On mutually exclusive transformations

Talking about Fleshcult: Strategies, questions and comments.

On mutually exclusive transformations

Postby Lingam » Mon May 13, 2013 10:28 pm

So I've found some mutually exclusive transformations (that is, you have to give up one to gain the other) that don't quite make sense to me. I'm not entirely sure if they're bugs, which is why I'm not posting this in that forum, so if it's not too much trouble, would you mind explaining the reasoning behind these?

* Can't have nipples that are both engorged and lactating. I suppose this might be a matter of game balance--if lactating nipples are assumed to be engorged and just don't give the stat bonus because lactation is a really strong ability, that would make sense.

* Can't have any kind of nipple piercing if nipples are either engorged or lactating. This makes no sense at all; one is a transformation of a body part, and the other is decoration of that body part. The one shouldn't prevent the other.

* Cannot have both a pussy and balls, even if Tome of Hermaphrodites is in library, regardless of presence or absence of cock.
Lingam
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Tue Mar 26, 2013 7:49 pm

Re: On mutually exclusive transformations

Postby jackoekaki » Tue May 14, 2013 4:51 am

Nah, these aren't bugs, they're just consequences of me picking a list of body part slots that isn't fine-grained enough to support those combinations.

If I regret anything about the current list, it's that I think it should've been shorter and therefore coarser-grained! There's an interesting developer diary by the Path of Exile guys that I can't locate right now, but the gist is that the fewer slots you have, the larger the effects you can have on items (all things being equal) because they're stacking with fewer items in total. This leads to richer, more interesting choices because the stakes are higher.
jackoekaki
Site Admin
 
Posts: 166
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2013 9:15 am

Re: On mutually exclusive transformations

Postby Shadow Knight » Tue May 14, 2013 6:33 am

It also leads to more genericness and less diversity. The less possible permutations you have, the more chances you have of ending up with the same characters over and over. More options is (almost) always good. The problem is, obviously, balancing them with each other. Sure, balancing fewer slots is easier for the developer, but won't be as appealing to the player.

The benefit of diversity, besides player appeal, is also that you can encourage different playstyles. You don't have to agonise about whether the "bigger is better, so bigger body parts should give more bonuses" group is right or the "more is better, so all body parts should have flat bonuses, so that you get more bonuses by adding more body parts" group is wrong, because you can always pander to both (and to other playstyles) by just adding more options.

Do what the people behind D&D and MtG do: set up some body parts as baselines and balance everything new you create with them.

I would also not consider higher stakes a good thing. I would consider them neutral, and highly dependent on how they're implemented. Higher stakes are one of those things that sounds great as a concept but often fails catastrophically with implementation. Higher stakes are useful in small doses, and where it really matters, like some special moves during encounters with mortals. That maximises their impact, keeps them important and avoids player frustration.
Shadow Knight
 
Posts: 32
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 5:27 am

Re: On mutually exclusive transformations

Postby jackoekaki » Tue May 14, 2013 9:27 am

Shadow Knight wrote:It also leads to more genericness and less diversity. The less possible permutations you have, the more chances you have of ending up with the same characters over and over. More options is (almost) always good. The problem is, obviously, balancing them with each other. Sure, balancing fewer slots is easier for the developer, but won't be as appealing to the player.


I was imagining the same number of transformations overall, just fewer slots and more options for each slot. So instead of it being say 4 options ^ 15 slots, it'd be more like 7 options ^ 7 slots. Which is way fewer permutations (around a million instead of a billion), but would have a greater feeling of diversity in practice because any given character only has a 7th of the game content rather than a 4th of the content.

I don't feel like I've seen something fresh when I see a new combination of content I've already seen. I only feel that when I see something I've never picked before, so it's really about the ratio between the content I can select and the content that's excluded by those selections. That and fewer/bigger choices would make for punchier character descriptions. :)

Not that I actually plan to pursue that change, it's way too late for anything that dramatic.
jackoekaki
Site Admin
 
Posts: 166
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2013 9:15 am

Re: On mutually exclusive transformations

Postby Lingam » Tue May 14, 2013 6:18 pm

jackoekaki wrote:Nah, these aren't bugs, they're just consequences of me picking a list of body part slots that isn't fine-grained enough to support those combinations.


Ah, I see. That's unfortunate. Is there any chance of the situation changing at any point in the future, or would there be backwards compatibility issues involved with altering the parts list in such a fashion?
Lingam
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Tue Mar 26, 2013 7:49 pm

Re: On mutually exclusive transformations

Postby Shadow Knight » Wed May 15, 2013 4:03 am

jackoekaki wrote:I was imagining the same number of transformations overall, just fewer slots and more options for each slot. So instead of it being say 4 options ^ 15 slots, it'd be more like 7 options ^ 7 slots. Which is way fewer permutations (around a million instead of a billion), but would have a greater feeling of diversity in practice because any given character only has a 7th of the game content rather than a 4th of the content.

I don't feel like I've seen something fresh when I see a new combination of content I've already seen. I only feel that when I see something I've never picked before, so it's really about the ratio between the content I can select and the content that's excluded by those selections. That and fewer/bigger choices would make for punchier character descriptions. :)

Not that I actually plan to pursue that change, it's way too late for anything that dramatic.


Well, you'd still end up being unable to pick, say, horsecocks or giant balls, or FF cups and engorged nipples, and so on. It wouldn't be so bad if it was a sort of "upgradable" system, with the ability to have additions on top of whatever you chose for the slot (say, you pick your ideal breast/dick size, you customise it with piercings, added transformations, and so on, and you can switch between "sets"). The problem is mainly that it forces players to choose between fetishes/stuff they like, and it could be frustrating to never have the opportunity to have "all of the things".

Though it's still worth discussing, even if it's not implementable, because you never know what you might end up doing in the future. Game design is always a good topic of discussion. :D
Shadow Knight
 
Posts: 32
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 5:27 am

Re: On mutually exclusive transformations

Postby jackoekaki » Wed May 15, 2013 4:58 am

Lingam wrote:
jackoekaki wrote:Nah, these aren't bugs, they're just consequences of me picking a list of body part slots that isn't fine-grained enough to support those combinations.


Ah, I see. That's unfortunate. Is there any chance of the situation changing at any point in the future, or would there be backwards compatibility issues involved with altering the parts list in such a fashion?


It's fairly unlikely. The only change I have planned is moving clits into the frontal crotch slot, so that they're mutually exclusive with dicks. But even that's going to be tricky and it'll take some thought to ensure compatibility with old saves.
jackoekaki
Site Admin
 
Posts: 166
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2013 9:15 am

Re: On mutually exclusive transformations

Postby CruisetheSkies » Sat May 18, 2013 9:56 am

Why on God's green earth would you want to make CLITS incompatible with dicks?
CruisetheSkies
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Wed Mar 20, 2013 10:07 am

Re: On mutually exclusive transformations

Postby Sasha S » Mon May 20, 2013 7:45 am

I for one prefer my herms that why. It makes more sense to me. And yes, this is a fantasy game, but that's how I see it. Besides, can a players clit actually do anything right now?
User avatar
Sasha S
 
Posts: 20
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 1:52 pm

Re: On mutually exclusive transformations

Postby Shadow Knight » Tue May 21, 2013 2:18 am

CruisetheSkies wrote:Why on God's green earth would you want to make CLITS incompatible with dicks?


Biology, probably. Clits and dicks are the same organ, which takes different shapes depending on whether the foetus is a male or a female. Having said that, if there will be support for multi-dicks, there's no reason not to do the same for dicks and clits.
Shadow Knight
 
Posts: 32
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 5:27 am

Re: On mutually exclusive transformations

Postby jackoekaki » Tue May 21, 2013 7:02 am

Similar reasons to why I don't allow balls+pussy: I'm trying to avoid having one of every kind of junk being the dominant strategy. That and having genitalia like a Swiss-army knife is difficult to describe and hurts suspension of disbelief.
jackoekaki
Site Admin
 
Posts: 166
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2013 9:15 am

Re: On mutually exclusive transformations

Postby icepixie8 » Fri Oct 18, 2013 4:21 pm

The only change I have planned is moving clits into the frontal crotch slot, so that they're mutually exclusive with dicks. But even that's going to be tricky and it'll take some thought to ensure compatibility with old saves.


I know it's late in the development stage, and you mentioned here this was going to be difficult, but I'd still love to see this in the game. :roll: Do you still plan on being able to add this transformation?

Your work here continues to be impeccable btw. I've followed this game since you posted it on tf games site back in January, and I have been happily surprised at how much it has grown. I want to thank you for your work on this project. I love it. ;)
icepixie8
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2013 7:17 pm

Re: On mutually exclusive transformations

Postby DemonKnightRaziel » Tue Apr 29, 2014 11:35 pm

I also think making clits incompatible with dicks is a bad idea. From a physical perspective, take that away and 90% of feminine pleasure goes with it; anal would probably feel better at that point.

Unless your going the clit-dick route(like some futa), its just a meh idea.
DemonKnightRaziel
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2014 10:27 pm

Re: On mutually exclusive transformations

Postby DemonKnightRaziel » Tue Apr 29, 2014 11:38 pm

jackoekaki wrote:
Shadow Knight wrote:It also leads to more genericness and less diversity. The less possible permutations you have, the more chances you have of ending up with the same characters over and over. More options is (almost) always good. The problem is, obviously, balancing them with each other. Sure, balancing fewer slots is easier for the developer, but won't be as appealing to the player.


I was imagining the same number of transformations overall, just fewer slots and more options for each slot. So instead of it being say 4 options ^ 15 slots, it'd be more like 7 options ^ 7 slots. Which is way fewer permutations (around a million instead of a billion), but would have a greater feeling of diversity in practice because any given character only has a 7th of the game content rather than a 4th of the content.

I don't feel like I've seen something fresh when I see a new combination of content I've already seen. I only feel that when I see something I've never picked before, so it's really about the ratio between the content I can select and the content that's excluded by those selections. That and fewer/bigger choices would make for punchier character descriptions. :)

Not that I actually plan to pursue that change, it's way too late for anything that dramatic.


So is this 'slot' thing why supposedly Tail mutations actually replace the cock? Logically, stinger tail/scorpion tail would be an actual TAIL, and thus not take the place of a cock, but it does. I'd been hoping to make a bad-ass flying, four armed stinger-tailed massive-cocked Nagabeast, but, no dice.

I do understand the hyper-engorged nipples to lactating nipples at least; lactacing nipples are really just engorged nips that leak milk, lol.
DemonKnightRaziel
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2014 10:27 pm

Re: On mutually exclusive transformations

Postby jackoekaki » Wed Apr 30, 2014 3:51 am

DemonKnightRaziel wrote:So is this 'slot' thing why supposedly Tail mutations actually replace the cock? Logically, stinger tail/scorpion tail would be an actual TAIL, and thus not take the place of a cock, but it does. I'd been hoping to make a bad-ass flying, four armed stinger-tailed massive-cocked Nagabeast, but, no dice.


Yup, that beast mutation tier is all sex organ transformations, so I guess calling it a tail is rather misleading. Moving it into the butt slot with the other tails would make sense, so I've put it on the list for the next update.
jackoekaki
Site Admin
 
Posts: 166
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2013 9:15 am


Return to Fleshcult

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 4 guests