- Thread starter Stone Eyes
- Start date
-
- Tags
- 2d game 2dcg anal sex big ass big tits bukkake combat corruption creampie fantasy female protagonist footjob groping group sex handjob interracial japanese game masturbation multiple endings multiple penetration oral sex rpg sex toys spanking teasing titfuck turn based combat vaginal sex virgin voiced
- Mar 7, 2020
- 689
- 688
That shouldn't be too complicated. You'd need to find the code for the dildo insertion. I would assume that in there is something like
if(this.IsVirgin) {this.loseVirginity(dildo)}. You just need to find that and comment it out.
- Feb 10, 2018
- 110
- 55
Making the change to actor.forgetpassive helped get rid of "Red Spank Marks" passive, but attempting that with the "Excessive Confidence" passive cause karryn to be naked, and remove enemies from the game.Hmm, I'll probably have to revise the guide.
In the meantime, instead ofthis.forgetSkill(274);useactor.forgetPassive(274);.
Regarding 2.: Normally you increase your damage by raising the respective skill level (by gaining passives), earn passives that can increase it in a different way and by leveling up that dexterity. Dex is pretty much the sex damage skill. Below you'll find the part for the vag sex skill in the code if you want to alter it.
You don't have permission to view the spoiler content. Log in or register now.
Nah, that's easy
You don't have permission to view the spoiler content. Log in or register now.
I also tried to mess with vag sex damage but it was still low. I'll just go ahead and cheat dexterity instead.
EDIT: Yep, cheating Dexterity helped immensely.
EDIT2: Forgot to mention that this was the code I used.
actor.forgetpassive(762);
actor._recordCockinessGainedValue = 0;
Last edited:
Okay, if you want to also keep the virgin status look here:
You don't have permission to view the spoiler content.
Log in or register now.
HappyGoomba mamaboiii
Thanks a lot both of you! I think I can mess around with this info.
My interest for javascript also grew a lot.
Thanks a lot both of you! I think I can mess around with this info.
My interest for javascript also grew a lot.
JavaScript:
// this becomes
Game_Actor.prototype.addToPussyToyInsertedRecord = function(enemy) {
this._recordPussyToyInsertedCount++;
this._tempRecordPussyToyInsertedCount++;
this._todayPussyToyInsertedCount++;
this._recordTotalToysInsertedCount++;
this._tempRecordTotalToysInsertedCount++;
this._todayTotalToysInsertedCount++;
if(this._firstPussySexWantedID === -1 && !this._firstPussySexWasToy && enemy) {
this._firstPussySexWasToy = true;
this._firstPussySexWasToyDate = Prison.date;
this._firstPussySexWasToyName = enemy.name();
this._firstPussySexWasToyMapID = $gameMap._mapId;
if(enemy.isWanted) {
this._firstPussySexWasToyWantedID = enemy.getWantedId();
}
else {
this._firstPussySexWasToyWantedID = $gameParty.addNewWanted(enemy);
}
BattleManager._logWindow.displayRemLine(TextManager.actorLostPussyVirginity);
this.removeState(STATE_IS_VIRGIN_ID);
}
};
// this:
Game_Actor.prototype.addToPussyToyInsertedRecord = function(enemy) {
this._recordPussyToyInsertedCount++;
this._tempRecordPussyToyInsertedCount++;
this._todayPussyToyInsertedCount++;
this._recordTotalToysInsertedCount++;
this._tempRecordTotalToysInsertedCount++;
this._todayTotalToysInsertedCount++;
/*
if(this._firstPussySexWantedID === -1 && !this._firstPussySexWasToy && enemy) {
this._firstPussySexWasToy = true;
this._firstPussySexWasToyDate = Prison.date;
this._firstPussySexWasToyName = enemy.name();
this._firstPussySexWasToyMapID = $gameMap._mapId;
if(enemy.isWanted) {
this._firstPussySexWasToyWantedID = enemy.getWantedId();
}
else {
this._firstPussySexWasToyWantedID = $gameParty.addNewWanted(enemy);
}
BattleManager._logWindow.displayRemLine(TextManager.actorLostPussyVirginity);
this.removeState(STATE_IS_VIRGIN_ID);
}
*/
};None of the code in the whole block is going to run anyways.
- Jun 10, 2017
- 168
- 218
The Random Number God sometimes makes for quite ... unique enemies. If Santa the Asshole Thug is good enough for Karryn, who am I to disagree?
Yeah, sure. Commenting is the usual method, but there is literally an infinite number of ways to do this. I like to change things up here and there. I mean, the method with the lowest effort would be to just remove the negating
! in the if condition and be done.(This would however create some funny business with saves in which she lost vorginity to toys)
- Jun 6, 2017
- 2,061
- 3,011
Guess not xDThe Random Number God sometimes makes for quite ... unique enemies. If Santa the Asshole Thug is good enough for Karryn, who am I to disagree?
- Mar 7, 2020
- 689
- 688
The only virginity loss that has any in game effect is losing it to a dildo.
- Jun 28, 2017
- 223
- 194
- Jun 6, 2017
- 2,061
- 3,011
Yeah I meant something like an event with an actual NPC, like maybe idk.. rewarding the big goblin for helping? or maybe something like rewarding the ex-warden or idk, something else than inmates or guards
- Jun 10, 2017
- 131
- 258
As of now technically no, you CAN lose your virginity to Tonkin (but only in his boss fight), if you really tried but that'd require a massive amount of work to learn the sexual skills or keep desire low enough to make sure that no other "actions" are available to him in a gangbang and even then it's kind of a coin toss if he just jacks off or fucks Karryn. Also If your talking about Tonkin he's an orc not a goblin, although it'd be pretty funny if they revealed he was a mutant goblin.
I little while back a managed to lose my virginity to Tonkin completely by accident. That was about a year ago, I've tried to redo it on my current game but have been having a a lot of trouble with it.
No, that would be the most effort by adding another condition into the if condition.
1. Visually, you have no reference of what you added or tweaked unless you want to write comments. (Not less work then commenting out a whole block).
2. Commenting maintains the original code, with the addition of changing the functionality to what is desired. Making reverting changes as easy as uncommenting.
3. The way you're using it as a suffix check is also inefficient. Even if I wanted to just add false, I would add it to the beginning of the condition checking. Why? Because if it comes first, the resulting conditions don't need to be evaluated.
JavaScript:
// true && true && true needs to be evaluated before it gets to the condition of false that you added
if (true && true && true && false) {
...
vs
// false is the only condition that needs to get evaluated
if (false && true && true && true) {
...Just a note - you should check if a language supports short circuiting or not before considering that method. JS does (as do most derived from C), but not all do.
That doesn't show off short circuiting. This is a better example:
You must be registered to see the links
Okay, let's have a little discussion about programming in a porn forum, because why not
Regarding 2: Yes. That's why it's (as I already said) the go-to way. I never said otherwise, just that I like to change things up now and then.
Regarding 3: Yes I agree. Adding something in the end, however, is the most natural way most people write. My general intention is to make the edits as intuitive to implement as possible. Not teaching people coding practices.
In conclusion: I'm not here to teach JS to people. If you want to have some fun, go through all my tweaks. You will most likely not enjoy them, if you're looking for optimized code. I don't like them in that regard. But the main goal is an easy (i.e. hopefully fool-proof) guide to help random perverts in the internet without coding experience to do what they want to in some porn game. I'm not coding for people, they do it themselves.
I try to keep it clean, but because the trade-off between difficulty of implementation and beauty of resulting code is both subjectively estimated by yours truly, we are destined to disagree at some point.
EDIT: This really shows the existence of short-circuiting:
But we are talking about very fast access queries even in the original code. While it theoretically makes a difference, it is not nearly significant enough that I'll give it enough weight to complicate the tweak.
Regarding 1: No adding of conditions. The lowest effort in achieving the intended goal in terms of changed symbols would be to the negation
! in front of this._firstPussySexWasToy. Yes, don't do that because of many reasons with some being the ones you stated. That's why I did not recommend them in my original post. But I wasn't making a point about coding style. I was giving an example to support the claim that there are infinitely many ways to achieve the same goal.Regarding 2: Yes. That's why it's (as I already said) the go-to way. I never said otherwise, just that I like to change things up now and then.
Regarding 3: Yes I agree. Adding something in the end, however, is the most natural way most people write. My general intention is to make the edits as intuitive to implement as possible. Not teaching people coding practices.
In conclusion: I'm not here to teach JS to people. If you want to have some fun, go through all my tweaks. You will most likely not enjoy them, if you're looking for optimized code. I don't like them in that regard. But the main goal is an easy (i.e. hopefully fool-proof) guide to help random perverts in the internet without coding experience to do what they want to in some porn game. I'm not coding for people, they do it themselves.
I try to keep it clean, but because the trade-off between difficulty of implementation and beauty of resulting code is both subjectively estimated by yours truly, we are destined to disagree at some point.
This only shows that
false && true (or any permutation or derivative) equals to false. Nothing to do with short-circuiting whatsoever. I think this logical rule is common knowledge.EDIT: This really shows the existence of short-circuiting:
You must be registered to see the links
(a bit unnecessary because we all agree that SC exists in JS, but I don't know what your example was intended for)But we are talking about very fast access queries even in the original code. While it theoretically makes a difference, it is not nearly significant enough that I'll give it enough weight to complicate the tweak.
Last edited: