- Oct 15, 2018
- 2,554
- 7,476
You know i've repeated our stance on a potential non-canon harem ending before?
You know i've repeated our stance on a potential non-canon harem ending before?
I wanna make a mini game with a Lily, Jenna and Debbie haremYou know i've repeated our stance on a potential non-canon harem ending before?I think as far back as our dev week on Lewd Gamers.
Come on Ace, remembering that would destroy my whole crusade!You know i've repeated our stance on a potential non-canon harem ending before?I think as far back as our dev week on Lewd Gamers.
oooooookaaaay?EP19 just shows how to destroy a unique character, good job... i guess.
I'll bite if you care to elaborate constructively?EP19 just shows how to destroy a unique character, good job... i guess.
I'll take the bet that isn't going to happen.I'll bite if you care to elaborate constructively?![]()
Likewise, but it's still worth asking.I'll take the bet that isn't going to happen.
I love when people people give constructive feedback and I'm always open to it. And as a lot of people can testify, I usually reach out to them for more details as I'm a firm believer that if you're too protective of your work and closed-minded about feedback, then you won't improve.Likewise, but it's still worth asking.
EP19 just shows how to destroy a unique character, good job... i guess.
I don't get it either. I don't know why I care, but I am too curious by nature I guess. What exactly is the issue? As far as I can tell, the scenes in EP19 were telegraphed for ages.I'll bite if you care to elaborate constructively?
The only ones I can think of is if he means Bella or Wanda....for some reasonI don't get it either. I don't know why I care, but I am too curious by nature I guess. What exactly is the issue? As far as I can tell, the scenes in EP19 were telegraphed for ages.
I could see someone who was very interested in certain aspects of Lily, Debbie, or Katie's character being disappointed by how the sleepover turned out, though I agree most of it was telegraphed well ahead of time. If someone didn't follow all the talk online in the wake of the beta, there are also some mildly confusing moments there that might rub them the wrong way.I don't get it either. I don't know why I care, but I am too curious by nature I guess. What exactly is the issue? As far as I can tell, the scenes in EP19 were telegraphed for ages.
The only ones I can think of is if he means Bella or Wanda....for some reason
Good points. I didn't think of Wanda. I am not really invested in her character much compared to the others.I could also see someone who was all in on Bella (or possibly Elaine) now worrying that she is just a scheming traitor waiting to break the player's heart. That seems a little extreme to me until we actually learn more, but I suppose if someone was really worried about now would be the time to start panicking.
Not agreeing, completing the conditions, being unable to means the other two will split the full amount (or one ends up with everything).there is an aspect of the will that I am not sure I understand (my linguistic problem ...)
initially it seems that the money will be divided by the heirs who have met the conditions, then a third, or half or all.
but then, the second time MC talks to the lawyer, reference is made to associations for animals.
the distinction is all in whether or not you signed the agreement, correct? but why should an heir not sign? why should he favor one of the other two heirs?
and to this situation that Elaine's outlandish words refer to? (I know that on this last point no one can answer me)
are you sure? I also thought so at first, but here, if I understand correctly, it seems to me to say otherwiseNot agreeing, completing the conditions, being unable to means the other two will split the full amount (or one ends up with everything).
If no one manages to complete their will conditions (potential given what an ass Donald is), then the money is sent to various (undisclosed) animal centers/shelters/organisations etc.
You are correct.are you sure? I also thought so at first, but here, if I understand correctly, it seems to me to say otherwise
View attachment 1023703 View attachment 1023704
There is one other aspect...there is a 10 year statue of limitations. Meaning, there could be a default after 10 years and there would be no forfeit because all of the money would have been paid out by that time.You are correct.
The game is a bit ambiguous, but the distinction seems to be that if a would-be heir fails to sign and agree to the conditions, their share is divided between the remaining heirs (or the animals, if all three refuse). If an heir accepts the terms but later defaults, their share then goes straight to the animals.
It's not clear what stops us from just signing and then instantly defaulting, however. My guess is that since the first installment of the inheritance is paid out after a year, that's when the animals come into play. Anyone who makes it a year gets 10% of their money, and then locks in the rest for either themselves or the animals. Anyone who defaults before then is treated as if they never signed the deal.
Hopefully it will be clarified some day, preferably before the final reading!