Pink Petal Games
Feedback => New Features => Topic started by: clingybouncer on October 12, 2010, 10:36:02 PM
-
It would be awesome if you could add more brothel sex events to expand the gallery tabs to things like masturbation, rape, or futa.
Example: brothel event would say something like "customer payed to watch her masturbate." and then a new gallery could hold those images expanding the experience and giving me more places to place the pics of the girls.
I would also like to see girl events like marriage or suicide based on the girls stats like love and happiness.
Having stats for the person your playing playing would be cool too.
And lastly while I'm sure the girl editor doesn't have priority over the next release or new game I would love to see the ability to make your own traits.
-
I'd love the ability to see slaves try to buy their freedom, and based on PC Love, stay on as a free girl or leave.
Having more options such as retiring a girl or having them request things would be cool too. Marriage would be interesting. Personally being able to set what each girl specializes in at a brothel would be great, so you can set a girl on something she's 'naturally' good at.
-
having stats for the player character means that those stats has an effect on the girls and the game as such, at current there is none.
quote: "And lastly while I'm sure the girl editor doesn't have priority over the next release or new game I would love to see the ability to make your own traits."
it sounds initially nice but it would open the bag for adding 300+ different "personalized" traits for each and every unique girl in the game as every new player would insist that their definition of the girls' traits are "The One" to use. god knows how many traits you would end up with if you Downloaded several packages from different players with all their own version of a new trait and those same added to the same girls. like saying Urd would have "big Boobs" and "Large Rack" and so on. hope i make sense here.
-
It's better to have a choice than remove a choice because you think people can't choose well.
It's similar in theory to "Well, because 3 different people might make sailor mars, we shouldn't allow uniques. God knows how many girls would get made."
If you can add and remove traits, the players themselves can determine what to keep and what to trash. It's the same fix as having 3 sailor mars'.
-
think you got me wrong there, i'm not opposed to new girls, only to the traits getting full, free run. get a thread that lists the current traits (with explanations of the nature of the traits) and a posibility of suggesting new traits, then let the contributors add the traits they think is relevant.
-
It's better to have a choice than remove a choice because you think people can't choose well.
You know, I'm not entirely convinced that libertarianism and game design work all that well together.
I mean, think about racing circuits. You could argue that it's unfair of the race organisers to put all those twists and turns in the track, and that what they ought to do is just have a big empty tarmac field and let the drivers drive where they choose.
Sometimes it's the restrictions that make the pastime interesting.
-
You know, I'm not entirely convinced that libertarianism and game design work all that well together.
I mean, think about racing circuits. You could argue that it's unfair of the race organisers to put all those twists and turns in the track, and that what they ought to do is just have a big empty tarmac field and let the drivers drive where they choose.
Sometimes it's the restrictions that make the pastime interesting.
This is a video game. Not a racetrack.
But, I'll bite.
In your example, suppose 5 people decide the rules for that game. Someone comes up with a good suggestion. But those 5 people don't like it.
Who's to say that suggestion won't make the game better? I can't come up with a good suggestion for racing, because I'm not a redneck and therefore I don't like racing.
However...
What you're suggesting is that this suggestion is as stupid as that one, with your straw man. I'm not suggesting they make such a stupid change, especially since it's not 'unfair' to have twists and turns. That's a stupid argument. Really stupid, because then literally every track would be exactly the same. But that's my opinion. I don't mean to insult the imaginary person you came up with who suggested that. I'm pro-imaginary-friends.
(http://images.buddytv.com/articles/Image/Fosters-Home-for-the-Imaginary-Friends/Bloo-profile.jpg)
*Shakes Bloo's hand(?)* See? We're not really FRIENDS like you are (creepy), but I don't hate him.
So, MAC, I suggest you don't insult me.
-
You know, I'm not entirely convinced that libertarianism and game design work all that well together.
I mean, think about racing circuits. You could argue that it's unfair of the race organisers to put all those twists and turns in the track, and that what they ought to do is just have a big empty tarmac field and let the drivers drive where they choose.
Sometimes it's the restrictions that make the pastime interesting.
So art isn't an interesting pastime? This is a business sim, it is ENTIRELY MADE OF CHOICES. If this were an FPS, or an RPG, I might agree. But the entire gameplay of this game, is choices. Enforcing restrictions because people might make bad choices with their own, custom made content that no one has to use and is not included in the Base game, makes no sense. Now, if there were engine limitations, or some other reason, it would make sense.
-
What you're suggesting is that this suggestion is as stupid as that one, with your straw man.
Calm down. I'm not having a dig at you, and user defined traits have been on my todo list since the spring. I just want to discuss the notion (which crops up fairly frequently on these boards) that more choice is always better.
I'm not suggesting they make such a stupid change, especially since it's not 'unfair' to have twists and turns. That's a stupid argument. Really stupid, because then literally every track would be exactly the same. But that's my opinion. I don't mean to insult the imaginary person you came up with who suggested that. I'm pro-imaginary-friends.
The only point I was addressing was this one:
It's better to have a choice than remove a choice because you think people can't choose well.
More to the point (since I don't see how motivation behind a change affects the gameplay that results) the question becomes "is it always a good thing to have more choices". I don't belive I'm materially misrepresenting your position in saying that.
As such, the racetrack example was intended as a counter example - giving the drivers more choice about where they can drive makes for a poorer game. If you don't like racing think Pac-Man. Or imagine D&D where players could alter their stats and equipment however and whenever they like. Or Slavemaker where you could just double click a stat and set it to whatever value you wished.
The restrictions define the form.
So art isn't an interesting pastime?
Are you suggesting that art is without restriction? That would mean that a Limerick with it's strict rules on meter couldn't be considered to be art. Actually, that's a bad example, but it applies equally to Shakespear's sonnets. e e cummings has his moments, but I've seen nothing of his that can hold a candle to "Shall I compare thee to a summer's day?"
This is a business sim, it is ENTIRELY MADE OF CHOICES.
Well spotted. However not all those choices are available at the same time. Indeed, some choices never become available at all. Otherwise you could just declare yourself God on turn one and have all the girls in an infinite brothel from turn one. We don't give you the option to nuke crossgate either, and I don't think game suffers one whit from this somewhat arbitrary restriction.
So yes, the game is composed entirely of choices, but that doesn't imply that more choice is necessarily better for the game.
Enforcing restrictions because people might make bad choices with their own, custom made content that no one has to use and is not included in the Base game, makes no sense.
Well it does, in terms of establishing a common baseline so that all the girls are designed under the same rules. You may not think that's a desirable objective, but that doesn't make it into a nonsensical objective.
-
Calm down. I'm not having a dig at you, and user defined traits have been on my todo list since the spring. I just want to discuss the notion (which crops up fairly frequently on these boards) that more choice is always better.
Not intentionally, but you still insulted my intelligence. I don't appreciate that.
As such, the racetrack example was intended as a counter example - giving the drivers more choice about where they can drive makes for a poorer game. If you don't like racing think Pac-Man. Or imagine D&D where players could alter their stats and equipment however and whenever they like. Or Slavemaker where you could just double click a stat and set it to whatever value you wished.
Let people ruin the game the way they want. It's not like they're forcing anyone else to play the way they want. If they're playing it a certain way, then they must enjoy that way. It makes the game more fun. It just does. Ever tried cheating at a game? I have. Whether it be entering the konami code in MGS3, or beating the final boss within 15 minutes of the start in chrono trigger (Not really a cheat, buuuuuuuuuuut).
See, if you start limiting people to how THEY want to play a game, you should have a very good reason. Especially since... I'll continue this line of thought later.
There's a difference between "Yeah... see these cops here? They're gonna shoot you if you rape someone, then get caught, and then try to escape, eventually pulling out a handgun to try and get away" and "Yeah... see these cops here? Hopscotch isn't on the approved 'fun' list. So, if you play hopscotch in the schoolyard, they get to arrest and/or shoot you."
(See how it feels for your intelligence to be insulted?)
Now, if you want to go ahead and limit certain people for the sole purpose of limiting them, then I have an issue. But that's not the case, so this line of thought is pointless.
So yes, the game is composed entirely of choices, but that doesn't imply that more choice is necessarily better for the game.
No, but you should be careful with restrictions.
Game design is about popularity, but also about art. It is a combination of the creator's wants, and the users' wants. As far as I can tell, while you value the users' wants highly, as of late, you've become more aware of your own wants. I think you'll make the right choice, whether that choice is popular or not.
However, there is something to be said of your philosophy on things. I hope you really mean more choices are a good thing. I dislike people who use force to achieve their goals.
__________________
Regardless, I think what it comes down to is that an expansion of the trait list would be good.
I think we should have an editer expansion for traits. I think people should be able to post those trait files in a master thread. I think that you and the other coders should add those to the game itself. That way, girls CAN be made in an equal way. I doubt the game would run very well if a girl is missing traits, so I think the editer should create trait files, but, if necessary, not apply them to the game itself. Either that, or put in a placeholder trait like "Unique" which doesn't do anything for when you're missing one.
Now, I think this is a sound suggestion. I hope you'll agree, because I doubt you think you can mod the game better than an entire community put together. But maybe you can.
-
I don't even know where this whole attacking each other came from. Adding your own traits has been on the to-do list for a while now.
I personally never supported user-made traits when I feel the existing ones explain just about any girl you can possibly think of. (AND they're wayyyyy too over powered, how about we fix the existing ones before adding user created ones?) Especially when there's features the game could use a whole lot more than something that adds so little to the game. Whether they make it into the game or not doesn't really matter to me, but I'd rather see development go into areas that (in my opinion of course) are far more of a priority.
How about adding some life to the world? The scripting system allowing novel game style portraits on the screen as they talk, reactions the girls make when you torture them, deceive them, give them gifts.
How about giving us some goals? Maybe a little narrative? Yeah, Whore master is pretty much complete as far as a business sim goes. That's done, but there's absolutely NOTHING to strive for. There's nothing to proceed towards, you take over your fathers business kill some rivals and make money. This is only fun for so long... you play the game once for 10 minutes and you've experienced everything the game has to offer.
There's nothing to work for (better girls, equipment, jobs, technology,expansion, unlockables in general)
Nothing has a personality. Not the girls, the shop owner, the rivals, the gangs, the governor, nothing.
Other than rivals nothing really unexpected happens. Girls don't beg you to take them in, your allies don't turn on you, there's no spies, there's no special requests by customers, there's no one who wants to buy a girl from you with specific qualities in x amount of days, no events to help/ruin the town/mayor/shop owner ect.
Long story short, the game is bare boned. It's like a skeleton of everything it could be.
And this little spat came from user-made traits? Come on now, there's far more interesting things to start a spat over.
-
Not intentionally, but you still insulted my intelligence. I don't appreciate that.
I used a somewhat silly example to provide an illustration for my point. I still don't see the insult in that, but like you say, it wasn't intentional.
Now, if you want to go ahead and limit certain people for the sole purpose of limiting them, then I have an issue. But that's not the case, so this line of thought is pointless.
Fair enough
However, there is something to be said of your philosophy on things. I hope you really mean more choices are a good thing. I dislike people who use force to achieve their goals.
Well, I'm pretty much out of WM dev now, apart from a few outstanding items which I think are pretty non-controversial, so I don't think the question applies. I am a little baffled as to how I could use force in this case. Even if I added a slew of arbitrary and pointless restrictions to the game - it's Free Software. If I were to do something truly unpopular, somebody would patch the code and release a sanitised version.
Now, I think this is a sound suggestion. I hope you'll agree, because I doubt you think you can mod the game better than an entire community put together. But maybe you can.
As I mentioned in my last post, user defined traits are on the todo list already.
I don't even know where this whole attacking each other came from. Adding your own traits has been on the to-do list for a while now.
I'm not attacking anyone.
-
And this little spat came from user-made traits? Come on now, there's far more interesting things to start a spat over.
I share Mehzerz point of view. I wouldn't mind to go ahead with town wards city map (and discussion) if there's still some interest on it...
And -as a side-note- I would not dare to discourage people that complain/coment about whatever Doc is proposing/doing because I think criticizing is just another tool to improve the final product... it's just that I don't think nagging someone who is working adding new features into WM for free, in his free time, just for fun, etc. is a good idea. Walk on his shoes -if you were Doc, what would you do? Would you listen to other people's ideas? Or maybe you would code whatever you want and don't care about what others want? (Just ask yourself... WWDD - What Would DocClox Do?)
-
Speaking of... Mr DocClox, your awesome codingness sir, any idea on when the Lua implementation will come out?
-
I share Mehzerz point of view. I wouldn't mind to go ahead with town wards city map (and discussion) if there's still some interest on it...
And -as a side-note- I would not dare to discourage people that complain/coment about whatever Doc is proposing/doing because I think criticizing is just another tool to improve the final product... it's just that I don't think nagging someone who is working adding new features into WM for free, in his free time, just for fun, etc. is a good idea. Walk on his shoes -if you were Doc, what would you do? Would you listen to other people's ideas? Or maybe you would code whatever you want and don't care about what others want? (Just ask yourself... WWDD - What Would DocClox Do?)
Most coders don't tend to care what people actually want. It's their art, after all, and it's free, so... They lose nothing if people don't play it.
However, originally, Doc (Apparently) cared. I'm not too sure about now.
-
Speaking of... Mr DocClox, your awesome codingness sir, any idea on when the Lua implementation will come out?
Hmmm.... OK, it IS time I bit the bullet and tackled that svn merge, isn't it? If I can get the code merged, we can maybe try out some of the lua handlers I have got coded. Maybe get some alpha testing done while I get the rest of them written.
I share Mehzerz point of view. I wouldn't mind to go ahead with town wards city map (and discussion) if there's still some interest on it...
I'm still interested, cretainly. I just got a bit derailed by Real Life a couple of months back :-[
And -as a side-note- I would not dare to discourage people that complain/coment about whatever Doc is proposing/doing because I think criticizing is just another tool to improve the final product.
However, originally, Doc (Apparently) cared. I'm not too sure about now.
I really don't see what's changed. I'm not proposing any new in-game restrictions. I just wanted to make the point that all games are made up principally of restrictions, and that proposing a new one shouldn't automatically be condemned as an act of infamy.
Sometimes it seems that any time anyone (not just me) suggests limiting some aspect of the game, even for good reason, people seem to start talking about "taking away our freedoms" as if Barak Obama had just made a speech at a Tea Party convention.
I'm not saying that as a jab at you personally, Radiance; I've been meaning to comment on this for some time. It just seems all too common a reaction, and one that's not particularly conducive to constructive debate.
-
I'm still interested, cretainly. I just got a bit derailed by Real Life a couple of months back :-[
Oh, I know, I know, but you're better now, aren't you?... I have been busy myself -had almost no free time last months, wich is good for business but bad for leisure. Now looks like I'm having a bit more time to spare and I would like to get a 'working' version of the city map and finish some half-made interface 'concepts' (flash version).
-
Oh, I know, I know, but you're better now, aren't you?... I have been busy myself -had almost no free time last months, wich is good for business but bad for leisure. Now looks like I'm having a bit more time to spare and I would like to get a 'working' version of the city map and finish some half-made interface 'concepts' (flash version).
Well, I'm back at work on graduated return, but still working half days at the moment. So getting there, but not entirely there yet. As the occupational health lady told me - "two major surguries and a serious infection - it's going to take time".
Still, I'll see about clearing down my WM todo list a bit this week. Better to do it now, before I get completely sidetracked with gladatrix leagues and clonemaster...
-
I'm not saying that as a jab at you personally, Radiance; I've been meaning to comment on this for some time. It just seems all too common a reaction, and one that's not particularly conducive to constructive debate.
And if no one said it, you'd go too far in restrictions. At the least, see it as a necessary counterpoint to prevent from going too far.
-
And if no one said it, you'd go too far in restrictions. At the least, see it as a necessary counterpoint to prevent from going too far.
I find your lack of faith ... disturbing. (I always wanted to say that :) )
Seriously though, I'm not suggesting you shouldn't say anything if you think a proposed change is a bad idea. All I'm asking is that you say how it's going to make the game worse, ratrher than simply condeming it out of hand because it limits player freedom within the game.
For example: I don't mind "I think that's a bad idea because it would increase the amount of micromanagement, and doesn't really add anything to the game".
On the other hand, I don't find any compelling argument in "That's a restriction on the player, and all restrictions are Bad"
So - sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander: If you want people to show how a change would improve the game when they propose it, then I would ask that people show how a proposal would negatively impact gameplay when they raise objections. And then hopefully we'll see more discussions focussing in on gameplay issues and fewer based on misdirected ideology.
Reasonable enough?
-
I find your lack of faith ... disturbing. (I always wanted to say that :) )
Seriously though, I'm not suggesting you shouldn't say anything if you think a proposed change is a bad idea. All I'm asking is that you say how it's going to make the game worse, ratrher than simply condeming it out of hand because it limits player freedom within the game.
For example: I don't mind "I think that's a bad idea because it would increase the amount of micromanagement, and doesn't really add anything to the game".
On the other hand, I don't find any compelling argument in "That's a restriction on the player, and all restrictions are Bad"
So - sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander: If you want people to show how a change would improve the game when they propose it, then I would ask that people show how a proposal would negatively impact gameplay when they raise objections. And then hopefully we'll see more discussions focussing in on gameplay issues and fewer based on misdirected ideology.
Reasonable enough?
However, some restrictions are bad. If I explain why that restriction are bad, would you actually take that into account, or would you say something like "All restrictions are good. Your argument is flawed"? You wouldn't.
If a restriction is completely pointless, then it should not occur. If there's some real reason why it should occur, like if it forms a basis for a future change, then that's fine. But suppose you suddenly just decided you wanted to take away bondage in the game. That isn't that BAD, honestly, but there's no real REASON for it either. It's neutral. But then suppose you say "I'm taking this away because I'm going to add 3 different forms of it in the next release". That's restricting for the sake of greater versatility. On the other hand, you decide to take it away because you personally hate bondage, and think everyone else should too. That's limiting for a bad reason. I just happen to think that if an action is neutral, then it should lean, and it should lean on the side of greater freedom.
Just as not restricting for the sake of not restricting is bad, restricting for the sake of restricting is just as bad, if not worse.
Both of us seem to have this idea that the other just want to restrict the other for the sake of doing so. I doubt you'd bring this up if you didn't think so.
-
However, some restrictions are bad.
Well, yes. All I'm saying is that they aren't bad because they are restrictions. They're bad because they make the game less enjoyable.
Just as not restricting for the sake of not restricting is bad, restricting for the sake of restricting is just as bad, if not worse.
That's more or less the point I've been trying to make.
Both of us seem to have this idea that the other just want to restrict the other for the sake of doing so. I doubt you'd bring this up if you didn't think so.
As I said before, I'm commenting on a general tendency; you just gave me the opportunity to raise a subject that I'd wanted to address for some time.
-
On another note... the original poster mentioned stats for the player.
What exactly are his stats? I imagine that he does have them hidden from the player or girls fighting back wouldn't work out so well.
I'm not an expert (I'm barely an amateur at C#, and that's the only language I'm studying for now), but I'm guessing it's something like an if/else or a switch statement that says "If the player loses, do the calculations for the gang. If there's no gang, and the player loses, she escapes." If it's anything like that, then I imagine the player would have stats. If he has stats, you could probably get them to increase almost the same way as the gangs, but instead of the 'next day' button working that out, you could have actions the player takes, much like sex actions, handle that, and count the number of sex actions as 'time' slots, and put a counter as part of the main screen of every building.
Or do they increase already based on the fights he gets in? I doubt that, unless it's only victories, but even then, I don't see a reason for you even writing code that can do that since gangs are the real primary decider.
Again, I haven't looked at the code, but it seems like it would be relatively simple to write, if you haven't already.
-
On another note... the original poster mentioned stats for the player.
What exactly are his stats? I imagine that he does have them hidden from the player or girls fighting back wouldn't work out so well.
I thought someone mentioned it was straight 50's for the player. I never liked that either personally, whether you can change his stats or not doesn't matter to me. But I think picking his starting stats would be a nice little feature.
-
I thought someone mentioned it was straight 50's for the player. I never liked that either personally, whether you can change his stats or not doesn't matter to me. But I think picking his starting stats would be a nice little feature.
If you could also change his sex stats, and have that work in relation to sex with the other characters... the player could be a trainer, fighter, or with some (heavy) edits, a diplomat...
Imagine if you could make the player a politician. Put bills to a vote to change laws to trip up other businesses. Do things legally instead of taking over everything with gangs.
...It's good to dream.
-
If you could also change his sex stats, and have that work in relation to sex with the other characters... the player could be a trainer, fighter, or with some (heavy) edits, a diplomat...
Imagine if you could make the player a politician. Put bills to a vote to change laws to trip up other businesses. Do things legally instead of taking over everything with gangs.
I would totally support this. Player stats have always been a talked about feature in WM. Some people want it and some don't. If the player is supposed to be well "me" I'd like to be able to adjust and alter how I am in this world. Whether it's done by a questionnaire like Tactics Ogre or if it's done by picking classes and or stat points, I don't care.
Right now making girls into your daughter bases off all the stats on these 50's and the player character has no traits. Which seems rather silly. If anything he should have his own unique traits and YOUR set stats so if you make him super ugly but very smart your girls are going to take a massive hit in looks but be smarter.
Much like girls the player should be able to obtain his traits doing certain things. "player perks" if you will.
... It certainly is good to dream.
-
I can't get at the source at the moment, but I'm fairly certain that the game doesn't track any player stats beyond those shown; reputation, disposition and so forth.
I'd have liked to have seen some PC stats at some stage as well.
-
I can't get at the source at the moment, but I'm fairly certain that the game doesn't track any player stats beyond those shown; reputation, disposition and so forth.
Slighty off topic then...
so are daughters stats mostly just determined by their mothers value? Or do they just get their mothers traits? This may have been mentioned in another topic, if so my bad.
-
/me checks source code
Hmmm... I'm wrong. The player has a full list of stats and skills, as well as ratings for suspicion, disposition and fear.
The player's agility can increase if he wins a fight. Otherwise, none of them seem to be set. Although they are saved and restored in the save file.
-
/me checks source code
Hmmm... I'm wrong. The player has a full list of stats and skills, as well as ratings for suspicion, disposition and fear.
The player's agility can increase if he wins a fight. Otherwise, none of them seem to be set. Although they are saved and restored in the save file.
Then wouldn't it be a simple matter to change the code to randomly increase one stat instead of just agility?
-
Then wouldn't it be a simple matter to change the code to randomly increase one stat instead of just agility?
Not too complex, certainly.
-
Not too complex, certainly.
I hope you'll include this in another update, before you stop working on this project.
-
So, just so I'm clear; every time the PC wins a fight with a girl, you'd like it to have a chance to buff a random stat?
-
So, just so I'm clear; every time the PC wins a fight with a girl, you'd like it to have a chance to buff a random stat?
Basically. I doubt you'd do more than that, but it's a great start.
-
sounds fair to me. Unless there were other events that added a stat.
-
sounds fair to me. Unless there were other events that added a stat.
Nothing springs to mind. OK, I'll see what I can do.
-
on that note, does handling the officials from the townhouse count towards intellect? does trekking to the catacombs boost your strength/stamina?
does shopping for beauty-boxes give you an idea on how to improve your own looks?
basically, specific actions that replace your actions with the girls with in a certain amount of actions you can do per day/week (after all actions take time and time is finite within the length of a week) simply put: find an arbitrary amount of actions you can do before the week ends something like 40 or 50. sems reasonable to take that amount, not too few but not so many that you can keep tweaking the performance of every girl you own.
I realize this will turn this game into a turnbased one in one aspect but it does have advantages too. you can always make it so they don't HAVE to do anything but can scoot to next week by hitting "end week".
all in all, having actions define the growth/decline of your stats only needs a suggestion on types that fall into the credible ones, i'm sure we are all interested in a good addition to the game and we can see merits in other person's suggestions, it's simply how we react to those suggestions that make it positive or negative:)
-
basically, specific actions that replace your actions with the girls with in a certain amount of actions you can do per day/week (after all actions take time and time is finite within the length of a week) simply put: find an arbitrary amount of actions you can do before the week ends something like 40 or 50. sems reasonable to take that amount, not too few but not so many that you can keep tweaking the performance of every girl you own.
Well, that's the thing, you see. I'm supposed to be winding down development on WM, at least until necno has a chance to take stock of where we are. So I've agreed to take care of my outstanding commitments and that's it. So basically, finish the Lua scripting; do the town wards code, and finish off the building management stuff.
So, aside from that, I'm not adding anything major to the game. I'll consider the odd one-liner here and there, but I'm sworn off the big stuff.
Admittedly, the Gladiatrix code seems to be dominating my dev time at the moment. Nevertheless ...