Devious Devices Framework Development/Beta

[donotbugme]

Hi Folks, Finding several issues as I play around. The first one is that I created a bondage mitten DD with a unique key. after several attempts to fail to remove it, where it fell to the ground, i picked it up apparently my character dropped it on the next removal and the message stated they couldnt see it and it was definitely not on the floor. given it was a unique key. should this be accounted for in some way?

 

 

 

seems to ignore the fact one might have a unique key "removeitem" permanently. I had catastrophic failure to 0 and key break to 0 in properties. i looked at the script. 20% chance to lose key generic or otherwise with mittens?

 

if Utility.RandomFloat(0.0, 99.9) < 20.0
libs.Notify("With a lot of patience and a little luck you manage to insert the key into the lock and turn it. The bondage mittens fall off your hands.", messagebox = true) 
DeviceMenuRemoveWithKey() 
else
if Utility.RandomFloat(0.0, 99.9) < 20.0
libs.Notify("You try to insert the key into the lock, but it slips away and falls to the ground. You can't find it anywhere.", messagebox = true) 
libs.playerref.RemoveItem(devicekey, 1)
Else
libs.Notify("You try to insert the key into the lock, but it slips away and falls to the ground.", messagebox = true) 
libs.playerref.DropObject(devicekey, 1)
Endif

 

[Veladarius]

I suppose I will have to wait and see what things are like once released. If I don't like the values set on the basic devices then I will make a patch that will set it all to as close to what the basic devices have always been like and set the basic CD items to match. I will wait and see what happens with DCUR and Devious Captures since these are the only two mods beyond CD punishments I use that add basic items.

 

 

[Kimy]

I suppose I will have to wait and see what things are like once released. If I don't like the values set on the basic devices then I will make a patch that will set it all to as close to what the basic devices have always been like and set the basic CD items to match. I will wait and see what happens with DCUR and Devious Captures since these are the only two mods beyond CD punishments I use that add basic items.

 

Do what you have to do, but just for the record, publishing a patch overriding framework assets is not ok. What you do in your own installation is obviously up to you.

 

And instead of actually contributing something constructive here (oh wait, you can't, as you haven't even tried the current values!), you're still just throwing around threats. Not cool. Oh well, I have given up on expecting any better.

[bicobus]

 

 

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.

Sorry about that, I always tends to take a stance with a player's perspective as I am not modding myself. I should have been a bit more forward in that aspect.

 

 

 

Just out of curiosity, if you download any quest mod from Nexus...

This is a topic about a framework, right? Not a quest mod. Because I don't go on the nexus to download quests mods at all, I go there to get mechanics changers like OBIS or Ordinator. As of now I have found no fault in those.

 

Anyway all I am doing is expressing my opinion. I believe that is what you wanted, feedback. I tried to remain on topic, which is the framework and its different mechanics. Never have I made an attack directed towards the maintainers, developers or supports; if you feel insulted in any way then I'm sorry, I didn't meant it that way. I disagree with the public and personal attacks done by other members of these forums, I don't think it has its place in this discussion nor should it be given any heeds. All I stated in this topic is how wary I am from the upcoming changes, that they could introduce more annoyances than it already exists, while stating that it is good that changes are being made at all.

 

However it seems that every time there is a critical opinion of your own stances, you switch into defense mode. I did not really appreciate how you went with those "fucking", as it portray the character of someone that is unwilling to listen (I'm sure it isn't the case). Nor do I like the way you seem to portray me as tagging you as "evil", as I said it never was my intention. You seem to be overly concerned about your own image, but I am not. I am concerned about the evolution of this framework and the repercussion it'll have in the future, be it good or bad. I am interested in having a solid dialogue and straight answers, how different will it be and in which proportions. Princessity has given me such answers and with those I can have a proper picture of the situation.

 

To be totally clear I am not against the changes, I just want to understand whatever is going on. And Veledarius seem to have tested the development version of DDi, this is how this whole mess got started.

 

I'm not here to assassinate you, I am here to provide my silly user point of view in the discussions.

[Veladarius]

 

I suppose I will have to wait and see what things are like once released. If I don't like the values set on the basic devices then I will make a patch that will set it all to as close to what the basic devices have always been like and set the basic CD items to match. I will wait and see what happens with DCUR and Devious Captures since these are the only two mods beyond CD punishments I use that add basic items.

 

Do what you have to do, but just for the record, publishing a patch overriding framework assets is not ok. What you do in your own installation is obviously up to you.

 

And instead of actually contributing something constructive here (oh wait, you can't, as you haven't even tried the current values!), you're still just throwing around threats. Not cool. Oh well, I have given up on expecting any better.

 

 

As I said I am willing to wait and see what is released and go from there. As for making a patch that changes the values so long as it is done as a separate file I am within my rights to modify things to suit my tastes as to how I prefer to play and offer it to anyone that wants it. But again, I am willing to wait and see what is released first.

[pinky6225]

 

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

If the hypothetical mod on its main page said something like

 

Easy Configurability! -- Highly configurable via MCM interface, so that you can customize your Devious experience to your personal tastes. Don't like how hard it is to make a key? Change it! Don't like the hardcore deviousness of the effects? Turn'em off!

About being able to change enemy spawn numbers/boss colour then maybe it wouldn't be an unreasonable post

 

 

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.

It has a lot of mods that require it as a dependancy but your right maybe people that have it for some/mild bondage/using on npc's etc should just stick to a non-script graphical version as it sounds like you want to create something that you build your entire playthrough about rather than something you experience while playing

[neosuduno]

 

I suppose I will have to wait and see what things are like once released. If I don't like the values set on the basic devices then I will make a patch that will set it all to as close to what the basic devices have always been like and set the basic CD items to match. I will wait and see what happens with DCUR and Devious Captures since these are the only two mods beyond CD punishments I use that add basic items.

 

Do what you have to do, but just for the record, publishing a patch overriding framework assets is not ok. What you do in your own installation is obviously up to you.

 

And instead of actually contributing something constructive here (oh wait, you can't, as you haven't even tried the current values!), you're still just throwing around threats. Not cool. Oh well, I have given up on expecting any better.

 

 

Kimy, you are not making yourself look better. You are making yourself look childish.

 

`And instead of actually contributing something constructive here (oh wait, you can't, as you haven't even tried the current values!),`` That is just plain condescending, and anyone would be provoked by that. I am pretty sure that is against the rules.

 

``Oh well, I have given up on expecting any better.`` Again condescending.

 

The way you are trying to deal with Veladarius is both rude and provocative. My advice would be either to ignore, or approach differently. Mind you that Veladarius is not innocent either, but you are both approaching this with insults rather than mature discussion.

 

So basically, calm down and think about what you are typing.

[Nazzzgul666]

 

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?

 

I never select any items i wear. Mods do that, and some i'm using will most likely never be upgraded. I did not see anything about a slider to set if/how often keys break, or how often i have to struggle, or if and how long a lock shield will be added. If that was said and i missed it, i'm sorry, then the whole discussion was pointless. And sorry again if i appeared hostile to you, it wasn't meant that way. But i don't have any attentions to make a different approach. 

 

If somebody publishes a mod that allows me to keep my gameplay, i will use it and i don't think it's ok to tell other modders what they are allowed to do or not to do. If somebody doesn't like a mod, s/he doesn't have to use it. That's true for this framework as much as any other mod. If somebody thinks a modification for a framework is necessary and that patch causes trouble for other mods using that framework, it might be an idea to change the framework and remove the reason for that modification at the source.

I think i've said anything i had to say on this topic.

[donotbugme]

Fuck: I Clicked add reply before i proof checked. we're doing it live. 

 

Played as of now for roughly two hours, equipping different devices and checking how they felt. Then I spent around three hours alternating between CK making up items with different properties set. Thank you for your hard work. Obviously not a lot to get into the nitty gritty, but i feel i've kicked the tyres sufficiently to comment. I'm not going to write a bible, but I'd quite like to offer my thoughts if that is alright.

 

I think the 'lock' hours timer and the 'struggle' functionality times are not very effective with their intent. I'm doing some interpretation and squinted a little but the way I look at it; it doesn't work as is. if anything it just makes me press T, wait three hours and go right back to menu struggling/unlocking. I suggest adding a real time component that prevents removal of perhaps no shorter than thirty seconds. whichever comes first, if that is possible to do.

 

For one of the more contentious subject I have seen discussed I will don my safety helmet and shitkickers and wade into the mirk.

 

I have read comments about exposing a way to blanket modify some aspect of the hardcoreness/difficulty on part of the user without being too permissive and ensuring that the vision of the device creator/modder/scripter/questmaker whatever is maintained .

 

There exists already functionality to make successive escape attempts more likely to succeed, as well as some kind of general device escape number that is tracked that counts the number of restraints you have escaped from. Why not leverage what exists already. one humble proposal forgive me it won't compile or work out of the box but should offer clear intent. I didn't know this existed until i trawled through the code, it would I suggest benefit everyone if these functions were more visible or apparent to a player.

 

Float Function CalclulateStruggleSuccess()
Float result = BaseEscapeChance
; Apply modifiers, but only if the device is not impossible to escape from to begin with.
If BaseEscapeChance > 0.0
; add 1% for every previous attempt
result += EscapeStruggleAttemptsMade
SNIP

becomes conceptually

Float Function CalclulateStruggleSuccess()
Float result = BaseEscapeChance
; Apply modifiers, but only if the device is not impossible to escape from to begin with.
If BaseEscapeChance > 0.0
; add USER_MCM_CONFIG.SUCCESSIVE_ESCAPE_ATTEMPT_CUMULATIVE_BONUS for every previous attempt
result += USER_MCM_CONFIG.SUCCESSIVE_ESCAPE_ATTEMPT_CUMULATIVE_BONUS

 

as well as this I can see

Float Function CalclulateStruggleSuccess()
SNIP...
Int EscapesMade = libs.zadDeviceEscapeSuccessCount.GetValueInt()
If EscapesMade > 10
result += 1.0
Endif
If EscapesMade > 25
result += 1.0
Endif
If EscapesMade > 50
result += 1.0
Endif
If EscapesMade > 100
result += 1.0
Endif
SNIP...

that could also be changed to reflect a players growing expertise. there is another section open for configuration without risking breaking devices.

Float Function CalclulateStruggleSuccess()
SNIP...
Int EscapesMade = libs.zadDeviceEscapeSuccessCount.GetValueInt()
If EscapesMade > 10
result += USER_MCM_CONFIG.BONDAGE_EXPERTISE_LEVEL_NOVICE_ESCAPE_CHANCE_MODIFIER
Endif
If EscapesMade > 25  # PROBABLY TOO GENEROUS. would be nice to see a perk level entry to reflect this
result +=  USER_MCM_CONFIG.BONDAGE_EXPERTISE_LEVEL_PADAWAN_ESCAPE_CHANCE_MODIFIER
Endif
If EscapesMade > 50   # PROBABLY TOO GENEROUS. would be nice to see a perk level entry to reflect this
result += USER_MCM_CONFIG.BONDAGE_EXPERTISE_LEVEL_CONTORTIONIST_ESCAPE_CHANCE_MODIFIER
Endif
If EscapesMade > 100  # PROBABLY TOO GENEROUS. would be nice to see a perk level entry to reflect this
result += USER_MCM_CONFIG.BONDAGE_EXPERTISE_LEVEL_EXPERT_NINJA_BONDAGE_WARRIOR_ESCAPE_CHANCE_MODIFIER
Endif
SNIP

I've got some more comments on what i've fiddled with so far but i'd rather not bury you folks under what might look like a tirade of complaints and why is foo not bar. that is not my intention. 

 

happy to discuss further if wanted, my schedule has solidified though still not much free time; and i might get back into the CK, and god forbid finish a gorram mod. Really interested to see the beta and the new options available.

 

 Edit1: less hostile appearing phrasing argh

[Kimy]

 

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.

Sorry about that, I always tends to take a stance with a player's perspective as I am not modding myself. I should have been a bit more forward in that aspect.

 

One basic misconception about DDI is that it's geared at players. It's not. It's meant for -modders-. DDI is providing tools to make mods with. It's also up to the modders to balance their items and (if they so desire) provide difficult sliders. DDI providing these options was actually overriding what the modders created (or could create).

 

Just out of curiosity, if you download any quest mod from Nexus...

This is a topic about a framework, right? Not a quest mod. Because I don't go on the nexus to download quests mods at all, I go there to get mechanics changers like OBIS or Ordinator. As of now I have found no fault in those.

 

Fine, evade the analogy if you want. Doesn;t make it any less valid. 

 

All I stated in this topic is how wary I am from the upcoming changes, that they could introduce more annoyances than it already exists, while stating that it is good that changes are being made at all.

 

For starters: If you find a mod annoying, don't use it.

Now, as for the standard library, I was just following the new design approach for DD mods - the creator of each device is setting the difficulty for their items (and theirs only). That's what I did. Nothing more, nothing less. People are all up in arms because these items happen to be bundled with the framework API, that's really all. But even if, DDI doesn't equip these items on you, content mods do that. There are only TWO DD mods around equipping these items on people on a regular basis. Cursed Loot and Deviously Captured (the CD shop mostly just sells them). Both of them have difficulty sliders on THEIR END. Use them. That's the entire idea of the new system - the framework doesn't control difficulty, because content mods do. And honestly, if you find the standard library devices "annoying", you shouldn't install Cursed Loot anyway, as most items in there are MUCH more punishing than anything in the standard library. Without content mods, these standard items do NOTHING.

 

However it seems that every time there is a critical opinion of your own stances, you switch into defense mode. I did not really appreciate how you went with those "fucking", as it portray the character of someone that is unwilling to listen (I'm sure it isn't the case).

 

Vel didn't seem or understand anything I said using more regular language. It was an attempt to hammer home some things, finally. That and as I said it felt good, after taking all this crap from him and a lot of others. Profane is a foreign language to me, so I probably even put the f-bombs in places where they don't belong. Was my first attempt!

Generally, I am trying my very best to remain polite and always default to, but I -will- lash back at people I feel who treat me disrespectful, rude or unfair. I am nice to nice people, but I am not nice to jerks.

 

Nor do I like the way you seem to portray me as tagging you as "evil", as I said it never was my intention.

 

It wasn't specifically aimed at you. But I got labeled a lot of nasty things here lately.

 

You seem to be overly concerned about your own image,

 

If I cared about my image I'd have become a YouTuber. I don't. I rather write code than participating in forum drama, responding to obnoxious people throwing crap at me (not you, you're polite enough, even if we disagree quite a lot).

 

but I am not. I am concerned about the evolution of this framework and the repercussion it'll have in the future, be it good or bad. I am interested in having a solid dialogue and straight answers, how different will it be and in which proportions.

 

Everything is publicly available for everyone to see. That's how different is (at this point, it's of course subject to change, still). We never hid anything we're doing and never will. That would be wrong. DD is meaningless without modders using it.

 

To be totally clear I am not against the changes, I just want to understand whatever is going on.

 

I know you told me that you can't test for yourself. I wish you could. Your impression of what we're doing and how it's going to look like would be much clearer. The numbers alone won't tell you how the gameplay actually feels.

 

And Veledarius seem to have tested the development version of DDi, this is how this whole mess got started.

 

No he admitted not to have touched the dev version at all. He's throwing spite and threats around based on assumptions and because he can.

 

 

 

 

[Kimy]

 

 

I suppose I will have to wait and see what things are like once released. If I don't like the values set on the basic devices then I will make a patch that will set it all to as close to what the basic devices have always been like and set the basic CD items to match. I will wait and see what happens with DCUR and Devious Captures since these are the only two mods beyond CD punishments I use that add basic items.

 

Do what you have to do, but just for the record, publishing a patch overriding framework assets is not ok. What you do in your own installation is obviously up to you.

 

And instead of actually contributing something constructive here (oh wait, you can't, as you haven't even tried the current values!), you're still just throwing around threats. Not cool. Oh well, I have given up on expecting any better.

 

 

Kimy, you are not making yourself look better. You are making yourself look childish.

 

`And instead of actually contributing something constructive here (oh wait, you can't, as you haven't even tried the current values!),`` That is just plain condescending, and anyone would be provoked by that. I am pretty sure that is against the rules.

 

``Oh well, I have given up on expecting any better.`` Again condescending.

 

The way you are trying to deal with Veladarius is both rude and provocative. My advice would be either to ignore, or approach differently. Mind you that Veladarius is not innocent either, but you are both approaching this with insults rather than mature discussion.

 

So basically, calm down and think about what you are typing.

 

 

As I said above. I am nice to nice people. I am not nice if I am treated unfair, rude and disrespectful. Vel did all three of that.

 

Your own postings are adding nothing constructive either. Ever. You're always picking the side picking on me and accuse me of being "immature" or tell me how bad I look. blah, blah.

 

I stopped caring about your opinion about me a while ago, really. And I don't need you to give me lessons on how to deal with people either. I am old enough to decide for myself. Go lecture someone else.

 

[MrBig]

Question not related to the last couple pages

 

is the new hobble dress straightjacket suppose to be 2 shades?

 

 

Is it my installation or just an early prototype?

 

If its intentional may I suggest having it a single shade; would look much more like a single punishing device.

 

Colouring  aside the hobble version looks much more restrictive than the legbinder version

[VirginMarie]

As a Modder

 

My understanding is that:

1. If I do nothing, my mod's custom devices (which is all of them), will not behave differently
2. Until I use a new feature, my mod will be compatible with both old and new, and its devices will behave the same in both
3. I might decide I like a certain new escape feature, and add to some of my devices, and nothing in DD's MCM would change their behaviour. This I like. A big plus making it more likely I'd want to use such feature in the first place
4. Removing devices (through script) remains the same. I only do so if they have no "block_genaric" or "QuestItem"
5. Other than #4, generic items are of no consequence to my mod, so as a modder I don't need to be concerned with how they change

I've tested with the dev build (was a few months ago), and at that point points 1, 2, and 4 were true.

 

Assuming my understanding above is correct, I'm happy with this. I may see minor things when I test again, but the direction being taken is good. I'm happy

 

 

As a User

Adding some spice to the generic devices for the most part should be good. I don't know if any would annoy me till I try it, but I can take the pros with the cons.

 

I can see why some users would react negatively to any change. Maybe the difficulty slider would be enough to alleviate most concerns once people get to try it and get used to it. (I would assume such difficulty slider effects only the generic devices)

 

[Kimy]

Question not related to the last couple pages

 

is the new hobble dress straightjacket suppose to be 2 shades?

 

ScreenShot14.jpgScreenShot16.jpg

 

Is it my installation or just an early prototype?

 

If its intentional may I suggest having it a single shade; would look much more like a single punishing device.

 

Colouring  aside the hobble version looks much more restrictive than the legbinder version

 

It's a mash-up of the straitjacket top and the hobble dress skirt. I am not sure if we can match the colors better. I will relegate this question to our experts.

[bicobus]

One basic misconception about DDI is that it's geared at players. It's not. It's meant for -modders-. DDI is providing tools to make mods with. It's also up to the modders to balance their items and (if they so desire) provide difficult sliders. DDI providing these options was actually overriding what the modders created (or could create).

[...]

For starters: If you find a mod annoying, don't use it.

I have to point out the contradiction present here. Yes, I agree DDi is geared towards the modders. That is something we both agree with.

 

I am also playing the mods I enjoy, which depend on the framework, up until now there is no problem.

 

What I don't enjoy are some features enabled by default by the framework which I have no possible way to influence (mainly, the gag talk). I can't not play the DDi framework though, even though I wasn't aware I was playing it. So I find myself a bit confused when I get the suggestion to play something I don't like. I mean... If it is geared towards modders then it should have no impact on the player experiences by default, right?!

 

There are only TWO DD mods around equipping these items on people on a regular basis.

Yes, and no. Other mods can leave the player in the wild while they are in a bound state. For instance if the player manage to escape from the slavery system introduced by SD+, all the devices will remain locked on the player which will then need to remove them. SD+ do introduce a mechanic to remove those items though, but with the gag talk it becomes incredibly painful to do so as your helper will randomly try to enslave you back while you are trying to deal with the gag talk mini-game; the failure cancel the dialogues and proc an enslave event because you are still bound. It is admittedly a short coming from SD+, but aggravated needlessly - the NPC shouldn't try to enslave the player if it has agreed to help remove the devices.

 

When you say it is geared towards the modders, I'm all for it. But if I still get into this kind of situations with the next version, I'll be back in here to point out the annoyances. Yeah, I'm that kind of pain in the ass.

 

It wasn't specifically aimed at you. But I got labeled a lot of nasty things here lately.

I have noticed, probably why HR departments exists at all and why they are so universally disliked. I try to keep myself on point and not dragged into personal and petty fights.

 

If I cared about my image I'd have become a YouTuber.

Shots fired, SHOTS FIRED!

 

 

As for the rest of your post, no I do not use DCL because it's a bit too much of everything. There are very good concepts in it and stuff I readily enjoy, but there is as much content I do not enjoy at all. I am aware it is highly configurable though, but installing DCL comes with the price of performances too. So this again. I did play DCL though, it was fun until the repetitiveness of the curses got the better of my patience.

 

On that note, have a good day.

[Derenriche]

I feel like there is a divide of understanding on what DDi is suppose to be, and people are expecting things that aren't actually what DDi is intended to be.

 

Based on statements made by Kimy, I infer that DDi is being developed and changed as a framework with a back-end service mentality and not towards being a stand-alone end-user product. What you can presume by this is that all devices that are currently included in DDi and DDx are essentially demo items and all their default behaviors and values should be treated as such. Most complaints I see are about the lack of front-end customization for these items, however from a framework perspective Kimy indeed has no obligation to implement these changes because these are showcase items and are not meant to be used as is. They are meant to be treated as templates for custom versions.

 

And this is what I see to be the crux of the issue.

 

People are too used to using DDi as an end-service product for the players and is still treating DDi as a mod for direct player consumption. While this is still true to some extent, it is no longer the goal of DDi as it is trying to brand itself purely as a framework. It would be nice if the DD team does indeed make the "demo" items more customizable for the front-end users for compatibility reasons, but this is not a framework development goal and would purely be considered something nice to have for testing.

 

The ideal that I feel Kimy and DD is trying to encourage is for what people currently expects of DDi (item-wise) to be made into a separate mod (DD Collections for instance) and have that mod address front-end user preferences or whatever. Mods currently dependent on the demo items would then use DD Collection's settings or whatever, while more detailed or customized mods would create their own version of the items with custom behavior and values. This would then separate DDi entirely as a framework instead of a front-end mod, which I think is what Kimy intends.

 

This is just my own interpretation of the discussion thus far, please correct me if I am wrong.

[Darkpig]

I feel like there is a divide of understanding on what DDi is suppose to be, and people are expecting things that aren't actually what DDi is intended to be.

 

Based on statements made by Kimy, I infer that DDi is being developed and changed as a framework with a back-end service mentality and not towards being a stand-alone end-user product. What you can presume by this is that all devices that are currently included in DDi and DDx are essentially demo items and all their default behaviors and values should be treated as such. Most complaints I see are about the lack of front-end customization for these items, however from a framework perspective Kimy indeed has no obligation to implement these changes because these are showcase items and are not meant to be used as is. They are meant to be treated as templates for custom versions.

 

And this is what I see to be the crux of the issue.

 

People are too used to using DDi as an end-service product for the players and is still treating DDi as a mod for direct player consumption. While this is still true to some extent, it is no longer the goal of DDi as it is trying to brand itself purely as a framework. It would be nice if the DD team does indeed make the "demo" items more customizable for the front-end users for compatibility reasons, but this is not a framework development goal and would purely be considered something nice to have for testing.

 

The ideal that I feel Kimy and DD is trying to encourage is for what people currently expects of DDi (item-wise) to be made into a separate mod (DD Collections for instance) and have that mod address front-end user preferences or whatever. Mods currently dependent on the demo items would then use DD Collection's settings or whatever, while more detailed or customized mods would create their own version of the items with custom behavior and values. This would then separate DDi entirely as a framework instead of a front-end mod, which I think is what Kimy intends.

 

This is just my own interpretation of the discussion thus far, please correct me if I am wrong.

 

Sounds like fun to me.

 

[Veladarius]

I feel like there is a divide of understanding on what DDi is suppose to be, and people are expecting things that aren't actually what DDi is intended to be.

 

Based on statements made by Kimy, I infer that DDi is being developed and changed as a framework with a back-end service mentality and not towards being a stand-alone end-user product. What you can presume by this is that all devices that are currently included in DDi and DDx are essentially demo items and all their default behaviors and values should be treated as such. Most complaints I see are about the lack of front-end customization for these items, however from a framework perspective Kimy indeed has no obligation to implement these changes because these are showcase items and are not meant to be used as is. They are meant to be treated as templates for custom versions.

 

And this is what I see to be the crux of the issue.

 

People are too used to using DDi as an end-service product for the players and is still treating DDi as a mod for direct player consumption. While this is still true to some extent, it is no longer the goal of DDi as it is trying to brand itself purely as a framework. It would be nice if the DD team does indeed make the "demo" items more customizable for the front-end users for compatibility reasons, but this is not a framework development goal and would purely be considered something nice to have for testing.

 

The ideal that I feel Kimy and DD is trying to encourage is for what people currently expects of DDi (item-wise) to be made into a separate mod (DD Collections for instance) and have that mod address front-end user preferences or whatever. Mods currently dependent on the demo items would then use DD Collection's settings or whatever, while more detailed or customized mods would create their own version of the items with custom behavior and values. This would then separate DDi entirely as a framework instead of a front-end mod, which I think is what Kimy intends.

 

This is just my own interpretation of the discussion thus far, please correct me if I am wrong.

 

Unfortunately stepping in this late in the game and saying the devices included with DD are not to be used basically destroys all of the DD mods out there still in use that are no longer updated and depend on these items. This effectively pulls the rug out from under dozens of mods that rely on them and will alienate the users of these mods and DD in general.

[xboronx]

Isn't it possible to include some kind of legacy mode? Like those windows compatibility functions where windows can emulate older windows versions, and often enough this way old win 98 games even work on windows 7 or 10?

 

If this would be a MCM switch we users could have the best of both worlds, enjoy the new system and temporarily switch back to the old system when playing older mods or if we don't like the new system.

 

At least imho it would be a huge loss if out of this mud fight either Kimy or Veladarius burn out and quit modding. Also just remember the recent ZaZ incident. Fortunately it got eventually solved and now we can enjoy all the great new bondage toys from Tara while backwards compability is maintained.

 

 

[bicobus]

It is actually a good way to deprecate old content while still supporting them. Their behavior wouldn't change while new possibilities are available for maintained mods. I guess that would mean hell for a mod like captured dream that aim to make everything available.

[Veladarius]

If they don't want the current generic items being used then they need to dump the entire device tag system for getting random items or at least remove all of tags for items from DDi and DDx. CD uses that system to get random items for the generic punishment items.

[bicobus]

Not necessarily, you can have separate containers for the nature of the items. The old ones would still be working with the current api, but the new ones would require using some new API function.

[Guest batiota]

I think I found a bug, sorry im noob , from the new version, after a certain time the dialogs dont work and you cant take off the devices because the checkbox doesnt appear.

[Kimy]

If they don't want the current generic items being used then they need to dump the entire device tag system for getting random items or at least remove all of tags for items from DDi and DDx. CD uses that system to get random items for the generic punishment items.

 

I can do that if you want. I never cared for that system.

[Kimy]

 

Unfortunately stepping in this late in the game and saying the devices included with DD are not to be used basically destroys all of the DD mods out there still in use that are no longer updated and depend on these items. This effectively pulls the rug out from under dozens of mods that rely on them and will alienate the users of these mods and DD in general.

 

 

That's why we're not doing it.

 

But apparently a (relatively small) change to their behavior is enough reason for multiple pages of hate posts. Gosh, I wonder what would have happened if we ever had considered changing something actually major.