>>7500 There needs to be also the "Joker" card, (You)

>>7501 I don't get what you mean with (you), but I thought about a joker card, that'd be Alp, having that card means you lose. That aside, I kept thinking and figured something mahjong style could be cool. Each player tries to collect a set of girls from a specific type, family or colour. The fewer members any category has, the more its worth. For example the "Sprite" type has only 4 monsters, so it'd be worth a lot, while "Beastman" has like 40, so it'd be worth very little. Each turn a player draws a card, and discards one, like in mahjong. Other players can take that card if its useful for their hand. Based on the discarded card you can also guess what a player tries to collect, so that'd add strategy. The player that collects the most valuable set wins. Best played with 3 or more people. And the best part: it could use all 200 monsters, no one gets left out. At least in theory, MGE taxonomy is broken as hell, so there's a lot of monsters that are alone in their categories. I'd have to figure out how to incorporate them into the game too.

>>7502 >I don't get what you mean with (you) It was a play on MGE often addressing You, the reader directly and how You are about to be deliciously devoured and what not. In the simplified "war" card game I used to play as a kid, players would pit cards against each other and the higher value wins, even skipping their suits and colors. In that format Joker was the highest value card and would beat every other card. Reversed it would also work since you can't beat monster pussy, nope.

>>7503 Ah, now I get it, thanks. Meanwhile I found that apparently some cards already exist. Even if they're 100% Chinese, they still look appealing.

>>7505 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=g1PWy7aOeHE There's a video too

>>7505 Kek, I wonder if they are licensed. 170 CBLN isn't too bad, I'd go for it even just for bragging rights on the chans.

>>7507 >170 CBLN What currency is that?

>>7509 I'm polish and I didn't know that. But yeah, it is pretty cheap, at 100 cards per box it's like 1.7zł/card or 50 cents. Comparable to normal TCG prices.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=W6tLKZ_J3uE https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/grimagia-monster-girl-card-game/#/ Someone did some card game with mongirls like a decade ago. Doesn't look bad despite being western. Tho there doesn't seem to be that much info online about it. Later I'll look into it more.

>>7500 A minor thing, but I think the signature MGE heart would fit nicely on the reverse of the cards as a logo.

>>7520 Nice idea, I was thinking of the textless cover of volume 2

During research I found a ton of interesting things, and a couple of seemingly complete card games. 1 of which is downloadable and printable! https://tradingcardarchives.com/2023/08/11/monster-girl-encyclopedia/ https://tradingcardarchives.com/product-category/waifu/monster-girl-encyclopedia/?product-page=1 In depth review of those MGE cards, and some scans of them. https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/mggedev/monster-girl-descent-nsfw-adult-card-based-roguelike/description some kickstarter for a video game card game. https://wanderergame.itch.io/aura another video game card game, not focused on mongirls, but does have them. Looks kinda lame tbh https://monstergirlmasters.com/ another monster girl card game, this time physical. With art like this, I guess its safe to say they didn't steal any illustrations. https://www.reddit.com/r/MonsterGirl/comments/2xbtod/monster_girl_quest_cards_for_tabletop_simulator/ Monster Girl Quest cards for Tabletop Simulator And last and best: https://www.reddit.com/r/MonsterGirl/comments/8r20rx/a_monstergirl_card_game_with_hundreds_of/?rdt=37337 A finished, free, printable game from some guy on reddit, based on MonMusu online game. Seems really impressive, considering it's 100% fan made. Card designs and illustrations are nice too (all from Okayado or MonMusu online game of course). Added the files here, just in case google, or reddit decide one day to nuke it or smth. I've had enough of dead links.

>>7536 >https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/mggedev/monster-girl-descent-nsfw-adult-card-based-roguelike/description Interesting, looks to be another project from the guy behind https://mggedev.itch.io/monstergirlinvasion It wasn't the greatest game around, but hopefully this one will be improved thanks to the experience gained.

If anyone has any idea how to enlarge a specific part of an image on 200 images I'd love to hear it. Doing it manually sounds terrible and it seems like it could be automated. Printed and cut first prototypes. Double sided matte photo paper 220gsm, laminated on one side (80micron). Next to a normal pokemon card for comparison. Pic 2 shows 3 stacks of 18 cards each, left is pokemon, middle and right are printed and cut by me. Middle is glossy photo paper 260gsm, not laminated. Pros: they feel pretty good to handle, they slide nicely, making them easy to shuffle or deal out, they look good as cards, card backs also look really good Cons: a bit too thin/soft, so they don't feel THAT great, all of them are curved due to laminating, making them less appealing than if they were flat, all text is a bit too small. It's still readable, but uncomfortable, and some might have problems with reading it. It should be a lot bigger for comfortable play. Considering the simplicity of the "card design" monster names also should be bigger. Unlaminated glossy paper doesn't slide as well, but it lays flat, and looks good. Though only the front gives the best colors, the back looks pretty basic. Semi gloss lays flat, looks the best (just like real tcg cards (mtg, pokemon etc)), but all the semigloss papers that I have are only printable on one side and are pretty expensive. I could just put an A4 sticker on the back, but aligning it would be a pain. Maybe first I'd stick it then print the back of the cards?... Either way if I'm gonna do the whole 200 monsters properly I definitely won't use matte paper with lamination. Maybe I'll just go with the basic glossy paper. As for the game itself, from what I tried by myself (with only 18 cards) it seems like it'd be great. I went with the mahjong style game, you pick a card and discard one each turn trying to complete a set of cards. E.g. in the beginning you draw 8 cards, and get 4 beastman type monsters and 2 fiend monsters. So you start discarding all other types, trying to collect more fiends or beastmen. If someone discards a fiend card you can take it and discard one of your own. Maybe you can only take a card if you have at least 3 other monsters of the same type or family and have to reveal those cards and put them somewhere on the table, therefore locking yourself to collecting that type. I'm also wondering what hand size would be best. 8 seems like a bit much, it's not very comfortable to hold, but that number would work great with many types. For example you could collect 2 sets of 4 cards, and there's a few types that only have 4 monsters in them, so such a set would be a high risk high reward type of play (the harder the set is to collect, the more its worth). I'm not sure what would constitute an end condition. Maybe someone declaring he gathered a whole set? Or maybe playing until cards in the middle run out? Maybe only some sets would end a session, and others wouldn't? So there's a lot to iron out, but I really like what I got so far. Another cool aspect is that the game would be easy to expand, just put a monster illustration in the middle, assign it a type and family and voila. I'm already thinking about adding MonMusu and 12 beast girls to it. Tho maybe after remaking the broken taxonomy. Right now I think I'll print some more MGE cards and test play it with some people.

>>7538 They came out pretty nice, aside from maybe not enough stiffness as you said. Looking at the infocard stats of MGE girls, I wonder if Habitat and Nature fields are consistent enough to base game rules around them? Instead of colors they could be grouped by Habitat and Nature could influence how they interact with other cards.

>>7539 >Instead of colors they could be grouped by Habitat and Nature could influence how they interact with other cards. I thought about grouping them by habitat, alongside types and families, but I didn't think about natures influencing the game. I thought maybe collecting them by nature could be an option too, but influencing the game sounds more interesting. Looking at a few natures I came up with a few ideas: -aggressive- when discarding an aggressive card you can immediately draw another and discard again -mean- when discarding you can order another player to discard a random card from his hand -devoted- after discarding a devoted monster you can't collect other devoted monsters -violent- after discarding a violent monster you must discard another card, and you don't get to draw, effectively shrinking your hand by 1 card -selfish- you can only have one selfish card in your set. Or maybe having more than one selfish card makes the set worth less points there's also natures like peaceful, gentle, passionate, lustful, simple, docile, obedient, honest, mild, various, strong-willed, haughty, gloomy, timid, stubborn, lonely, calm, cold, cheerful, proud, unemotional. For those I don't know what the interactions could be. Thinking about "devoted" I wonder how it makes sense in the MGE setting. All monsters are supposed to be devoted to their husbands, cheating is absolutely not allowed in their nature, so what does "devoted" actually mean?

>>7542 >so what does "devoted" actually mean? https://monstergirlencyclopedia.miraheze.org/wiki/Category:Disposition_Index I think devoted is supposed to be opposite of selfish, like how Inari is devoted and Youko is selfish. Then again you can't just reverse the bonus and boost them together because Shirohebis are explicitly anti-harem girls. I guess it could be also interpreted as clingy? So maybe a bonus if you keep the card on the table for consecutive turns?

>>7547 >That link Damn, that's so pretty. AND already organized. I was thinking about sorting all the girls according to their natures, so its good someone else already did it. There's taxonomy too, tho I prefer my tiered list, its more clear. But the icons are really good. Maybe I'll combine my list with the appearance of that site. >maybe a bonus if you keep the card on the table for consecutive turns? You're supposed to hold the hands until the end of the game, only discarded cards are visible to everybody, so it wouldn't work. But thanks for ideas nonetheless. If you could try thinking what the other natures could do, that'd be lovely. Especially "lustful", its the most common one so it should have something special that'd make playing lustful cards different from non lustful.

>>7555 I'll try to think of something for all the natures later. As for Lustful, I'd maybe use it to represent the not-yuri themes of MGE, some kind of charm ability. >on drawing a Lustful card, choose one of opponent's discarded cards to add to your set and limit this effect to 2 or 3 times per game because this is the biggest category and would be OP if you could just use it over and over again.

first test done, here's the rules and notes I came up with so far Each player draws 8 cards at the start. Each turn a player draws 1 card and discards one. Goal is to gather either 8 monsters of the same type, or 2 sets of 4 monsters. When a player discards a card you can take ("steal") it. Unlimited stealing with 3 or more players breaks the game, there has to be some limit. With 2 I don't think it'd be a problem, but I guess some limits would still be good. Maybe something like "you can only steal a card if you're completing a set of 4 or 8 cards, and after stealing you must reveal that set and put it down. You can't change that set after stealing". So again like mahjong. The game IS fun, but the beastman type is far too common and needs some restriction, otherwise all games would end up with people only gathering beastman type monsters (which did happen before I temporarily banned it). Natures: While playing we were brainstorming ideas for them. Now they affect the game after discarding them (usually). Aggressive/violent etc: after discarding an aggressive monster she's angry and breaks your arm, you lose 1 turn. Cheerful: discarding a cheerful monster makes her sad, and all other cheerful monsters too, so they leave you. You must discard all cheerful monsters. Maybe as a counterweight, you can gather a harem of 8 cheerful monsters, regardless of the type. Honest: when drawing an honest monster, she tells you what she saw. You can look at top 3 cards of the deck (only look). If you take an honest monster from another player's discard, you can see his hand. Impatient: when drawing an impatient monster, you can immediately draw again. So essentially an extra turn. Malicious/mean/selfish: after discarding a mean monster she's angry and messes with your hand. You must discard a random card. Strong willed/proud: proud monsters are like leaders of their respective types, after discarding a proud monsters all other monsters of her type leave you as well. You can't gather this type of monster until the end of the game. The proud monster has to be set next to the normal discard pile to see which types are "banned" for you. Various: random other nature, you throw a die to see which one The natures so far add a lot of flavour to the game and they really DO add personalities to the monsters. E.g. when discarding the rape-dog (hellhound) you lose a turn and must discard a random card (she's aggressive and selfish). Discarding a Demon bans you from gathering fiends, and causes you to discard a random card.

>>7616 I have a few suggestions regarding certain mechanics. For starters, I don't see a reason to go for the 8-card set when you can pull 2 4-card ones much easily. I'd personally just remove the option for the 8-card one and maybe add some extra rules for playing the 2 4-card ones (things like "you can only play a set once per turn", so there are not turn one wins) If I understood the rules correctly, stealing doesn't discard (so a straight + in hand size, no reason not to do it) and discarding additional cards leaves you crippled (- in hand size) since drawing always comes with discarding. To simplify this, you could just establish a max hand size. Drawing or stealing over your max hand size means you must discard a card. If discarding right after stealing gets confusing, you could always discard several cards at once after your draw phase. And since I brought up phases, the turn could be divided (for clarity) in 3 phases: Draw, Play, and Discard or Draw, Discard and Play (the Play phase being where you play full sets). Stealing could be limited to 1 card per round, starting after your first turn (which would keep it an out-of-turn action"). Or it could replace your draw (a bit boring). Does the discard effect of a card discarded by another card's effect activate? If it's the case, you never want to discard a selfish card, simply because it will start a chain reaction that can delete your game plan. It's a really annoying effect. There are several ways to balance it a bit better, but it would depend mostly on the density of the selfish cards related to the rest of the deck. I generally like the effects of the other natures, and it would be interesting to see one or two effects that mess with your opponent's hand (forced discard, swapping cards, etc) and potentially more interactions for stealing cards. I want to add that what you're doing is pretty cool, and that the bases you've stablished are quite solid.

>>7896 I forgot to mention that I have yet to look into card proportions. For the game to be balanced groups have to have roughly the same number of creatures, which means incorporating smaller groups into others (like for example combining Elves, Dwarfs and the groups containing "Demihuman" into a single category) or splitting big groups by some arbitrary metric (like Beastman). Alternatively, some cards could be grouped by their subgroup instead. I'm gonna make an excel sheet to see what groups and natures are there and how it's the most efficient way to combine them. I'll also make some rules doc (with the things I mentioned), but I'd recommend that the OP made an official version on Google Docs

>>7500 >MGE Why limit yourself to a single IP tho

>>7898 NTA but it's much easier to keep things clean and consistent when focusing on one franchise, especially for a first attempt at something like this.

>>7898 >Why limit yourself to a single IP tho >The pics I have from some MGE torrent are already almost perfect. I wanted to make a game that uses only the information that's already there. After I figure out what works and what doesn't I thought I'd add characters from MonMusu, 12 Beast, etc. They'd have cards in the same style as MGE ones, or at least the important info will look the same. >>7900 that too

>>7896 >If I understood the rules correctly, stealing doesn't discard (so a straight + in hand size, no reason not to do it) and discarding additional cards leaves you crippled (- in hand size) since drawing always comes with discarding. Maybe I wrote it unclear, but after stealing you have to discard one to go back to 8, that's the set hand size. Whenever I play-tested with people that's what we did from the beginning. >Stealing could be limited to 1 card per round, starting after your first turn (which would keep it an out-of-turn action"). That's... a pretty good idea. Tho I'd make it like 2-3 per round. Or go with the mahjong approach, stealing forces you to reveal the set and put it down. >Does the discard effect of a card discarded by another card's effect activate? from what I remember we didn't do forced discard chain reactions. But selfish was still annoying af, in a good way. But it could needlessly extend the game, because sets would be constantly disrupted. >it would be interesting to see one or two effects that mess with your opponent's hand (forced discard, swapping cards, etc) and potentially more interactions for stealing cards. I thought about changing violent/aggressive effect to being like an attack on another player, which discards a random card (after which target player draws 1 to go back to 8 of course). Or maybe something like 50% chance of losing a turn and 50% that you can order her to attack. Determined with a dice roll maybe? Or maybe rock paper scissors with another player, the loser would suffer the effect. That sounds kinda fun, it'd be like a match between players to see who can tame the monster better. I think I like the rock paper scissors one the best (lose a turn/attack player). >I want to add that what you're doing is pretty cool, and that the bases you've established are quite solid. Thanks a lot, that's really motivating.

>>7897 >I forgot to mention that I have yet to look into card proportions. For the game to be balanced groups have to have roughly the same number of creatures, which means incorporating smaller groups into others (like for example combining Elves, Dwarfs and the groups containing "Demihuman" into a single category) or splitting big groups by some arbitrary metric (like Beastman). I thought about mahjong again, that is, the harder a group is to gather, the more points its worth. I also thought (and worked on) completely remaking the whole taxonomy of MGE, because its utter trash. I wanted to do that regardless of the game. I'll copy a thread I made elsewhere about it. >Alternatively, some cards could be grouped by their subgroup instead. That's my idea for balancing Beastman. It'd be a while before I test it tho, because now I'm all into the Digimon card game, and I'm busy introducing people to that thing. >I'm gonna make an excel sheet to see what groups and natures are there and how it's the most efficient way to combine them. https://monstergirlencyclopedia.miraheze.org/wiki/Category:Type_Index https://monstergirlencyclopedia.miraheze.org/wiki/Category:Family_Index Miraheze already did it, maybe it'd help. >I'll also make some rules doc don't >I'd recommend that the OP made an official version on Google Docs never ever, fuck google. When I come up with some solid ideas I'll make a pdf with them. If you want you can also make one and post it, just add a date or some version number and we'll be golden. Or even just a txt file, at this stage it'd be just as good.

>>7897 >>7906 that's a pdf with how I wrote them down, maybe you can paste it into a spreadsheet with minimal editing

>>7906 >the harder a group is to gather, the more points its worth That's actually a solid approach, instead of getting 2 sets you have to gather X points. I dig it. >I also thought (and worked on) completely remaking the whole taxonomy of MGE, because its utter trash Completely agree. I'll try to do some proposal regarding groups for the game, because many of the current groups are invalid for a 4-set. >Miraheze already did it, maybe it'd help. Oh, I'd wish I knew earlier. Looking at these lists it seems some inconsistencies have also been fixed, which is great. >never ever, fuck google. I wanted to do at least a pdf so some stablished mechanics can be explained in detail and in order. If you're so against Google Docs I can just make an offline doc and upload a pdf for the draft

Ok I've checked the website you linked. Not only it already did all classifications (Type, Family and Nature) and fixed the inconsistencies, but it also has several Monster Girls not included in the two Encyclopaedia releases. I've officially wasted 2 hours of my life, but at least we have a much better resource than whatever I was gonna produce.

>>7913 I thought your spreadsheet would be used for experimenting, not merely describing what's already there. >fixed the inconsistencies Really? I've gotta look closer at it, at first glance it looked identical to the books. Though I also heard the official English translation has some wonky stuff in it, specifically regarding taxonomy.

>>7908 I guess I could do it, but for now I went with the groups at the wiki, since those contain more Mamono (229 vs 201) and some small updates. I made graphics of all 3 categories of interest to have a bit of visual aid (not extremely relevant). The family classification is a complete mess, so I wouldn't touch it unless we're looking for inspiration on grouping the small types. The matter at hand would be to determinate which group size is reasonable and start making groups from there. I think groups of 15-20 (Apx) would do the trick. It generates a reasonable amount of groups (11-15) while also having enough frequency that you might get 4 from said group. If we go by this metric, Bug (21) and Undead (17) are in a good spot, while Fiend (15) and Reptile (16) are acceptable while having room for more. Aquatic (5) + Crustacean (1) + Fish (4) + Mermaid (2) Mollusc (5) makes 17 "Aquatic" Mamonos, Amphibian (1) is somewhat in the middle, but I'd send it over to Reptiles so they have the same number. Then, Demihumans (9) + Dwarf (1) + Elf (2) + Ex-Giant (1) + Fairy (4) goes to 17. Right now I don't know how to group the rest. Beastman + Dark beast could make 3 groups, or Beastman could be split into two and Dark Beast go with Majin, which could also be put alongside several other groups. Shapeshifter can go into either Semiliquid or Magic Material, and I'm also split on wether Angels should be lumped with Birdman or Elemental. Then there's also de Gazer and the Roper, which can each go into a few groups. So yeah, what do you think?

>>7917 >I thought your spreadsheet would be used for experimenting, not merely describing what's already there. To some extent, yeah, but I have nothing currently in mind. If something ever comes up, I could retake it and do come cleaning using the wiki. >English translation has some wonky stuff in it, specifically regarding taxonomy. The biggest thing I've found is that in the second volume the Kakuen is a "Simian", while the Yeti is correctly labeled "Apeman", which is fixed in the wiki. Also, the "Dispositions" (previously called "Natures") have gone through a major clean-up. Violent has been removed due to being redundant with Aggressive, and the same goes for similar cases (Indifferent in favour of Cold as well)

>>7918 >>7919 Could you please sort those graphs and add labels that show the number next to each category? I think that could help with experimenting. Also post the excel file

If someone knows how to edit 200+ pics like in the example I'd love to hear it. Alternatively if someone wants to volunteer to just do it by hand that'd be great too. https://nyaa.si/view/1578764 this torrent has all the files. You just need to extract them from .cbz, which is basically zip, any archive software can do it.

>>7930 I can give this a try after I finish work today, I have some experience with python + PIL and imagemagick for mass image editing. If the text cells are always at exact same locations, it should be as easy as enlarging their area. But even small discrepancies will mess this up

>>7924 https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1MJnbHLL6GpYrC1AB2eV9d6QhDW4eWOjE18VhrPNsST8/edit?usp=sharing This is the sheet. I will do some cleaning both on the tables and the dataset, but not right now. >>7930 Wouldn't it be better to pick up the images from the wiki? They have white backgrounds so we could do editing more comfortably, on top of being 28 extra Mamonos. Plus, the taxonomy and information on the Encyclopaedia pages (specially the latter) are inconsistently placed, which would be a problem as >>7931 points out

>>7931 taxonomy info is always in the same spot, its just sometimes wider or narrower. When I tried mass editing I just selected all the way to the right border. Habitat, diet, nature are all in different places. But if they're unedited that'd be fine I think, the most important info is the types and families, if you have to squint a little to read the natures it'd be ok. In my tests, while slightly annoying, the text was playable. >>7932 >Wouldn't it be better to pick up the images from the wiki? They have white backgrounds so we could do editing more comfortably, on top of being 28 extra Mamonos. Plus, the taxonomy and information on the Encyclopaedia pages (specially the latter) are inconsistently placed, They'd require more work because they don't have card proportions, and because they're narrower editing wouldn't be as simple imo. I also thought they'd look less appealing, but honestly, they also have a neat aesthetic. The card proportions are the biggest problem I think.

Btw, I use this site to make printable pdfs with the cards. https://mtg-print.com/ It needs an account, but any throwaway will do. I made 2 pdfs, each around 100 monsters (+few not yet in books monsters), but they're all unedited so small text. I added those files too, maybe some of you will find use for them (e.g. print on normal paper, and use card sleeves and some random MTG/Pokemon/Digimon cards as backs for stiffness). After I have the pics with better text I'll remake those pdfs and upload again.

>>7931 >>7939 Alright I took a look and it doesn't appear that automating this is going to be viable, around a quarter of girls have part of their portrait collide with the potential bounding box for processing. I think it would be faster for you to just record a macro of resizing the relevant part and manually handle cases where you see that the result is being messed up.

>>7939 The idea I had in mind was to setup a standardised base where you could just replace the image and text for each card, making them consistent with the rest of the set while also allowing us to administer the size and content of the text. Picrel is a hastily done example where I just adjusted the image from the wiki to the width of a card (63mm) and filled the rest of the space with the relevant text. Upsides: More freedom regarding card aesthetic and content, cards are standardised Downsides: Wiki images are not very high quality, requires some upfront work But you're boss, if you like the other method better I'll stick to it

>>7943 Actually, the Siren might just be the very worst of them all lol.

>>7942 >>7943 I wouldn't mind the first method (even with some girls getting cut at the top), but the freedom of the second is really appealing too. Could you make a base that'd look like the original illustrations? The left darker margin, the heart graphic, and font? I dunno how manual that'd be on your end. If its automatic enough that it can go through whole of miraheze making similar card graphics that'd be great. The ability to change the text would make future additions (MonMusu) or changes (better taxonomy) that much easier. Maybe for now pick whatever's easier/faster, then later maybe we'll think about some improved version. I want to print the whole 200 card set and make a proper test with people, so far I only tested with ~100 cards so type representation is different from the whole set.

Later I'll post photos of the improved cards (improved printing wise, they're just thicker, flatter and more shiny).

>>7943 >Wiki images are not very high quality, requires some upfront work >Actually, the Siren might just be the very worst of them all lol. They look fine enough, at standard card size the low resolution shouldn't look too bad. I think you used some wonky/extreme conversion, because the siren pic from wiki doesn't look THAT bad, on your card mockup it got a significant downgrade.

>>7948 Yeah, I was working on it. Right now I've gotten the base from both books and the heart from the first, which I've made bigger and moved it to optimise space according to my first model. Don't mind the blue thing, it'll be gone when I finish >>7950 Yeah, I can see that the quality drop is on my side, but I think I know how to fix it. I'll report back in a bit

>>7953 I can confidently say that the problem can be fixed. Still needs some testing until I find the sweetspot, and then I'll have to do the heart thing all over. If you're able, try to find a typography that resemble's the original one. That would save me a lot of time

>>7953 If it's possible to get clean portrait graphics of every girl (with transparency) of the same size, it would possible to make a card generator script and have everything perfectly aligned and look sleek. Input would be a spreadsheet with each girl's attributes and path to her portrait graphics, then the script would paste her portrait in the center of the template and add the attribute/type labels according to the spreadsheet info. Overlap wouldn't matter that much, it's less harm if a piece of hair gets in front of a letter than if a piece of her gets unnaturally stretched out as was with the initial upsizing way.

>>7955 That's actually a great idea. I can prepare the assets and then someone who knows how to code can just build the thing. I do have to warn you that the images will have a bit of white residue from deleting the white background, but it won't be an issue unless the girl is over something non-white. First image is the result with higher pixel number, second to make white pixels visible, third as proof that we can get transparent background and fourth is the original image

>>7956 Don't use this transparent one for the program tho. I deformed the image a bit to have a reference for something else. Once I finish some tests I'll begin making assets. After I have a bunch I'll upload them somewhere

>>7956 >I can prepare the assets and then someone who knows how to code can just build the thing. I can do that, this is very easy when we are building from scratch. >I do have to warn you that the images will have a bit of white residue from deleting the white background It's a matter of adjusting the white to transparency threshold, try some online tools for converting white to transparent background. Still it's not that much of an issue, those can be refined latter if needed and if a script is used, it's as simple as replacing the portrait file and rerunning the generator. I'm sure there are tools to do that in batches, so don't do it all by hand. As long as all the portraits are of the same scale, this should be nice and easy.

>>7958 Tried a few online ones. Only got one to work and it wasn't great doe to some pictures being too white. I'll stick to doing it semi-automatically with gimp. I have to use it to adjust the size anyways

>>7953 >I can confidently say that the problem can be fixed. Still needs some testing until I find the sweetspot, and then I'll have to do the heart thing all over. It looks like bad conversion, but it doesn't look like nearest neighbour. Should be a matter of just choosing a different scaling algorithm >If you're able, try to find a typography that resemble's the original one. That would save me a lot of time I found 2 "close enough" free fonts. I think MGE font is a boldened ambassador font. https://www.ffonts.net/StrongGirlsDEMO.font.download https://www.ffonts.net/Ambassador.font.download Here's catbox with these 2 fonts. https://files.catbox.moe/qom6un.zip

>>7956 >I do have to warn you that the images will have a bit of white residue from deleting the white background >>7958 >It's a matter of adjusting the white to transparency threshold >>7959 my niggers, there's a thing called "feathering".

>>7956 >>7958 >>7959 I tweaked it a little and it looks even better. Would be very easy to make a macro for it, just repeated clicks somewhere on the edge, "delete", export, go down 1 layer, repeat.

>>7964 >Should be a matter of just choosing a different scaling algorithm I just needed to give more pixels to the image on gimp. Now the ones from MGE 1 have the same quality, and if I'm not mistaken the others too. >I found 2 "close enough" free fonts. I think MGE font is a boldened ambassador font. Awesome. >>7965 >>7966 I had never heard of that, but it seems like it works great. I'm gonna ask what's possibly a dumb question but, can it get rid of those white spots that are encased?

>>7974 >I just needed to give more pixels to the image on gimp. I used to use gimp too, but later switched to Krita when I started drawing. I don't know if its better, but I never wanted to go back after that. >I'm gonna ask what's possibly a dumb question but, can it get rid of those white spots that are encased? Sure, you just need to select them manually or tweak the threshold. If they're completely encased you can only choose them manually using the wand/contiguous selection tool. You can try using the similar colour selection tool, but since it checks the whole image for similar pixels it can select also areas inside the illustration (e.g. whites of the eyes, highlights on the skin, etc). When using it for getting rid of the background you want to use very small threshold and tweak the grow and feather values so that it looks good. If the illustration has white areas exactly like the background there's nothing you can do but just manually deselect them, or use the wand instead. Also, because of feathering the edges of the picture can get feathered too, which leaves a straight white edge (picrel). It can also appear with the wand tool, but its easier to get rid of by just tweaking the "grow" values. Since our goal is automation, and the monsters are gonna be on a pretty bright background I think the white enclosed areas won't be too much of an issue, so I'd stick to the wand tool+grow+feather.

I got the generator proof of concept working, disregard the messed up background as I needed a quick empty template and just stretched over part of the background. Keep in mind that the font we want to use will need a bold variation if we want to have some parts in bold.

>>7984 I just noticed neither of those fonts has lower case letters.

>>7990 >>7984 So we're stuck with all caps, kinda. Shame, but I think its aight.

>>7980 Thanks for the explanation anon >>7984 Looks very promising! Do you still need me to resize the images? Would you rather if I explained what I was doing so you can do it yourself? >>7991 Yeah, a bit of a shame, but not too bad

>>7996 >Do you still need me to resize the images? This one. I can make the generator but someone else needs to prepare the assets - portraits with transparency and also a cleaned up background image. Keep in mind it doesn't have to be perfect on the first try, we can always swap the images later and simply regenerate the set.

>>7997 I mean, since the other anon (where three here, right?) does seem to have a very good handle on Krita he might be able to fulfil that role instead, since he's pretty much going to be cleaning the assets anyways. So yeah, that second question on my reply was actually meant for him, I messed up.

>>8012 The krita anon is also the printer anon and game designer anon(OP). So me. And while I'm pretty good with Krita, I don't know how to automate any of that. I learned to make some macros on windows ages ago, but I don't feel like going back to that OS. I also don't know how to download all the images from wiki. I chimed in just to mention a better method that could be automated. If you can get all the images from the wiki, and automate deleting their backgrounds then please do, because that's beyond my current ability.

>>8018 I see, sorry for the confusion. I do have all the images downloaded, but I can't automate the process in any way. However, I would be willing to manually do it in the same way I did previously (diffuse selection tool + delete).

Here we go! Here are the bases for both books + the first image ready to e used, alongside how it should look once it's put together. In theory I can just dump the images here, but I'll eventually put them in some online storage (likely Drive) for better access. Btw, the images will be named as [Name]_X, where X is the Book they belong to (the ones with 0 aren't in any book).

>>8020 It doesn't matter at all for our purposes, but I'm curious why the heart graphic has such jagged edges?(pic1) >In theory I can just dump the images here, but I'll eventually put them in some online storage (likely Drive) for better access. I think you could make a zip/pdf once its done and upload it here or through catbox. >Btw, the images will be named as [Name]_X, where X is the Book they belong to (the ones with 0 aren't in any book). How about [Name]_3, since that's the book where they most likely will appear? Then we'll have 0 for KCs prototypes or smth. We could later make templates for other series, and tag them like [Name]_O12, [Name]_OM for Okayado's 12 Beast and MonMusu respectively. Maybe that's a dumb question, but would it be possible to make it so that the name has also all the other info? E.g. [Name]_X_[type]_[family]_[nature]. After putting it in your program (or whatever it is) it'd spit out the image with all this information. Last question: what is this thing now? Its some script, standalone program or plugin for something else? Finally: Congrats bro, looks good.(pics 2-4)

>>8023 >>8020 Made 2 comparison images. I think the heart and underline being bigger is a good thing, we have more space for a larger font (always a good thing on playing cards). The image could be a bit larger.

>>8023 >why the heart graphic has such jagged edges? I don't know. The only thing I've done is scale it, so in theory it shouldn't be so rough, but I haven't been able to make it look better. >Last question: what is this thing now? Its some script, standalone program or plugin for something else? It's me manually doing it on gimp :P I have 0 programming knowledge and very little image editing skills, but I do have some time to spare. Regarding the names, I can change the suffix, but for now I won't be adding types, families or natures. Those things have to be revised for the card game, so I don't feel like checking them for all 238 images and potentially having to change them. >>8024 Right now I'm using the aling tool on gimp to put the image at the center, so making it bigger would make it get too close to the top part. I'll post a picture in a minute, but some images do get a bit too close, any more would impede us from putting text there. That being said, I'm not too experienced with gimp. Perhaps there's a way to align the images to a displaced X axis, which would allow us to put them further down and thus making the bigger. By the way, how do you want to do the bottom part?

>>8024 >>8025 This one's a screenshot to showcase how close the upper limit gets to the name. Images won't have less margin than this one, but it comes to show that the space it's already pretty tight. Also, I just had an idea. I could just delete the background of the book's images in order to get better quality ones than the wiki's. It will take me a bit of extra time, but the result will be worth it.

Once I test ripping the art from a page, there's a good chance that I will start all over, so it's the perfect to plan ahead and save us some time. It would be very helpful if you drew a diagram on how you want the cards to look like, so I could give my feedback on what I like/dislike and what I can/can't do.

>>8027 It's the perfect time to plan ahead*

>>8025 >>Last question: what is this thing now? Its some script, standalone program or plugin for something else? >It's me manually doing it on gimp :P >I have 0 programming knowledge and very little image editing skills, but I do have some time to spare. Ok, that's disappointing, I take back my praise. I thought you were already working with at least some basic macro. Are you a different anon of was there just some miscommunication? I thought there was one that was doing it. >>7931 this guy? I'm gonna start using a name in this thread, just so that we know who's who. Since you said you have very little image editing skills, I assume you just have a crappy scaling algorithm and don't know how to change it. Images show the difference. All you really need to know is that nearest neighbour results in jagged edges and is only useful in 2x, 4x, etc scaling or pixel art, and you use literally anything other than it to scale things that are smooth. >>8026 >Also, I just had an idea. I could just delete the background of the book's images in order to get better quality ones than the wiki's. It will take me a bit of extra time, but the result will be worth it. I was writing a comment about it, but then I found this tool. https://www.delete.bg/ So just run all the images using it. After you're done zip them and upload somewhere (e-hentai is probably the best place). It's a good thing to do regardless of the card game, and I'm sure many anons and non-anons would appreciate it.

>>8027 >It would be very helpful if you drew a diagram on how you want the cards to look like, so I could give my feedback on what I like/dislike and what I can/can't do. last pic from here ( >>7930) is all I want.

>>8036 >Are you a different anon of was there just some miscommunication? I think it was just miscommunication. > I thought there was one that was doing it. >>7931 this guy? That was one of the messages that made me think we were more people. >Since you said you have very little image editing skills, I assume you just have a crappy scaling algorithm and don't know how to change it. The default scaling tool from Gimp. What's weird it's that I've scaled other elements from the pages, but none of them ended like that. >https://www.delete.bg/ That's great, I'll do it. >last pic from here ( >>7930) is all I want. My proposal would be to move the box to the bottom of the card for consistency, and to maximise the space used it could be divided in columns instead of lines

>>8042 >That was one of the messages that made me think we were more people. For clarity: I'm that anon you mentioned in the earlier post and there appears to be 3 of us, my input so far is the card generator, I'm not touching the assets or design. I guess this is the rare case when namefaggotry is justified

>>8036 Blurred the heart a little so it isn't jagged. Also fixed the weird bumps on the blue one. Regarding the cleaning tool, it does work pretty well, although there are a few where it delete part of the image, and for some reason my browser is not allowing me to edit, so either I do them manually or someone else gives it a shot. The ones missing are: Cyclops (sword gets deleted), Siren (star gets deleted), Bubble Slime (bubbles get deleted), Giant Slug (antenna get deleted), Devil Bug (antenna get deleted), Roper (mucus gets deleted, Dark Slime (droplets get deleted), Baphomet (scythe's orb gets deleted), Undine (droplets get deleted), Ignis (a singular particle gets deleted), Gnome (particles), Dark Matter (particles) and Lilim (particles)

>>8042 >The default scaling tool from Gimp. What's weird it's that I've scaled other elements from the pages, but none of them ended like that. https://docs.gimp.org/en/gimp-image-scale.html https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AqscP7rc8_M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fuTYqzWPHGg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=syH8ASkotFg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=syH8ASkotFg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=poY_nGzEEWM tldw: choose bicubic for everything that's not pixel art

>>8050 These are all the ones I'm missing. If someone else's browser allows them to edit on https://www.delete.bg/ they can go ahead and pick them from here. If Chrome and Firefox don't work I'll just do it by hand on Gimp

>>8051 There doesn't seem to be a "bicubic" option, but I'll check and see what of the ones offered works best. Thanks for the resources, I'll watch them once I get home

>>8053 you can (and should) just download krita or pirate photoshop krita is open source and all that jazz, just like gimp. photoshop is half bullshit, but if you pirate it then it should be alright. Also, post those images "broken" by the bg removal tool. It'd be faster to just add those parts back in, than delete the background imo.

>>8054 >you can (and should) just download krita or pirate photoshop I guess I could give them a try. I just do small projects, so I never had an incentive to go further than my basic Gimp knowledge. >post those images "broken" by the bg removal tool On it

>>8058 >>8054 Send them to me when you're finished, that way I'll be able to dump everything on e-hentai

Starting with the second book, I'll periodically post the ones that give issues

>>8061 Griffon missing hair, the other 3 missing particles

>>8062 Cancer has the bottom droplet almost deleted, Kraken is missing some mucus

>>8063 String for the first, a heart particle for the second

>>8065 I'll try fixing them today and post a zip with all. Some I'll leave as is, because the loss from the online tool is so small its really not important.

>>8067 Thank you very much

>>8069 Jabberwock has a very minor mistake, like cancer

>>8071 say when you've done them all, so that I known that's all "problematic" pics.

>>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.