Community College Hero: Releasing Soon

Hosted Games Works In Progress
1151

So I went through it a couple of times yesterday and these are what I found! You might have already fixed some of the judging by the thread today but I’m honestly too lazy to play through everything again right now, I’m sorry!

“The shadow cast by his hood, combined with his forest green domino mark”

“Tolly starts to answer your question”
Even if you decide to tell her that you’ll study harder.

“You shakes Stoic’s hand and complement her strategy.”

“He looks to you and Dirty Girl. (”)But you two can go with either of us. Come on, Genesis, you can come with me."

One of the options on how to handle your interview with Dean Tolly about Epiphany:
“If I’m lshe won’t suspend me”

If you chose to be honest:
“(smmall decrease in Dean Tolly relationship)”

“Look, I consider ya’ll friends. I wasn’t tryin’ to be an jerk about this.”

Also when you learn DG’s secret, the (You have learned DG’s secret!) part isn’t bolded.

As a Tactician with a listening device, I didn’t get the chance to activate it like I did as a Detective when I chose to stick with DG at Epiphany.

Also when I do activate it, it loops back to the earlier wall of text:
"You slip out a small metal disc and point it in the officer’s direction. He doesn’t seem overly alarmed at the moment and his voice is very by-the-book. “25 at 945 Rockridge for possible 11-57. Code 4. Front secure. Headed to back of premises.”

The voice on the radio squawks back, “10-4. Are you requesting backup?”

Dirty Girl starts to move again, but you grab her arm and motion for her to stay still.

“Negative on the 10-11.” The officer turns from his vehicle and slowly proceeds around the back of the church, shining his flashlight into the windows.

Dirty Girl does a mock “Whew!” motion, wiping her bare hand over her aviator’s cap as you both sneak off. Origami flaps off into the night.

-The wall of text continues and loops back to this part-

Crook was the one who sent you the early morning message.

“did you see the news? what a crock of shit. we’re done.”

Your mind races. What news? Who’s done? Your feet move faster as you race down the sidewalk for campus. Several other students are tapping away on keyboards in the computer lab but you don’t see any of your study group members. The clown girl named Hijinx winks at you and honks her own nose, making a supremely irritating “Honka Honka!” sound.

How do you react?"

Time to be nitpick-y again! (I’m so sorry)

I forgot to mention this is my previous post.
The first two ( I think) questions in McCormick’s exam, the options don’t have A, B, C, D before them but the later question’s option’s do.

When Hedonist is all “Are you ready to give me pleasure?”, could we maybe have the option to reject him completely and tell him “No”?

Question: After the Stoic team up, will there be more options given in the beta as to how we want to spend our afternoon? Aside from watching Kepler, would we get hang with our friends (assuming we’re not in any romance or we don’t want to go on a date?) or train and stuff?

Overall, I enjoyed the update! I loved the extra touches with Crook and how differently he reacts if you’re romancing him or not (eg, if you decide to study him during Nil’s class)! I can’t wait for his date scene!
Ugh, I love DG so much and I like how affectionate she is!
[spoilers about DG’s secret]
IS THERE ANY WAY WE CAN HELP HER ABOUT HER PROBLEM?
[end spoilers]
On a side note, I was watching Scott Pilgrim vs the World the other day and Ramona Flowers with her blue hair is totally giving me some DG vibes.

1152

Yay for the update didn’t encounter any bugs on my run, boo on no Stoic romance I find her quite interesting.

1153

Azul, if I may, I think that adding a stoic romance option would significantly take away a part of her character.

Currently, Stoic is a rather interesting character - invincible, undying, aloof, and uncaring. By making adding a romance option, or even an option to be on friendlier terms with her - she would lose that part of her character.

I think Stoic is like a god that walks amongst lesser creatures. To make her a romance option would make that image of her fade away somewhat. Godlike characters are never supposed to be on the same level as the main character - often, they’re not even supposed to be understood.

1154

I think if people got a Stoic romance they would feel let down - not in any way by @HornHeadFan’s writing of course, but because part of the allure of Stoic is that she is so mysterious and withdrawn, and that we can’t romance her. Sometimes getting what you want isn’t always a good thing.

Also, haven’t played the update yet, but I’m keen to give it a go. Just need to find the time.

1155

Love the new update especially the stunner scen awesome job man I want it to be September now!!!

1156

Since I can’t romance Origami in-game I may have to resort to writing…

fan fiction

1157

@Wire, why don’t you give Crook a white puffy pirate shirt while you’re at it?

Was ANYONE able to meet Stunner at his apartment??? If you agree to go out with him after HE’LL in chapter 5 (and dump whoever you’re dating) you should get the Stunner date option instead of just resting or watching Sam Young’s movie.

Was ANYONE able to dump their boyfriend/girlfriend for Stunner?

Was ANYONE able to go on the Uni date and if you gave up your name did it work?

Did ANYONE else get an inappropriate DG break up text like @trinnie got??

1158

@ceecrab,

I’m looking into the errors. Some have been fixed already and some haven’t.

  1. the “loop” in the church has been fixed I think. I put the wrong *goto (crook has several “text” labels and I used the wrong one)

  2. yes I hope to add a few platonic socializing choices as well but I am using the study group scenes to meet some of that demand.

  3. can you help DG with her issue?? Hmm. I have to think about it…it might be an issue that continues into Part 2.

  4. and yes I also love Ramona Flowers and movie in general. DG wishes she was as cool (and scalding hot) as Ramona!

@Zanite, there is a reason you shouldn’t want to do that! Want me to PM you or do you want to be surprised? :-?

And Stoic’s inaccessibilty and the reasons for it will likely be a recurring theme in Parts II and III.

1159

I haven’t been able to get yo stunners place yet but I can try again.

1160

went on the Uni date this morning after work gave her my name & it worked fine from what i seen, she ended up whispering my name to me a few times durring the rest of the story so far

1161

@HornHeadFan

I replayed the game after you said you tweaked Stunner’s scene, but I wasn’t able to go to his apartment. He invites me to a date during the HELL class and then that’s never brought up again.

edit: I accepted his invitation both in a game where my character was flirting with Crook and one where he wasn’t. I didn’t get any option to dump Crook for Stunner, though I’m not sure I’d call him a boyfriend at that point of the story!

edit part deux: Noticed a couple of things. Playing as a bullet with 3 Woosh no longer lets me win the captue the flag game by charging at Crook and Origami.

Nope, still not getting any date scene!

1162

The bug in the game I found was when I dating uni and told her my name when I pulled her in for a kiss it says bad equality

1164

Okay I’m working on fixing some of the reported errors and misc irregularities. type type type

I’m realizing that fairmath is VERY hard to track, i.e., after five chapters and a couple dozen possible choices with ups and downs affecting a character’s relationship, it’s damn hard to figure out what a “high” or “low” score should be with a character at a given point in the story.

@122BCooper, I will PM you but swear you to secrecy. And I’m not sure about the specifics of Part III, but there could possibly be a “less than heroic” endgame. Again, I’m not sure about that though. The narrative is assuming the MC is a generally good person.

If that’s not good enough, you can enjoy Community College Villain sometime in 2017!

:slight_smile:

1165

Okay as I’m trying to fix these errors, I think many of them deal with relationships and relationship meters. It may be in my best interest to simplify the relationship coding, so I’m looking for options.

Do any of these make sense?

  1. Just reduce the number of relationship modifiers

(for example, DG has over 25 up/down relationship possibilities already and that doesn’t even account for the last two chapters, so maybe I should limit ups/downs to 2 per character per chapter?)

  1. Limit relationship modifiers to choices where the MC has to weigh the pros/cons

(as it stands now, you can pick the “right” choice in some situations and increase the relationship meter with the other character with no tradeoff whatsoever…I know that’s a huge flaw in my coding/writing)

  1. Focus more on actions as opposed to the meters

(So instead of trying to figure out if a character with a 60 Dirty Girl score in Chapter 5 has a “good” score with her, I could code *if (((defenddgincapturetheflag = “yes”) and (heatedupdancefloor = “yes”)) and (bailedoutdg = “yes”))), but then again that seems like that could get complicated too, plus I’m not sure about the coding of more than two variables at a time.)

  1. Move from fairmath meters to numbers and just use *set tress_bar +1 after a positive interaction or *set tress_bar -1 after a bad one?

(That seems like the simplest route, and I’ve already moved my combat skills to that system. The only difference is that relationships, unlike combat stats, can go down, so that complicates things a bit. I guess it would be relatively easy avoid going under zero by coding a potential relationship decrease with Tress like…

*if (tress_bar > 0)
*set tress -1

  1. Maybe another option I’m missing?
1166

@HornHeadFan You could always do what NS did in Unnatural and put assigned numbers. (Not exactly as he did it) So a score of 25 neutral, 10 is Disdain, 35 is friendly, 45 is Besties, and 55 is Amorous. Couple that with the choices you make with the characters and it could work.

1167

Im kind of a shallow sap i think…i kinda like stunner :x

but i feel he might actually be nice inside, that jerk outer shell he has on might just be a show of insecurities! ----right?

1168

@HornHeadFan You would need to go with gosubs then.


*set tress_bar +10
*gosub cap_stats

*label cap_stats

*if (tress_bar > 100)
   *set tress 100
*if (tress_bar < 0)
   *set tress 0
*return

Or the same thing using gosub_scene.


(In game)
*set tress_bar +10
*gosub_scene cap_stats


(In text-file cap_stats)
*if (tress_bar > 100)
   *set tress 100
*if (tress_bar < 0)
   *set tress 0
*return

Then you would need to create a separate text-file for it, that’s easier since you won’t need to insert gosubs into every single text file. But frankly I would suggest you just get comfortable with fair_math, as long as you get the syntax right, there won’t be any room for errors and it won’t require any additional work, so out of the options, fairmath IS the easiest. Just use the search function and check every file for + and -, then you can doublecheck that you’ve written it right.

*set variable %+ value
*set variable %- value

I would also suggest a boolean, if you haven’t done so already, to check if you’re in a relationship, as otherwise there could be instances where you’re just very good friends with a high score. Or even have a separate romance meter, though that would obviously be more work.


*if (dg_romance)
   Smooch smooch
*else
   You play go fish.
1169

@MutonElite, that’s thoughtful feedback. Thanks so much!

I don’t mind the idea of percentages and using fairmath, but I still come back to the problem that it’s very hard to estimate what relationship bars should look like because of the different ups and downs. There’s no way, from my experience, to easily write out a list of possible scores based on possible choices because the pendulum swings so much heavier in the middle and barely moves on the extremes.

A +1 (or +2 or +3 for more significant interactions) just seems so much easier to track. And to prevent having to use all those gosubs, I could just set starting relationships at something reasonable like 5 and then simply only write negative relationship modifiers that total -5 for any given character (for example, Stunner’s could be -1 for losing Capture the Flag, -1 for tackling him, -1 for fighting in the gym, -1 for not taking Breaking study session seriously, and one more -1 somewhere in the last chapters). That would literally let me write a list of interactions for each character and write out lists of all possible scores.

What do you see as fairmath’s advantage over that sort of system?

And yes I have variables describing the nature of relationships (romantic or ex), while the number value represents the strength of the relationships.

1170

@HornHeadFan Well gkkiller made this for fairmath:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/s/uczp4433id7imt0/FAIRMATH%20CALCULATOR.html

But yeah it is hard to keep track of how high/low stats can be at any given time, I kept a separate document just for that, but unfortunately since I tend to go back and change things for fine tuning and adding new content, it’s hard to keep it updated properly.

I suppose that could work, but I could also see how easily it could break, you would obviously need to really keep meticulous track of those changes then. Are you saying that everyone would start out at the max relationship score then and only have it decrease when you do something bad?

1171

No, everyone would start at something like 5 and the total of all possible negatives would total 5, making it impossible to dip below 0 (I assume moving into negative numbers would cause an error so this is avoided)

Most of the modifiers would be positive moves, in increments of a anything from +1 to +3. With no cap to worry about, no gosubs are needed and I just keep a sheet for each character instead of guessing/estimating about what a good or bad score would look like at a given point in the game (as I admit to doing at present)

Compared to fairmath, this just seems:

  1. easier to track, allowing the writer to be more precise when writing character reactions because you have easier to decipher data, and

  2. allows for more rewarding character interactions, because you could build a REALLY strong bond with someone by continuing to focus on that person using this system, whereas with fairmath, once you get them to 70% or 80%, it’s like, okay, they are pretty much maxed out so why “waste” an interaction if the bar will barely move, especially since you can “invest” in another character and get a lot more bang for the buck.