Huh? Now where'd that go? (Picking pockets)

[demagogue]

Any reaction associated with a "sloppy" pickpocket only makes sense IMO if some player skill is involved, and it's not just frobbing & randomness. That raises the possibility of a pickpocket mechanism like the lock-pick mechanism, I'd say via the frob-highlight changing, where there are possible consequences if it fails terribly. I mean if it's failed within a generous margin then no reaction, just the pick doesn't go; but if it's failed terribly there's a possibility of reaction.

 

But since our simple pickpocket is standard fare we don't have to change it either. But then I'd vote not to have any different reaction associated with a sloppy one as I said before.

[Deadlove]

Eternally grateful, I am.

 

Spoken like someone as old and wise as Yoda!

 

Very wise, you are!

[Springheel]

Any reaction associated with a "sloppy" pickpocket only makes sense IMO if some player skill is involved,

 

This is true, which is why I'm suggesting that 4 second window. Anything the player does within 4 seconds of making the pickpocket is likely part of the pickpocket attempt--either getting into position or getting away afterwards. So penalizing the player if they alert the AI in this window seems appropriate.

 

That raises the possibility of a pickpocket mechanism like the lock-pick mechanism, I'd say via the frob-highlight changing,

 

Unfortunately I think the boat has sailed on that as a core feature. It's just too different from the way things have worked until now. Would be great as a varient for individual maps though.

[demagogue]

This is true, which is why I'm suggesting that 4 second window. Anything the player does within 4 seconds of making the pickpocket is likely part of the pickpocket attempt--either getting into position or getting away afterwards. So penalizing the player if they alert the AI in this window seems appropriate.

 

I understand the player alerting a guard in a time window after they pickpocket (though I'm not sure how the system could ever know they're in a time window -before- one), but how would it differ from normal alert behavior? In that case you already have an upset AI searching or running after you.

 

Or are you talking about specific barks or different alert behaviors in this case? "Get your hands off of me", and possibly even he grabs his pouch or key back? Yeah, things like that have some potential. Or maybe you mean the alert threshold is lowered, like he's more sensitive to sights & sounds following the pickpocket jiggle.

[SeriousToni]

I personally do not think it's necessary to make the ai recognize losing their pockets. Like NH said, this will be too repetitive in my eyes.

[grayman]

I understand the player alerting a guard in a time window after they pickpocket (though I'm not sure how the system could ever know they're in a time window -before- one)

 

We keep track of the time of the most recent alert.

 

When the pickpocket occurs, we wait 2 seconds.

 

When the 2 seconds are up, we compare the current time with the time of the most recent alert.

 

If it's <= 4 seconds, then the alert can be considered to possibly be related to the theft.

 

If it's > 4 seconds, then the alert and the theft can be considered unrelated.

[grayman]

Is everyone okay with the undead not reacting to a picked pocket?

[Springheel]

I understand the player alerting a guard in a time window after they pickpocket (though I'm not sure how the system could ever know they're in a time window -before- one), but how would it differ from normal alert behavior? In that case you already have an upset AI searching or running after you.

 

It doesn't really change their regular behaviour, other than the fact that they log it as a suspicious event (and play their bark, which is just cosmetic)

 

Is everyone okay with the undead not reacting to a picked pocket?

 

Seems fine by me.

[grayman]

I've been testing the Pickpocket Reaction and updated the proposal. Many things changed, so it's best you reread it in its entirety. (AKA I took out the red stuff.)

 

I'm going to continue testing.

 

@Sotha - do you have animations I can test?

[Springheel]

Sounds good to me.

[Sotha]

@Sotha - do you have animations I can test?

 

Eep. Nothing completed. I can give you the anim I showed earlier as a placeholder, if you want?

[grayman]

Eep. Nothing completed. I can give you the anim I showed earlier as a placeholder, if you want?

 

Sure. I'm not dependent on having anims, but I thought if one or more were available, I could test them.

 

I'll handle the replacement anim defs on the torch, lantern, and weapons for when they're carried and the victim reacts.

[Sotha]

Okay. I'll fine tune the anim a bit and send it your way. EDIT: I'll make a weapon version too.

[Springheel]

Sounds good to me.

 

Actually, noticed one thing.

 

This line:

 

Whether an alert increment is applied or not, his "evidence of intruders" count will bump up by 1.

 

Appears to punish the player if the AI notices the missing object at any time, which is random and not under the player's control. I would recommend changing that so the count is only bumped if step #3 is skipped. That way, the player is only punished for something under his control.

[Sotha]

Here is a youtube video for the pickpocketed-anims:

 

I think it turned out to look pretty good for a placeholder.

 

Here is the download link for the animation files (plus a test map):

https://drive.google...dit?usp=sharing

License: totally free to use in all non-commercial projects.

 

For grayman's convenience, here is the animation def stuff:

anim pickpocketed	 models/md5/chars/guards/proguard/proguard_animation_pickpocketed.md5anim
{
prevent_idle_override
frame 1  call overrideLegs
}

anim pickpocketed_weapon	 models/md5/chars/guards/proguard/proguard_animation_pickpocketed_weapon.md5anim
{
prevent_idle_override
frame 1  call overrideLegs
}

[RJFerret]

Appears to punish the player if the AI notices the missing object at any time, which is random and not under the player's control. I would recommend changing that so the count is only bumped if step #3 is skipped. That way, the player is only punished for something under his control.

 

In the context of that paragraph, I took that to mean if the alert level has hit cap (combat), with the mapper having set "pickpocket_alert" >0 (default), evidence of intruders increases, which makes sense as that's the exact usage--the mapper specifying that this object/AI's thing would only be missing by virtue of a stranger taking it.

 

It doesn't seem logical to me that if the AI were already alerted for a different reason, negating the pick pocket check, that evidence of intruder gets increased for no reason. (Although that would be an exploit, avoid pick-pocket ramifications by causing an alert within two seconds of the pick pocketing.)

[grayman]

... Appears to punish the player if the AI notices the missing object at any time, which is random and not under the player's control. I would recommend changing that so the count is only bumped if step #3 is skipped. That way, the player is only punished for something under his control.

 

So you want the bump to occur only if the picked pocket was accompanied by a nearby alert w/in the 4s window?

[grayman]

That way, the player is only punished for something under his control.

 

The pickpocket event is under the player's control. He can choose to do it or not do it.

 

If the victims find their purse is missing, and we don't ding the player for it because there was no nearby alert, then as an observer we can conclude that all victims always decide they lost it, rather than someone stole it. The flip side of that is always dinging the player no matter what, in which case as an observer we can conclude that all the victims always decide it was stolen, rather than lost.

 

Perhaps we want a mixture of both, a random decision as to whether the player gets dinged or not. Sometimes the victim thinks it's been stolen, and sometimes he thinks he left it home. This allows different victims to reach different conclusions.

[Springheel]

Here is a youtube video for the pickpocketed-anims:

 

Something is definitely off in the elbow area (see image).

 

Also, I would recommend cutting out the rubbing the head part...not only is that a really distinctive detail (which will make the animation seem more repetitive when seen often), but it's likely to clip into heads that are of different heights/helmets, etc.

 

 

It doesn't seem logical to me that if the AI were already alerted for a different reason, negating the pick pocket check, that evidence of intruder gets increased for no reason. (Although that would be an exploit, avoid pick-pocket ramifications by causing an alert within two seconds of the pick pocketing.)

 

I think you misunderstood me. If the player alerts the AI within the four second window (which means during the pickpocket attempt) then they can be punished with a bump to the evidence of intruder. This is appropriate in gameplay terms (player is being punished for something they did poorly) and makes sense logically (if the AI gets alerted by something during the pickpocket attempt they're more likely to react). If, however, the player does not alert the AI during the four second window, their pickpocket is considered successful, and if the AI randomly 'notices' it later, the player should not be penalized for that.

 

The pickpocket event is under the player's control. He can choose to do it or not do it.

 

Right, but I thought we'd agreed that we didn't want to punish the player for doing what they're supposed to do? And in some cases they don't have ANY choice, since the item is mission critical (like a key).

 

If the player makes a clean pickpocket, I see no justification for punishing them.

[demagogue]

I agree with what Spring just said.

 

I might distinguish, the AI might still have a reaction like it might have been stolen (by "someone"), but it shouldn't count against the player for the reason Spring just mentioned (no punishment for a clean pick).

 

To distinguish another analogy, because the VC often includes getting loot, it's different from seeing a noise arrow too.

[grayman]

@Sotha -

 

We probably don't need the weapon version of the anims because if the AI is holding a weapon, he's in a state where he won't react to having his pocket picked.

 

On the other hand, an AI carrying a torch or lantern, but no weapon, could do with his right hand searching his belt.

 

So I think what we need is to have that left hand movement shifted to the right hand, and leave the left hand alone so it can carry something.

 

Since the lantern is carried down, and the torch is carried up, does this mean we'd need separate anims for when he's carrying a lantern and when he's carrying a torch?

[RJFerret]

Except that change of plan takes away the option from designers and limits game-play choices.

 

If, however, the player does not alert the AI during the four second window, their pickpocket is considered successful, and if the AI randomly 'notices' it later, the player should not be penalized for that.

 

Right, but I thought we'd agreed that we didn't want to punish the player for doing what they're supposed to do? And in some cases they don't have ANY choice, since the item is mission critical (like a key).

 

If the player makes a clean pickpocket, I see no justification for punishing them.

 

As specified, nobody gets penalized. Unless the mapper has decided that there are story reasons they should be, then there's the option to do so, why take away that option? The default is 0 in the current design plan.

 

Sometimes however, one DOES want the player to have a ramification of their choice. Why not have the system allow for that, after all, isn't that the purpose of all this work to begin with? Currently to accomplish something like this, the very crude work-around is to teleport in an alert entity in front of the AI, which is only recognized in proper lighting. It's very cumbersome and produces unexpected results for the players.

 

For your "mission critical" items, obviously it would be unlikely a mapper would choose the alert increase, unless they designed for it intentionally.

 

In other words, the current design plan does what you desire (no alert/intruder increase) unless there is reason for it AND the mapper takes action to cause one (sets the spawnarg). Why design a system to eliminate options rather than provide flexibility? (Obviously if including the flexibility was unduly burdensome. But here it's the other way around, to accomplish the goal of alerting AI who've been pick-pocketed, it requires significant working-around in mapping, with inconsistent results.)

[Sotha]

Elbows

Good god, those female elbows are a major pain in the ass. Every time the elbow bends too much it looks horrible. I'll try to look at it, but I'm not very optimistic. I previously put my praying anim on hold because I can't get the elbows right, no matter what I do. This makes me suspect that it is a model issue.

 

Handiness

Wait... why would an AI carrying a weapon not pay attention to their belongings? One could suspect the AI to be even more alert to pickpocketing if he is on his guard.

 

I can change the handiness, so that the left arm holds stuff. I don't think there is any sense to make an anim for every possible item the AI could carry aroumd. Just replace the anim with no anim if the AI happens to carry a lantern?

 

Head rubbing

It is a good point. What about the looking around over the shoulders? That's pretty distinct too, although the random head turning is creating some variety.

 

I propose the anim fixing goes like this:

*Grayman now has the placeholders for testing.

*You guys decide and confirm and lock the decision how the pickpocketing works.

*Once the function is decided, please let me know what kind of animations you would like to see, and I'll have a look if I can modify these anims as you want.

[Skaruts]

They might react differently depending on the importance of the item they were carrying. A money pouch is a big blow, but guards may earn enough payment that it isn't the end of the world. The key to their Lord's off-limits study, on the other hand, might mean having the rope for breakfast...

 

The problem with a range of results is that players need to have some ability to predict the consequences of their behaviour.

That might be an issue with what I was thinking:

On top of your suggestion that they might turn and look for it, in the case of important items, it could trigger the AI to be looking around for the item at all times from then on, meaning the AI might suddenly stop walking mid-patrol (and potentially face some other direction) as if looking for his lost item. This would effectively make the AI more dangerous without seeming unjustified and without triggering an alert. But might also be too unpredictable.

 

On top of that, again in case of important items, the AI might start mumbling a set of lines such as "Why did I have to lose that" and "I'm going to be fried tomorrow", so as to not seem so gimmicky to the player.

Edited March 29, 2014 by Skaruts

[Sotha]

Boohoo. Those elbows.

 

It spent some time to try to fix them, but I only made them worse.

 

 

 

 

We cannot either bend female arms or we simply don't care about broken elbows.

It can't be done. Or I cannot do it.