- Nov 16, 2018
- 46
- 48
Version 0.4.4: "Full Sex Customization and Strap-on Scenes" is out.
HTML Debasing Grounds [v0.4.3] [Rax Lorax]
- Thread starter Bob69
- Start date
-
- Tags
- adventure anal sex bdsm character creation corruption dystopian setting exhibitionism female domination female protagonist futa/trans futa/trans protagonist gay graphic violence groping group sex humiliation interracial lesbian male domination male protagonist mobile game multiple penetration netorare oral sex prostitution rpg sandbox sci-fi sex toys sissification spanking text based transformation trap urination vaginal sex virgin
- Oct 24, 2019
- 99
- 112
I can't say I like the choice of using "Body Modifications" to refer to piercings and tattoos. I guess they technically are, but when I see "body modification" I think of (usually involuntary) transformations, from relatively vanilla things like breast enlargement to crazy shit like pussy lips or extra limbs. Lumping piercings and tattoos in with that just makes it confusing.
- Mar 27, 2024
- 306
- 200
You can transform all your body with hormones from Isara questline.. and others NPCs as well..
Skin color/Height/Penis/Vagina/Breasts/Ass..
Either Rax said will add in future also some minor beastly transformations..
You can start that questline talking to Rebecca/Reban (from 4.4 you can change also her sex)
You can't start, but you can become agenital..
Last edited:
I don't get the logic here. One can have an apparently reasonable chance to roll success, and yet fail literally every time for unspecified reasons. Why? This is just lying to the player, not making the game hard. Obscuring game mechanics is closer to forcing the player to fail than it is clever, and rule number one of video games since time immemorial is that you never force the player to fail.
- Jul 31, 2022
- 25
- 52
"From where you're kneeling this must seem like the game was rigged from the start.
The truth is, an 18-carat run of bad luck."
*BANG*
...*sigh*
- Humans are bad at statistics
- This is a series of independent events
- Probability =/= Frequency on human-observable scales
- The chance of failing at least once is still statistically very high
Here's a website that does it (nothing special just the first one I found):
You must be registered to see the links
You want the Probability of a Series of Independent Events (3rd one down)
Invert the underlined numbers to give the chance of failing at least once before reaching the specified number of tries.
The chance of failing at least once (99% chance, 30 tries): ~26%
The chance of failing at least once (99% chance, 100 tries): ~64%
That's for a 99% success rate. The maximum chance you can get (this game always uses numbers that are between 1% and 99%).
Yes, you read that right. Yes I did double check these numbers are correct.
This includes situations where, while carrying on to reach the specified number, you fail more times than that.
If you do enough of these high chance RNG checks, you're likely that one of them will fail when it "shouldn't". That is normal and expected. That doesn't mean that the RNG is wrong.
OG gamblers fallacy is based on a roulette wheel landing on black 26 times in a row. Occurring 26 times in a row is (18/37)^(26-1) ~1-in-66.6-million... but if you were sat in that room after the 25th time, and you were wondering if you should bet on it... for you the chance of it landing on black THIS TIME is still 47.4% (assuming a nonbiased roulette wheel with two greens) the same as each of the other individual times.
- Jul 8, 2019
- 365
- 175
Learned from xcom years ago to never trust anything less than a 100% chance
Well, hope starting with being aginital female/male would be an option in the future version.
- Sep 12, 2018
- 219
- 363
Wonderfully, XCOM also taught us that some players get so stuck on the thought that the game is out to get them, that they will go to such extremes as digging into encrypted game data to prove it. Only to uncover that the game *did* in fact cheat; except it was in favour of the player.Learned from xcom years ago to never trust anything less than a 100% chance
Hundreds of people, who all considered themselves very very smart, were so deluded that they didn't just imagine a non-existent pattern, but one that was the direct opposite of reality. It was fascinating to watch that debacle from the sidelines.
Literally the same thing happened in fire emblem, down to the game skewing in your favor
- Jul 8, 2019
- 365
- 175
after beating legend difficulty on ironman mode i learned most people just make dumb decisions that happen to work out once and then get mad that it doesn't work the next 7 times
ah and to clarify, when i say most people i mean most people that complain that the game is out to get them
How do you invite characters to your home? I've rented out places, and created a dungeon in one of the rooms, but I can't seem to actually invite anyone back, it keeps saying "no home" or "no home assigned."
- Mar 27, 2024
- 306
- 200
You will need to do that also while choosing a dungeon (there're some in the city and you can build your own also in your apartment with a room available for it)
I find it hard to express in words how profoundly strongly I felt offended by your entire post. But it was so strange and bizarre I decided to look into it. And, while you're still completely wrong in the event here, it's no fault of yours. It seems the game has changed since I last played it several months ago. I made my post above without playing the update based on how I recalled it. At that point, you could have a 99% chance of success and fail every single time, over and over; load - fail, load - fail, load - fail, without exception. The odds weren't actually calculated or used, or they weren't honored, and I don't know why. It seems in the most recent version this is not so. So I forgive you for assuming me to be a complete moron who's never heard of the gambler's fallacy on this occasion, since based on the current release it's a valid assumption.
- Dec 2, 2022
- 105
- 47
So, just started a bit ago, ended up purchasing some "piece of rope" what can I do with it. I had though it would allow me to bind myself or others but that seems to not be the case?
edit : found the issue. rope only fits on a few slots. Ankle and wrist it seems.
edit : found the issue. rope only fits on a few slots. Ankle and wrist it seems.
Last edited:
- Mar 27, 2024
- 306
- 200
You can use those or handcuffs in bed or the dungeon..
No, you can't bind yourself.. just the others.. and others could bind you..
- Jul 31, 2022
- 25
- 52
Sorry if the tone is a bit amiguous, or inconsistent. I was going off on one, not going off on one
. It wasn't personal or intended to be talking down or something. Mostly talking past you tbh. I tend to ramble, cut down because it was too long, and then post the nonsensical result. For all I know you could be right. Maybe it displays 90 but really only goes to 70 internally? Or wrong? I don't know. You don't seem to know. Between us we're probably not going to aquire the teraflopyears needed to fill and process a spreadsheet large enough to definitively conclude either way.
I was offering an explanation (mostly for myself who frequently runs into similar-feeling situations in other RNG-heavy games, and by exetension anyone else feeling similar).
Html games doing rng is pretty bread-and-butter standard. As is savescumming them to get the result you want. As is sitting there clicking 2 buttons for 40 mins straight getting frustrated at failing until you win and then immediately clicking the button again because you're stuck in muscle memory and getting even more annoy-
Maybe each one collectively copied a bad RNG implementation? Maybe I'm cursed to get bad rolls? Maybe the more times you roll a dice across your lifetime, the more likely you are to have seen (among all collective rolls) a memorably-long string of 1s?
Just because you know a fallacy doesn't make you immune to it.
On this version and earlier versions I subjectively feel that I had more success after peforming a similar ritual (loading a different save and then reloading) but it could equally have been placebo. Especially since I only do that after scumming "normally" for a while without success, and I stop when I get the result I want. This skews the result by several orders of magnitude. Which is further amplified by basing the success rate on what I remember, which comes with a free negativity bias (you naturally remember more of when the RNG robbed you of a "free" win more than when it gave you a "hopeless" win). Also when I win, I'm going to continue playing not bother writing it down or commit the event to long-term memory. Knowing this objectively doesn't change how it feels subjectively.
And I can't prove that ritual did anything practical like clearing a variable / resetting a stuck loop or something, bar actual variable checking. Which I am far too lazy to do on a savescummable html game (one of my many failings).
Your original comment is about feeling some kind of bias, which is subjective. It never feels fair when you fail a roll for an event you want, especially if the success chance looks achievable. What I was trying to say was that that same sequence of observed results could have been obtained from a real or a bad RNG implementation. There is no way of knowing for sure solely by looking at the results.
But this game is savescummable, and as far as I know the outcome of a roll isn't baked in to the savestate :. I trust it to be doing some kind of mathsy numbo jumbo behind the scenes. But equally that trust may be misplaced, html games can lie (wasteland lewdness has a stat check when you take a pill at the start, bit it's unpassable and probably a completely fake check).