Your gripes with CoC II

[Tide Hunter]

Petty thing, but I dislike how it's possible (and relatively common in certain fights) to attack with every party member for 2 turns and miss literally every single attack. Randomness is good in my opinion, but I personally find it annoying to miss 6 attacks in a row, especially if some of them were per-encounter talents or talents with long recharges.

 

[rafabud]

Petty thing, but I dislike how it's possible (and relatively common in certain fights) to attack with every party member for 2 turns and miss literally every single attack. Randomness is good in my opinion, but I personally find it annoying to miss 6 attacks in a row, especially if some of them were per-encounter talents or talents with long recharges.

those imps are squirmy little bastards

 

[Tide Hunter]

I felt that way too until i realised situations like that were specifically because of abilities the enemies were using, such as flight or evasion. It can be frustrating, but if an enemy is fast enough to dodge you, that's exactly what they should be able to do, as you see in anime/cartoons/comics/movies when the protagonist fights a fast opponent. You need to have abilities to counteract those abilities, i enjoy using grease on imps and harpies to knock half of them prone before fireballing them but that's just one way of doing it. Managing threat to avoid getting stunned or proned will also keep you going so you don't waste turns.

I think that the fight that caused me to complain about it was the fight against Argoth.

 

[Prince Thunder Spark]

Honestly for me it isa the lack of any demon transformations yet, I love being able to be a sheep in wolf's clothing, and in the orignal keeping the turning behind corruption levels wasn't fun but I would love to be able to get my horse demon going

 

[Savin]

Honestly for me it isa the lack of any demon transformations yet, I love being able to be a sheep in wolf's clothing, and in the orignal keeping the turning behind corruption levels wasn't fun but I would love to be able to get my horse demon going

I got good news for you after Winter City!

 

[Prince Thunder Spark]

I got good news for you after Winter City!

Savin, are you reading my mind? Cause the two largest things I wanted, more kass and demon transforming, and you say both are coming after winter city, now I'm a happy isolated boi. Anyway, I do have a question for that, will corruption relate to how far the demon thing can go, like in the first game? Or is it going to be a thing where it's a sheep in wolf's clothing type deal?

Heck that just gave me an idea for an ending where kassyra comes up to you as you become partly or mostly demon (in my case a demon horse likely) and she is shocked that you keep your strong morals. I honestly don't know how she would react.

 

[Savin]

will corruption relate to how far the demon thing can go

I honestly don't remember that being a thing at all.

 

[rafabud]

I honestly don't remember that being a thing at all.

I think he means on how corruption could induce certain transformations back in the first game.

 

[kiby]

I think he means on how corruption could induce certain transformations back in the first game.

Pretty sure corruption did not do that in CoC. Certain TFs caused you to gain corruption, and certain perks required a minimum corruption, though.

 

[Tide Hunter]

Pretty sure corruption did not do that in CoC. Certain TFs caused you to gain corruption, and certain perks required a minimum corruption, though.

In the original CoC, that is the case. Increasing corruption didn't actually TF your character, but it did have effects like causing your camp's ground to become visibly corrupt, and if you try to enter Tel'adre for the first time while really corrupt then you're barred entry, while the Bizarre Bazaar wouldn't let you in if you weren't corrupt enough the first time. So, there's no induced transformations, but it does have a visible effect, and it did let you transform other characters.

 

[Tristan Black]

I hate the players. Especially the ones who don't get the point of certain mechanics/character features, and that there will always be things you don't agree with in a game.

 

[Paradox01]

I hate the players. Especially the ones who don't get the point of certain mechanics/character features, and that there will always be things you don't agree with in a game.

Hate's an emotion that takes way too much energy to sustain against people that don't actually affect my life. I try to save it for people that do things like walk through a doorway and immediately stop, or merge onto an interstate doing 40mph. Even then, I can't sustain more than a flare of hate.

 

[Tristan Black]

Sorry. It just kinda flared up in relation to a question I've answered pretty thoroughly elsewhere. Twice.

 

[1234567890van]

I love me some Kiyoko but all of her scenes on Hitoshi, this attached one in particular, are so damn bitchy it's a complete turn off, i'd actually like to call her out on her bullshit attitude there, even if it causes a big fight. That shit is just rotten perspective and makes me lose respect for her.

Guess that's the point though huh?

It must be noted that Kyoko and Kinu are descendants of divinity. It would be like if Jesus descended upon Earth during the middle ages, had children, then his granddaughter decided to marry a peasant. A royal marriage is a huge deal as it means tying godly blood to another.

In our time where things like bloodlines seem idiotic, your anger is justified; however, in a feudal society where marriage is intrinsic to the hierarchical society, Kyoko's frustrations are understandable. Obviously it's a lot more nuanced and headache inducing when we factor in that Kyoko's bloodline was usurped 200 years ago and her place in society at present (in game) is deeply in limbo. The one thing that is certain is that Kinu's line will make waves once Kyoko is forced to confront her past. Kyoko wants to make sure her support structure is as sturdy as possible, which starts with her inheriting daughter's marriage and offspring.

 

[1234567890van]

Kitsune being classical japanese in their racism and social structure.

She, like any character, is free to have flaws, be they personal or cultural, i just feel like i in turn should be able to voice my discomfort with it.

You are free to complain about whatever you like, that is what this thread is for after all. I think you missed my point that goes beyond just the cultural aspect which is thus:

Complaining that Kyoko tends towards strategic, political marriages is like complaining that pigs smell bad after rolling around in the mud. Being Kitsune royalty is endemic to who Kyoko is. She's had this behavior drilled into her skull since the moment she was conceived. If you were to take this away from her she would no longer be Kyoko, whether she is morally correct or not. You say she is "free to have flaws" as if being flawed is a choice; she doesn't simply choose to be a pompous royal. It is probable Kyoko herself knows these beliefs are imperfect and hypocritical as she often reflects on Kitsune culture saying that all outsiders' wariness is perfectly justified. Pointing out these imperfections and berating her for them will only serve to sabotage the relationship between them and further highlight that the champion is an outsider looking in; the champion will never truly understand what it means to be Kitsune.

In my opinion, imperfections are what define a person (fictional or otherwise). There is something to be said about accepting said imperfections and that there will be clashing opinions between two people, especially family whose lives are forever tied by blood. The champion should leave fox noises to the foxes because it is something only they can work out among themselves. Openly expressing anger at one side or the other in a cultural disagreement will only serve to make things worse.

As I said in the beginning, every person is entitled to their own opinion. If you truly think that the champion getting involved would help the situation, I'm in no position to tell you you're wrong. I definitely agree that Kyoko should be more supportive of her daughter's life choices (as long as they aren't overtly self destructive, which I'm sure Kyoko would argue they are in this case); however, Kyoko's dismay over inari Kinu's marriage comes from something deep within and trying to change something so integral would not only be fruitless, but, in my eyes, sacrilege.

 

[Evil]

Its probably a spelling mistake, that's all.

 

[1234567890van]

why do you spell it Kyoko and not Kiyoko

It's just a spelling error. My first language is English so some letter combinations like "iy" aren't something I think of when writing quickly. I tend to make a lot of spelling errors and the spell check marks both Kiyoko and Kyoko incorrect. My tendency to use Kyoko probably comes from the character Kyoko Kirigiri from Danganronpa.

 

[WolframL]

My understanding of Japanese (imperfect and limited) is that as a language it's not open to swapping out characters, 'Ki' and 'Kyo' being specifically different 'letters' and not being interchangeable.

Yeah, different syllables so if you swap them you get different words (or possibly gibberish) but as I understand it, it's not as bad as spoken Chinese where the way you say the word can alter the meaning. Though I imagine in a world like Savarra, messing up and complimenting someone on their magnificent cock (instead of the male rooster they're keeping as a pet) probably wouldn't be as much a faux pas as simply being taken as a proposition.

IMy tendency to use Kyoko probably comes from the character Kyoko Kirigiri from Danganronpa.

Haha, can we invite her to join the fun? Would make the Convocation of Mirrors event a lot easier if we had her backing us up.

 

[kiby]

Yeah, different syllables so if you swap them you get different words (or possibly gibberish) but as I understand it, it's not as bad as spoken Chinese where the way you say the word can alter the meaning. Though I imagine in a world like Savarra, messing up and complimenting someone on their magnificent cock (instead of the male rooster they're keeping as a pet) probably wouldn't be as much a faux pas as simply being taken as a proposition.

Japan does have that, in a way. Extending/emphasizing consonants and vowels can greatly alter what you're saying. Uncle (ojisan) becomes grandfather (ojiisan), and dock (dokku) becomes poison (doku).

Wordplay like that cock example is big in Japan, too, with words changing meanings based on context and which writing system was used for them (people's names, for example, can be written with multiple characters that have the same sound, but different meanings). One of the Japanese terms for penis also means a lot of other things, just like the multiple meanings of cock in English.

This concludes my nerding out session.

 

[Stemwinder]

Oh i get that completely, especially having read a lot of what TOBs has said about the Kitsune being classical japanese in their racism and social structure. My problem isn't that she is that way, it's that i, the player, can't call her out on such bullshit. She, like any character, is free to have flaws, be they personal or cultural, i just feel like i in turn should be able to voice my discomfort with it. Maybe she ignores my complaints, maybe i open her eyes, that's her journey, but mine is calling bullshit attitudes out for what they are.

The biggest flaw with that content is that it the player is both forced to view it and forced to be passive to the point of utter nonsense.

 

[The Observer]

Oh i get that completely, especially having read a lot of what TOBs has said about the Kitsune being classical japanese in their racism and social structure. My problem isn't that she is that way, it's that i, the player, can't call her out on such bullshit. She, like any character, is free to have flaws, be they personal or cultural, i just feel like i in turn should be able to voice my discomfort with it. Maybe she ignores my complaints, maybe i open her eyes, that's her journey, but mine is calling bullshit attitudes out for what they are.

Years ago, when I was working on Fall of Eden with LukaDoc and QuietBrowser, we completed the burrows questline where you depose the bunny tyrant Lagon and restored his wife Vena to her place. In the post-quest script, the player character discusses with Vena as to what's to be done with Lagon, and various options are presented. Vena shoots them down one by one and explains why she doesn't want to kill, exile, torture or mindbreak her former husband despite his actions, and that the final solution of imprisonment while trying to get Lagon to come around to his misdeeds -- even that is alien to the rabbits of the burrows, they can't understand why one of their own needs to be penned up like that.

People on the old forums were enraged. They bitched about "false choices", and proudly declared that they would rather have no choice than false choice, options that led nowhere. It got to the point where LukaDoc said "fine, you know what, I'll make all the other choices cause bad ends, there, your decisions are now meaningful". Happily, we dissuaded him from following through on that.

Then there were the people who were utterly perplexed that LukaDoc would not allow them to beat, torment, torture and rape Terry, whose entire premise was "foxy pet thief you care for". Once again, the issue of so-called player agency came up again. After all, they were supposed to have the choice of doing horrible things to a prisoner at their mercy, because that was what they wanted to do, and LukaDoc + QuietBrowser were being horrible people for denying them that. Why is the player character forced to be nice to Terry? My player agency is being violated! I should have meaningful choices to do what I want in a game!

I get it. Part of these games is to serve as a power fantasy for the players, and characters and situations that rub them the wrong way provokes reactions -- Kelt, Raphael, Dr. Badger, Riya, the list goes on. Now, in all of the above cases, there were indeed some ways to give these characters their comeuppance, but they were added after the fact, sometimes months so. The whole gist of Riya was that you could do nothing meaningful against the racist futa cop that was meant to provoke such a reaction until Franks was pressured into writing a path that allowed you to get her posted to New Canadia.

Infinite player agency is something best left to tabletop gaming with a human GM and your friends. And if it's not something that a player would do, the answer to that is the same as complaints of "my character acted bi, but I'm not bi" -- which is basically you're playing the champion of Hawkethorne and not you. Why are you forced to help Cait to even get the story going? Why is the Avatar obligated to destroy the Black Gate? Shouldn't the warriors of light have the option to talk down Garland instead?

As time has passed, I've learned to frankly, not care very much about the often contradictory demands of people, and do whatever I want in telling the story I want to tell -- maintaining my freedom to muck around is why I refuse to get paid or take commissions. And sometimes the option to do what you want isn't there, for whatever reason, and that's okay.

 

[Maximilian]

Vena shoots them down one by one and explains why she doesn't want to kill, exile, torture or mindbreak her former husband despite his actions, and that the final solution of imprisonment while trying to get Lagon to come around to his misdeeds

Wow, that sounds like the best solution, an in game explanation directed toward your questions. Maybe I'm just a nerd who does not mind reading world building in a porn game (or any game.) Well I'd much rather have a character in game explain their point of view then coming to the forums to ask sill stuff or vent frustrations.

Thanks for the history lesson though, I've played games on this site for a long time but never interacted with the community until recently. Glad you stuck with it.

 

[Savin]

and more threat which can also be bad for you

Warrior is the tank class. The *only* tank class. Their entire job is to draw aggro.

 

[Tristan Black]

I'll admit, most of the reason I take to the charmer class so well is because it uses a non-standard combat approach to win. I could probably use any class I wanted to well enough, I'm just not motivated enough to try.

That, and it's a porn game. Why shouldn't my avatar try to slut it up at every turn?

 

[WolframL]

That, and it's a porn game. Why shouldn't my avatar try to slut it up at every turn?

Very true, though it's also kind of fun to see if there are any special scenes that check for virginity, like the recent Evelyn content. Which is why I've got a male and female Champion file where the 'main' ongoing saves have them keeping it just in case... and other Champion files for characters who will do anyone or anything at least once. And no, I didn't start my chaste male Champion run with the specific aim of eventually seeing the upcoming Cait scene Savin's teased where she'll give up her anal virginity because my first male Champion run involved a loss to Arona where she got quite thoroughly rectally rooted, robbing the Champion of the first time. Why do you ask?

 

[Stemwinder]

I get it. Part of these games is to serve as a power fantasy for the players, and characters and situations that rub them the wrong way provokes reactions -- Kelt, Raphael, Dr. Badger, Riya, the list goes on. Now, in all of the above cases, there were indeed some ways to give these characters their comeuppance, but they were added after the fact, sometimes months so. The whole gist of Riya was that you could do nothing meaningful against the racist futa cop that was meant to provoke such a reaction until Franks was pressured into writing a path that allowed you to get her posted to New Canadia.

Infinite player agency is something best left to tabletop gaming with a human GM and your friends. And if it's not something that a player would do, the answer to that is the same as complaints of "my character acted bi, but I'm not bi" -- which is basically you're playing the champion of Hawkethorne and not you. Why are you forced to help Cait to even get the story going? Why is the Avatar obligated to destroy the Black Gate? Shouldn't the warriors of light have the option to talk down Garland instead?

As time has passed, I've learned to frankly, not care very much about the often contradictory demands of people, and do whatever I want in telling the story I want to tell -- maintaining my freedom to muck around is why I refuse to get paid or take commissions. And sometimes the option to do what you want isn't there, for whatever reason, and that's okay.

"No player agency whatsoever" isn't a very good solution to this problem. When approaching content in a game it will necessarily involve the player character to some extent, to allow them some room to be kind, cruel, or something in between, because content in a game is by nature the presentation of options to a player. Frankly - and I say this not to hurt your pride but as feedback - your apparent disdain for a player's desire to engage with your content isn't conductive to an inherently interactive medium. The opposite end of trying to capitulate to every out-there request to maim any and every character who dares lock eyes with the avatar of a player who wanted their sex game experience to be a serial killer simulator is locking down the player character's options to the point where they have no say in anything that happens. An utterly passive PC comes off as a bizarre nonentity with no feelings, presence, or input. How the player character is written will shape expectations; if the Champion is a void then players will expect that this is to allow them the freedom to do or say whatever comes to mind in a scene (within the bounds of what's available to them) without needing to worry about constraints like consistency. On the other hand if the champion of Hawkethorne is a character, as you say, then people will expect you and the rest to write them as though they -are- a character - someone who will react sensibly to the things that happen around them.

You've gotten into the habit of writing the champion as a nonentity while still taking the stance that they're a character and this has filled your content with bizarre contradictions in a number of places. The sheer passivity of your PC in Kiyoko's content is -very- strange; you go out of your way to write material that upsets and alienates readers but none of this is reflected in the player character and it never stops to ask the player for any input. They're never so much as given the basic and sensible option to have that Vena-style conversation that allows them to bring up immediate concerns. The PC in these scenes is -so- uninvolved in these affairs, the other characters care -so- little for what they might think or feel that they come off less as a participant in it as an...observer.

It's perfectly reasonable to limit player agency but taking it away entirely isn't just a childish overreaction - it's poor form.

 

[Stemwinder]

Wow, that sounds like the best solution, an in game explanation directed toward your questions. Maybe I'm just a nerd who does not mind reading world building in a porn game (or any game.) Well I'd much rather have a character in game explain their point of view then coming to the forums to ask sill stuff or vent frustrations.

All of the Lagon content in FoE was, incidentally, a very good example of why player agency -is- an important issue for game content. Stopping once in a while to run things by the player character, and in doing so give the player themselves some options, will keep them much more engaged than novels that trigger as they walk around. With Lagon there were two ways to go about it, a number of options to get to know each of the characters, and it struck a very nice balance between the characters operating under their own auspices and considering suggestions the player character might reasonably make and desires the player might have while engaging with it. That's well-constructed game content!

 

[Muted_ReDead]

It's perfectly reasonable to limit player agency but taking it away entirely isn't just a childish overreaction - it's poor form.

Everything you said up to this point was excellent, but calling this a childish over-reaction is in poor form yourself, given the dev's history with player feedback. From their perspective this statement must seem hilariously ironic. From what I'm reading, it seems like all of this is a result of the feedback received by the audience over the years, and what you call good game/narrative design was what caused a shitstorm of unprecedented magnitude previously, so maybe give the writers a break in this regard.

 

[Stemwinder]

Framing a major piece of writing with the express intent to spite a few people who didn't like the way a past collaborative effort was handled -is- a childish overreaction. I placed it there at the end so that it could be reflective, so that if he did happen to read what I think to be some sound criticism, it would come off less as an insult and more of a call to re-evaluate. Writing is an exercise in narcissism - quite literally we are staring into our pools - and so the process is subject to the whims of ego. Thinking all critical feedback is a whiny encroachment because some critical feedback is unreasonable, especially when it comes to something as important as player agency is to a game, is an ego trap that I've seen colleagues fall into far too many times while gazing at their reflections.

Sometimes we need to hear how something we did comes off to know how it comes off.

 

[Tide Hunter]

the art not matching description always a bit frustrating.

Ragnild's skin is a lighter shade of green than Arona's, despite the scene that says that showing both her bust and Arona's, letting you quite clearly see that Arona has incredibly light skin compared to Ragnild.