the removed options, i was kind of worried what will happen if several different mods change the values for devices. The answer was that there won't be a conflict, and here is the misunderstanding: i was talking about generic devices. You were not.

 

The system was implemented weeks ago, prototype devices were available for testing and we were gathering feedback on them before rolling the changes out to all the other devices. Several people offered that feedback and we discussed our intentions here. We were aware of user concerns and still are, which is why we're open to changing the default values and even offering a (limited) difficulty slider as a compromise.

 

But I also still believe that the new system was the correct way to go and (I'm sorry to be harsh again) most of you are too late to the party. Reverting to the old system was off the table the moment Kimy had finished working for 3 days to bring all the generic items under the new one. I'm sure it's easier to complain about a decision than to have been involved in making it, but it's a bit too little too late.

 

So anyone who wishes to continue discussing it, I would like to ask you to accept that the old system is gone and from now on we will be operating within the framework of the new system. All ideas, suggestions and feedback should likewise align with the ruleset we are now operating under.

 

In other word, anything along the lines of "please go back to the old system" is no longer a viable suggestion and will not be taken into consideration.

I do NOT ask you to go back to the old system, this is what i think was a misunderstanding several times. But i want a system that allows me to change the values for generic devices, because those will be added on my character by a lot of mods and i want to be able to change how difficult it is to escape. If that wouldn't be possible because keys braking can break quest keys that only exist once, it wouldn't make any sense at all to set the default to 25%. 

I ask you to give me options to change the values for generic devices and those only. Call me dumb, but if you tell me that a conflict between mods with different settings can't happen (because they use their custom devices), i don't see how that should be a problem.

• However, I can assure you that your feedback (the viable feedback at least) has been heard.

I personally agree that generic devices should not have lock shields, overly long escape cooldowns or other features that are better off being reserved for custom items. I agree that generic devices should be the baseline, not the bar, and that default values should be adjusted accordingly. We will see what we can do to make the default user experience better. We will not be able to please everyone but we do want to make it feel good to the average user.

 

Between Kimy and myself, the DD team has a very wide perspective on what constitutes the perfect balance and enjoyable experience. Believe me, if you think we are overly sceptical of your suggestions, you have never seen any of our DD Balance Meeting Ultimate Showdowns where we catfight over every point movement speed penalty on this or that device. But somehow we always manage to find the happy medium. It's no different in this case: we intend to iterate as many times as it takes, adapt where we have to, compromise where we need to.

 

I can not agree with any side of this because what i prefer depends on how i want to play at a certain moment. It changes. 

• But last of all: just one caveat...

We do consider your suggestions but PLEASE do not mistake this statement for a promise that we'll do everything you want us to exactly how you want it. Every suggestion, both from testers and internally, goes through the grinder.

I probably sounded too demanding, and that is because i really care about DD and it's features, please don't take this as an offense. It is clear that i can not force you to do stuff the way i want. What i can do is tell you what i consider necessary to use the mod you offer, assuming that you appretiate it when players actually enjoy and have fun with the work you're doing. There are things that i'd like to have, things that i really want, and there are things that will stop me using a mod. Removing the possibility to adjust generic devices is such a thing, until there is a mod that brings back this option. Or set everything to zero, i would have just to pretend i'm not able to get out easy which is still less good then having the options, but the new items would be worth it imho.

My fear is that if it won't be added to the framework, other modders will make it on their own solutions for generic devices and instead of a framework that guarantees compatibility with (almost) all Dd mods, we will get a situation were a lot of DD mods are not compatible to each other anymore. Imho this can not be the way to go and there should be another solution.

 

Please trust us? <3

 

This isn't about trust, that i didn't mention that more often (than the 3 times i did) and insisting on bringing back options for generic devices is because i trusted you that you will see that there is a problem which needs a solution and you'll find one. But it seems i was wrong and it's time to speak more frankly than polite.

*edit: hopefully i can make clear what i really want, i have the feeling this still isn't understood:

Bring back the options to adjust difficulty for generic devices only, using and keeping the new system. 

That would immediatly stop all complaints about this topic, it would spare you to do you any balancing stuff, and ensure compatibility with all old and future mods.

As far as i understood the new system, that should be totally possible, maybe some work, but also be worth it facing the possible alternatives.

[pinky6225]

What I'm trying to say is: we are not fighting you. None of our decisions are made with malicious intent. We make changes that we fully believe to be good and progressive; that open up more options and make the framework more powerful, stable and accessible. We prioritise modders over users, yes. That's true, we have stated that multiple times and we stand by that decision because that's what a framework is, it's what DD has always been, it didn't change or suddenly become a thing when our "next generation" inherited DD from Min and Zad.

 

Please trust us? <3

 

I've seen a few posts saying stop being so harsh, i asked a simple question regarding the concept and got told to go look myself - in what way was what i said harsh?

 

I'm not gonna follow the current theme of colour coding a long reply as my point is quite simple - Is the framework meant to enable immersion/roleplay or force it?

 

The changes mentioned (i.e. like the stop spam one) to me is an attempt to force role play by removing all possible options of getting out without doing it the correct way, great if you play like that but i think quite a few of us don't need the stick to force us to role play so we are wondering when things fuck up - sexlab animation decides to teleport me into the sky on completion and due to DA i get enslaved and have stuff added to me - how do i get out?

 

From what i've read it seems a lot of time and effort is being spent on trying to create a system that a lot of users will simply ignore by using the reload option as that will be quicker/easier than getting unlocked

[El_Duderino]

While we're all still discussing what the baseline values for the items' settings should look like, don't forget how many opportunities for new mods and spin-offs the new system opens up. I can't wait to see what the DD wizards can come up with, and my guess is that it won't take long until new and interesting device configurations will be made available, including stuff that was never possible with the DD-3 escape system (or at least not without a lot of scripting sorcery).

 

For example, as a little experiment, I have created a few "hardcore" devices, just to see what can be done. So far, I've successfully created a chastity belt that can only be unlocked with ten keys in your inventory, a device that has a lock shield of 5,000 hours (so basically, inescapable), and various device interdependencies (boots cannot be unlocked while leg cuffs are equipped, etc.). And that's just me dabbling in Tes5Edit, didn't even have to fire up the CK for that. Not a single bit of custom scripting was required too, wouldn't have understood a word of that anyway.

 

And while all this is happening, devices in other mods that were built with the old (DD-3) system still work as before. So I guess what I'm trying to say is this: in case some of us won't like whatever the default settings will turn out to be when they're finalized, this will not be the end of the road for customized devious gameplay experiences and there will be plenty of new and exciting ways to tie up the player.

[Nazzzgul666]

While we're all still discussing what the baseline values for the items' settings should look like, don't forget how many opportunities for new mods and spin-offs the new system opens up. I can't wait to see what the DD wizards can come up with, and my guess is that it won't take long until new and interesting device configurations will be made available, including stuff that was never possible with the DD-3 escape system (or at least not without a lot of scripting sorcery).

 

For example, as a little experiment, I have created a few "hardcore" devices, just to see what can be done. So far, I've successfully created a chastity belt that can only be unlocked with ten keys in your inventory, a device that has a lock shield of 5,000 hours (so basically, inescapable), and various device interdependencies (boots cannot be unlocked while leg cuffs are equipped, etc.). And that's just me dabbling in Tes5Edit, didn't even have to fire up the CK for that. Not a single bit of custom scripting was required too, wouldn't have understood a word of that anyway.

 

And while all this is happening, devices in other mods that were built with the old (DD-3) system still work as before. So I guess what I'm trying to say is this: in case some of us won't like whatever the default settings will turn out to be when they're finalized, this will not be the end of the road for customized devious gameplay experiences and there will be plenty of new and exciting ways to tie up the player.

I think you're missing the point why we* are complaining. The generic devices do NOT work anymore like before the changes. And i can't change it anymore. We aren't complaining about the new system at all, but not beeing able to use any mod that uses generic devices because i can't change the settings to my likings is no alternative to me. I like everything else a lot, and of course it is great what can be done. But without the possibility to change generic devices, it'll need something like 5 years until i upgrade to DDi 4.x when i can replace the mods i'm currently using.

 

*can't really speak for all, but afaik that's the essential point for most

[Princessity]

 

snip 

 

@third party mods utilising generic devices:

You are assuming that mods like Captures and DCL won't be adapted to take advantage of the new system. One of the reasons I haven't bothered updating Captures in a while is because I'm no longer interested in developing it in its current form. I'm planning to redo it from scratch when DD 4.0 goes live. The current generic reliant implementation is flawed and does not accomplish what I wanted. It will be scrapped and replaced with something better. And I'm sure Kimy has similar plans for DCL.

 

That said, 4.0 will be backwards-compatible. It should not break existing mods that utilise generic devices. We will also make sure that those generic devices have properties and default values that do not diverge too much from how they always were*.

 

* but if there is room for innovation, we do want to attempt it if possible

 

@everything else: You are answering parts of my post as if they were addressed to you and you seem confused. I was not answering individual posts because there's several pages of those and I don't like quoting. If you feel that what I'm saying does not apply to you, then it most likely wasn't aimed at you.

 

 

I'm not gonna follow the current theme of colour coding a long reply as my point is quite simple - Is the framework meant to enable immersion/roleplay or force it?

 

Neither. It is not in our job description ^^ The DD framework provides gameplay functionality, standardised coding structure, resources, templates and API. It is indifferent to your roleplay or immersion. All it does is provide tools and assets to be used by third party mods. Providing context and conditions conducive to roleplaying and immersion is the function of those third party mods.

[pinky6225]

 

 

I'm not gonna follow the current theme of colour coding a long reply as my point is quite simple - Is the framework meant to enable immersion/roleplay or force it?

 

Neither. It is not in our job description ^^ The DD framework provides gameplay functionality, standardised coding structure, resources, templates and API. It is indifferent to your roleplay or immersion. All it does is provide tools and assets to be used by third party mods. Providing context and conditions conducive to roleplaying and immersion is the function of those third party mods.

 

 

I will admit to being confused then how stuff like spam attempts to escape are a framework issue? shouldnt that also be a mod by mod issue

 

[an awkward situation]

I'm really curious about something, with the new DD framework is there any chance of failure if I have a key? Do keys get lost? I feel by default DD shouldn't care about that kind of thing.

[Princessity]

 

 

 

I'm not gonna follow the current theme of colour coding a long reply as my point is quite simple - Is the framework meant to enable immersion/roleplay or force it?

 

Neither. It is not in our job description ^^ The DD framework provides gameplay functionality, standardised coding structure, resources, templates and API. It is indifferent to your roleplay or immersion. All it does is provide tools and assets to be used by third party mods. Providing context and conditions conducive to roleplaying and immersion is the function of those third party mods.

 

 

I will admit to being confused then how stuff like spam attempts to escape are a framework issue? shouldnt that also be a mod by mod issue

 

 

We just thought that imposing a period of time before the device could be taken off would increase the potential for it to have an impact on gameplay. But the consensus seems to be that forced impact on gameplay is not desirable of generic devices. I agree to an extent so we will remove that property from our generic devices.

 

Roleplaying and immersion are very vague, highly subjective concepts and we cannot really judge the performance of our mechanics off of them. What we can quantify is how our changes affect the flow and fairness of gameplay. Those factors are a lot more tangible. And since generally fun and challenging gameplay indirectly translates into better roleplaying experience, helping us design things that play well will also result in things that can be roleplayed well with.

[bicobus]

 

 

Neither. It is not in our job description ^^ The DD framework provides gameplay functionality, standardised coding structure, resources, templates and API. It is indifferent to your roleplay or immersion. All it does is provide tools and assets to be used by third party mods. Providing context and conditions conducive to roleplaying and immersion is the function of those third party mods.

 

I will admit to being confused then how stuff like spam attempts to escape are a framework issue? shouldnt that also be a mod by mod issue

 

 

We just thought that imposing a period of time before the device could be taken off would increase the potential for it to have an impact on gameplay. But the consensus seems to be that forced impact on gameplay is not desirable of generic devices. I agree to an extent so we will remove that property from our generic devices.

 

Roleplaying and immersion are very vague, highly subjective concepts and we cannot really judge the performance of our mechanics off of them. What we can quantify is how our changes affect the flow and fairness of gameplay. Those factors are a lot more tangible. And since generally fun and challenging gameplay indirectly translates into better roleplaying experience, helping us design things that play well will also result in things that can be roleplayed well with.

 

 

As a framework wouldn't it be more beneficial to provide the modders with different methods of escape mechanics, so they can fine tune their own devices? Escape cooldown, lock picking, material cutting, and so on can affect different devices depending on the situation.

 

A modder could provide a scenario in which the player needs to cut her bindings when her enemies are distracted all the while remain inconspicuous when they are field of vision. However being cut loose may not apply in other situation, which is why specificity of the methods used would better be left to the modder. All the while a default fallback can be chosen by the player through the MCM menu.

 

Different styles of escape, chose the one you like best unless it is overwritten by a mod.

[Nazzzgul666]

 

 

snip 

 

@third party mods utilising generic devices:

You are assuming that mods like Captures and DCL won't be adapted to take advantage of the new system. One of the reasons I haven't bothered updating Captures in a while is because I'm no longer interested in developing it in its current form. I'm planning to redo it from scratch when DD 4.0 goes live. The current generic reliant implementation is flawed and does not accomplish what I wanted. It will be scrapped and replaced with something better. And I'm sure Kimy has similar plans for DCL.

 

That said, 4.0 will be backwards-compatible. It should not break existing mods that utilise generic devices. We will also make sure that those generic devices have properties and default values that do not diverge too much from how they always were*.

 

* but if there is room for innovation, we do want to attempt it if possible

 

No, i expect that at least DCL will use it a lot. But your mods are not the only mods using DDi, and i get the feeling you're totally ignoring that, and that i could just as good talk to a wall.

That way DDi will become a tool for DCL instead of a framework.

 

What those devices were for me differed from "i get out in seconds" to "it takes me hours to remove one of them", depending on my mood/game setup and settings i made. How do you make sure that this won't change? Because i have really no idea how you would do that, so i can't really make suggestions except the one i mentioned 10x now.

[Princessity]

 

 

 

Neither. It is not in our job description ^^ The DD framework provides gameplay functionality, standardised coding structure, resources, templates and API. It is indifferent to your roleplay or immersion. All it does is provide tools and assets to be used by third party mods. Providing context and conditions conducive to roleplaying and immersion is the function of those third party mods.

 

I will admit to being confused then how stuff like spam attempts to escape are a framework issue? shouldnt that also be a mod by mod issue

 

 

We just thought that imposing a period of time before the device could be taken off would increase the potential for it to have an impact on gameplay. But the consensus seems to be that forced impact on gameplay is not desirable of generic devices. I agree to an extent so we will remove that property from our generic devices.

 

Roleplaying and immersion are very vague, highly subjective concepts and we cannot really judge the performance of our mechanics off of them. What we can quantify is how our changes affect the flow and fairness of gameplay. Those factors are a lot more tangible. And since generally fun and challenging gameplay indirectly translates into better roleplaying experience, helping us design things that play well will also result in things that can be roleplayed well with.

 

 

As a framework wouldn't it be more beneficial to provide the modders with different methods of escape mechanics, so they can fine tune their own devices? Escape cooldown, lock picking, material cutting, and so on can affect different devices depending on the situation.

 

A modder could provide a scenario in which the player needs to cut her bindings when her enemies are distracted all the while remain inconspicuous when they are field of vision. However being cut loose may not apply in other situation, which is why specificity of the methods used would better be left to the modder. All the while a default fallback can be chosen by the player through the MCM menu.

 

Different styles of escape, chose the one you like best unless it is overwritten by a mod.

 

 

Yes, that's what the new system does. You can check it out in CK, it's quite easy to customise. Modders can create custom devices, either from scratch or based off existing templates, that can have any number of properties, set the exact requirements and difficulty to escape, and if that's not enough the main device script is as extensible as ever so additional factors can be coded in if needed. That's the entire point of the new system, we're trying to make individual devices customisable. Yes, we discarded user-end control in the process, but we believe that the freedom this offers to modders is more than worth it.

 

What language are Kimy and I speaking, exactly? 여보세요? We've been repeating this over and over. This system is designed to give modders all of the control over everything their devices do! If someone wanted to create the scenario you just described, the framework should now make it easier than ever.

 

I cannot stress this enough. The DEFAULT values on our GENERIC devices are irrelevant to what third party modders can do. We are not imposing restrictions or establishing hardcoded standards. The new system offers options, flexibility and independence. Nothing less.

[El_Duderino]

 

As a framework wouldn't it be more beneficial to provide the modders with different methods of escape mechanics, so they can fine tune their own devices? Escape cooldown, lock picking, material cutting, and so on can affect different devices depending on the situation.

 

A modder could provide a scenario in which the player needs to cut her bindings when her enemies are distracted all the while remain inconspicuous when they are field of vision. However being cut loose may not apply in other situation, which is why specificity of the methods used would better be left to the modder. All the while a default fallback can be chosen by the player through the MCM menu.

 

Different styles of escape, chose the one you like best unless it is overwritten by a mod.

 

I'm not really a modder, but the way I understand it, this is quite precisely what the new system allows. I've found the following settings so far: Number of Keys Needed, Which Specific Key, Struggle Chance, Lockpick Chance, Catastrophic Fail Chance, Key Break Chance, Lock Shield Hrs Min and Max, Conflicting Devices to Prevent (Un-)Equipping. There's probably more! A modder could come up with devices that have a zero % "pick lock" chance (maybe because they have no lock? keyless items may also be possbile it seems...) but a 50 % "cut" chance and a 23 % "struggle chance". All those are just numerical values in the Armor entries of the devices. Maybe it's even possible for a modder to come up with something to temporarily change them on an item with a script? Dunno, I'm definitely not a scripter, but maybe that can be done (I'm thinking of stuff like the "ties armbinder even tighter" event from the gag talk.)

 

 

No, i expect that at least DCL will use it a lot. But your mods are not the only mods using DDi, and i get the feeling you're totally ignoring that, and that i could just as good talk to a wall.

That way DDi will become a tool for DCL instead of a framework.

 

What those devices were for me differed from "i get out in seconds" to "it takes me hours to remove one of them", depending on my mood/game setup and settings i made. How do you make sure that this won't change? Because i have really no idea how you would do that, so i can't really make suggestions except the one i mentioned 10x now.

 

One thing you can already do in dev-DD: select your devices according to your desires. Want an easy experience? Pick leather. Hardcore? Pick steel. Or set your other mods' preferences to pick them for you, where applicable (CD, for example). And Kimy and Princessity have already mentioned numerous times that a slider will be added, together with the revision of the default values. Plus what I wrote above in response to bicobus' post.

 

I get where you're coming from, I've been using DD-3 the same way as you, but I do think you're painting a much too dark picture here. It will require a somewhat changed approach though. Also, why the hostility?

[redmond]

I don't get the hard stance on not letting players control the default device values. There are lots of mods that use the default devices that wont be updated, saying you will update your mod is very anecdotal. Using a default devices should be the modders way of letting the players control the difficulty(and has been up until the new system) are you(Princessity and kimy) suggesting if a modder wants to give the player any control every single mod will need to make an mcm where as before the framework handled it fine? I think the new custom devices are great and if a modder explicitly wants a device to have a predefined difficulty they make a custom device. I mean I get that you're willing to change the default values but that's not the issue. The issue is as players on default devices we want the option to use the new features or not use them and set them based on how we enjoy them.

[bicobus]

 

As a framework wouldn't it be more beneficial to provide the modders with different methods of escape mechanics, so they can fine tune their own devices? Escape cooldown, lock picking, material cutting, and so on can affect different devices depending on the situation.

 

A modder could provide a scenario in which the player needs to cut her bindings when her enemies are distracted all the while remain inconspicuous when they are field of vision. However being cut loose may not apply in other situation, which is why specificity of the methods used would better be left to the modder. All the while a default fallback can be chosen by the player through the MCM menu.

 

Different styles of escape, chose the one you like best unless it is overwritten by a mod.

 

Yes, that's what the new system does. You can check it out in CK, it's quite easy to customise. Modders can create custom devices, either from scratch or based off existing templates, that can have any number of properties, set the exact requirements and difficulty to escape, and if that's not enough the main device script is as extensible as ever so additional factors can be coded in if needed. That's the entire point of the new system, we're trying to make individual devices customisable. Yes, we discarded user-end control in the process, but we believe that the freedom this offers to modders is more than worth it.

 

What language are Kimy and I speaking, exactly? 여보세요? We've been repeating this over and over. This system is designed to give modders all of the control over everything their devices do! If someone wanted to create the scenario you just described, the framework should now make it easier than ever.

 

I am talking from the point of view of the player though, I don't really care about the modder and the CK: can I tell DDi to default to a specific mechanic or not? (And by extension, can I chose an easier method so that I don't get bothered by uncustomized devices.) If not, then it goes back to the original complaint of removing control from the player's end and expecting all modders to do their own changes.

 

PS: by default to, I am talking about the devices provided by the framework and that are used "as is" without any change by a third party mod.

[Princessity]

 

 

As a framework wouldn't it be more beneficial to provide the modders with different methods of escape mechanics, so they can fine tune their own devices? Escape cooldown, lock picking, material cutting, and so on can affect different devices depending on the situation.

 

A modder could provide a scenario in which the player needs to cut her bindings when her enemies are distracted all the while remain inconspicuous when they are field of vision. However being cut loose may not apply in other situation, which is why specificity of the methods used would better be left to the modder. All the while a default fallback can be chosen by the player through the MCM menu.

 

Different styles of escape, chose the one you like best unless it is overwritten by a mod.

 

Yes, that's what the new system does. You can check it out in CK, it's quite easy to customise. Modders can create custom devices, either from scratch or based off existing templates, that can have any number of properties, set the exact requirements and difficulty to escape, and if that's not enough the main device script is as extensible as ever so additional factors can be coded in if needed. That's the entire point of the new system, we're trying to make individual devices customisable. Yes, we discarded user-end control in the process, but we believe that the freedom this offers to modders is more than worth it.

 

What language are Kimy and I speaking, exactly? 여보세요? We've been repeating this over and over. This system is designed to give modders all of the control over everything their devices do! If someone wanted to create the scenario you just described, the framework should now make it easier than ever.

 

I am talking from the point of view of the player though, I don't really care about the modder and the CK: can I tell DDi to default to a specific mechanic or not? (And by extension, can I chose an easier method so that I don't get bothered by uncustomized devices.) If not, then it goes back to the original complaint of removing control from the player's end and expecting all modders to do their own changes.

 

PS: by default to, I am talking about the devices provided by the framework and that are used "as is" without any change by a third party mod.

 

 

You were not asking the question from the perspective of a player. You very explicitly asked what methods were provided to modders. And I answered: all of them. Whatever they can imagine.

 

If I misunderstood your question, I'm sorry but reading it again did not make it sound any different to me.

 

As for players, I'd like to refer you to the giant huge post I wrote earlier. It states and explains both that players didn't have as much control as they think they lost and that giving them control over certain aspects was a mistake that we should never have made in the first place.

 

Or to make it clear once and for all: modders take much higher priority than users. And yes, we've heard your complaint. No matter many times we hear it, the answer is the same: I'm sorry but it's better this way.

 

We are nevertheless going to implement limited escape difficulty options for generic devices which should at least cover a wider range of preferences. We are also removing shield lock from generic devices and reducing other annoying properties and the exact values regarding those devices are subject to change, pending testing and test results, preferably reported in an orderly form that names specific devices and issues with them.

[Kimy]

 

 

As a framework wouldn't it be more beneficial to provide the modders with different methods of escape mechanics, so they can fine tune their own devices? Escape cooldown, lock picking, material cutting, and so on can affect different devices depending on the situation.

 

A modder could provide a scenario in which the player needs to cut her bindings when her enemies are distracted all the while remain inconspicuous when they are field of vision. However being cut loose may not apply in other situation, which is why specificity of the methods used would better be left to the modder. All the while a default fallback can be chosen by the player through the MCM menu.

 

Different styles of escape, chose the one you like best unless it is overwritten by a mod.

 

Yes, that's what the new system does. You can check it out in CK, it's quite easy to customise. Modders can create custom devices, either from scratch or based off existing templates, that can have any number of properties, set the exact requirements and difficulty to escape, and if that's not enough the main device script is as extensible as ever so additional factors can be coded in if needed. That's the entire point of the new system, we're trying to make individual devices customisable. Yes, we discarded user-end control in the process, but we believe that the freedom this offers to modders is more than worth it.

 

What language are Kimy and I speaking, exactly? 여보세요? We've been repeating this over and over. This system is designed to give modders all of the control over everything their devices do! If someone wanted to create the scenario you just described, the framework should now make it easier than ever.

 

I am talking from the point of view of the player though, I don't really care about the modder and the CK: can I tell DDi to default to a specific mechanic or not? (And by extension, can I chose an easier method so that I don't get bothered by uncustomized devices.) If not, then it goes back to the original complaint of removing control from the player's end and expecting all modders to do their own changes.

 

PS: by default to, I am talking about the devices provided by the framework and that are used "as is" without any change by a third party mod.

 

 

Just out of curiosity, if you download any quest mod from Nexus...do you also go ahead and say "This mod sucks. It's got 5 mobs in this group when I would have wanted no more than two. Also the final boss is pink. I wanted him red. Why is there no MCM toggle for that? And this weapon I got as a reward is too weak. I need a slider to make it more powerful."

 

No?

 

Because that's pretty much what you insist we should do.

 

It's funny. Every other modder seems to have the right to make design decisions for the content they create. Players accept their balancing for the most part. If we do it, it's nasty and evil.

 

Let's be honest, people come here and bitch about the evil DD maintainers mainly because the balancing in DD is the result of a change, and it's a bit different to what they are used to. You people are correct - the generic items will not behave 100% the same anymore. They will be better IMHO, but yes, they are different. So people go "Waaaah, I hate it, I hate it!!!" Most of you guys including yourself and Vel admitted to not even have TRIED the new system. But it's different, so it must be bad. But ok, I get it. Most people hate change. Any change. They miiight be able to accept a pay-rise, because they somehow grasp that this is universally advantageous for them. But most people can't stomach a change that pairs a lot of good things with a few downsides. No matter how much the good outweighs the bad. There is an entire political movement dedicated to the basic idea of not changing anything. It's called "conservatism". It's quite powerful even. People hate change so much that they put governments in place that promise them not to change anything. 'nuff said.

 

One personal statement. Yes, I realize that some people install DD mods despite they have no interest in actual bondage gameplay. They want the devices do actually nothing of consequence and be able to remove them at any time they wish. I don't get the appeal of that. It's like playing a first person shooter without guns. But to each their own.

I get the part that I moved DD a bit away from that design approach. I am not Min and Min isn't me. Whenever a project gets taken over by somebody else, the new maintainer brings in a bit of him or herself and his or her own vision. I don't think it's particularly fair to demand of me to put in lots of work into the project, but leave my own personality, ideals and visions at the door and act as if I would be someone else.

Believe me, I fully understand that DDI doesn't serve me alone and I try super hard to find common ground to please every modder using the framework. The new device system can be used to make either decorative or super punishing items and anything in between. Nobody is forced to turn their mods into BDSM nightmare.

As for the standard devices, despite people's claims, they are still fairly tame. And except that they might cling to you a tad longer than before (which isn't much of a statement given that you could usually remove them -instantly- before) they are not any more punishing then before. I changed nothing about their mechanics. Only the escape system. And I am still willing to talk default values. I have no desire to make the standard library a bunch of unfun/boring/punishing items, no matter how much people accuse me of that.