If /d/ had its own game

>>6866280
>not "Ilsinne: Instincts kick Morale in the ass, overtaken by lust, sits, spreads legs"
do you even elf

File: SuckVore2.png (718KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

718KB, 800x600px

So a topdown Mgq? It has all but futa versions of every monster it feels like.

>>6866280

>what would you like to see in such a game

ADOM comes to mind almost immediately, but I'd like to see a more multi-user worl/d/ where a character that encounters a bad end would end up transformed - into a monster if gradual/partial monster transformation is present, or a broodmother if (female) characters can be used as breeding stock for monsters, or an environmental item if petrification exists. Any player who subsequently interacts with the worl/d/ would see the consequences: a chimeric and powerful monster who used to be a PC, or an infestation of (monster type) in a specific area with a broodmother at its heart, or a bunch of lootable/breakable statues of former PCs who failed to overcome a basilisk/cockatrice/etc.

Basically, the worl/d/ is a MUD without DIRECT player-to-player interactions, but players see the marks previous adventurers have made on it.

>what should be all the data included in an NPC or its AI

Decide early on what you actually want to track per character. Height? Weight? Genital size (dick length/girth, ball size/production, vagina depth/width/lip size, ovary activity, etc)? Genital number? Genital location (dicknipples, asspussies, mouthcunts, etc)? Muscle mass? What about the actual RPG mechanics - attack/defence/etc - are they derived from any of the above, randomly rolled..? The more of these you have figured before you start, the easier it will be to add new things to track or modify existing values when you inevitably realize you missed something.

>problems would you foresee in the development?

Scope is going to be a major problem. A project of this size is inherently a very ambitious undertaking. As a passion project (which fetish-motivated games often are) approaches "work", the probability of the developer dropping the project approaches 1. You are very likely to burn out just from all the /d/eviants suggesting you add their favorite/niche fetish to your worl/d/, to say nothing of potential negative feedback.

File: tent132871493147thru.jpg (165KB, 1200x900px) Image search: [Google]

165KB, 1200x900px

>>6866347

I feel I need to elaborate on the last point. A lot of the time, people look at things like Dwarf Fortress (or World of Warcraft, to use a more common example), think they know how to make something comparable or better, and set off on the project without realizing one very important detail. ON RELEASE, neither DF nor WOW had the amount of features they currently do. Trying to outdo the CURRENT state of either project with your own is an uphill battle many devs have already failed - just remember how many "WOW killer" MMOs have launched and shut down over the past decade, some due to players complaining that the games lacked content compared to WOW.

Instead of "(out)do DF", what you should be aiming for is "build a framework robust enough to incorporate future additions", then "create enough initial content to hook players", then "incremental content release to keep players interested." There was a /d/ world project named LEWD (which is still going), the dev of which managed the first of the above but failed the second. He then chose to push for outside funding while asking the players to create and submit content, which was partly why /d/ reaction to his project quickly turned sour.

The reason I'm mentioning LEWD is because it was marketed as an extremely ambitious project with a scope similar to what you're describing, with the addition of player-to-player ERP chat capabilities (which likely added another layer of difficulties due to the need for a central server for the game). By comparison, Free Cities dev is a madman, but his feverish update schedule, content additions, and no paywall keep people talking about his project - resulting in more exposure, more feedback, better dissemination, and more potential contributions on the users' part.

Basically:

a) don't get too ambitious during the planning;
b) release a SMALL stable prototype;
c) incrementally AND FREQUENTLY add content to it;
d) keep it free to maximize exposure.

File: d098.png (706KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

706KB, 1024x768px

>>6866364
>"build a framework robust enough to incorporate future additions"
that's pretty much what I had in mind. I really don't want to screw up the base platform.

I never plan on monetizing it, so I guess open-sourcing, or just mod-support, would be fine. I'm well aware of how easy software development seems on the outside and how hard it gets in practice with all the bugs and incompatibilites and shit.

Simply give up this idea.

What's that... five?

No I think it's six. This is the sixth game thread i've seen on /d/ so far.

This week.

>>6866280
>problems would you foresee in the development?

The fact that it will never get made