Xaufin

On 11/21/2022 at 8:47 PM, Xizi said:

On 11/21/2022 at 1:14 PM, Xaufin said:

Rooms have to stay open without the owner, otherwise disconnects and other emergencies would interfere with running it. Pay per hour might be useful.

For alts, I would suggest making them a feature that is cheaper than separate accounts and performs better, but they also don't count toward room numbers. I think the only other way to stop the alt problem is to require a door charge, so if you stay longer than 15 mins in a room you pay 50 gold. It would cost them 2000 more gold per hour to run 40 alt accounts, and their guests might be less inclined to spend their 50 gold at a place that uses fake accounts.

But that's basically a whole different game at this point.

Is this some kind of bad joke? So a regular paying customer, who don't buy xgold, just pays the subcription - have a right to stay 300/50*15 = 90 mins in public rooms? 90 mins in public rooms and then go away and do something else in private because few ego-driven room-hosts are having a bad feelings because of unfair competition? Like... Lets wreck the game quality for 90% of playerbase to please few dozens of room hosts? Great idea.

 

But it's not 50 gold per 15 minutes. I said if you stay longer than 15 mins, you get charged 50 for the evening.

The idea would be:

• Non-club rooms have a player limit of 20.
• Small club rooms have a player limit of 40, and cost 1000 gold per hour to run.
• Small club rooms have no player limit, and cost 2000 gold per hour to run.
• Joining a club room is 50 gold for a guest for the night.
  • At 10 mins, users are prompted to pay to stay. If they haven't paid by 15 minutes, they're removed.
• Remove boosting entirely but list clubs (paid rooms) in a section at the top above other rooms.
• Instead of putting numbers by rooms, use dots to show the range of users.
  • No dot for less than 10 users, then dots representing more players than 10, 20, 40, 80.

What happens:

• The 40 dancer alts pay 50 gold once, but that's all they can pay. So the first hour is paid for, but those alts add no money for subsequent hours, so the room owner must attract new unique guests, or just lose 2k per hour.
• 150 free xGold per day means visiting 3 clubs for free. Clubs will run shorter hours and aim for higher quality experiences to attract the needed players, instead of faking their popularity with alts.
• Not showing room numbers probably means less competition. 
• Small rooms that "don't care about numbers" and aren't "ego-driven" experience the exact same game they do now!

As I said, it would be a whole different game. These features would be a start, but they would also benefit from additional economy design (bartending, sending gold, worthwhile gold purchases, etc.) and better room sorting by room type as I mentioned.

Sorry for derailing my own thread.

On 11/20/2022 at 2:27 AM, MeiLing said:

they create multi accounts.... and alts to fill their empty rooms and stop the ability to leave a room open without being online. The list has become a mess since this feature.

Pay per open is the best solution

 

Rooms have to stay open without the owner, otherwise disconnects and other emergencies would interfere with running it. Pay per hour might be useful.

For alts, I would suggest making them a feature that is cheaper than separate accounts and performs better, but they also don't count toward room numbers. I think the only other way to stop the alt problem is to require a door charge, so if you stay longer than 15 mins in a room you pay 50 gold. It would cost them 2000 more gold per hour to run 40 alt accounts, and their guests might be less inclined to spend their 50 gold at a place that uses fake accounts.

But that's basically a whole different game at this point.

On 11/19/2022 at 2:27 AM, CatKatW said:

I don't feel I should be forced to see the colored nametags you freely purchase. Same thing with the rooms you choose to boost.

I'm very happy with the colored tag disable option. Same with the future sorting/favoriting of rooms.

Anyway I would give you a point regarding rooms list... despite the sorting, the boosted room should stay on top (or on top of the non-favorites, if this feature is used).

 

Yeah to be clear, I have the names disabled, but this means people who think they're showing off to us actually aren't, and are therefore being misled by their purchase. The only thing better than the disabling of the feature would have been to find a better use for colored names, such as a different color for friends, instead of just Microsoft WordArt everywhere.

2 hours ago, BellaGirl said:

This is kind of the problem we have with the current sorting, there's no real good answer that solves everybody's concerns. Honestly, my vote would be to keep everything the same and just add the new search feature.

Exactly, there are different players with different preferences. The game is used in several very different ways.

• Clubbers/Hosts: Like to have their rooms visible to throw big parties.
• Cold: Like to find big fuck rooms with lots of acronyms in their titles.
• Explorers/Builders: Like to visit builds from bottom to top.
• Gamers: Like to find board games and mazes that add an extra element to the fuckin.
• Roleplayers: Like to find dedicated RP rooms to create a character and story.

The top two categories probably make up more than half of players, while the remainder are scattered among other smaller rooms. The biggest problem with the new sorting feature is that it doesn't particularly help anyone and appears to invalidate gold boosts entirely.

For the record, the current system of boosting and advertising sucks. Which is, again, because rooms with different purposes are being shown in the same list.

People looking for clubs are looking for clubs. People looking for 100-player cold rooms are looking for 100-player cold rooms. People looking for 2-player quickie rooms are looking for 2-player quickie rooms. Showing them all in the same list serves absolutely nobody and encourages everyone to effectively waste gold, which is predatory (a.k.a. scammy). Any system that enables players to waste gold, whether they know it or not, is predatory.

Sort feature is the right answer.

• The favorites filter is fine (does it save rooms by player, or name, or just instance?).
• The numbers filter is okay, but only if it preserves boosting functionality in a meaningful way, otherwise you're screwing boosters like before.
• What you need to add is a type filter. Let us declare a room type when we open: club/sex/game/rp/other. Then players can look for what they want much easier.

I believe I first suggested room filters on the forums about 18 months ago. So I'm glad the devs have decided they're worthwhile, but the most important filter to add is room type. Please do it.

17 hours ago, Xizi said:

The feature to disable colorful names was introduced in the same update as a colorful names themselves. People was knowing what they paying for.

No one forcing you or anyone else to use room boost. 

It isn't about whether they're forced or whether they realize what they're paying for. 

But yes, the club meta does require people to use room boost, with the expectation that it works uniformly and as intended and can't simply be disabled. Implementing the sorting feature without improving the boost feature will just create a worse environment akin to when rooms were always sorted by numbers.

Please add the option to choose a category when you host, such as club / sex / rp / other. Those would be useful filters to use when searching the room list.

@Gizmo @Lisa

When you released the colored nametags for people to purchase, you also included the option to disable the tags. This means people could purchase something that other people will not see, which is bad design at best, a scam at worst.

Now, you're introducing the ability to sort rooms, which is wonderful. But players are still paying to promote their room to the top of the list. So again, you have conflicting features, one of which is paid. That is bad design at best, a scam at worst.

Maybe you already have a solution to the problem you're about to cause, but the preview videos on Discord suggest you don't.
We appreciate the efforts to improve 3DX, but your approach to some of these features is messy and doesn't cater to the way players run rooms.

A+ idea.

But given how the new material system causes old avatar files to load with the wrong colors, I shudder to think what bugs this could cause if they're as sloppy in the implementation.

Add this feature, but also please do it thoughtfully without causing bugs.

Thanks for the gloves and hats.

Now please add ties and capes as accessories so I can complete my cosplay of the Hamburglar.

Yeah. Rooms could use a lot of settings to tailor their experiences.

Optimistic here, but adding things that support the room's host would be great, so that successful rooms have their advertising bump costs covered by the traffic.
Applying a camera shader to warp the screen when they're drunk would also be a nice touch.

Currently it's 35 gold to give the devs money for putting a mesh in your hand. Maybe improving features like that would be a better monetization approach than your nametag scheme.

@GizmoThere were also discrepancies between male and female activation of the portals. Females need portals to be slightly higher at minimum than males do. (maybe raycast from the player instead of their model. or just use trigger volumes instead of raycasting)

I think one-way portals would be more user-friendly for newbies (green entry, red exit). Or just give portal objects some settings, like a checkbox that could be true or false.

It might be one of the worst monetization attempts I've ever seen.

• If forced upon everyone, it would become irritating
• If hiding colored names is allowed, the people purchasing them aren't actually getting the personal expression they paid for (a scam)
• The prices are too high and arbitrary (and temporary?)
• The customization isn't even smartly done. You could just provide a customizable gradient instead of 30 arbitrary premade patterns. Microsoft WordArt was like 20 years ago, guys.

The icons over names may have some merit, but there are better things you could provide with name colors. For instance, friends' names are green. Or designated members of the room's organization (if you had organizations). Or different friend groups.

The early internet, up through the MySpace era, was plagued with excessive customization and eyesores. We didn't really need nametags looking like a sidebar ad from the '00s. Avatars are individualistic enough (though of course men could use more than one suit).

If you must keep the features as they are, at least reconsider the pricing approach:

1. Keep them temporary but a flat price across the board. Let users decide how far they want to take the customization (ideally with better tools)
2. Make the tag purchase permanent

But because you can't spare my eyes and grant people personal expression at the same time, the only ethical, non-predatory approaches are:

1. Remove the new nametag feature
2. Keep it, but make it free
3. But seriously, just remove it

Settings -> Game -> Display other colored names: false
It's already there

While I appreciate the effort put into fixing bugs, some of the bugs enabled things in this game that are now no longer possible.
Names being hidden below 0 elevation was useful to have, even if not an intended feature.

What I would suggest is adding a new World Editor object called a Nameless Volume, or perhaps Bedroom Volume.
A simple resizable cube-shaped trigger collider that hides the nametags of those who walk inside. This would be no more difficult or performance-intensive than culling names by distance or portal triggers, both of which are already in the game!

The primary application would be in giving more privacy to occupied bedroom spaces, as well as other hidden areas that certain rooms make use of.

It's important that room owners have more flexibility in the type of environment they provide, rather than just assuming all players want the same settings.

Song: In My Head - Pale 3

Might be nice to have a settings option to temporarily disable gizmos (the green selection boxes). Their rendering while selected is responsible for a lot of that lag.
When I did the architect's room from the Matrix, it was a few hundred objects selected at once and even moving the camera became slower.
 @Gizmo
 

JeeeeeesusChrist no pun intended. You're incredible.

On 4/16/2021 at 8:00 PM, JenC said:

There's far too many variables for IK or anything like that to be a realistic option here. The pose editor as you mention is what would take 3dx to the next level for interactivity between characters. If the current character editor had values assigned to the sliders(which is an easy addition) and you could use the models you assign to the animator, then you could make perfect fitting animations for all sizes.  User says my char is xx xx xx xx xx xx dimensions, can you make/adjust this pose for them, because if you've already made the animation then it would be a case of adjusting it to suit the different hip/breast etc sizes.

Nothing is preventing IK. And it's the only way to make different sizes work.
Otherwise, with a slider that ranges from 0.0 to 1.0, they would have to hand animate every relevant pose to suit 100 different settings (0.00, 0.01, 0.02...) If the slider had only 3 states (small, medium, large), then they'd only have to hand animate 3 times for every relevant pose. But that's still more work than just implementing IK.

If the pose editor could accommodate those slider values, it would still do so with IK.

3 minutes ago, Diana Prince said:

But Gizmo doesn't say the update will come out this month?!

I think he said April in an older comment I read on his forum profile. It was the goal.

Yeah, nipple placement is an interesting problem that makes certain foreplay poses seemingly impossible. A breast sucking animation that works fine on small breasts would end up swallowing the partner's entire head if the breasts were max size.

I've mentioned before this should be solvable with inverse kinematic (IK) animation, where one avatar's mouth is navigating by code to a point on the other avatar instead of using preset keyframe positions.

The mythical "pose editor" might be able to solve this too, where players could trade poses or pose files like "breastplay_small", "breastplay_medium", etc. that would manually account for these differences. Still wouldn't work if "_medium" was for a 50% breast and their partner had 48% breasts, but it's a start.

50 minutes ago, Neur said:

"We've heard that you're planning a big interesting feature release for this month."

Where is this info from?

 

From Gizmo on April 2nd, in the topic about April FOol's.
---

Quote

 

Hi guys,

This is not an April Fool's joke. We want to add poses in the cage. And this will be part of our content update. At the moment, we are working on 3 updates to the game:
1) Content update
2) Collaboration with another company, this update will add a unique feature to the game, which is still not available on the market
3) Customizing the clothing update