>>8078 Danuki doesn't have missing parts, but it does have some residue if the info box

>>8072 >>8080 That's all. Take your time

>>8082 will do, ill try the next 24 hours

>>8087 https://litter.catbox.moe/sjcl6y.zip this was so much more of a pain in the ass than I thought...... Link expires in 3 days, so grab it by then. I think I got them all.

>>8109 I have uploaded the gallery (https://e-hentai.org/g/2837055/92b1a61dc8/) The website turns the images to jpg, which replaces the transparency with a black background. However, you can get the png files through the "download original" option. Still, those files aren't ready to be put through the program yet. Once I redo the hearts (and the base of the cards) I will have to manually upscale and fit the images into the card template. That's my immediate goal. Since this process will take a few days, I want to bring attention to other points that can be done while we wait for this (in no particular order): -Balance the groupings (types, families or whatever) -Determine the maximum number of Natures in cards (I'd say 2) -Do a rules pdf -Give an effect to each nature, regroup natures without effects. -Make card backsides (picrel as proposal) Anything I might be missing?

I still have to update the Excel to have a database based on the wiki rather than the books. Programer Anon, would a database be useful for the program? If yes, is there any specifics to what I should do? Right now I'm working on excel, but I could make a CSV instead.

By the way OP, do you want to include Habitat and Diet on the cards? I'm against it because it takes space without affecting gameplay and because it wouldn't mesh well if Okayado's works et involved later on

>>8121 >Programer Anon, would a database be useful for the program? It's needed actually, as input of the program. >is there any specifics to what I should do? each row should be one girl, with columns like: name,background_filename,back_filename,portrait_filename,family,type,nature,diet,whatever,nigger,faggot Adjust the columns beyond the first four ones depending on how many attributes are to be put on the cards. >Right now I'm working on excel, but I could make a CSV instead. Make it .csv, easier to parse.

Here's the new version of the cards... most of which is visible/noticeable irl, not so much on photos videos. But the last stack shows that they're pretty flat and evenly cut. Matte photo paper 220gsm, laminated on both sides, they slide just as well as sleeved cards (because they're essentially permanently sleeved). Hard, rigid, springy, and extra thicc. Whopping 0.45mm. For reference, typical Magic the gathering and Pokemon card is 0.3mm, and Digimon is 3.5mm which is already a lot. Video rotating one card and showing how it reflects light and stuff. https://files.catbox.moe/tgt8on.mp4

>>8120 >I have uploaded the gallery (https://e-hentai.org/g/2837055/92b1a61dc8/) add a few tags, at least kenkou cross as the artist, MGE as the series and "monster girl" somewhere in there. Just don't add the loli tag, that makes the gallery go to sad panda and its a giant pain in the ass to access for lots of people (me included). >-Balance the groupings (types, families or whatever) we can do it while reworking MGE's broken science in general. Already made a thread for that >>7909. Though I also want a "vanilla" Monster Girl Taxonomy version, that just works with the broken current taxonomy. >-Do a rules pdf Working on a basic version now, it should be finished in a couple minutes. >-Give an effect to each nature, regroup natures without effects. We'll discuss it all here, and of course things will come up while testing. >-Make card backsides (picrel as proposal) Don't worry about that one, its all on me as the printer. Right now I'm using the second pic as the backside and already made myself a pdf for printing backs. Thought I wonder how different card backs for vol1 and vol2 monsters could affect gameplay... >>8121 >Right now I'm working on excel, but I could make a CSV instead. I'm pretty sure excel can just export as CSV. Libre Calc can. But I second programmer anon's take- make it CSV, its the most universal. >By the way OP, do you want to include Habitat and Diet on the cards? It could add something if I come up with a way to include them, but that'd be for the vanilla version of the game, so don't worry about them, and just skip them. >it wouldn't mesh well if Okayado's works et involved later on also a valid point >>8123 >back_filename again, its best to skip it, since adding that data won't actually improve anything on your side or my side, so its best to omit it. Card backsides are something only I have to worry about. >nature,diet,whatever,nigger,faggot my kinda man, I like it.

>>8127 >>8123 >>8120 ruled pdf ver.0.1 is here In Polish, with an english version translated by deepL. I read quickly the deepL version, and it seems close enough to the Polish one. Some things are definitely going to be vague, confusing, unbalanced or whatnot (hence its called version 0.1), so feel free to ask and discuss. I like how the scoring system turned out, its definitely unbalanced, but as a first version groundwork type of thing I think its great.

>>8123 Perfect, I'll begin working on a few hours >>8126 They look good! Text needs to be bigger, but I should be able to make space for it. >>8127 >add a few tags Forgot about that, thanks for the reminder. >Already made a thread for that I'll make sure to check it out then. >Thought I wonder how different card backs for vol1 and vol2 monsters could affect gameplay... There are several ways in which it can be implemented. They could just be treated as "expansions" and you could be able to play with them separately. Alternatively there could be optional rules/scores based on the source of the girls grouped, for which they could be grouped in separate piles (although that would require an incentive to go for a mixed strategy). >I'm pretty sure excel can just export as CSV I think so too, the question was mostly regarding formatting prior to exporting. >>8128 I'd simplify the rules regarding hand size to something on the lines of >"At the start of the game each player draws until they have 8 cards. At the start of the turn, the current player draws cards until they have a total of 9 cards among their played cards and their hand. At the end of the turn, the current player discards cards until they have 8 in total among their played cards and hand." It still needs some improvement, but I think it's a lot more concise than the current explanation for the hand rules. Also, I'd personally do the grouping rules slightly differently: >"After drawing, the current player can play any 4 cards from their hand that form a valid group or instead add any amount of valid cards to a single group they own. After this, the player discards cards until they're left with 8 in their hand. The game ends when a player has 20 or more cards in play, and the winner is decided by the amount of points they scored" That would make the rules regarding hand size only consider the hand and not the board, while also making group size a bit more standard I also have a proposal for loyal/devoted: >"Devoted monstergirls stay true to their master even when rejected. They can't be stolen from their owner's hand or discard pile" Which would also be accompanied by a rule making players only able to steal the top card of any discard pile. Also also, scoring rules could be simplified to "+1 point for each non-stolen card in a group" + bonuses for size and hard groupings. That would fix the stealing issue (which now doesn't need to be limited) while making recounts slightly easier

>I'd simplify the rules regarding hand size to something on the lines of >>"At the start of the game each player draws until they have 8 cards. At the start of the turn, the current player draws cards until they have a total of 9 cards among their played cards and their hand. At the end of the turn, the current player discards cards until they have 8 in total among their played cards and hand." >It still needs some improvement, but I think it's a lot more concise than the current explanation for the hand rules. I really don't see how it's better than the current explanation. >Also, I'd personally do the grouping rules slightly differently: >>"After drawing, the current player can play any 4 cards from their hand that form a valid group or instead add any amount of valid cards to a single group they own. After this, the player discards cards until they're left with 8 in their hand. The game ends when a player has 20 or more cards in play, and the winner is decided by the amount of points they scored" Well that'd be a pretty different game altogether from what I had in mind. Which isn't necessarily bad, but I'm not eager to rethink everything after already testing and playing with my system, which I've grown to like. But I'll consider it, maybe test it too. I think you have a single round game in mind, which is why you suggested something that'd take a lot longer and give lots more points. I'm still thinking about mahjong, so I'm thinking about a multiple round game. After 3 or so rounds we finally know a winner. In my system only 1 player gains any points in any given round, in yours all players can gain some points. In mine you have to think whether you want to rush low paying sets, or risk gathering a harder one. In yours you think more long term about what you want to collect. How (un)balanced your system is will only be apparent after some testing. So who knows. >That would make the rules regarding hand size only consider the hand and not the board, while also making group size a bit more standard I don't see how it makes them more standard when you yourself have said: >player can play any 4 cards from their hand that form a valid group or instead add any amount of valid cards to a single group they own. If anything it makes the groups less standard as now it'd be legal to gather any sets of 4 and up. >I also have a proposal for loyal/devoted: >"Devoted monstergirls stay true to their master even when rejected. They can't be stolen from their owner's hand or discard pile" Sounds pretty neat, I'll try it. >Which would also be accompanied by a rule making players only able to steal the top card of any discard pile. I'm pretty sure the rules I wrote already say that you can only take cards immediately after someone discards them. >Also also, scoring rules could be simplified to "+1 point for each non-stolen card in a group" + bonuses for size and hard groupings. Again, you're essentially thinking about a fundamentally different game. Both our ideas focus on gathering sets of waifus, but they result in completely different game dynamics and strategies. >That would fix the stealing issue (which now doesn't need to be limited) Stealing must be limited, otherwise it breaks the game, that became apparent in the very first test. >while making recounts slightly easier I don't know what you mean by "recounts". Last thing, the "they". We can (and should) use "he" when referring to any player. Not like any woman is gonna play it, and even if, its a game made by men for men, so lets drop the "they". I know the deepl version uses newspeak, I missed it when proofreading, but let's not use it here. Thanks for all the inputs.

>>8135 >>8132 Shit, I forgot to quote.

>>8135 >I really don't see how it's better than the current explanation. I think it becomes shorter and a bit more clear, but that might just be me. >Well that'd be a pretty different game altogether from what I had in mind Yeah, after reading some of your points it becomes apparent we were thinking different things. There's no need to chose a "definitive" version, several iterations you consider interesting can be included in the rulebook (like card games), but I would focus on one first, and that would be the one you have in mind. >I'm thinking about a multiple round game Oh, you wanted several rounds before determining a winner. I didn't notice. >I don't see how it makes them more standard [...] If anything it makes the groups less standard as now it'd be legal to gather any sets of 4 and up. It was a matter of personal preference. I liked more the idea of having a more "flexible" rule instead of a more "precise" one, and by "standard" I meant that there wasn't a rule/score for each scenario, but rather a rule covering multiple. >I'm pretty sure the rules I wrote already say that you can only take cards immediately after someone discards them. I might have missed it. >Stealing must be limited, otherwise it breaks the game, that became apparent in the very first test. That's true in most cases, but here I said it alongside the "+1 for non-stolen cards" rule, which would mean that stealing cards it's only useful for playing the set or rushing to 20 when you're ahead on score. But as you said, we have pretty different ideas on the rules, and stealing definitely needs to be limited in the framework you're proposing. >I don't know what you mean by "recounts". That was a bad translation from me. I meant calculating the score. >Last thing, the "they". We can (and should) use "he" when referring to any player. Not like any woman is gonna play it, and even if, its a game made by men for men, so lets drop the "they". I know the deepl version uses newspeak, I missed it when proofreading, but let's not use it here. I'll keep it in mind. Speaking about proofreading, while the translation is fine on a general level, the natures have come out a bit odd. We'll have to be very careful with the keywords if we use translators. I didn't have enough time to do an in-depth reading of the rulebook you shared, so there are some details I might have missed. I'll give it a better read later and I'll report back once I do. I do have a question right now, and that is regarding Orphan groups. Are all types with less than 3 members valid for these groups? Does the same apply for Beastman families? If a group with enough members becomes impossible to complete during the game, does it become valid for Orphan groups? Regarding the CSV, all the families and types are revised to match the wiki's, the only thing left to do is to update the natures (67 out of 238 (yes, I'm adding the 3rd book even if we don't have assets yet))

>>8138 version 0.2. I high-lightened in red the new additions/changes. English is below Polish, still DeepL, with minimal changes. I added your idea about devoted monsters. >Yeah, after reading some of your points it becomes apparent we were thinking different things. There's no need to chose a "definitive" version, several iterations you consider interesting can be included in the rulebook (like card games), but I would focus on one first, and that would be the one you have in mind. I'm still thinking about a game that'd have similar level of depth and fun with 2 players and with more. 3 players feels completely different from 2 imo. 4 players and 3 players is pretty similar, but 2 and 3 are really different. With 3 or more you can have simpler rules and still deep gameplay, something that doesn't work with just 2. Additionally, after I rework MGE's taxonomy to something that makes sense, a lot of the rules will need to change accordingly, especially scoring. Maybe your idea of the 20 cards on the table will be useful then. >Oh, you wanted several rounds before determining a winner. I didn't notice. Maybe I just forgot to say it. I added it in the new version. >Speaking about proofreading, while the translation is fine on a general level, the natures have come out a bit odd. We'll have to be very careful with the keywords if we use translators. These versions have "0" in the beginning for a reason. I see no point in translating it by hand or heavily editing the deepL version, when its just another prototype and I'll have to redo the work after each new version. Properly translating the terms and keywords will be in some later, more definite version. This time I corrected the newspeak and natures, but future iterations might have wonk again, so just try to bear with it. Its worth to note that my Polish terms for natures are also just a quick translation of the English version, which itself is also a translation. It's not much of an issue here, since the cards are in English, but if we manage to make this generator work, then I'd also make a full Polish version, at which point I'll look more into the original Japanese terms, so that the translation is more accurate. >I do have a question right now, and that is regarding Orphan groups. Are all types with less than 3 members valid for these groups? Does the same apply for Beastman families? If a group with enough members becomes impossible to complete during the game, does it become valid for Orphan groups? After rereading my groupings I found that there's actually only 7 true orphans so I changed the rule to 7 orphans and 1 other monster. At first I thought all monsters from type 3 or less would be "orphans", because there's 13 of them, just like the "13 orphans" in mahjong, the hardest set to gather, worth the most points iirc. But 13 doesn't work with hand size of 8, so I'll either have to expand the hand size to 12, and 13 orphans would be the one special set that gathers 1 extra monsters at the end, or stick to the "7 orphans + 1 other". Orphan set can also be collected from beastman families, but then it has to be limited to the beastman type, I wrote it in the new version.

>>8146 I also found out about a game called "rummy", that has a similar goal to mine. I'll read more about it and maybe use some things from it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rummy

>>8146 >These versions have "0" in the beginning for a reason. I see no point in translating it by hand or heavily editing the deepL version, when its just another prototype and I'll have to redo the work after each new version That makes sense. Thanks for the explanation of the orphan sets. I'll read the new doc later and I'll give some feedback

>>8146 Looks very solid! I think the only things left to do here are playtesting and adding some extra natures. I do have some minor nitpicks: -Why does stealing only work on a set of 4? Would it be unbalanced to allow it to work on sets of 5 and 8? -The types and families part of the doc is not the same as the wiki's. (see https://monstergirlencyclopedia.miraheze.org/wiki/Category:Type_Index and Category:Family_Index). I think it should use the one in the wiki because it's more up-to-date and because it's the one that'll be used on the third book. -Similar issue with some of the natures, but as you said previously that kind of thing can wait for the final version.

>>8208 Regarding the CSV, it's nearly finished, but here are some matters to be discussed: >MGE3 monsters I'm adding and formatting them, but they won't be included in the first version of the CSV, due to not having images. Once all assets from 1 and 2 are ready, I'll prepare the ones from 3 and add them back. To save readers some time, there's a breakdown of my following 2.5 points towards the end. >Monsters with variable natures There are some monsters who have a main nature + 2 different exclusive nature sets (see Orc) and monsters who have one or more natures that may appear conditionally (see Dragon). All of these natures can't go into the card game, so we have to establish a metric to manage these cases. For the Dragon's case I'd just ignore them For the Orc's case, it's either choosing one of the sets, ignoring both or using the nature "variable". >Monsters with the same nature twice The wiki has stablished some "nature groups", which can be seen here https://monstergirlencyclopedia.miraheze.org/wiki/Category:Disposition_Index These nature groups consist of a nature that encompasses other natures with the same descriptive intent used through the wiki (for example, the "Calm" group contains calm, composed, cool, serene and easy-going). The purpose of this is to reduce redundancy while also not needing to modify the meaning. The issue is that some monsters have 2 natures that fall into the same type (Hakutaku is Calm and Cool, both of which belong to the Calm group), which makes them redundant for card game purposes. One way to go over this would be to make their effect trigger twice if that's the case, but that's not compatible in the majority of cases, and since I'm replacing every nature by the nature group for clarity it would also look bad to see a card say Calm twice. The other way to do this would be to ignore duplicates, and that's what I'd go for. In short, there are monsters with variable and duplicate natures. My take on the matter would be to: -Ignore situational natures. -Ignore duplicates. -Replace nature sets with "Variable" OR ignore nature sets. I'll finish doing the sheet with my current method (include everything) and then I'll modify a copy according to what's decided

>>8209 New issue: The original translation for the Sphinx was "Selfish and Capricious", but the wiki's is "Selfish and Moody" and Moody is not in any group, while the Sphinx it's only on the Selfish one. Since the original translation belongs to the "impatient" group and the main definition of moody (temperamental) fits the bill I'm tempted to put her there. The entry also gives that same feeling. Moody is also close to gloomy (in the melancholic group), but the Sphinx's entry doesn't give that vibe. Alternatively, I could leave it blank or use it as-is (similar to slow, a 1-entry group). What do you guys think?

>>8210 One of the site admins had confirmed it's Capricious, so issue solved

>>8211 I don't see how a site admin has any authority in this regard. Only authority should be given to the jap original. Also, the wiki's grouping of similar natures seems like a 100% fan thing. I'd only use the terms itself and ignore the wiki's grouping. I'd also just add all the natures any monster has. Grouping the natures and resolving combo natures would be left to the rules.

>>8208 >-Why does stealing only work on a set of 4? Would it be unbalanced to allow it to work on sets of 5 and 8? If you gather 4 by stealing, then upgrading it to 5 or 8 with cards from other players would essentially let you take cards almost whenever you want. I'm thinking maybe allowing 5 and 8 steal, but only for the final card. e.g. you have 4 cards in hand, 5th is discarded and you take it and put the 5 set on the table. >-The types and families part of the doc is not the same as the wiki's. It's my list based only on the English translated books. No fan interpretation or translation, its exactly like how it looks in the books. Since the cards use the pics from the books, it wouldn't make sense to use classification that differs from them. >>8209 I'd add all natures, even redundant/similar ones. >orc I'd make her "lustful"+"various". >dragon strong willed and arrogant, ignore the rest >hakutaku Use both calm and cool. >The wiki has established some "nature groups" Ignore them (since they're a fan interpretation), stick as close to the original as possible. >The other way to do this would be to ignore duplicates, and that's what I'd go for. I wouldn't. >-Ignore situational natures. yes >-Ignore duplicates. No, they're only "duplicates" in light of the wiki's groups, which aren't canon in any way. >-Replace nature sets with "Variable" OR ignore nature sets. only replace with "various" in cases similar to Orc (mutually exclusive or very different natures).

>>8215 >I don't see how a site admin has any authority in this regard. Only authority should be given to the jap original. We can't really use the original source, since neither of us speaks japanese. That means we have to use someone's translation, either Seven Seas' or the fanslation. The translation made by the guys at the wiki has 2 big upsides. Firstly, it corrected some translation errors (Simian + Apeman being the most obvious) and also updated entries that got retconed (Angels going from Angel Succubus in MGE 1 to Angel Angel in MGE 2). The fact that the wiki's translation is updated whenever new content comes it's a pretty big upside compared to the official translation. It does seem to have an ocasional mistake (Sphinx being Moody for whatever reason), but those will get fixed, unlike the official's. Btw, Matango is a plant type in book 1, the official translation it's plain wrong. So yeah, the fan translation is more accurate than the official. >I'd also just add all the natures any monster has. I'm not against it, but you do have to keep in mind some cards stack up to 4 effects. Hopefully it doesn't affect game pace too much. >If you gather 4 by stealing, then upgrading it to 5 or 8 with cards from other players would essentially let you take cards almost whenever you want. I didn't explain myself properly. In the rules you state you can steal a card when you can complete a set of 4 with it (and you specify you need to have the other 3 in hand). What I meant to ask was why you can't do the same to complete a group of 5 (having 4 in hand) and 8 (having 7 in hand). Stealing to "upgrade" groups on the board would indeed be too much. >Ignore them (since they're a fan interpretation), stick as close to the original as possible. Groups are indeed fan-made and hold little relevancy regarding the source material, but they do serve a purpose for the card game. As you're aware, there are redundant natures (both in the official and fan translations), which are natures that have a very close meaning. In the card game it's very likely those cards would have the exact same effect (Aggressive/Violent, Devoted/Loyal, etc). These are effectively groups. So we have 41 natures in the official translation and 69 in the fanslation. That's a nightmarish amount of keywords for a card game. Not all of them will have an effect of course, but ideally the majority will. Of course, some of those effects will be the same, so we won't have 41 different effects, but perhaps 25. The question now is, what benefits does it have to include two different keywords that refer to the same effect? It's just confusing, specially with so many effects already in the game. So while I can understand you don't like the ones used in the wiki, we do need to make groups and trim the number of keywords for clarity. So until we have our own I'll be using the pre-existing ones. Also, proposal for an effect for Calm: >When a card triggers an effect you can discard a card with calm to nullify one of it's effects

>>8220 >using wiki fan translations that get changed to be more accurate(on a whim) that just seems like a worse idea. In the end the biggest result of this is you'll have three different versions going around and none of them will match with each other. Unless you reprint your cards whenever something changes.

>>8224 That's a very good point actually. Still, I believe the upsides outweigh the risks.

>>8220 >We can't really use the original source, since neither of us speaks japanese. That's where you're wrong kiddo, I know moonrunes. The only reason I'm not eager to read into MGE is that the jap text is mostly in low quality pics on Kurobinega site, and guessing kanji from a couple of pixels is never fun. I can't even copy and paste it into dictionaries, but have to manually rewrite anything I might want to check. My idea is to have an ultimate English version by just adding the jap categories in parentheses next to translations. It's really that simple. But would require some extra work. Maybe next week I can see just how much it would take (I'm thinking of updating the wiki by adding the original kanji for taxonomy and natures). >Calm nature rule idea Sounds neat, I'll see how it might work with others. >Still complaining about adding all natures Bro, just add them all like they appear in the books, we can always just find and replace the keywords in the csv when editing the file specifically for card game rules. Any arbitrary decisions should be saved for last. Right now we're NOT rethinking MGE, only describing it as is. I'll address other things from your post later.

>>8226 >That's where you're wrong kiddo, I know moonrunes. My bad for assuming the contrary. >Bro, just add them all like they appear in the books Alright, I'll comply.

>>8220 >translation errors (Simian + Apeman being the most obvious) >Btw, Matango is a plant type in book 1, the official translation it's plain wrong. >So yeah, the fan translation is more accurate than the official. You just admitted you don't know jap. And then you go and say (CORRECT) stuff about the jap original and translation. You are right that Kakuen and Yeti are the same type (monkey/ape/primate/whatever) and same case with Matango being plant (even if its kinda stupid otherwise). I'm just confused since you seem to be able to use the jap original at least a little. >angel retconning original jap text that's still on kurobinega has angel/succubus for angel and dark angel https://kurobine.sakura.ne.jp/mamonogirllover/zukan/page/datensi.jpg and angel/angel for houri https://kurobine.sakura.ne.jp/mamonogirllover/zukan/houri/houri.jpg And to add to the confusion the jap names for angel is エンジェル(Enjeru, phonetic representation of the english word), but names of types and families have 天使 (Tenshi, jap word for angel). This is all an unholy mess. If we go by jap original then we have a situation like with Yeti and Kakuen, that should be in the same groups, but aren't. If we go with the new English version we'll have something more logical, but not canon. We're fucked either way. Yeah, lets go with wiki's English taxonomy, there's no such thing as a "correct" version anyway... Later we'll have fun getting rid of all the jank. >why you can't do the same to complete a group of 5 (having 4 in hand) and 8 (having 7 in hand) I think that'd be alright, would require more tweaks to the scoring system tho. I dunno which would be worth more. Set of 4 with 1 taken card, later upgraded to 5, or set of 5 where the fifth card would be taken from another player. I think the latter, since there's more possibilities of losing that set of 4. Btw, "upgrading" a set here means just drawing another card and adding it to the table.

>>8231 >You just admitted you don't know jap. And then you go and say (CORRECT) stuff about the jap original and translation. I used Google Translate, which works well enough with short texts. Also, before bothering with the translator I compared the images I uploaded and saw they shared a set of characters, which I assumed it was the type. >>angel retcon Yeah, it doesn't match the original source because it was something implemented afterwards, and while we don't have direct confirmation it's logical to asume the change. >Yeah, lets go with wiki's English taxonomy, there's no such thing as a "correct" version anyway... Later we'll have fun getting rid of all the jank. Alright. >I dunno which would be worth more. Set of 4 with 1 taken card, later upgraded to 5, or set of 5 where the fifth card would be taken from another player. I think the latter, since there's more possibilities of losing that set of 4. I think so too. There's also the option to make both score the same as they are "impurely gathered", but that could make upgrading a bit better in general. >Btw, "upgrading" a set here means just drawing another card and adding it to the table. Don't worry, we're on the same page in that one.

Can you guys prepare a sample sheet with 2-3 girls? For the next 2 weeks I will have more time and I'd like to try and make a final version of card generator, I just need something to test it on.

>>8303 I'll get you something tomorrow, I still need to re-do some asset-related stuff

>>8303 >>8334 In the end I couldn't do it. I'll be pretty occupied in the coming days, I don't know when I'll be able to produce.

>>8379 >>8334 >>8303 Aight, I made some sample data for 7 monsters myself. The CSV is formatted as "name,portrait_filename,type,family,nature1,nature2,nature3" I hope its useful. I left spaces in names and types as is, I dunno if I should've replaced them with underscores. In the zip I included all the relevant files, fonts and background base image. I haven't included background filename in the CSV because for now it'd be alright if all of them have the same background. link expires in 3 days so make sure to save it https://litter.catbox.moe/ixmm4h.zip

>>8382 Alright, I'll try to dig into it this weekend

>>8384 nice

>>8382 Alright, I have the first version working and it's looking quite good I think. https://pixeldrain.com/u/7DeAfqng Here's the zip with generated cards and the modified input sheet to use. Take a look at the header, I added columns for x,y offsets of portrait and nature labels since those might need special corrections depending on the girl, if none are needed then they still need to be set at 0. Also the delimiter had to be switched to semicolon since natures need to be a single string with commas between, like >Violent, Selfish Think of what would need to be changed, fonts and such. Meanwhile I'll see if I can think of a saner Y axis centering for portraits, taller girls like Succubus come out nice with the current setting, but shorter ones like Slime are put too high.

>>8434 Nice, we're getting somewhere! >families before types aight, I know that's how it is in original MGE, but like many things in MGE, its a bad idea. Type is the higher taxonomic rank (more generic) so it should be first, and family after it. When adding more taxonomic ranks (categories), they should go in order starting from most generic to most specific. I think the portraits should be scaled more, they're far too small now. I also think both the monster name and taxonomy should be made larger too. Taxonomy could be made italic. The font we have now doesn't really have lower case, so I wonder how we could work around it. I could try finding another one, or you could try making the first letter few points larger than the rest to have pseudo upper case. I dunno how hard/annoying that'd be, just throwing the idea out there. Also, do you mind sharing the program/code (or whatever it is) you wrote? I'd like to see how it looks, maybe I could come up with something too. Question: how hard would it be to implement more taxonomic ranks? Something that'd look like "origin, domain, type, family, species, subspecies". That said, thanks again!

>>8434 >>8436 I experimented a little with the psuedo upper case. It looks serviceable. Maybe "Strong Girls" font could be used for names and "Ambassador" for descriptions. "Strong Girls" already looks like its boldened, almost too much to be honest. Tho aside for that it looks better than Ambassador in most areas.

>>8436 >so it should be first, and family after it ok >I think the portraits should be scaled more, they're far too small now. I would instead scale down the card, it's in a very high resolution already and upscaling the portrait will worsen its quality. The end result will be the same, only that cards will come out in a slightly smaller res (15% less, maybe?). Unless the card res needs to be preserved for some reason, then I can look for a fancier upscaling method to keep the quality in check. >you could try making the first letter few points larger than the rest to have pseudo upper case. It's possible but might result in very ugly inconsistencies because of how it's handled in this graphics library (basically they parts of sentence in different fonts have to be drawn and aligned separately). I'll try it for the next iteration, but finding a proper font is vastly preferable. >Also, do you mind sharing the program/code https://pastebin.com/NtaQnSGy >Question: how hard would it be to implement more taxonomic ranks? Something that'd look like "origin, domain, type, family, species, subspecies". If you want more of the "stat" labels at the side where there's only nature now, that's literally a matter of copying lines 30,31,32, replacing the text string and adjusting anchor point downwards in Y axis. For the "family/type" label stuff, it's the same deal but keep in mind there isn't much space there before the portrait starts.

>>8439 >nice, he shared the code >...now I just have to relearn python well, that's my problem, but at least I can see its very readable, shouldn't take too long once I have the time for it. >I would instead scale down the card yeah, that's alright too. All that matters is that the portrait fills nicely as much space as possible >finding a proper font is vastly preferable. I'll try to find something in the next few days >If you want more of the "stat" labels at the side where there's only nature now, that's literally a matter of copying lines 30,31,32, replacing the text string and adjusting anchor point downwards in Y axis. >For the "family/type" label stuff, it's the same deal but keep in mind there isn't much space there before the portrait starts. Sounds very manageable, nice.

how are you doing programmingfag and gimpfags? >>8334 have you been able to do something with the csv? >>8439 did you do anything with the generator since last time?

>>8888 >did you do anything with the generator since last time? I assumed the classifications are still not set in stone so I was kind of waiting until everything is ironed out. That said, I'll to play with size scaling tomorrow.

>>8895 fair enough

Ok I've improved the generator a bit, now the portrait are automatically centered in Y axis too and the card background was scaled down 20% so now the girls are bigger without losing image quality. Also switched places for type and family. Now that the portraits are bigger it can be seen that Nature will often overlap the portrait, but this is handled with nature_x_offset column where you can set it to be X pixels higher or lower than it is by default. Same for nature_y_offset, input sheet remains the same as before. For the next improvement I'll come up with some method to adjust that brown line under attributes so it matches the longest attribute. For now I'm leaving it at one attribute until it's decided which ones will be added.

>>8980 good job, keep it up if gimp anon won't show up, I'll do the csv sheet, tho that'd be in like 2 months or so

Hello again guys, sorry for taking so long. I've been pretty occupied with personal stuff, but starting next week I'll be able to continue working with you. >>8888 >>9005 Aside from the CSV I had to re-do the backgrounds, right?

>>9429 For now just do the csv for the whole 2 books use >>8434 as reference for how it should look.