Mod QSP Jack-o-Nine-Tails Developer Versions and Mods

[Pianocat]

Wow, I get my money worse^^ My answer will be shorter, due to my limited english and knowledge of the game.

I think that making punishments directly lower spoil would make spoil too easy to get rid of. Spoil already decreases nightly in proportion to devotion, fear (which increases with effective punishments), despair (which increases nightly if the slave's mood is depressed) and empathy (if the slave's mood is negative). There is also the "put in place" interaction, which gets more effective as the master's skills grow, and the Garden of Gethsemane reward, which is very effective in lowering spoil.

I didn't know that despair and fear were decreasing spoil: anyway the effect must be minimal, cause I quickly had a desesperate slave with a fear of 2, who goes up to 3 of spoil... which seems to me deeply illogical. For me it's really about the concept: I think the spoil couldn't appears during the first days, when you try to break her will... I mean, when you endure 3 punishments in a day, can you really consider that you are a "spoiled princess"?^^

That's why I thought about it like something which could really rise only when the "punishments phase" is ending.

The spoil increase when there are not enough rules was introduced by crushboss ("slaves do not respect a master who does not expect them to follow any rules"). In practice, setting "force rules", "deny orgasm" and "no masturbating" currently allows you to satisfy the minimum-rules check without actually making the slave do anything, so it's currently not doing anything to make the game more challenging for veterans, and it's punishing players who don't know about it (though it is mentioned in the tutorial now, so they should know about it).

Absolutely! And that's why it's not really something interesting, in terms of gameplay, I think: it forces you to tick the same boxes for each slave, again and again. And why a slave without rule should be spoiled? I mean, you force her to study, train, or do whatever you want during the whole day: telling her "no masturbation and no orgasm" is not what she really cares about, no?
Anyway I agree that "force rule" shouln't be one of the needed rule.

And I think this system is good: just it do not really fit the early game^^ But ask her, when she's more compliant, to respect some rules, to remind her his status, makes sense, yeah.

We currently have spoil increases from: (...)

Thx for the list
So no need to add more conditions, indeed. Still possible to make it more punitive, though... (to makes it a bit more challenging after you suppressed the "spikes of rebellion"?)

We can make the rules requirement more obvious:
View attachment 888712

Not a bad thing, yeah I think the game should be more explicit about number of things (even if it's better when it's introduced by lore/dialogs.)

 

[Pianocat]

Intellect still lowers for every night in the barn even at max cow skill, I noticed. It isn't a factor in the cow price formula, so I suppose it's fine... but couldn't she be reciting poetry in her head while lazing around all day?

Yeah, why not! But anyway taking her out of the barn after one year will certainly require a huge work before putting her back behind a desk

 

[ImperatorAugustusTertius]

I didn't know that despair and fear were decreasing spoil: anyway the effect must be minimal, cause I quickly had a desesperate slave with a fear of 2, who goes up to 3 of spoil... which seems to me deeply illogical.

It only lowers if you have enough rules set, otherwise it just keeps going up. The rate of increase is proportional to pride, nature and temperament.

With 2 fear, 0 devotion, 0 despair, 3 empathy, and a negative mood, a slave with enough rules set will decrease spoil by 6 points per night. 3 spoil drops to 2 spoil at -20 points, which would take 4 nights with those conditions if you do nothing else to lower her spoil. 2 spoil and 1 spoil both level down at -10 points, 2 nights with those conditions. So in total, eight nights would take your 3 spoil slave back to zero, after you stop whatever is spoiling her. If you increased her fear to 3, it would become -7 points per night, which would reduce the time to drop from 3 spoil by one day.

For me it's really about the concept: I think the spoil couldn't appears during the first days, when you try to break her will... I mean, when you endure 3 punishments in a day, can you really consider that you are a "spoiled princess"?^^

That's why I thought about it like something which could really rise only when the "punishments phase" is ending.

Depends, if the punishments are not effective then absolutely yes. If the punishments are effective, then probably not, but it should still depend on the nature and temperament and pride of the slave vs. the level of fear. Even if she's being abused, she may still feel like she deserved to be treated like a princess. Spoil doesn't only represent that she is being treated better than her merits, it can also be that she feels she deserves better treatment, or that she thinks she can get away with defiance.

The influence of fear could be increased, but I don't think we should completely eliminate the possibility of early spoiling. Slaves are sometimes even randomly generated with spoil from the start.

Absolutely! And that's why it's not really something interesting, in terms of gameplay, I think: it forces you to tick the same boxes for each slave, again and again. And why a slave without rule should be spoiled? I mean, you force her to study, train, or do whatever you want during the whole day: telling her "no masturbation and no orgasm" is not what she really cares about, no?

And I think this system is good: just it do not really fit the early game^^ But ask her, when she's more compliant, to respect some rules, to remind her his status, makes sense, yeah.

Rules are "continuous" commands that the slave is expected to do without the slaver needing to directly supervise or remind her. Having rules means that the slave needs to be constantly thinking about what is expected of her. This is different from being required to obey direct commands only. It means she doesn't have "breaks" from being a slave. Free time is a reward, not something to be taken for granted.

Keep in mind, the slaver is not constantly with the slave. Early cooking lesson texts for example describe leaving her in the kitchen and coming back after an hour to see what she prepared.

Not a bad thing, yeah I think the game should be more explicit about number of things (even if it's better when it's introduced by lore/dialogs.)

In the tutorial, the rules spoiling effect is mentioned by Angelika now. The rule count and tooltip I showed is meant to remind inattentive players of that, not to replace it.

 

[ImperatorAugustusTertius]

Yeah, why not! But anyway taking her out of the barn after one year will certainly require a huge work before putting her back behind a desk

Something interesting about that: if you leave her in the barn, she will continue to gain cow skill even if her mind breaks. So you can end up with an S+ mindbroken cow...

 

[qwertyu12359]

It only lowers if you have enough rules set, otherwise it just keeps going up. The rate of increase is proportional to pride, nature and temperament.

With 2 fear, 0 devotion, 0 despair, 3 empathy, and a negative mood, a slave with enough rules set will decrease spoil by 6 points per night. 3 spoil drops to 2 spoil at -20 points, which would take 4 nights with those conditions if you do nothing else to lower her spoil. 2 spoil and 1 spoil both level down at -10 points, 2 nights with those conditions. So in total, eight nights would take your 3 spoil slave back to zero, after you stop whatever is spoiling her. If you increased her fear to 3, it would become -7 points per night, which would reduce the time to drop from 3 spoil by one day.


Depends, if the punishments are not effective then absolutely yes. If the punishments are effective, then probably not, but it should still depend on the nature and temperament and pride of the slave vs. the level of fear. Even if she's being abused, she may still feel like she deserved to be treated like a princess. Spoil doesn't only represent that she is being treated better than her merits, it can also be that she feels she deserves better treatment, or that she thinks she can get away with defiance.

The influence of fear could be increased, but I don't think we should completely eliminate the possibility of early spoiling. Slaves are sometimes even randomly generated with spoil from the start.


Rules are "continuous" commands that the slave is expected to do without the slaver needing to directly supervise or remind her. Having rules means that the slave needs to be constantly thinking about what is expected of her. This is different from being required to obey direct commands only. It means she doesn't have "breaks" from being a slave. Free time is a reward, not something to be taken for granted.

Keep in mind, the slaver is not constantly with the slave. Early cooking lesson texts for example describe leaving her in the kitchen and coming back after an hour to see what she prepared.


In the tutorial, the rules spoiling effect is mentioned by Angelika now. The rule count and tooltip I showed is meant to remind inattentive players of that, not to replace it.

"Spoil doesn't only represent that she is being treated better than her merits, it can also be that she feels she deserves better treatment, or that she thinks she can get away with defiance."

Isn't it what pride is for?

It'd be a bit weird to me that "feeling you deserve better treatment" doesn't have anything to do with personality and rather is an accidental trait a bad slaver can get.

Moreover, if you can gain spoil over night, it makes sense that you can only lose it over night... But the "put in place" action fucks up the whole consistency of it. And therefore I agree with PianoCat greatly: there should be way to put a slave in place without words.

My proposition has nothing to do with difficulty but with player's instinct, and consistency. I think that a successful or very successful punishment should be as effective as "put in place". And if you fear this is going to be too easy... I think it's not for any veteran player (it's just easier for debutant players that don't know what "put in place" does and never use it).

 

[ImperatorAugustusTertius]

Pride is being used primarily to measure her opposition to intimacy. Many things factor into obedience/defiance, but I wouldn't substitute pride increases for spoil increases unless "making her less open to sex" as a side effect makes sense there.

I disagree with the concept that a malus should be as easy to remove as to gain. There's no reason for it to be symmetrical. Spoil has negative gameplay effects, but actions which cause spoil can also have positive effects that outweigh the negatives in certain circumstances. The minimum rules effect is just punishing players for not "following the rules of the game", though, so I'm sympathetic to the idea of removing that for normal difficulty. I'm not sure about removing it from hardcore ... with the modification proposed above (don't count force rules) it becomes more of a real challenge, and hardcore is meant for challenge.

 

[qwertyu12359]

Pride is being used primarily to measure her opposition to intimacy. Many things factor into obedience/defiance, but I wouldn't substitute pride increases for spoil increases unless "making her less open to sex" as a side effect makes sense there.

I disagree with the concept that a malus should be as easy to remove as to gain. There's no reason for it to be symmetrical. Spoil has negative gameplay effects, but actions which cause spoil can also have positive effects that outweigh the negatives in certain circumstances. The minimum rules effect is just punishing players for not "following the rules of the game", though, so I'm sympathetic to the idea of removing that for normal difficulty. I'm not sure about removing it from hardcore ... with the modification proposed above (don't count force rules) it becomes more of a real challenge, and hardcore is meant for challenge.

I can understand that gain and loss can be not symmetrical.

I'm not very enclined to put a literal number: "hey, you need at least 3 rules" at all times. This feels too much like an obligation and less as an advice. I'd argue that the tutorial hint is more than enough, but at best I can get by a pop-up, the first time you enter the menu, that says: "3 rules minimum" in a nicely formulated way (like you formulated it earlier on the thread when explaining the reasoning behind the mechanic to PianoCat).

I don't want to remove the minimum 3 rules else spoil for normal difficulty. Maybe for easy.

Force rules not acting towards the minimum... That'd radically change the gameplay experience. Do we want the default expected rule setting to garantee disobedience and punishments?

I feel like any change to this system should be thought off. A temperamental and open slave should have a repulse number for the "no masturbating" rules, as in: "who do you think you are to try and control my intimacy? I'll do what I want, my body my choice". And then boom, punishment. All in all, it should open gameplay perspectives tied to the personality so the rules you tick from the beginning aren't a default safe choice (but could be).

I do again my proposition to make successful and very successful punishments work as "put in place". And if that would make it too easy, maybe make "put in place" less strong first.

 

[ImperatorAugustusTertius]

Force rules not acting towards the minimum is a less significant change to balance than making punishments directly lower spoil. As I said before, I think that if we are to make a change here, it should be increasing the impact of fear (the byproduct of effective punishments) in the spoil reduction formula.

"Put in place" scales with master stats and skills. It rewards a skilled master with easier spoil reduction, but it is by no means necessary for dealing with spoil, as I noted in my earlier response to Pianocat and elaborated with a hypothetical scenario.

For normal obedience difficulty, ever since the minimum-rules-spoil effect was introduced, it has always been a minimum of 2 rules. The minimum of 3 rules is only required on hardcore obedience difficulty.

 

[ImperatorAugustusTertius]

A temperamental and open slave should have a repulse number for the "no masturbating" rules, as in: "who do you think you are to try and control my intimacy? I'll do what I want, my body my choice". And then boom, punishment. All in all, it should open gameplay perspectives tied to the personality so the rules you tick from the beginning aren't a default safe choice (but could be).

I agree with this concept, rules should be checked for obedience in the hypothetical even if the prerequisites for them are not currently met. For example, act as maid can be refused even if the house is immaculate.

 

[qwertyu12359]

Force rules not acting towards the minimum is a less significant change to balance than making punishments directly lower spoil. As I said before, I think that if we are to make a change here, it should be increasing the impact of fear (the byproduct of effective punishments) in the spoil reduction formula.

"Put in place" scales with master stats and skills. It rewards a skilled master with easier spoil reduction, but it is by no means necessary for dealing with spoil, as I noted in my earlier response to Pianocat and elaborated with a hypothetical scenario.

For normal obedience difficulty, ever since the minimum-rules-spoil effect was introduced, it has always been a minimum of 2 rules. The minimum of 3 rules is only required on hardcore obedience difficulty.

- okay for making fear impact the spoil reduction formula.

- As I said, "put in place" doesn't pose a problem by difficulty problem (the fact we have other alternatives is irrelevant). The problem is from a player's instinct perspective. The problem is that some of the things we'd immediately think as alternative don't turn out to be.
Making fear have an impact might be exactly the change needed nonetheless. The essential is that you can reduce spoil within a day (without needing to sleep), with just enough actions that will effectively put your slave in place.

- needing only two for normal mode? I never knew. The guides were completely misleading! And therefore the tutorial hint is not clear enough. So a pop-up (adapted according to the difficulty level) might still be a solution. I still prefer that that a number that displays in red or in green at all times.

 

[ImperatorAugustusTertius]

I do not think that reducing spoil in the same day without needing to sleep should be a guaranteed ability. I think that it should be a perk for a high-skilled master to be able to dispose of (only low amounts of) spoil that way. I think the expectation should be that spoil can be gained quickly but usually takes longer to remove. In short, I think how it works now is largely correct. The effect of spoil in gameplay terms is to punish "incorrect" actions with reduced obedience, as well as giving some flavor text variety. There is a tactical element in the fact that sometimes "incorrect" actions have other benefits that outweigh the penalty. Making spoil easier to get rid of reduces that tactical element, and makes the game more tolerant of "incorrect" actions. If you can get rid of spoil easily, you can freely give rewards above the slave's merit, for example. That is not, in my view, a recipe for better gameplay.

I dislike pop-ups; you have to manually click the close button and you can't use the ESC key to get rid of them. So I prefer putting a red-colored number on the rules interface when there are not enough rules enabled, otherwise using normal text color (no ugly green!), as a subtle but direct reminder that something incorrect is being done. We aren't trying to hide this, we want players to know about it and plan accordingly. So why not let the UI subtly remind them? The UI shows the tier numbers for rewards and punishments for the same reason.

 

[qwertyu12359]

I do not think that reducing spoil in the same day without needing to sleep should be a guaranteed ability. I think that it should be a perk for a high-skilled master to be able to dispose of (only low amounts of) spoil that way.

Does "put in place" really necessitates a high-skilled master?

And do you honnestly think that (independently of "gameplay reward" or whatever gameplay mechanic, but just in terms of instinct and consistency), putting someone in place should have an immediate effect on spoil and punishments (even the most intense ones) shouldn't?

So why not let the UI subtly remind them? The UI shows the tier numbers for rewards and punishments for the same reason.

I have a bad intuition on this... a pop-up that appears once in the whole game vs. a constant indicator and you go with the constant indicator?

I don't have further argument to oppose, feel free to find your own optimal solution for hinting at the minimal amount of rules needed.

 

[ImperatorAugustusTertius]

Does the number at the top of the rules list bother you? It's literally just counting the number of enabled rules, and only turns red if it goes below the "required" number.

 

[qwertyu12359]

Does the number at the top of the rules list bother you? It's literally just counting the number of enabled rules, and only turns red if it goes below the "required" number.
View attachment 889129

No it's alright

Edit: Shouldn't there be a space between "rules" and "(6)"?

 

[ImperatorAugustusTertius]

Does "put in place" really necessitates a high-skilled master?

It's usable at any skill level, but the effectiveness improves with better master stats [not skills] (dominance, personality, allure, physical health/strength, aura strength).

And do you honnestly think that (independently of "gameplay reward" or whatever gameplay mechanic, but just in terms of instinct and consistency), putting someone in place should have an immediate effect on spoil and punishments (even the most intense ones) shouldn't?

My instinct is that physically punishing a spoiled slave should cause them to become less spoiled, but whether that happens immediately or after some time would depend on the slave. They have to connect the painful experience to the spoiled behavior or thinking that the slaver is trying to punish and diminish, and then either deliberately or instinctively change their behavior or thinking to avoid further punishment.

Put in place is using threats and psychological pressure to attempt to influence behavior and thinking. So effectiveness should depend on the psychology of the slave and the effectiveness of the master in threatening and exerting psychological pressure.

Edit: Shouldn't there be a space between "rules" and "(6)"?

What do you think?

 

[qwertyu12359]

It's usable at any skill level, but the effectiveness improves with better master stats [not skills] (dominance, personality, allure, physical health/strength, aura strength).


My instinct is that physically punishing a spoiled slave should cause them to become less spoiled, but whether that happens immediately or after some time would depend on the slave. They have to connect the painful experience to the spoiled behavior or thinking that the slaver is trying to punish and diminish, and then either deliberately or instinctively change their behavior or thinking to avoid further punishment.

Put in place is using threats and psychological pressure to attempt to influence behavior and thinking. So effectiveness should depend on the psychology of the slave and the effectiveness of the master in threatening and exerting psychological pressure.

Then we agree that some tortures or other kind of effective punishments (including verbal abuse) should instantly have the same effect as "Put in place" depending on the slave's personality?

If so, then we agree. And we can put it in standby. There's no fire to tackle that now.

What do you think?
View attachment 889131

I think it's fine. Not necessarily better aesthetically with the space, but at least it's "correct", right? (or I don't know the rules or English).

 

[ImperatorAugustusTertius]

From a "realism" perspective, I think it makes sense for punishments to have an effect on spoil, but not necessarily an immediate one. From a "balance" perspective, I'm wary of making it too easy to lower spoil.

"Put in place" differs from what the game defines as "punishments" because it is usable without guilt and does not raise despair in that case, whereas punishments do raise despair if used on a slave who feels no guilt. "Put in place" falls in the category of "verbal affect" interactions.

I'm not sure that applying the same effects for "put in place" and certain verbal punishments is warranted, even if both are using the vector of psychological pressure. One is in the context of the slave not feeling they've done anything wrong, whereas the other is in the context of the slave feeling guilty and expecting to be punished.

 

[qwertyu12359]

From a "realism" perspective, I think it makes sense for punishments to have an effect on spoil, but not necessarily an immediate one. From a "balance" perspective, I'm wary of making it too easy to lower spoil.

"Put in place" differs from what the game defines as "punishments" because it is usable without guilt and does not raise despair in that case, whereas punishments do raise despair if used on a slave who feels no guilt. "Put in place" falls in the category of "verbal affect" interactions.

I'm not sure that applying the same effects for "put in place" and certain verbal punishments is warranted, even if both are using the vector of psychological pressure. One is in the context of the slave not feeling they've done anything wrong, whereas the other is in the context of the slave feeling guilty and expecting to be punished.

I'm onto thinking that the "put in place" interaction is flawed to begin with... To me it sounds like "put in place" is the exact same interaction as a verbal punishment done with 0 level of guilt.

If it is exactly the same, it should have the same effect (reducing the level of guilt). Currently, it means that "put in place" instantly reduces the level of spoil* while a non-deserved punishment does not.

Would there be anything wrong with making these two interaction work similarly?

And if there isn't, would there be any reason to keep the "put in place" mechanic instead of having a more complex system of punishments work on guilt over time? Ultimately making only some very conditional interaction reduce guilt instantly (according to the personality of the slave, her taming, etc.)

 

[ImperatorAugustusTertius]

With a stern voice you explain to your slave that your good attitude towards her is not infinite. All good things in her life must be earned and if she behaves like a spoiled princess, you will have to punish her.

With a stern voice you remind the slave that if she does not cooperate she will face serious trouble. For now, you will give her a chance to repent… before it is too late.

You grab the slave by the shoulders and lightly shaking, tell her she’s a dirty, ungrateful whore. You tell her to shove her conceit up her tight ass and do as she is told or you will make her very sorry.

With a voice full of cold menace, you tell the slave that her next similar misconduct will cost her very, very dearly and that she has no idea of the ways you are able to inflict pain on her.

You tell the bitch that you are starting to think that training her is futile. If she does not adjust her attitude you will be forced to sell her for a pittance to some beastmen. Then she will find out what REAL torment and humiliation are, but it will be too late.

You grab the slave by her hair and looking straight into her eyes, you tell her that you’re done. One more serious misconduct and you will kill her with your own hands.

And death will be neither quick nor easy.

 

[ImperatorAugustusTertius]

I'm onto thinking that the "put in place" interaction is flawed to begin with... To me it sounds like "put in place" is the exact same interaction as a verbal punishment done with 0 level of guilt.

It isn't the same, currently. Neither mechanically nor conceptually.

If it is exactly the same, it should have the same effect (reducing the level of guilt). Currently, it means that "put in place" instantly reduces the level of guilt while a non-deserved punishment does not.

"Put in place" doesn't do anything to guilt currently, if it's there it stays, if it's not there it doesn't matter.

Would there be anything wrong with making these two interaction work similarly?

You'd lose the ability to threaten her and reduce her spoil level without increasing angst when she's not guilty, for one.

And if there isn't, would there be any reason to keep the "put in place" mechanic instead of having a more complex system of punishments work on guilt over time? Ultimately making only some very conditional interaction reduce guilt instantly (according to the personality of the slave, her taming, etc.)

It's there and it works, vs. some as yet to be defined new system. I'm certainly not opposed to some rethinking here, but I see value in drawing a distinction between punishing reactively and threatening/influencing proactively.