(This post had no text or tags.)

Latest commit adds these two things to debug builds. Just aim at a blank spot and you get these options instead of nothing at all.

The “Beasties” item in the menu is already taken care of, but I did later find out that Urta has no tallness and thus broke the Look At function, which is not yet fixed.

First up we have something about clothing. Specifically, tearing it apart and soiling it in various ways: Clothing Statuses

Second, there’s a more technically intricate thing about replacing the scheduler that I’ve recently gutted: Goals, Needs, Drives

Pick one, leave your comments here or, if you can, there.

Hi, we’re not dead yet! Here’s a thing that I’ve been pondering and just put in source control as an issue. I thought I’d mirror it here on Tumblr for coverage.

---

Right now, a given character can have any amount of penises and vaginas stuck down there, all different, and any amount of breasts, each row different. This complicates things like sex. Enormously.

I think actually getting the sex parts done would go a lot better, and actually playing them likewise, if we severely cut down on the whole “mess of genitalia” thing.

I’m thinking, a character would have a single penis token or none, with its size and type, and it may have a double token in there to signify there’s two. Similarly, there can be only one vagina token or none, the ability to have two very much up for discussion. Any extras would be limited to cocknipples, nipplecunts, tentacles, and tails.

Today I’ve been working on the sexual interaction data, both adding new stuff and some of the long-planned format changes. I’d like your opinion on this.

This is the new “Fondle Nipples” action:

choice: fondle_nipples
    _n: Fondle [b:his] nipples
    limitations
        not: 0 havingsex/restrained
        hasnipples: 1
        canreach: 1 breasts
    effects
        stat: 1 stimulation 6
        stat: 1 climax 2
        message
            - [t:Youorname] rub{s} [b:yourornames] [b:nipplesize] [?:nipples].

That’s the old style. The new style replaces the limitations and effects blocks with chunks of Lua code, reducing the parsing code’s overall size by pretty much almost all of it:

choice: fondle_nipples
    _n: Fondle [b:his] nipples
    filter: (not top.Restrained()) and bottom.HasNipples() and bottom.CanReachBreasts()
    effect
        <[[
            bottom.Raise(Stat.Stimulation, 6)
            bottom.Raise(Stat.Climax, 2)
            message({"[t:Youorname] rub{s} [b:yourornames] [b:nipplesize] [?:nipples]."})
        ]]>
-- Alternatively, as a oneliner:
--  effect: bottom.Raise(Stat.Stimulation, 6); bottom.Raise(Stat.Climax, 2); message({"[t:Youorname] rub{s} [b:yourornames] [b:nipplesize] [?:nipples]."})

Now, the old-style message command token picks one of its children at random. The Lua version takes a single string or a table of random picks, which may themselves include more tables of random picks, and can have a color parameter to make the message stand out more. That’s why there’s those {} in there; to remind and invite to add more variations.

All that being said, what say you?

(This post had no text. It was tagged #linux #debian #dwm #mono)

The UI of course scales with the tileset. Should I countinue down this path, though?

I’ve been using FMOD Ex 4.37.05, from 2011, all this time and recently figured I ought to look into updating. So I got a copy of FMOD Studio 1.08.04, one month old, and spent like five maybe ten minutes adapting Noxico’s sound code. Now I have a little archive with the new DLLs and two CS files, a clean drop-in replacement. I’m just wondering, is it worth it in the end to switch?

When I started on this game project, I put all the data in a bunch of XML files. Some of them were parsed into token trees before use, others were custom-parsed.

Eventually I felt like XML’s verbosity was unneeded, and I came up with a format that more closely matched the token tree data structure and was reasonably human-readable.

Recently I converted the second-to-last XML file to TML; the i18n word list and its related data, done mostly with a quickly whipped up converter and a little bit of aftercare. The only thing left in XML format is the game’s dialogue.

<scene id="GenericUnknownHottie" name="(starting node)">
	<filter target="bottom" type="relation" value="none" />
	<filter target="top" type="value_gteq" name="charisma" value="50" />
	<p>
		"Ah... Greetings, traveller," [b:he] says with a slightly flushed smile. "Can I... help you, maybe?"
	</p>
	<action name="introduce yourself" />
	<action name="invite to have sex" />
	<action name="no thank you goodbye" />
</scene>
 
<scene id="GenericIntroduceHottie" name="introduce yourself" list="Introduce yourself">
	<filter target="top" type="value_gteq" name="charisma" value="50" />
	<p>
		You tell [b:name] your name and flash [b:him] a twinkling smile.
	</p>
	<p>
		"It's a pleasure meeting you, [t:name]", [b:he] says a little flustered.
	</p>
	<script type="text/javascript">
		top.SetRelation(bottom, "acquaintance");
		bottom.SetRelation(top, "considers hot");
	</script>
	<action name="invite to have sex" />
	<action name="goodbye" />
</scene>

-- TML version
scene: GenericUnknownHottie
	start
	filters
		bottom: relation
			value: none
		top: has
			path: charisma
			value: >= 50
	$: ""Ah... Greetings, traveller," [b:he] says with a slightly flushed smile. "Can I... help you, maybe?""
	action: introduce yourself
	action: invite to have sex
	action: no thank you goodbye
 
scene: GenericIntroduceHottie
	name: introduce yourself
	list: Introduce yourself
	filters
		top: has
			path: charisma
			value: >= 50
	$: "You tell [b:name] your name and flash [b:him] a twinkling smile."
	$: ""It's a pleasure meeting you, [t:name]", [b:he] says a little flustered."
	script
		<[[
			top.SetRelation(bottom, "acquaintance", true);
			bottom.SetRelation(top, "considers hot");
		]]>
	action: invite to have sex
	action: goodbye

How exactly this data is used doesn’t matter here. No, what I’d like is opinions. So please tell me, does that example look readable? Do you maybe have another idea?

Given this starting data, music.tml:

Title
	loonie_-_cronologie_4_remix.xm
	sandras_sweet_sex_seminar.xm
Grassland
	joule-mozarella_filofox.xm
	aa-molec.s3m
	hyo-dum.it

and this patch, music.tml.patch:

-- Add this to the end of the file
add: -
	Added
		patch_me_in.s3m
 
-- Add this between Title and Grassland
add: Title
	Inserted
		patch_me_in.s3m
 
-- Add this to Title
add: Title/-
	beek_ita.it
 
-- Remove a particular song from Title
remove: Title/loonie_-_cronologie_4_remix.xm
 
-- Replace a song
replace: Title/loonie_-_cronologie_4_remix.xm
	Cronologie IV.ogg
 
-- Replace the whole set of title music choices
replace: Title
	Title
		Cronologie IV.ogg
		Sandra's Sweet Sex Seminar.ogg
 
-- Change a token's value(s)
set: Inserted
	value: 42
	text: something

Given two tokens with the same name, you can use something like bodyplan[6] (zero-indexed!) or bodyplan[=felin] in a path as well.