HTML Unholy Arts [v0.4.6] [Deep Interactivity]

[DeepInteractivity]

I can't believe it's still this short. Am I missing something? Current version ends a few minuter after arriving at the shapeshifter tribe? We'll never see the whole thing then. :C

The message you get at the start of the Shapeshifter tribe is outdated, you have a lot of content during the adventure. You just have to explore to find it. The next Supporter update will actually be the first segment of the end of the first adventure.

According to a (public) Patreon post from late June, the dev is dealing with some personal stuff that could become an even bigger problem in the future if they don't focus on dealing with it now, so they're currently funneling the entirety of the Patreon income to commissioning artwork while development itself is paused.

This was the case during July, but I was back to development around the end of that month. I've already finished all the dialogues for the next update, but I have to implement them, script the scenes, add switches, test that everything is working correctly, etc.

Dev has been kinda silent, if anything I am worried if they are okay. They've been very responsive & before updates were pretty frequent, even if the stuff added with each didn't make for too much playtime, so as long as the Dev is alright I feel optimistic about the game getting finished sooner or later.
Personally I'd rather wait for a longer time then have a shorter game overall, but I understand why you might feel as if things take quite a long time. It would obviously be great if the game got expanded quicker.

Thanks for understanding. These issues have been affecting me at all levels of my life, including productivity, which turns it into a self-perpetuating problem, because it locks me out of ways to solve it all faster. Luckily I'm getting closer to the end of the tunnel.

In a more ideal state of things, the work on animations would have been advanced enough for them to be introduced in the game already, which would have allowed us to at least publish an update including more art in the game, but the quality of animations that we chose to aim for is too time-consuming, which made things look stale while I was out even though Chili Cherry remained hard at work.

 

[Orphanus]

According to a (public) Patreon post from late June, the dev is dealing with some personal stuff that could become an even bigger problem in the future if they don't focus on dealing with it now, so they're currently funneling the entirety of the Patreon income to commissioning artwork while development itself is paused.

DeepInteractivity has replied as well before I read your comment but I still want to thank you, I wasn't aware of that state of affairs & as I said started to feel a tad bit worried actually. Nice of you to take the time to explain what happened!

 

[OakWhoYell]

The message you get at the start of the Shapeshifter tribe is outdated, you have a lot of content during the adventure. You just have to explore to find it. The next Supporter update will actually be the first segment of the end of the first adventure.

Oh. Glad to hear that. \o/

 

[Erar]

Glad to see dev back hope thing are better

 

[DeepInteractivity]

New update today! Have a couple of relevant things.

The changelog for today's free version (0.3.12) came with

You must be registered to see the links

.

Also, have a couple of teaser cropped images for today's Supporter version (0.3.13):

Spoiler: v0.3.13 teasers

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

 

[CATCH PHRASE]

After toying around with Claw's stats a bit, I find it a bit strange on how difficult it is to really put Claw one of the voice's on Val's issues at home. Her relation/drives check is super high-- and putting them together with high friendship interactions doesn't really do much for the overall roll checks. I recommend lowering the requirements a bit when it comes to that specific check-- considering there was already some concern from Claw when talking about Val's role as a priestess. There doesn't seem to really be a reasonable number to get, even if the MC practically latched them to eachother in a non-cheat run.
I get she's supposed to be a "Difficult" character, but her switch from showing some interest to the character to seemingly throwing her a bit under the bus if they don't spend a huge amount of time together throughout the game is rough.

I think this ties in with the issue of the game having relationships issues-- some characters lock into two large groups and have a surprisingly hard time raising affection with the other side, even if there's no real reason for it. This causes the issue of forcing each group to naturally gain more conflict, which can force NPC's to fail checks entirely. I recomend changing it so that checks are more about overall drives rather than personal ones-- or RNG might give the player the impression it's their fault things are going south just because they didn't main Char/Emp on each run.

Edit: A dominant/submissive check would also help in some cases, like for STR/AGI tutor builds who still want to get the routes they like. Being able to bend checks with Willpower more often might help with mage builds as well?

 

[CATCH PHRASE]

Managed to find a bug with saving the shapeshifter in the unreachable caverns that softlocks the game as well.

 

[DeepInteractivity]

After toying around with Claw's stats a bit, I find it a bit strange on how difficult it is to really put Claw one of the voice's on Val's issues at home. Her relation/drives check is super high-- and putting them together with high friendship interactions doesn't really do much for the overall roll checks. I recommend lowering the requirements a bit when it comes to that specific check-- considering there was already some concern from Claw when talking about Val's role as a priestess. There doesn't seem to really be a reasonable number to get, even if the MC practically latched them to eachother in a non-cheat run.
I get she's supposed to be a "Difficult" character, but her switch from showing some interest to the character to seemingly throwing her a bit under the bus if they don't spend a huge amount of time together throughout the game is rough.

I think this ties in with the issue of the game having relationships issues-- some characters lock into two large groups and have a surprisingly hard time raising affection with the other side, even if there's no real reason for it. This causes the issue of forcing each group to naturally gain more conflict, which can force NPC's to fail checks entirely. I recomend changing it so that checks are more about overall drives rather than personal ones-- or RNG might give the player the impression it's their fault things are going south just because they didn't main Char/Emp on each run.

Edit: A dominant/submissive check would also help in some cases, like for STR/AGI tutor builds who still want to get the routes they like. Being able to bend checks with Willpower more often might help with mage builds as well?

This makes sense, since Claw is both narratively and mechanically less drawn to help Valtan, even to the point that she explains why you should not help her out during the event. For reference, this is the code that determines each character's position:

gC("chNash").supsValLove += rLvlAbt("chNash","chVal","friendship") * 2 + rLvlAbt("chNash","chVal","romance") - rLvlAbt("chNash","chVal","enmity") * 2 + getCharsDrive("chNash","dLove") - getCharsDrive("chNash","dDomination") - getCharsDrive("chVal","dPleasure");
    gC("chNash").supsValPardon += rLvlAbt("chNash","chVal","friendship") * 2 + rLvlAbt("chNash","chVal","romance") * 2 - rLvlAbt("chNash","chVal","enmity") * 2 + getCharsDrive("chNash","dCooperation") - getCharsDrive("chNash","dDomination") -  getCharsDrive("chNash","dAmbition") - getCharsDrive("chVal","dPleasure");
    gC("chClaw").supsValPardon += rLvlAbt("chClaw","chVal","friendship") * 1 + rLvlAbt("chClaw","chVal","romance") - rLvlAbt("chClaw","chVal","rivalry") - rLvlAbt("chClaw","chVal","enmity") * 2 - getCharsDrive("chClaw","dDomination") + getCharsDrive("chClaw","dCooperation") - getCharsDrive("chClaw","dAmbition") + getCharsDrive("chClaw","dLove");
    gC("chClaw").supsValLove += rLvlAbt("chClaw","chVal","friendship") * 2 + rLvlAbt("chClaw","chVal","romance") - rLvlAbt("chClaw","chVal","enmity") * 2 - getCharsDrive("chClaw","dDomination") + getCharsDrive("chClaw","dCooperation") + getCharsDrive("chClaw","dLove") - 3;
    gC("chMir").supsValLove += rLvlAbt("chMir","chVal","friendship") - rLvlAbt("chMir","chVal","enmity") + getCharsDrive("chVal","dLove") - getCharsDrive("chVal","dPleasure") + getCharsDrive("chMir","dLove") - getCharsDrive("chVal","dPleasure");
    gC("chMir").supsValPardon += rLvlAbt("chMir","chVal","friendship") - rLvlAbt("chMir","chVal","enmity") + getCharsDrive("chVal","dLove") - getCharsDrive("chVal","dPleasure") + getCharsDrive("chMir","dLove") + getCharsDrive("chMir","dCooperation") +  + getCharsDrive("chMir","dAmbition") - getCharsDrive("chVal","dPleasure");
    gC("chAte").supsValLove += rLvlAbt("chAte","chVal","friendship") + rLvlAbt("chAte","chVal","romance") - rLvlAbt("chAte","chVal","enmity") + getCharsDrive("chAte","dLove") + getCharsDrive("chAte","dCooperation") + (- getCharsDrive("chAte","dImprovement") - getCharsDrive("chAte","dAmbition")) * 0.5 - getCharsDrive("chVal","dPleasure");
    gC("chAte").supsValPardon += rLvlAbt("chAte","chVal","friendship") + rLvlAbt("chAte","chVal","romance") - rLvlAbt("chAte","chVal","enmity") + getCharsDrive("chAte","dLove") + getCharsDrive("chAte","dCooperation") + getCharsDrive("chAte","dAmbition") - getCharsDrive("chAte","dDomination") - getCharsDrive("chVal","dPleasure");

As you can see, each character makes a different kind of evaluation. Claw is less likely to help Valtan if she has a high ambition drive, because she thinks it's positive for her own goals to have Valtan fail, while Maaterasu is more likely to help Valtan with a high ambition drive because she thinks it's positive for her as a member of the Passion Temple for Valtan to come out in good shape. In a different line, Claw is the one character who doesn't pay attention to Valtan's drives, because she isn't making a moral judgement of Valtan ("based on what I've seen of her, these accusations sound more or less valid"), but rather what is up for herself to gain from the issue ("do I want Valtan to succeed, regardless of what she deserves?).

You don't need all characters to be on your side: my goal is actually tweaking the numbers so that it's perfectly possible to reach any ending you want without an optimal setup, due to two reasons: if you're on your first playthrough, this is the first time you'll see how each character's growth might influence the story, and there really isn't that much time to influence everyone in one direction or the other. In future story archs, making sure all Candidates are on your side might be more important.

View attachment 2038503
View attachment 2038504
Managed to find a bug with saving the shapeshifter in the unreachable caverns that softlocks the game as well.

Thanks for the report. Do you remember by any chance at what hour of the day with you enter the map event?

 

[CATCH PHRASE]

This makes sense, since Claw is both narratively and mechanically less drawn to help Valtan, even to the point that she explains why you should not help her out during the event. For reference, this is the code that determines each character's position:

Claw is less likely to help Valtan if she has a high ambition drive, because she thinks it's positive for her own goals to have Valtan fail, while Maaterasu is more likely to help Valtan with a high ambition drive because she thinks it's positive for her as a member of the Passion Temple for Valtan to come out in good shape.

I'm not sure I entirely follow-- No one seems to really have a reason to fail more than the other, so why should Claw's ambition be higher? Sure, they favor combat, but there's plenty of ways other characters utilize their personalities the same way-- and have personal reasons way more compelling than Claw's-- which is a half-assed power trip at best. You could say ambition is "Independence", but even then, Claw doesn't really have any. Wanting to be the best doesn't necessarily mean beating the others, but manipulating/using reason are other methods used-- and the others' ambitions are somehow lower?
I'd be down to listen to that explained, but I'm confused. If ambition was tuned to "first place", others are on an even playing field-- Claw's really not special there. If it's "Dominance", then it should have more checks on "Submission." If it's a mix of both, then both would most likely be checked on a roll-- but that's what I'm understanding about the stat.

You don't need all characters to be on your side: my goal is actually tweaking the numbers so that it's perfectly possible to reach any ending you want without an optimal setup, due to two reasons: if you're on your first playthrough, this is the first time you'll see how each character's growth might influence the story, and there really isn't that much time to influence everyone in one direction or the other. In future story archs, making sure all Candidates are on your side might be more important.

While I agree it sounds good, it seems a bit sketchy-- mostly because meta building might be inevitable if endings are put with specific relations, which means a lot stats are going to be put in the backburner unless they're needed, which stilts the stats direction to either being a plot device, or too useful to ignore. An "Overall" check for different outcomes might negate this a bit? I do think building characters to be certain ways could override a natural roll fail-- like wether or not a character will favor your idea due to your relationship with them on a consistent basis, rather than a temporary one.

For example, let's pretend that a STR/END/AGI build is trying to get the best ending-- how could they pull that off if relationships weigh heavily on the other methods? Sure, the argument that someone should be able to be able to pass WIL/CHAR/EMP, but that doesn't mean you wouldn't *listen* to someone who has those aspects you miss-- but how would that character get a good ending if there aren't more lenient gaps to give you an advantage?
I do think checks should check your relationship with the character in question-- because you wouldn't want to anger someone who has some sort of use or at least bond to you-- and that might be useful to put merits/favors towards.

I want to keep my criticism as friendly as possible, so if I mistake something, I'm totally understanding on that.

Thanks for the report. Do you remember by any chance at what hour of the day with you enter the map event?

Damn, that's the one thing I didn't think to screenshot. I'm not entirely sure.

 

[CATCH PHRASE]

Another bug involving maneuvering near this specific spot-- attempting to enter any room from here after I spammed the theatrics will give you this error for each room you're trying to enter-- and if you click on all of them, they softlock you out entirely.

Spoiler: Full Text

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

Edit: This one involves trying to start a new day after a certain point in the caverns. This softlocked the save file itself. If you try entering and leaving the cheat menu, it boots you back to the main temple with all characters in party. If you revert to a save to the day prior, it does the same as well-- putting you back in the main temple.

Spoiler: Full Text

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

 

[DeepInteractivity]

I'm not sure I entirely follow-- No one seems to really have a reason to fail more than the other, so why should Claw's ambition be higher? Sure, they favor combat, but there's plenty of ways other characters utilize their personalities the same way-- and have personal reasons way more compelling than Claw's-- which is a half-assed power trip at best. You could say ambition is "Independence", but even then, Claw doesn't really have any. Wanting to be the best doesn't necessarily mean beating the others, but manipulating/using reason are other methods used-- and the others' ambitions are somehow lower?
I'd be down to listen to that explained, but I'm confused. If ambition was tuned to "first place", others are on an even playing field-- Claw's really not special there. If it's "Dominance", then it should have more checks on "Submission." If it's a mix of both, then both would most likely be checked on a roll-- but that's what I'm understanding about the stat.

Do you not get the meaning of the ambition drive, why Claw's is that high, or why does it matter for her so much in this check? Drives are general representations of the most important values or goals of each simulated NPC, but that doesn't mean each of them has the same exact connotations. The ambition drive represents how much it means for a character to gain power in the Temple and in the Valley, as well as to use it. A character like Warmest Hope may not have that much interest in becoming the High Priestess (especially after the idea of her becoming a Candidate gets shot down by Drishtya), but she still has important goals for her own tribe, which justifies a large ambition drive. Why does Claw, especifically, have a large ambition drive? Part of it is her own personal philosophy, but she has other reasons which haven't been explicitely explained in the story. Keep in mind that the story is only about to finish its first arch out of six.

While I agree it sounds good, it seems a bit sketchy-- mostly because meta building might be inevitable if endings are put with specific relations, which means a lot stats are going to be put in the backburner unless they're needed, which stilts the stats direction to either being a plot device, or too useful to ignore. An "Overall" check for different outcomes might negate this a bit? I do think building characters to be certain ways could override a natural roll fail-- like wether or not a character will favor your idea due to your relationship with them on a consistent basis, rather than a temporary one.

For example, let's pretend that a STR/END/AGI build is trying to get the best ending-- how could they pull that off if relationships weigh heavily on the other methods? Sure, the argument that someone should be able to be able to pass WIL/CHAR/EMP, but that doesn't mean you wouldn't *listen* to someone who has those aspects you miss-- but how would that character get a good ending if there aren't more lenient gaps to give you an advantage?
I do think checks should check your relationship with the character in question-- because you wouldn't want to anger someone who has some sort of use or at least bond to you-- and that might be useful to put merits/favors towards.

There are (and there are going to be) many different ways to achieve specific goals in the game, though not all ways will be open for all specific builds. You're going to have a generally easier time doing things in archs that reward one specific build (Cha/Emp Shapeshifter and Gaanidan archs, for instance), but you still have alternate methods. Do you need to raise your relationships in a specific way with some characters but you have a PHY/END/AGI build? Well, those stats are generally better for squeezing more orgasms out of NPCs during generic sex scenes, which means higher relationship changes. But in the Gleaming Caverns especifically, it'll be easier for you to beat the Cavern Rescue side event with a PHY/AGI/END build, and WLL helps you about as much if not more than CHA/EMP with Nersmias' social battle. If everything else fails and you still want to have better chances to beat as many sub-challenges as possible, you could still commit heresy and go for a build sub-optimal for combat with stats that aren't minmaxed.

Another bug involving maneuvering near this specific spot-- attempting to enter any room from here after I spammed the theatrics will give you this error for each room you're trying to enter-- and if you click on all of them, they softlock you out entirely.
(...)
Edit: This one involves trying to start a new day after a certain point in the caverns. This softlocked the save file itself. If you try entering and leaving the cheat menu, it boots you back to the main temple with all characters in party. If you revert to a save to the day prior, it does the same as well-- putting you back in the main temple.

A savefile (or a few) could maybe be helpful here (maybe there are compatibility issues between versions?), but if you're coming across so many issues maybe I should build a couple of tools to look for errors in the adventure. Right now I'm prioritizing getting the story content for the next update ready as soon as possible tho.

On a side note, keep in mind that the return to the Passion Temple currently comes out of nowhere because, well, the story there isn't finished. Once the actual return to the Temple is correctly implemented, there will be better nuance regarding which characters come back.

 

[CATCH PHRASE]

Do you not get the meaning of the ambition drive, why Claw's is that high, or why does it matter for her so much in this check?

I don't think I entirely have too much confusion on it, moreso that it seems that other candidates should have as high ambition as well-- or at least explained that higher ambition does/n't necessarily reflect a "Stubborn" characteristic. It might help to elaborate this somewhere in the game that a person can return to at any point, or be given a description on a screen where it appears. Otherwise, it pales in comparison when asking "Why doex X wanna be high priestess more than Y"-- which might make certain story arcs feel underwhelming.

The ambition drive represents how much it means for a character to gain power in the Temple and in the Valley, as well as to use it.

This is exactly what I'd prefer was more elaborated on how to counter high ambition.

Claw's higher stats mean she's more likely to win fights, meaning if other characters try to lower her ambition, they're either punished for trying (Infamy which leads to Submissive/combat intrusive equipment) or losing (Submission/lower ambition)
What Val told Claw about other candidates actively pushing down characters is falsified by the temple's own ruleset that punishes you for trying to lower ambition. It doesn't seem like NPC's really attempt to work against someone who has high ambition-- they just go full monkey mode and try a losing direct combat.
This leaves the MC to crutch the entire Temple's system by having to do it themselves, which then gains them the same Infamy/Submission debuffs that were mentioned earlier.


Ambition currently gridlocks other characters into being punished for trying to lower it, but rewards builds that are already starting strong. If the first arc happens before this all evens out, the player has to go down a very tedious route to get something that the temple/Val claims is quickly inevitable-- less ability to become the head priestess-- and thus, less ambition.
Claw's inability to work well with others should put her at a huge disadvantage against other candidates-- even if her abilities are high-- because she should be as easily targetted as Val claims she could be. However, due to her stats, natural NPC's can't lower her ambition quickly enough to make a difference.

I recommend giving players and NPC's another month within the temple before the first arc's checks come into play, at the least. This gives players more time to understand the mechanics, develop some bonds with the NPC's, and give NPC's more time to even out their stats due to relationships. Once the player feels a bit less overwhelmed with trying to counter the temple's hypocritical systems, they'll at least feel more open to try specific goals in mind.

 

[DeepInteractivity]

I don't think I entirely have too much confusion on it, moreso that it seems that other candidates should have as high ambition as well-- or at least explained that higher ambition does/n't necessarily reflect a "Stubborn" characteristic. (...) Otherwise, it pales in comparison when asking "Why doex X wanna be high priestess more than Y"-- which might make certain story arcs feel underwhelming.

I still don't get the issue here. There are many ways in which this might be used for interesting storytelling.

It doesn't seem like NPC's really attempt to work against someone who has high ambition-- they just go full monkey mode and try a losing direct combat.

Fair point. I want to implement a system for NPCs to team up temporarily for specific goals, but it could take a lot of time to implement and I'm pushing it for later.

Claw's inability to work well with others should put her at a huge disadvantage against other candidates-- even if her abilities are high-- because she should be as easily targetted as Val claims she could be.

Agreed here. This should be reflected by the game's mechanics, by making Claw less likely to get enough allies that protected from getting ganged up on.

However, due to her stats, natural NPC's can't lower her ambition quickly enough to make a difference.

The NPCs aren't going to think in such meta terms. A better flow of events to simulate is: Claw creates too much trouble for the others, gets the lead in merit and frequently imposes bondage and servitude on other Candidates -> The other Candidates team up and punish her -> Either Claw loses repeteadly, gets "humbled" (loses ambition, gains self-improvement) and changes strategy, or Claw finds a way to win anyway and has no reason to change

I recommend giving players and NPC's another month within the temple before the first arc's checks come into play, at the least. This gives players more time to understand the mechanics, develop some bonds with the NPC's, and give NPC's more time to even out their stats due to relationships. Once the player feels a bit less overwhelmed with trying to counter the temple's hypocritical systems, they'll at least feel more open to try specific goals in mind.

That brings a whole lot set of issues:

1) The player should be presented early with checks that are shown to be useful to change the course of the story, in order to teach them what is important to achieve so that they get to work on it. Pushing the checks back in time simply makes it so that players go for longer without knowing that could be important.
1b) Naturally, these early checks shouldn't be definite enough to ruin anyone's playthrough for not being able to pass them, as I explained in a previous post.
2) While some players enjoy the main game loop as it is, many others only stick with it as long as the story is moving. Pushing the GC arc forwards makes it more likely for the latter ones to lose interest instead of continue playing.
3) Creating a lot of filler content just to push the GC arc is a bad idea for a few other reasons.

 

[Orphanus]

I still don't get the issue here. There are many ways in which this might be used for interesting storytelling.



Fair point. I want to implement a system for NPCs to team up temporarily for specific goals, but it could take a lot of time to implement and I'm pushing it for later.



Agreed here. This should be reflected by the game's mechanics, by making Claw less likely to get enough allies that protected from getting ganged up on.



The NPCs aren't going to think in such meta terms. A better flow of events to simulate is: Claw creates too much trouble for the others, gets the lead in merit and frequently imposes bondage and servitude on other Candidates -> The other Candidates team up and punish her -> Either Claw loses repeteadly, gets "humbled" (loses ambition, gains self-improvement) and changes strategy, or Claw finds a way to win anyway and has no reason to change



That brings a whole lot set of issues:

1) The player should be presented early with checks that are shown to be useful to change the course of the story, in order to teach them what is important to achieve so that they get to work on it. Pushing the checks back in time simply makes it so that players go for longer without knowing that could be important.
1b) Naturally, these early checks shouldn't be definite enough to ruin anyone's playthrough for not being able to pass them, as I explained in a previous post.
2) While some players enjoy the main game loop as it is, many others only stick with it as long as the story is moving. Pushing the GC arc forwards makes it more likely for the latter ones to lose interest instead of continue playing.
3) Creating a lot of filler content just to push the GC arc is a bad idea for a few other reasons.

I don't wanna chime in on the discussion as a whole, but I just want to mention that, in my playthroughs, things sometimes took completely unexpected turns & the other candidates did not necessarily act the same (or even extremely similar) in some cases. Not sure if that's exactly a "solution" to the other player's issue, but if it is in a way I feel as if you don't have to tweak much, it's not as if the path they and the interactions between them and the player character are set in stone.

I had 1 run where Mir ended up being pretty aggressive and dominant. I had a run where Claw actually turned somewhat social even before the shapeshifter thing even started.
Sure, a lot of times Claw is dominating the group through fights and not overly approachable, but it's not always.
Also I had very varying results by trying different stats. Generally I did better when not trying to be dominant & instead befriended everyone and tried to have nice conversations with multiple candidates at once, which did subtly, but steadily, influence their behavior towards each other.

The systems seem to be there, maybe you actually just need to tweak them slightly to make it a bit easier to get those reactions on purpose, instead of having them happen by mere chance (which I think contributed the most to those, since I am usually just stumbling through things, going with the flow)

 

[tehlemon]

I don't wanna chime in on the discussion as a whole, but I just want to mention that, in my playthroughs, things sometimes took completely unexpected turns & the other candidates did not necessarily act the same (or even extremely similar) in some cases. Not sure if that's exactly a "solution" to the other player's issue, but if it is in a way I feel as if you don't have to tweak much, it's not as if the path they and the interactions between them and the player character are set in stone.

I had 1 run where Mir ended up being pretty aggressive and dominant. I had a run where Claw actually turned somewhat social even before the shapeshifter thing even started.
Sure, a lot of times Claw is dominating the group through fights and not overly approachable, but it's not always.
Also I had very varying results by trying different stats. Generally I did better when not trying to be dominant & instead befriended everyone and tried to have nice conversations with multiple candidates at once, which did subtly, but steadily, influence their behavior towards each other.

The systems seem to be there, maybe you actually just need to tweak them slightly to make it a bit easier to get those reactions on purpose, instead of having them happen by mere chance (which I think contributed the most to those, since I am usually just stumbling through things, going with the flow)

Yeah, that was my experience as well. I rather enjoyed how randomly the game could play out. Once you give it a nudge, it can snowball like crazy.

I rather enjoyed the run where Ate took over the entire damn temple. It was the most one sided game I could imagine lol

 

[Orphanus]

Yeah, that was my experience as well. I rather enjoyed how randomly the game could play out. Once you give it a nudge, it can snowball like crazy.

I rather enjoyed the run where Ate took over the entire damn temple. It was the most one sided game I could imagine lol

Yep it's what makes this game stand out to me. I don't think I ever played a game that succeeded that much at making the NPCs feel "alive". The only time I did not enjoy the game to the fullest was when I manipulated my savegame, cause it just isn't all that dynamic when you succeed at everything and also are basically completely unfazed by the stuff happening around and to you.

Also, as I might point out, I didn't feel as if there really is a necessity to succeed at things that much, even when it comes to the other candidates. Sometimes failing together let to unexpected results, aside from the fact that I haven't gotten the impression as if the game's goal is becoming the next High Priestess, it's just the goal laid out for the protagonist in the game world, which isn't remotely the same.


The only thing I feel like could be a bit improved is the reception of your character trying their best and still failing because there literally wasn't a chance to succeed. I feel as if it shouldn't come with relationship penalties when you are forced in a situation with no way out, and then the same person belittling you for your failure is the exact person who thought it was a good idea to begin with. It just makes the NPC seem like a complete dickhead. But that is a problem in basically every single text rpg I ever played, except for the few that don't have real skill checks but just roleplay choices. I don't think that system could even work here, so I just hope that in the future things will be tweaked a bit when it seems a bit unreasonable otherwise, but I also don't think it's an urgent issue or anything.

 

[VespidV]

Claw is less likely to help Valtan if she has a high ambition drive, because she thinks it's positive for her own goals to have Valtan fail, while Maaterasu is more likely to help Valtan with a high ambition drive because she thinks it's positive for her as a member of the Passion Temple for Valtan to come out in good shape.

Personally I do think ambition could be better described in-game because all this time I was under the impression it was meant to represent how often the character would try to push others towards their drives they currently have rather than representing a narrative aspect of a character. To illustrate an example of how I thought it'd work is that you'd get something like a Mir and Claw with high ambition but with their other drives the same the start of being constantly at odds with one another because they have conflicting drives.

 

[CATCH PHRASE]

I still don't get the issue here. There are many ways in which this might be used for interesting storytelling.

Storytelling is a tool that should opt for it's own merit, not test the merit of it's mechanical value.
IE if a character isn't fully explained, readers/players won't really show much interest since it's still a developing character. If the reader crosses a point that isn't explained due to the mechanical side (IE the game progress), it detaches the value of it as "foreshadowing", which in this case just shows that Claw for some miraculous reason has an agenda that justifies not only being a prick, but also being able to completely stump the current gameplay loop of merit/infamy etc. If her story is that potent, the other characters will feel a bit less... Interesting?
I mean, if you put someone on a TV show game and some beefcake guy completely wrecks the show, no one really tunes in to the show at all for the other challengers-- and in the game's sense, it makes the other characters feel much less compelling to enjoy.
Mind you, I don't think you made the wrong move, I just think it's going to bite down on the value of other characters in the long run.

Agreed here. This should be reflected by the game's mechanics, by making Claw less likely to get enough allies that protected from getting ganged up on.
The NPCs aren't going to think in such meta terms. A better flow of events to simulate is: Claw creates too much trouble for the others, gets the lead in merit and frequently imposes bondage and servitude on other Candidates -> The other Candidates team up and punish her -> Either Claw loses repeteadly, gets "humbled" (loses ambition, gains self-improvement) and changes strategy, or Claw finds a way to win anyway and has no reason to change

This part also confuses me a bit-- why should Ambition impose Submission on others more than Domination? If the punishment for trying to even the playing field is either Submission or loss of ambition, I see it as most characters will just flat out refuse to fight, rack up either mass submission due to gear/dominant relationships, etc.
Let's say that in your example that Claw gets humbled, the other characters still suffer infamy and possibly submission gains for fighting it-- which just puts Claw at an even higher advantage on which ever character fought her first, who would lose drives by a landslide-- then slightly rewards the character who actually beat her, but at the cost of gaining infamy, which then just... Reverts that progress?
I admit that part does confuse the hell out of me-- but I'm glad we agree that characters definitely should be more aggressive towards those with extreme ambition drives.

1) The player should be presented early with checks that are shown to be useful to change the course of the story, in order to teach them what is important to achieve so that they get to work on it. Pushing the checks back in time simply makes it so that players go for longer without knowing that could be important.

Do you think what Val said about other characters dunking on Claw for being too aggressive is currently true? If not, then giving the player the chance to see that eventually happening due to the game giving itself more breathing room to achieve that without mass player spam would be a genuine aid.

1a) Naturally, these early checks shouldn't be definite enough to ruin anyone's playthrough for not being able to pass them, as I explained in a previous post.

I think that the "Ruining a playthrough" is completely true-- however, ruining the momentum of a player trying to learn the game is what happens with checks that aren't fully fleshed out yet, if that makes sense. Nothing sucks more than trying your best to get the ball rolling on something just to get cockblocked by "You must achieve XYZ to not get a bad thing here" is annoying-- as you said earlier here about chat RNG

This is intentional - otherwise conversations would turn into meaningless mini-games of "get the numbers raise until the bar is full", which takes the risk of failing away

If a player knows
1. how to safely lower ambition
2. how far her ambition needed to fall before she's considered "fair-headed", and
3. what each stage of ambition really does overall

At that point, a player can feel pretty confident on how the mechanics work, and would be much less cockblocked by an uknown integer that could creep up on them when regarding ambition alone. Most other checks are simply for relation, so having one that relies on a mechanic that isn't fully understood/ fairly countered in a specific timeframe might... Interfere with the joy of it, I think?

2) While some players enjoy the main game loop as it is, many others only stick with it as long as the story is moving. Pushing the GC arc forwards makes it more likely for the latter ones to lose interest instead of continue playing.

Lillith's Throne struggled with this hard, because it took a ton of pit stops on a main story arc to implement side mechanics, quests, and characters that players wouldn't really feel as attached to as the main story progressing, so that's a completely fair point-- the lore freaks are either entertained or wait years to get what they want. Albeit, that shouldn't really rest on one developer's head to keep the crowd that entertained with the story that could take a long while to get rolling. Hence why some of the more savvy devs preferred just making smaller games that could be sold quickly enough to have a finished range of chapters to keep people satisfied, then reusing/upgrading old engine parts to match a new UI speed.
Otherwise we get those Patreon shills that spent more time hiring terrible VA's than it took me to do an entire military service contract.

3) Creating a lot of filler content just to push the GC arc is a bad idea for a few other reasons.

Fair point, honestly.

 

[DeepInteractivity]

If the reader crosses a point that isn't explained due to the mechanical side (IE the game progress), it detaches the value of it as "foreshadowing", which in this case just shows that Claw for some miraculous reason has an agenda that justifies not only being a prick, but also being able to completely stump the current gameplay loop of merit/infamy etc. If her story is that potent, the other characters will feel a bit less... Interesting?
I mean, if you put someone on a TV show game and some beefcake guy completely wrecks the show, no one really tunes in to the show at all for the other challengers-- and in the game's sense, it makes the other characters feel much less compelling to enjoy.
Mind you, I don't think you made the wrong move, I just think it's going to bite down on the value of other characters in the long run.

I'm not going to disclose details because that would mean spoiling the story, but I think you'll find you didn't have as much reason to worry.

Personally I do think ambition could be better described in-game because all this time I was under the impression it was meant to represent how often the character would try to push others towards their drives they currently have rather than representing a narrative aspect of a character. To illustrate an example of how I thought it'd work is that you'd get something like a Mir and Claw with high ambition but with their other drives the same the start of being constantly at odds with one another because they have conflicting drives.

I think I'll add a scroll that explains NPC drives a little better at some point, to clear any confusion.

This part also confuses me a bit-- why should Ambition impose Submission on others more than Domination? If the punishment for trying to even the playing field is either Submission or loss of ambition, I see it as most characters will just flat out refuse to fight, rack up either mass submission due to gear/dominant relationships, etc.
Let's say that in your example that Claw gets humbled, the other characters still suffer infamy and possibly submission gains for fighting it-- which just puts Claw at an even higher advantage on which ever character fought her first, who would lose drives by a landslide-- then slightly rewards the character who actually beat her, but at the cost of gaining infamy, which then just... Reverts that progress?
I admit that part does confuse the hell out of me-- but I'm glad we agree that characters definitely should be more aggressive towards those with extreme ambition drives.

You only receive punishments by Drishtya if you go over the infamy limit, which means you have plenty of room to demand things of one given character. Keep in mind that the victory demands of retiring bondage and ending servitude relationships do not give you infamy (in fact, iirc the latter removes a bit of infamy), imposing bondage gives you relatively little infamy (depending on the piece), you can absolutely enforce servitude on Claw without getting punished, and you can often keep Claw on servitude for a long time because she snaps soon if you force her to follow you around, and winning liberation challenges extends the duration of the servitude. Each time Claw loses, she is losing ambition and domination drives.

On a different line, I'm not sure if this is clear, but the domination drive is responsible for far more "conflicting" behavior (seeking fights through assaults rather than challenges, enforcing servitudes, etc.) than ambition. A character with very high ambition but very low domination and pleasure should have a preference for gaining merit through issuing challenges, rather than stomping down on everyone through infamy:merit cost-ineffective actions.

Do you think what Val said about other characters dunking on Claw for being too aggressive is currently true? If not, then giving the player the chance to see that eventually happening due to the game giving itself more breathing room to achieve that without mass player spam would be a genuine aid.

I think there should be more mechanics to deal with this, like I mentioned earlier.

I think that the "Ruining a playthrough" is completely true-- however, ruining the momentum of a player trying to learn the game is what happens with checks that aren't fully fleshed out yet, if that makes sense. Nothing sucks more than trying your best to get the ball rolling on something just to get cockblocked by "You must achieve XYZ to not get a bad thing here" is annoying-- as you said earlier here about chat RNG

Do keep this in mind though: you aren't the only "player" in the game. There are other 5 protagonists who have different, potentially mutable goals, and unless you're a master webweaber doing a mad minmax in order to make sure everyone is going to behave like your little pawns to fulfill your goals, you are sometimes going to find them on the other side of the fence. This is a lesson that has to be taught soon rather than later, and if you learn it early by being unable to pass a relatively minor check that you can end up overcoming later anyway, you're going to learn something valuable about what you should be expecting in the game.

 

[manscout]

I will be honest, I kinda skimmed over most of the discussion, but personally I mostly like how drives are implemented in a mechanical sense and how they are used to reflect the starting personality of the characters.

I don't know if there is some misunderstanding regarding the meaning of certain drives, it feels like Catch Phrase is saying that because Claw has high "ambition" it means the game is enforcing her into being a more compelling and important character than the others? I feel this is only true to the extent that Claw is a character that will usually be on the race to win the competition, so as long as the player cares about the result of the competition then Claw is not a character they can really "ignore" in the same way they could perhaps do to a low ambition character who's personal story they aren't interested in.

But either way, I feel all "ambition" really means in the context of this game is how much the high-priestess competition is important to that character, I never read it into meaning that the "low ambition" characters are less compelling, just that their agendas lie elsewhere. Also I don't think high ambition is decisive enough to ensure Claw is always a threat, I have seen enough playthroughs where she got clapped pretty hard early on and she kinda struggles to recover from that.

The only beef I have with drives right now is that since they are a "semi-hidden" mechanic, seeing as you can only check their values by successfully using a specific conversation topic, and they are probably the most "long-term" difficult thing to change about other characters, having checks that are heavily dependent on their values feels a bit difficult to manage. I personally would like if they could be a visible stat at the end of the day (if not current then at least a snapshot of the last time the player had access to that information), but maybe a scroll explaining them a bit would already help.