What if transformations could give stat limitations?

[average-catboy]

Or to put it more broadly: What if transformatives/transformations had more effects on the way the game was played?
Many transformatives involve stronger physical and mental changes to Steele than just switching up his look, so I thought it could be interesting to explore how these changes could be effectively reflected in-game.

As an example, let's take the faux-cow Treatment:
I really love the idea behind it, but the implementation feels somewhat lacking. The codex says that males who get this version of the Treatment experience "complete submissiveness" and as far as I can tell, faux-cow NPCs in the game typically really struggle to put on muscle as well. But when the PC actually gets the faux-cow treatment, the changes are miniscule. He initially looses weight and muscle mass if he's above a certain threshold and his face becomes more androgynous. But the perks he receives don't really reflect the changes as they are stated in the codex. My faux-cow Steele can still be as dominant as he wants, top everyone, be as strong as any other character and look like a bodybuilder.

So what if the Treatment did more? Possible changes/perks to more closely reflect the variant could be:
-capping the max achievable strength at half the level-maximum
-capping the max tone at 50 or so
-always giving perma-cute as a perk
-preventing Steele from topping certain enemies/crew members
-etc.

This was just an example for one tf, but there are countless others which could (at least in my opinion) benefit from similar changes to the way the game plays.
Further examples:

I know that many players don't care about this, as they just want the most freedom to customize their Steele without a lot of restrictions, and I can fully understand that. However, as a sub, I really LIKE it when the game gives me restrictions/ forces some decisions upon my character. I would love making the game significantly harder for me, simply because my Steele chose some unwise TFs and submits much easier now. Maybe there's a compromise to be made with a sort-of hard-mode which would implement more gameplay changes without a particular regard for balance.

I'm curious if there are others who thought about the same thing, or would be interested in playing a similar game mode.

 

[Theron]

What happens if you take something like Lion-Os or Mino Charge afterward? Would it boost your Physique/Tone cap, simply bypass it, or are you stuck with all the limitations of all the TFs you've taken?

 

[Kingu2]

as someon who plays a trapdom, melee, merc Steele, I can't abide by any of those changes (except maybe the perma-cute perk). more importantly I don't want to see penalties added for any transformative. All it would do for most players is discourage us from taking them. There are also enough sex scene restrictions for Steele's TFs, femininity and personality we really don't need more.

As much as I enjoy challenging gameplay I hate when my character customization options are restricted or penalized. I'm not at all for a game mode like this.

 

[average-catboy]

What happens if you take something like Lion-Os or Mino Charge afterward? Would it boost your Physique/Tone cap, simply bypass it, or are you stuck with all the limitations of all the TFs you've taken?

I would say that perks could be lost by consuming multiple tf-items that counter them at once - pretty much exactly how you loose the perma-cute perk. However, since the Treatment is kind of definite, I personally would like these changes to stick with the character. In terms of TFs the Treatment actually doesn't do a whole lot otherwise (some minor perks and cow horns/ a tail that can be easily lost again), so giving it permanence would make it more fun in my opinion.

As much as I enjoy challenging gameplay I hate when my character customization options are restricted or penalized. I'm not at all for a game mode like this.

Like I said, I completely get this sentiment. But that's why I think the option would be interesting. But to be fair, I wouldn't even see it as a restriction, but rather as an addition to the gameplay. In a similar way, one of the most interesting parts of TFs for me have always been the changes some scenes bring with them. A comment from a sex partner, new options becoming available, etc.. I would just see it as an extension of that concept.

 

[Theron]

The Treatment is permanent, but I'm under the impression most New Texans don't mod themselves much afterward, sticking with whatever the Treatment gave them. It might be a lack of funds, or possibly a cultural thing. The randomness may be seen as being tailored to you (whether you expected your specific changes or not).

I'd be more receptive of the idea if you could respec Perks. If you've been going Melee, having a major restriction on Physique is going to be annoying. You're not going to be procing Lunge's Stagger or Can Opener's Sunder, for example.
Maybe as a challenge mode, but not as a main feature.

 

[Mad Dog]

I'm almost certain Fen and Sav got rid of that feature after CoC1 because people would be punished if their chosen appearance made them weaker. It also probably screwed with the balancing since players could be much stronger or weaker.

I remember kicking ass as a dragon morph and absolutely running a train on most of the bosses. The greatest challenge being the bosses you fought 1v1 before having to fight Lethice herself. But even then, it I think I beat it in 2-3 tries.

 

[average-catboy]

If I'm being honest, I don't care about game balance at all. It's a porn game. I think it's no problem whatsoever if a player effectively has the ability to fuck up their save-file. The reverse is also true - why stop players from creating op characters? That's an aspect I liked about CoC, but I can see it being polarizing.

I would simply like my character to play like he would play - not simply by player choice but by necessity. Having ZZZ-cup tits would naturally make it harder to be a stealthy and incredibly agile smuggler. Being a cute effeminate twink would make it harder to fight enemies in meelee. I kind of miss something like that in TiTS.

 

[Animefan666]

Many TF's have a chance to lower stats/stat gains on use. Putting a cap on a stat based on species makes no sense. There's no reason a Zil shouldn't be able to bulk up or learn to make high tech weapons.

 

[Kingu2]

If I'm being honest, I don't care about game balance at all. It's a porn game. I think it's no problem whatsoever if a player effectively has the ability to fuck up their save-file. The reverse is also true - why stop players from creating op characters? That's an aspect I liked about CoC, but I can see it being polarizing.

I would simply like my character to play like he would play - not simply by player choice but by necessity. Having ZZZ-cup tits would naturally make it harder to be a stealthy and incredibly agile smuggler. Being a cute effeminate twink would make it harder to fight enemies in meelee. I kind of miss something like that in TiTS.

well it's one thing to not care about game balance but seeing as this is a porn game I think Combat strategy and min/maxing should take a backseat to customization and roleplay. I have a great deal of fun with my cute trap boy who beat down milodan warriors and gangs of pirates with his comical strength. Being small and cute, with a huge dick and fat slappable ass is pretty essential for how I envision my Steele, as well as him being an absolute powerhouse in and out of combat. Having to deal with penalties for cosmetic and roleplay choices would make the game a lot less fun for me, and making things unsalvageable because of unrealistic proportions would practically ruin the game for many.

As someone who doesn't care for min/maxing I feel like making most TFs purely cosmetic was the right way to go. While I personally don't care what anyone else does and will always choose the TFs I want over the ones that are stronger, I like that players do not feel compelled to get certain TFs for gameplay advantages and their appearance and proportions should not play a large role in their preferred build or playstyle.

 

[Bobonga]

Here are my opinions:

Changing the caps is not going to happen and should not happen. The reason nearly no TITS transformatives and no COC 2 transformative grant any combat benefits/detriments is that the devs are very unhappy with the COC 1 tranformatives. In COC 1 some transformative where gambreaking strong. We are talking about a level 1 character defeating the optional, extremly diffcult boss with like a 1% chance of losing. The devs don't want that to happen again. With altering stat caps, some TF's would be straight up detrimental or beneficial for a build.

Personally I'm against locking players out of scenes, because of transformatives. However, altering scenes or enabling scenes is fine. It's like the Ditz/Brute speech work after all. This is for the players freedom. To give two examples why transformatives shouldn't impeach players freedom:

1. A Brute or Bimbo cannot use the "Rubbermade" item. On use you have the choice to "put it away" which doesn't consume it or "blow bubbles" which results in a bad end. This means that you have to plan ahead, if you want to be a Brute/Bimbo with latex skin. I'm not a big fan of that. Bascially I have to know, on what appereance I want to end on and then plan in which order I take my transformatives. Interactions like these are the exact reason, I test build all my characters, before playing them. Atleast if it's anything beyond "spam one TF". Now imagine a new player, being locked out of random transformative without any apparent reason. It's like "Oh you want to be X? Well you could do that, if you hadn't taken Y 20 hours ago." Does the game tell you that X and Y are not compatible? Nope.

2. While roleplaying can be enhanced, it can be limited as well. Let's take the Fauxcow treatment: You made a good point on how a fauxcow would behave, but going against typical behavior can be good roleplaying as well. I had a melee merc who was a fauxcow kaithrit. The lore is that he took the treatment to be a bull for extra mass an masculinity. Got the fauxcow treatment and became the most adorbale, submissive and breedable femboy you can imagine. Atleast that is what people thought when they saw him. Contrary to his appereance he was giant dominant asshole and a brute who would beat the shit out of you (hard personality and brute speech through dumbfuck and melee merc). He would be a bit nicer to people he genuinly liked and occasionally the fauxcow would come through. Rarely he would allow cherished people to fuck him and get all love dovey cuddly thanks to his cum highs. He actually enjoyed that, but would never admit it, to anyone but his closest companions. With the Fauxcow treatment locking me to submissive, this wouldn't be possible.

Quick summary: Changing stat caps: HELL NO! Locking scenes: No. Altering scenes or enabling new ones: Yes.

 

[Theron]

Locking scenes: No. Altering scenes or enabling new ones: Yes.

NPCs can have preferences. It makes them feel like they're not just there for Steele's pleasure. Taur is a very different bodyplan from the default Biped. I could see a case for it making certain things impossible. Some scenes allow it, but don't take it into account.

I'm fine with requiring certain traits, if the scene is impossible without it. Hyper or Tail Genitals, for example.

 

[Bobonga]

Let me explain it with examples:

Enabling a scene: Kelly has scenes that only can be triggered if you are a brute or a bimbo. So it's an extra on top.

Disabling a scene, theoretic example: Let's take the fauxcow treatment. You are supposed to be submissive. You are not able to trigger the petplay scene where you walk Anno (or Syri or erra), because you would be the dominant part. If choosing to be walked by Anno, you are not allowed to take the "no" or unruly option, since that would be not submissive.

Or in other words: Unlocking new scenes is fine. Locking otherwise universally accesible scenes is not.

 

[Bobonga]

NPCs can have preferences. It makes them feel like they're not just there for Steele's pleasure. Taur is a very different bodyplan from the default Biped. I could see a case for it making certain things impossible. Some scenes allow it, but don't take it into account.

I'm fine with requiring certain traits, if the scene is impossible without it. Hyper or Tail Genitals, for example.

First of, I agree with everything you stated.

After thinking a bit, I think the problem is twofold. What you are describing are physical traits. And believe me, as a taur player I'm well aware of the limitations. My posts mainly cover more "mental" (for a lack of a better word) traits. Like the fauxcow treatment resulting in submissive and thus locking every scene that is not submissive. Come to think of it, I think some scenes are locked behind certain personalites.

Actually, it is quite difficult for me, to put my conclusion into words. But I think that the problem is not as black and white as I think. Taurs and Nagas are more of niche playstyle, resulting in fever writers considering or adjusting scenes for them. So Taurs and Nagas specifically are a bit of a odd case. Tail genitals enable scenes and don't disable them. Hyper genitals can lock or enable scenes. Afaik there are not many scenes Hyper disables (might be wrong). Personality wise I remember only two scenes for hard personality. But those scenes get enabled, not other scenes disabled.

Aside frome Taurs and Nagas, physical traits do not disable many scenes. Physical traits and personality are changeable, so you are never locked forever. Permanent perks like Brute/Ditz speech alter or enable scenes, but lock Rubbermade and Bianca sex(?). While permanent somewhat minor exceptions.

I actually don't where I'm going with this. Temporary conclusion: Physical restraints are acceptable, since they can be altered later. Permanent restrains are not. Personality altering or enabling scenes is acceptable. Locking scenes is not.

Expect my conclusion and/or comment to change. I need to think.

Edit: Another thing to consider are the Authors. Biance will not have sex with a Bimbo, Brute or non-bipedal player. William designed her like this, so I will not question it. Aka I respect their choice and will not ask or tell them to make their character accesible.

 

[Animefan666]

1. A Brute or Bimbo cannot use the "Rubbermade" item. On use you have the choice to "put it away" which doesn't consume it or "blow bubbles" which results in a bad end. This means that you have to plan ahead, if you want to be a Brute/Bimbo with latex skin.

You can still get Latex Skin with the Doll Maker.

 

[average-catboy]

While roleplaying can be enhanced, it can be limited as well. Let's take the Fauxcow treatment: You made a good point on how a fauxcow would behave, but going against typical behavior can be good roleplaying as well.

That's a completely fair point, since with my current idea, it wouldn't be possible.
Maybe there's a compromise to be made, that faux-cow Steele can still be dominant, but under certain conditions he falls back on his faux-cow instincts? Maybe if his lust becomes too high he submits automatically, or his willpower needs to be at least 50%. I think there are theoretical options which wouldn't exclude your playstyle, but make it less easy to just fully ignore the Treatment while playing.

Enabling a scene: Kelly has scenes that only can be triggered if you are a brute or a bimbo. So it's an extra on top.

Isn't enabling a scene is really just the same thing as locking other characters/ players out of it, but rephrasing it? The scene exists either way, it's just not accessible to certain characters.


Still, an interesting debate around the topic. I pretty much said what I had to say, but maybe a few additional thoughts can help illustrate how (and why) I feel:

1. I never really intended this as a general gameplay change, rather as an option. Not quite unlike the Expanded Mod for CoC, where you could toggle Survival and Realistic Mode if you wanted to. They would have been terrible if forced on every player, but they're a great expansion for people who really like the challenge (and the added gameplay difference of having a hugely endowed character).

2. Currently, most mods are just for physical appearances and don't really change the way you play the game in any significant way. My biggest personal criticism of TiTS would probably be that transforming into the character is more fun than actually being the character. For me, perks are the one factor that make a TF interesting after the initial transformation process. Expanding perks and giving them more varied effects would also make each TF and therefore each created character feel more distinct. To achieve that, I think it can be justified to take choices/ nudge the player towards a certain choice.

3. While I get that most people want to freely customize their characters without any drawbacks, some items are designed to have drawbacks. Every illegal item
even forces the player to read a codex entry before using it, since (at least in universe) they seriously fuck each person up if overused. I don't think any player could reasonably complain if these items actually fucked them up in-game (giving serious stat-caps, or restricting certain actions).

4. Again, I don't mind balance. Some builds shouldn't even be viable (like the tech-bimbo-build for example). I think it would add to the gameplay experience if there were also straight up negative perks/ bad TFs for certain playstyles, which would enable some interesting challenge runs.

 

[Bobonga]

Isn't enabling a scene is really just the same thing as locking other characters/ players out of it, but rephrasing it? The scene exists either way, it's just not accessible to certain characters.

I can see the logic behind this. To me, the key difference is that enabling a scene, gives me extra content, without influencing other content. Locking means that, generic, universally accesible scenes, with no or minor requirements like male/female genitalia are not accesible anymore.

Or in other words: Enabling means I get new specific content, that requires certain attributes to work. Disabling means losing acces to content that should be universally accesible.

To give an example: Bimbos are typically submissive females, that want to be fucked. Being a bimbo enables new scene, like with Kelly or the "drain bunnies" scene with the shock hopper. Disabling would mean that I can't acces any scene, where I would fuck someone with a penis, or grow a penis in the first place. Since that is not bimbo like. Being a Bimbo or Brute locks you out of using Rubbermade, which I don't like at all. But you are also locked out of having sex with Bianca. This is a characteristic of the charakter Bianca and intended by her author William, which makes it another kind of situation.

All in all, I don't support being locked out of scenes entirely. But Taurs or Authors choice are a different topic. Taurs and Nagas need adjustment for pretty much every scene, which means a stupendous amount of extra work. Also these bodytypes don't seem to be that popular with the writers. So I see it more as a lack of interest. I will not argue with an author about the design of their character and respect the choices they make.

This is how I see it. I don't know, if I made my point clear. Or atleast the direction I'm leaning in. But I don't know how to say it otherwise.

 

[average-catboy]

Yeah, I fully get your point. There's something to be said for always having a general choice (being dom/sub/top/bottom) but enabling certain specific scenes for specific characters/traits. Of course I'm all for giving us more scene variations/ additional scenes, it's probably just too time-consuming to do this for every major encounter. If I play as a bimbo, a lot of scenes just stay the same (many scenes don't even support ditz-speech). From my point of view, restricting the choice of the player, could make characters feel more distinct.

To a minor degree it's already being done in-game. As an example: Bimbo characters have no choice but to suck Zephyr's cock after having sex. Or when Bothrioc oil addiction becomes too high, you no longer have a choice to get egged or not (since you're an addict and refusing wouldn't make sense). I think similar restrictions could be implemented for all major psychological transformations.

 

[one_two]

That's a completely fair point, since with my current idea, it wouldn't be possible.
Maybe there's a compromise to be made, that faux-cow Steele can still be dominant, but under certain conditions he falls back on his faux-cow instincts? Maybe if his lust becomes too high he submits automatically, or his willpower needs to be at least 50%. I think there are theoretical options which wouldn't exclude your playstyle, but make it less easy to just fully ignore the Treatment while playing.

No matter what extra rules you try to add, there's good odds some players will come up with RP ideas for their characters the rules won't cover.

A very basic example -- someone might imagine their faux-cow Steele to be submissive except when dealing with certain character, who instead just happens to trigger their dominant streak.

In short, there's really no need for mechanical limitations; if the player chooses to ignore the Treatment while playing, let them. They have their own reasons for this and preventing them from it only limits their individual enjoyment of the game. Which doesn't benefit anyone.