Ren'Py Brothel King [v0.3t.2] [Goldo]

[DougTheC]

Can we shut down the "

You must be registered to see the links

" v0.15b for you?

I already did.

Yes, I verified that "Traplan" & "Brothel King" are now removed from Itch.io.

 

[Teron]

So I'll give it until the end of April. Then I'll have to start looking for an alternative home for BK. Sucks that a lot of content would get lost that way (especially the looong explanation I did on the lore and events - I foolishly didn't back it up).

I've only just had a look at some of the recent posts in here so I have no idea what's going on but, is this the page you're looking for?

You must be registered to see the links

 

[Jman9]

Yes. Already spotted by __neronero, though.

 

[NSoull]

If the new function has an outcome that a player wants to save-scum, it will just be an unused feature as soon as save-scumming is not possible and the outcome cannot be reversed. As the game is a singleplayer game, I do not even understand why save-scumming needs to be prevented.
To truly negate save-scumming, the negative and the positive outcome needs to be balanced/the impact of the outcome needs to be reduced. Or there need to be control over it.

Spoiler

You don't have permission to view the spoiler content. Log in or register now.

Some devs are simply hell bent on trying to force the players to play the game how they think it should be played.
Personally, I think it is a bad mentality to have and it is even worse when they waste time trying to make systems to control the players when that time could have been used in improving the game.
Sadly, this is not unusual. Even outside of games like this.

 

[Jman9]

I happen to think that's a crap attitude to have as a player. Most games are not improved by be being converted into some freeform version of themselves. Tell me, do you decry platformers for 'forcing' you to platform?

All it does is add feature creep until the game loses its focus and becomes a poor imitation of itself, or just outright drives developers over the edge trying to satisfy everyone. It's a rare game that actually manages to get better as it adds player freedom upon player freedom.

If my game doesn't work the way I envisioned it to, why the fuck am I even continuing do (re)design it? I will once again quote the wise man: "La perfection est atteinte, non pas lorsqu'il n'y a plus rien à ajouter, mais lorsqu'il n'y a plus rien à retirer." Applies to games design just as well as it did to aviation.

I have personally witnessed several of my favourite franchises get ruined because designers thought it was a good idea to entertain your line of thought. I guess you can tell I'm still a little salty, especially when preached that this was a good thing. /rant over

 

[NSoull]

I happen to think that's a crap attitude to have as a player. Most games are not improved by be being converted into some freeform version of themselves. Tell me, do you decry platformers for 'forcing' you to platform?

All it does is add feature creep until the game loses its focus and becomes a poor imitation of itself, or just outright drives developers over the edge trying to satisfy everyone. It's a rare game that actually manages to get better as it adds player freedom upon player freedom.

If my game doesn't work the way I envisioned it to, why the fuck am I even continuing do (re)design it? I will once again quote the wise man: "La perfection est atteinte, non pas lorsqu'il n'y a plus rien à ajouter, mais lorsqu'il n'y a plus rien à retirer." Applies to games design just as well as it did to aviation.

I have personally witnessed several of my favourite franchises get ruined because designers thought it was a good idea to entertain your line of thought. I guess you can tell I'm still a little salty, especially when preached that this was a good thing. /rant over

I have no idea what you are talking about. Genuinely.
People are save scumming. That is their own personal enjoyment and it doesn't affect the game.
How does someone save scumming in their game affects your experience? How does it ruin YOUR game?

I think you severely misunderstood everything I said. I never suggested that the games should be changed. If anything, I said the opposite.
I said that it is a bad thing when devs waste their time trying to come up with mechanics to force the player to conform, like "anti-cheat mechanics", "traps" and so on. Especially on a single-player, non-competitive and leisure game like this.
To give examples:
Some devs in internal coding and mechanics to make sure someone didn't use cheat engine to edit their save. That is bad.
Developing features to stop someone from save-scumming. That is bad.
Punishing the players for not playing "properly". That is bad.
(This is all regarding SINGLE PLAYER games, of course)

I am not suggesting for things to be added. Not even changed. I never did.

Not a single thing you said there has anything to do with what I said.

 

[Jman9]

I have no idea what you are talking about. Genuinely.

This:

Some devs are simply hell bent on trying to force the players to play the game how they think it should be played.
Personally, I think it is a bad mentality to have...
...
I said that it is a bad thing when devs waste their time trying to come up with mechanics to force the player to conform, like "anti-cheat mechanics", "traps" and so on. Especially on a single-player, non-competitive and leisure game like this.

I suggest you re-read what I wrote. Maybe also go back a bit to where I admit to being tremendeous save-scummer.

How does it ruin YOUR game?

By bypassing my game design goals and therefore rendering a large chunk of related decisions meaningless. I shouldn't have included them in the first place if I wanted such a choice to be a viable.



Now, all this may or may not be applicable to a particular game's particular mechanics. In fact, I don't think it actually does for Goldo's new farm plans, which really shoudn't have such a giant incentive to savescum. But I very much dislike your general opinion and think it's plain wrong just as often as it's right.

Edit: Seeing these edits, it's clear that I misunderstood nothing. Your game design philosophy is deeply antithetical to mine.

 

[NSoull]

This:


I suggest you re-read what I wrote. Maybe also go back a bit to where I admit to being tremendeous save-scummer.


By bypassing my game design goals and therefore rendering a large chunk of related decisions meaningless. I shouldn't have included them in the first place if I wanted such a choice to be a viable.



Now, all this may or may not be applicable to a particular game's particular mechanics. In fact, I don't think it actually does for Goldo's new farm plans, which really shoudn't have such a giant incentive to savescum. But I very much dislike your general opinion and think it's plain wrong just as often as it's right.

You explained nothing mate. Lets start over in a more simple way:

All I said is that I dislike it when devs go out of their way to make cheating harder in single player games. How is this bad? I am not asking for the game to be changed. I am not asking for anything to be added.
If people figure out to cheat in a single player game, that is their own personal experience and it doesn't affect ANYBODY ELSE.

How does me using some dumb cheat to make my character stronger in a single player ruins the game? At worst, it will ruin my own personal experience and nobody else's.

 

[Jman9]

Let me try to explain to you as simply as I can, then. I am a humongous save scummer. I am also a pretty serious modder, verging on game dev. I want my games to have save-scumming without absolutely breaking the game.

Your line of thought is the exact opposite. Let people break the game, or not save scum at all. No third option. You get your way and I have a much harder time molding a game to my liking. Maybe it'll never click with me at all because of this.

If I share my mod, as I've done in the past a few times, and people find a way to circumvent some central game mechanic via save scumming, I want to close that down. Because it affects my game. Literally.

Cheating via data manipulation is a different thing. It literally bypasses the game's internal limits. Sometimes it's worth it (time doesn't grow on trees, debugging, testing builds, etc), mostly it isn't.

I also find that your game design philosophy regarding save scumming and player freedom flawed on a more fundamental level, but I think it's clear by now that you're not able or willing to discuss that in any depth. Which is fine by me. Agree to disagree and leave it at that.

 

[goldo00]

Some devs are simply hell bent on trying to force the players to play the game how they think it should be played.
Personally, I think it is a bad mentality to have and it is even worse when they waste time trying to make systems to control the players when that time could have been used in improving the game.
Sadly, this is not unusual. Even outside of games like this.

I think you're being too absolutist about it. One quote I like on game design is, "given the opportunity, many players will optimize the fun out of the game entirely".

I don't think you could argue that having save-scumming active in, say, darkest dungeon or Faster Than Light would improve those games in any way, just because they're single-player. Of course, BK is not a rogue-like, so I am generally very liberal with save-scumming. But for some specific issues, such as dice rolls, I prefer to lock the player out of that option, simply because reloading a saved game endlessly until you get the best roll isn't fun. In a game like BK featuring lots of random generation, you could easily grind the whole experience to a halt by save-scumming all the time, for everything. Of course, you could argue it's the problem of the player if that happens, since because it's a single player game, it only affects their own experience.

But if I can nudge the player in the right direction to make it easier on themselves, why not do it?

 

[Jman9]

...simply because reloading a saved game endlessly until you get the best roll isn't fun.

I've had tremendeous fun with it in a number of games, BK included. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

But if I can nudge the player in the right direction to make it easier on themselves, why not do it?

Because it's not your job to nudge players. It's to incentivise their choices. Save-scumming is a choice between spending more of your your personal time on drudgery for a little-to-moderate amount of extra resources, usually. If it becomes either useless or mandatory to save-scum, you've taken choice away.

I don't think you could argue that having save-scumming active in, say, darkest dungeon...

But you can save-scum in DD? Not a lot and it's too much of a pain to do regularly, but you can reload failed dungeon runs, accidental crappy hires, etc. Even failed (boss) battles if you go a bit behind the game's back. I've done it quite a few times when I was not in the mood to run the dungeon again and put up with Wilbur's bullshit once more, for no extra fun.

 

[You-San]

pls can someone help me with this? im suck at this kind of thing.

PS: thanks

 

[Jman9]

pls can someone help me with this?

Ren'Py Version: Ren'Py 7.4.10.2178

Update (and install the game and patch properly). We're on at least 7.4.11 now.

 

[Jman9]

Sent a PM to Goldo, because otherwise there might be drama coming...

 

[NSoull]

Before anything else, I have been playing BK since the first version I saw back in the HHS forums. I really enjoy and appreciate the work you do.

I think you're being too absolutist about it. One quote I like on game design is, "given the opportunity, many players will optimize the fun out of the game entirely".

And if they deliberately do that, that is their own experience they are ruining. I am not saying cheating is good or bad, but each player has different definitions of how to have fun in a game.

I don't think you could argue that having save-scumming active in, say, darkest dungeon or Faster Than Light would improve those games in any way, just because they're single-player. But for some specific issues, such as dice rolls, I prefer to lock the player out of that option, simply because reloading a saved game endlessly until you get the best roll isn't fun.

This brings back to the previous argument. It is not up to you whether it is better or not, it is up to the player. The players will find their enjoyment in whatever way they personally prefer. If they can do that without affecting the experience of other people, I don't see the problem.

Take RPG games with stat-based choices. I am fine with building my character and playing the game naturally, but I also know people who like having all the choices available and max out their stats using save-editing or cheat engine. They don't like feeling locked out of stuff and prefer to play it this way. That is their business.
It doesn't affect my game or anyone else's. I disagree with them, sure, but it is none my business.

TL;DR: That is my bottom line. So long as people can do this stuff without affecting the experience of others or the development of the game (through game breaking exploits, holes in the code or or so on), I am fine with that.
If the way dice rolls worked and were being a genuine issue that could be fixed (and improved), then by all means. Fix it away. But I personally don't agree with changes that don't really improve the game and only serve as obstacles for people privately and harmlessly cheating.

 

[Guarsian]

But if I can nudge the player in the right direction to make it easier on themselves, why not do it?

This comes down to the idea of using "the carrot or the stick". Rather than dis-incentivizing save scumming, by introducing artificial hurdles that punishes everyone, incentivize the frugality of saves (meaning incentives the player to use saves sparingly rather than spamming saves). Perhaps some form of buff, or in game effect, or even some efficiency system for each "end day" that occurs without a save? Now this is only a thought, and may not be the right solution, but the train of thought in luring the player rather herding them is.

 

[Jman9]

I think you're both starting to reach a little. Goldo is not talking about a universal revamp of the save system. He's talking about disabling its effects for one specific mechanic.

You could just have a flag 'gizel_screws_her_up' set to true or false at chargen either randomly or procedurally, and if that's set Gizel will traumatise her. You can reload, you can't reload yourself into a game state where Gizel benefits that particular girl.

Or something else that works similarly.

NaoSoul also seems to have missed the fact that ('true') rogulikes, ironman modes and fixed random seeds are very much a thing and nobody bats an eye at them these days. Their point is to remove the temptation to save-scum too much and too easily, not disable it altogether.

 

[ekusonas]

I think you're being too absolutist about it. One quote I like on game design is, "given the opportunity, many players will optimize the fun out of the game entirely".

I don't think you could argue that having save-scumming active in, say, darkest dungeon or Faster Than Light would improve those games in any way, just because they're single-player. Of course, BK is not a rogue-like, so I am generally very liberal with save-scumming. But for some specific issues, such as dice rolls, I prefer to lock the player out of that option, simply because reloading a saved game endlessly until you get the best roll isn't fun. In a game like BK featuring lots of random generation, you could easily grind the whole experience to a halt by save-scumming all the time, for everything. Of course, you could argue it's the problem of the player if that happens, since because it's a single player game, it only affects their own experience.

But if I can nudge the player in the right direction to make it easier on themselves, why not do it?

I'm going to reiterate what I posted in my last comment because it seems it went unread...

The game already incorporates magic abilities, perhaps something in that route would be a way to actually 'fix' the situation you described. Alternatively something like finding a buyer who specifically wants these 'broken' girls (for whatever possibly nefarious purpose) and pays a good reward for them could make it so that even if you do get this 'bad' outcome it can still benefit the player in some fashion. What I'm trying to suggest is not simply coming up with ways to punish a player because 'they're evil'.

If all a mechanic in the game is doing is punishing you for something (especially if it's just failing an RNG check), players will find ways to avoid it unless it can lead to some kind of interesting outcome.

 

[Guarsian]

I think you're both starting to reach a little. Goldo is not talking about a universal revamp of the save system. He's talking about disabling its effects for one specific mechanic.

You could just have a flag 'gizel_screws_her_up' set to true or false at chargen either randomly or procedurally, and if that's set Gizel will traumatise her. You can reload, you can't reload yourself into a game state where Gizel benefits that particular girl.

Or something else that works similarly.

NaoSoul also seems to have missed the fact that ('true') rogulikes, ironman modes and fixed random seeds are very much a thing and nobody bats an eye at them these days. Their point is to remove the temptation to save-scum too much and too easily, not disable it altogether.

^A much better explanation Thank you

 

[__neronero]

I'm going to reiterate what I posted in my last comment because it seems it went unread...

The game already incorporates magic abilities, perhaps something in that route would be a way to actually 'fix' the situation you described. Alternatively something like finding a buyer who specifically wants these 'broken' girls (for whatever possibly nefarious purpose) and pays a good reward for them could make it so that even if you do get this 'bad' outcome it can still benefit the player in some fashion. What I'm trying to suggest is not simply coming up with ways to punish a player because 'they're evil'.

If all a mechanic in the game is doing is punishing you for something (especially if it's just failing an RNG check), players will find ways to avoid it unless it can lead to some kind of interesting outcome.

I suggested something similar myself and I do think it could be interesting. However, Jman rightly pointed out that this is essentially solving one niche feature's shortcomings with another (by definition even more niche) feature. This approach to designing a game is a bit risky in the long term, especially while so many other more prominent parts of the game could still be developed further.