Killing AI with arrows--too easy

[Obsttorte]

Thanks

[Tels]

I too agree with almost all what Sotha said.

 

As for the "zoom" being controling the accuracy, it makes sense, it also makes sense to give the player the ability to control it. But I'm not sure this will make the bow operate more like a standard gun in any run-of-the-mill FPS - you hold up your gun, you "aim" by pressing a button, which brings the gun closer and makes you "zoom" in.

 

It could work really well, or it could look quite out of place. I too wished I had more control over the zoom, if you need to land a pixel perfect rope-arrow shot, then waiting for it is cumbersome.

 

Likewise, reducing the zoom to 75%, well, for very long range shots,that would be a step back. Maybe the player should be able to "dial" the zoom like the zoom on the spyglass? But that would not only look even more odd, it would also need to decouple the zoom from the acuracy (if you zoom back to see more you don't shoot acurate anymore).

 

 

So in light of this, I'd say try the "inaccurate during the first X seconds" first, as it seems easiest. Not only the swing, but reduce the accuracy (increase the spread) during the first second.

 

It shouldn't be a linear curve, tho, more like quadratic (e.g. widle inaccurate in 0.1 second, quite accurate in 0.5, and then gradually getting perfect up to second 5 (or so), then it waivers and gets back again.

 

 

* pixel accuracy: well, for long-range shots, you need it, otherwise you are never gonna hit a button across the chasm. Plus,the arrow drops during flight, so it is already inaccurate. It would also make long-range headshots impossible,and we definitely want this assassin-style possibility. I'd not change this.

[RPGista]

Agreed. Deadliness and accuracy should be preserved. The arrow, like Tels mentioned, already has a curve and you need to be pretty good to account for that and hit stuff more than 5-6 meters away. Again we are discussing the playing habits of someone who has mastered the TDM bow and can use it to exploit the game, not the normal base player.

 

Alerted AI that are somehow more resistant to arrows do not make sense and detract from the fun of getting that last lucky shot and take him out before the tough guard reaches you.

 

1 - Making sure the alerted warnings + death cry + body fall sounds are spreading wide and alerting nearby AI properly, and thus penalising open killing over stealthly KOs (but not stealth killing);

 

2 - Not necessarily changing zoom or bow animations (for the reasons Tels mentioned), but perhaps only adding more miliseconds to the drawing sequence, enough to allow AI to cover X meters before you can shoot (a couple of tests should show what is fair);

 

3 - Make broadheads not recoverable (wouldnt solve a lot, you still depend on mappers limiting their numbers);

 

Those would be my suggestions. Adding a bit to the alarm potential of fight cries (sound threat) and slowing the speed of drawing an arrow should be enough to stop rapid fire, and to penalise the rambo aproach of open fights. Everything is still working like your used to, just a bunch of parameters are changed.

[Mr M]

Regarding the combat difficulty slider: As I said I never noticed it before neither I did with the lockpick difficulty slider before someone has told me (or someone else and I was just reading it, dunno).

 

 

Wow,

I've been playing for a while, and never knew this - I thought it was tied to the difficulty level......

I have to look for it

 

The existence of these things, such as body shouldering should somehow be more evident. It's been a while but maybe body shouldering is exhibited in the training mission, but maybe difficulty level settings, lock pick settings should also be introduced there..?

 

I also like the idea of the bow settling before getting off a shot...

Edited January 28, 2013 by Mr M

[Springheel]

The system was working fine originally. This was a flaw that was introduced when combat difficulty levels were added. Fixing that is the first step, and then we'll need to see if it's even an issue anymore.

 

I'll explore the changes to hitpoints that were introduced by combat difficulty, and look into slowing down the draw animation.

[Springheel]

Ok, I've uploaded some changes to SVN. I made the following adjustments:

 

The "drawing back" animation has been slowed to a rate of .7, which reduces the player's ability to quickfire somewhat.

 

The HP adjustments for the various Combat Difficulty Levels have been changed to:

 

Normal -- "0"

Hard -- "+20"

Expert -- "+40"

 

On all difficulty levels it now takes at least two headshots to take down an alert AI, but you can still drop them with one if they're taken by surprise.

 

We can test this out for a while and see how it feels, but it should go a long way to solving the original problem.

[Obsttorte]

Does "difficulty level" refer to the mission difficulty or the combat difficulty?

[Springheel]

Combat difficulty. Mission difficulty should not affect anything related to AI stats by default.

[DeTeEff]

If someone wants to take every single AI out with an arrow to the head, that's fine with me. The mapper has total control over if they want to give the players the possibility to Rambo through the mission by restrictions in not giving arrows, no kills etc. An arrow to the head should be lethal, no question about it, and two or maximum three arrows to the body should suffice in killing them, no matter what alert state they are in. What does it matter if you are aware of your adversary if he shoots you in the torso with an arrow? I always found it ridiculous that it was neary impossible to kill guards in T1 and T2 with arrows unless the first arrow was a direct hit to the head...It certainly has gameplay value to decrease arrow damage towards alerted AI but I find it up to the mapper to restrict the player with optional (or compulsory) objectives. As a sidenote, myself I always never use the broadheads or fire arrows as I enjoy the stealthy aspects, but I don't want to force this playing style onto others by nerfing the arrows...

[Obsttorte]

The problem is that the takedown of several AI can "break" a mission in terms of wandering around in an empty area. Another thing to consider may be that shooting an AI with an arrow is a very powerful way compared to blackjacking (what requires you to get close enough) or simple sneak around (what may be difficult because of the specific guard). I think every advantage a possibility gives the player should be outweighted with a certain disadvantage, in this case the possibility of not hitting the AI properly and therefore running into troubles. Beeing able to take out unalerted guards with one shot still gives the player a lot of possibilities inusing the broadhead arrows. On the other hand it may be noted that many people are complaining about objectives "forcing" the player to stealth a mission.

[DeTeEff]

In my future missions I believe I'll add the objective "Do not alert/kill/BJ anyone" and make them Optional to give a "switch" so i'ts easy to ghost; You'll be instantly alerted when your ghosting run is foiled. But on the other hand, you'll see the stealth score in the end...

[zergrush]

The reason why stealth isn't safer is because there are not enough bad consequences for choosing the rambo path. No general alarms are ever sounded, and no extra guards come to replace fallen comrades. It also depends a lot on which equipment is given at the start. I usually try to play all missions with a no kill / no blackjack self-imposed restriction, because that's the only way I find them truly challenging. I feel this is more of a map-related issue. Mission designers could maybe impose kill limits or reinforce security just so the player couldn't get away easily by simply killing everyone. Missions could also be tested more thoroughly in order to avoid this. For me this picture kinda sums up what should be one IMO:

 

http://www.anonmgur....6baf3bb7c90.jpg

Edited January 30, 2013 by zergrush

[Springheel]

If someone wants to take every single AI out with an arrow to the head, that's fine with me.

 

If someone wants to hack the game so all guards have 1 hp so they can duel them ninja-style in a big circle, that's fine with me too, but that doesn't mean we build the game mechanics to promote it.

 

In TDM, you're supposed to be playing a character who uses stealth because it's what he's best at, not because it's more fun than dropping guards with impunity as they run towards you. Players can rambo it if they like, but they have to accept that it's going to be hard to do it in this kind of game.

 

 

What does it matter if you are aware of your adversary if he shoots you in the torso with an arrow?

 

As has been said before, the justification is that an opponent who is aware of you will be dodging and twisting at the last moment, meaning you're likely to land a less severe hit. That's a standard gameplay mechanic. The main reason, however, is that it encourages the player to strike by surprise, which is an integral part of the stealth genre.

 

onto others by nerfing the arrows...

 

Where did you get the idea that arrows were "nerfed"? A bug was introduced into the game that made it far too easy to kill with arrows than was originally designed for. This just reverses that bug.

[Baddcog]

@ Ob (several posts were made...)

 

Well, thief is a stealth game by nature. It has always favored the player play stealthily (sic). The entire game is based around trying to be as stealthy as possible.

 

But the original game never forced you to ghost.

 

I never complained about your map forcing me to play stealthily, I complained about it forcing me to play in a ghost mode. There's a difference. You can sneak, get spotted/heard, get away and still continue to play stealthy without being forced to reload.

 

Not being seen/heard is GHOST rules that hardcore players adapted for themselves. Just as some players like to KO every guard and throw them all in a pile. The game never told you to do either but it always allowed either.

(with possible acception of some original mission having a no ko, or friendly ai or some such - but it was the exception not the rule)

[Obsttorte]

Missions should also be tested more thoroughly in order to avoid this.

Ähem ... yes.

 

The actual problem that should be solved by these calibrations is the following IMO.

• It's a stealth game, so stealthing should be somehow honored (except some scores in the end)
  
• It's a strategic game, so the player must have the possibility to choose out of several options to accomplish his task, prohibiting some of those is mostly not very welcome
  
• sneaking by a guard is in most cases more difficult than blackjacking or killing him, so the latter options must have some possible downside to outweight that
  

As Sotha is always saying, it is all about choices the player make.

[zergrush]

(I'll just make this edited bit a post of its own, since it was edited on my previous post a little too late)

 

Ähem ... yes.

 

The actual problem that should be solved by these calibrations is the following IMO.

• It's a stealth game, so stealthing should be somehow honored (except some scores in the end)
  
• It's a strategic game, so the player must have the possibility to choose out of several options to accomplish his task, prohibiting some of those is mostly not very welcome
  
• sneaking by a guard is in most cases more difficult than blackjacking or killing him, so the latter options must have some possible downside to outweight that
  

As Sotha is always saying, it is all about choices the player make.

 

 

Aside from that, one thing that motivates players to not pick the "kill everyone" path, is refining the end mission rating system by attributing A to F grades. One game stealth game that did this very effectively was Trilby: The Art of Theft. Your performance was separated in several categories, judged individually, and then given an overall grade. Here's a screenshot of an end mission screen:

 

http://www.anonmgur....89cba8e0e90.png

 

(The "hat" ranking corresponds to "Excelent" or "S" ratings awarded for excepcional performance)

[Obsttorte]

@ Baddcog: I was not complaining about people complaining on the ghost objectives on my last mission, this is a misunderstandment. I had my reasons to set this objectives and I did it not because I think it is the "true" way of playing this game, I did it because of gameplay reasons. If you load the map in DR, delete the specific objectives and add a blackjack and a couple of broadhead arrows to the player inventory and replay this one, I guess you would see what I mean.

 

No, actually it was just a reply to what Fieldmedic wrote

The mapper has total control over if they want to give the players the possibility to Rambo through the mission by restrictions in not giving arrows, no kills etc.

and the fact that some restrictions (no kill objectives, having no bj in a mission and so one) are mostly not very welcome

[DeTeEff]

If someone wants to hack the game so all guards have 1 hp so they can duel them ninja-style in a big circle, that's fine with me too, but that doesn't mean we build the game mechanics to promote it.

Hmm...I don't find that a relevant comparison. I just don't think it's fair to avoid the fact that an arrow to the head is lethal...You're talking about reprogramming and mentioning stuff that belongs in a movie...

 

In TDM, you're supposed to be playing a character who uses stealth because it's what he's best at, not because it's more fun than dropping guards with impunity as they run towards you. Players can rambo it if they like, but they have to accept that it's going to be hard to do it in this kind of game.

That's a more solid argument, I'll accept that.

 

Where did you get the idea that arrows were "nerfed"? A bug was introduced into the game that made it far too easy to kill with arrows than was originally designed for. This just reverses that bug.

 

IMHO if an arrow hits in the head, the guard should drop dead, no matter alert level, but as you said, the alertness will change behaviour in "dodging" and the only feasable way to simulate uncertainty and stress in firing towards an charging enemy may be to alter damage against alerted guards.

 

But anyway, I'll think it's enough to add the restrictions in the style of objectives...

 

And as I mentioned, I rarely use the broadheads or sword so the change won't affect me

[Obsttorte]

@zergrush: I can imagine that there are people who aim for good scores in games, and in TDM I sometimes do this with very small missions, too. But in general I tend to go the easiest way. Shortly after Splinter Cell came out a friend watched me playing it. He had played it himself and was asking me why I kill so much people. Actually I was more sniping through the levels then ghosting.

I asked him "Why not?" and he meant that it is not the way it is supposed to be played. But the problem was not that I didn't played it correct but that the rules did allow me to.

 

While some people may welcome this "lack of rules" other people (like me) find it somehow frustrating. This is really a matter of personal opinion, but I think that the "one arrow if unalerted, several arrows if alerted" approach is the best way to satisfy all parties.

[zergrush]

Personally I still think it should go a little beyond that. I'm all for adding kill limits, since they can represent one of two "real-life" consequences: a general alarm being sounded after several guards have been noted missing on duty, and a general "Thieves Order Code", i.e, "killing too much is not our style and brings a bad name to us".

Edited January 30, 2013 by zergrush

[AluminumHaste]

Yeah I found the Ghost objective in Heart of Lone Salvation to be difficult, but was incredibly rewarding to finish the mission with that objective complete. However I still enjoy being able to decide if I want to reload if I get into a fight with a guard, or to just continue. For example I just uploaded a playthrough of The Transaction in which I tried to ghost but ended up killing several AI and just kept playing. It was nice to be able to decide how I wanted to play:

 

 

Shameless self promotion I know

[DeTeEff]

It all boils down to the fact that should killing be

 

Unpractical/have severe consequences: Adding guards/sounding alarms, changing patrol routes etc.

or

Unacceptable: Because "Our guild doesn't allow that" "It should look like a theft" "Don't draw attention"

or

Be difficult because you are not skilled in killing: Decrease the damage from arrows in different difficulty settings/alert states

or

Arbitrary rules made up by the player: "I want to finish Zelda without the sword..."

Edited January 30, 2013 by Fieldmedic

[Obsttorte]

"I want to finish Zelda without the sword..."

[RPGista]

On all difficulty levels it now takes at least two headshots to take down an alert AI, but you can still drop them with one if they're taken by surprise.

 

This is a problem for me as a player. As stated by myself and some others, assassination runs are something that TDM is quite good for and is a gameplay style that remains underexplored. Being able to kill *unprotected* AI with a well aimed arrows (something that people keep forgetting, is quite hard in itself and assumes lots of training players that WANT to do it will go through on their own), alerted or otherwise, seems like a must for me, to keep the realism and snappiness of combat.

 

What if a player wants to:

 

- Have AI's melee skill level at maximun;

 

- Have health at a minimun so that one or two blows are all that it takes to end a fight;

 

Increasing melee difficulty right now makes fights incredibly dull, your hitting them with a stick and guards take ages to go down. The perfect balance, it seems to me, would be to keep AI's health always the same, and change only the amount of damage they deal to the player (= decrease the player's health potential). The "bugged" AI health always seemed quite right to me.

 

Decreasing the bow speed already stops rapid fire, I dont see any reason to make every melee difficulty level ban 1 hit kills.

 

EDIT: Added *unprotected* AI term because worried mappers could always give AI better equipment to start with, a helmet is your friend.

Edited January 30, 2013 by RPGista

[RPGista]

I would suggest making the standard "normal" level the new easy I guess. Im not sure high difficulty adds anything to AI skill level, it might be only health and damage values, so people who want to play as they are used to can have that setting to choose from.