Forum:Homosexual Foocubi?

From NetHackWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search


I'm a lesbian who isn't interested in incubi.

Some preliminary searches haven't turned up anything I feel I can call a lead. Anyone know of any mods or whathaveyou that would switch the interests of the foocubi?

In the SLASH'EM Extended variant, the first encounter with a foocubus has you decide whether your character is straight or homosexual. However, I don't think any other variant has that feature. --Bluescreenofdeath (talk) 11:20, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
I proposed a patch to add foocubi of varying orientations a while back, but I doubt anyone has implemented it. Aaron Rotenberg (talk) 12:15, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
That's a neat idea. I'd change the percentiles though to be roughly more 35% het, 30% bi, 30% homo and 5% ace. Word on the Wind (talk) 19:50, 5 March 2019 (UTC) Word on the Wind
I've considered implementing this in xNetHack, but all of the available/proposed ways of incorporating this seem like they have something problematic that make me hold off on it. The SLEX approach is weird because it means you get to decide, at the instant you have your first foocubus encounter, whether or not you want the encounter to proceed. Having orientation be a config-file option or a start-of-game option (like gender is) seems too weighty and important for this one smallish part of the game. The LGB patch linked above seems like it ignores the player's orientation entirely, which has unfortunate implications. Also, an implementation that makes some fixed small percentage of foocubi homosexual could land someone in hot water for perceived underrepresentation or arguments over inaccurate numbers (as seen on this page).
Also worth noting that SpliceHack has a nonbinary character option (and from what I can see in its code, that makes you totally immune to seduction attacks). --Phol ende wodan (talk) 21:47, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
"Having orientation be a config-file option or a start-of-game option (like gender is) seems too weighty and important for this one smallish part of the game."
I disagree. I would say it's of reasonable weight and importance. Foocubi interactions are a sufficiently significant part of the mechanics of the game what with permanently altering the state of your character, and yet over here on my end I -really- don't want to have relations with incubi. I'm not really okay with having to sacrifice personal comfort in order to get the most out of a game that I'm playing to enjoy. There's a reason why I spent an hour looking and when I couldn't find anything I made an account specifically so that I could ask my questions here.
I'm not a programmer or anything, but were it up to me I would have a compound option for Hetero/Homo/Bi/Ace. As such, I would encourage efforts proceeding in that direction. Word on the Wind (talk) 21:11, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Fair enough. I was thinking that of the things I listed, a config option that determines which gender can seduce you is probably the cleanest all around. (This implies that all foocubi are bisexual, but that's not really a flavor problem IMO). Bisexual and asexual character options would have problematic gameplay balance implications: bisexual would mean that 100% instead of 50% of foocubi can be used for beneficial effects (making hetero and homo characters strictly worse in this regard), while asexual would mean that the player can choose to outright ignore the whole seduction system (making the game as a whole a little easier).
Another random point: given a male/male or female/female encounter, how should that interact with the current ring of adornment mechanics where a succubus will take one from you and an incubus will put one on you? --Phol ende wodan (talk) 21:47, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

"a config option that determines which gender can seduce you is probably the cleanest all around." I can agree with this notion.

Regarding bi players and Foocubi at the same time, my thought was to simply generate half of them canceled to prevent exactly that. Ace being able to ignore seduction I feel balances out with not being able to stat-dance, in my head it sounds more like an option that enforces a Conduct, "You were asexual." similar to how there's a permanently blind option for Zen Samurai.

Regarding the Ring of Adornment, I don't super feel a need to change anything? As it currently is, if female you get it put on you, if male it's taken from you. The other interaction can't happen. If mucking with the interaction -had- to happen, I'd say it should be a Int/Cha check similar to how they try to strip you. 50/50 chance for them to try to move the ring one way or another, if you succeed the check you'd get the prompt "Don't you think this ring would look great on me/you?" Word on the Wind (talk) 22:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Having a player-specific configuration affect how monsters are generated (or some other in-game mechanic, like how likely they are to get cancelled after an encounter) would be very odd. There's no apparent flavor reason for the character's bisexuality causing half of foocubi to spawn with severe headaches in this particular incarnation of the game. It creates other oddities like randomly spawned cancelled foocubi in bones files (that someone non-bisexual finds), or generating one via kicking a sink only to have it unusable. Not saying it can't be workable, but this is the sort of thing that I would probably hold off on implementing it.
Similarly, it's not necessarily an even tradeoff to mute both the good and bad effects of seduction - not all characters will actually try to leverage the good effects, so this option will just allow them to skip out on the bad (and being immune to having your armor pieces removed is certainly nothing to sneeze at; the speedrun/tournament crowd would definitely consider asexual an optimal character configuration that should always be turned on). Again, this isn't a problem that would stop every developer, but it's something I would at least wait on while looking at feedback from a plain homosexual option. --Phol ende wodan (talk) 14:22, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

I can see your reasoning. Personally I'd just do it and make adjustments afterwards but different strokes.

Regarding just a direct homosexual option, I take it you're considering things for your fork. Supposing that someone just wanted to have that in vanilla NetHack how complicated would you say it would be to make a patch for it? Word on the Wind (talk) 19:36, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Making and publishing the patch would be as easy in the vanilla development version as it would be in xNetHack (it is not a huge patch). Building a local copy of vanilla NetHack with the patch included would be about as easy as building vanilla normally, just requiring a little extra knowledge of Git. Getting the devteam to actually incorporate the patch into vanilla would probably be very difficult. (Getting a server owner to incorporate the patch into their vanilla version is probably a crapshoot and who knows whether or not they'd incorporate it.) --Phol ende wodan (talk) 19:57, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

I have no expectations of it being made a part of the core game in any short order. I'd be satisfied with just having a patch available to anyone who wanted it. If I knew anything about the code I'd do it myself. Edit: Foocubi popping out of kicked sinks slipped my mind. For consistency whatever would be an adequate seducer should emerge.Word on the Wind (talk) 20:14, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Riding the line of thought that it'd be simple to do, are there any resources I could be directed to in the goal of making such a patch? As said I'm not a programmer so unless I get some direction I'm not really going to be able to achieve much. With some direction however I'm fairly confident that I could figure it out. Word on the Wind (talk) 20:51, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Doing it as a permanent change probably wouldn't be too difficult. Without looking too closely I think you'd want mhitu.c and try to find the "sex" code logic. Or maybe chat.c. Making it a configuration option would probably be a lot harder, but that would be the "proper" way to do it.
The first step, even if someone else writes the patch for you, is to make sure you can compile vanilla NetHack yourself. I'd suggest downloading the NetHack source code and visual studio express and make sure you can get it to run from that. -- Qazmlpok (talk) 00:01, 10 March 2019 (UTC)