[The Dark Mod 15th Anniversary Contest - Entry Thread]

Good motivation for me to finally try to make a mission.

[Wave function collapse]

Ah, I had in the back of my head that I seen something like this. Thanks! I'll check it out

[Wave function collapse]

Just saw this on 'Tube. I am curious. Has anyone thought of/tried/done TDM mapping using this wave function collapse algorithm?

For those new to the algorithm, here is a good quick description: 

 

[Fan Mission: No Honor Among Thieves (2010/04/29)]

Absolutely beautiful mission. (And I hear even campaign? ) I also was a little stuck at the end of the first mission, but got it eventually. Now looking forward to the rest!

[Just Music You Like]

Not sure if mentioned before, but IMHO this artist's music would be very fitting for a Thief-style game.

 

[Is this Github repo legit?]

THanks a bunch

[Is this Github repo legit?]

Hey all,

I just found this: https://github.com/ordohereticus/TheDarkMod

is this known and would you say it is safe to fork from? Does it keep its promise to be (somewhat) synched with TDM's SVN server version?

I would like to screw around with the source code a little bit, but would prefer not dig into SVN for now, I barely got a hang of git.

[We have lost a member of the TDM development team]

My condolences for the community.

[Proper Campaigns/Missionpacks]

11 hours ago, Obsttorte said:

also their respective distribution in the mission and about the values of the items to be bought in the shop and their usefulness for the next mission

Ok, I see. So you mean there is no linear relationship between "player aptitude" and "loot collected", but for example logarithmic, or a step function, ... (or sth more complicated). However, I think that in any case it is almost always a positively ascending function: Finding a really precious piece of loot, however nonlinearly distributed, should usually be due to player aptitude. Sure, something really valuable could be randomly placed somewhere and only 5% of players are lucky to find it by chance, but why not reward them also?

11 hours ago, Obsttorte said:

This is something that needs to be carefully calculated.

Well, not necessarily. Loot carryover could be made optional. Missions could start with the same amount of gold available irrespective of the previous' missions loot collection. In other words, this issue of loot carryover could be ignored completely (by setting the gold at the shop stage to fixed values) and there would still be a benefit IMHO regarding the thrill/immersion of playing a string of thematically associated missions (where seeing the next and progressing the story depends on the successful completion of the prior mission). So, in this case, there would be almost no change to the missions at all. (The savestate issue still remains tbh.)

So rather than considering the loot issues a showstopper, I think it doesn't need to be considered an issue at all.

11 hours ago, Obsttorte said:

DMP and CMP as you call them would need to be distinguishable in the downloader, so this would need to be tweaked accordingly

That's true. I'd consider CMP as a irregularly updated "snapshot" for new players. Something along the lines of the unoffical TDM downloader - offered on the page to make life for new players easier.

As a new player, I'd find it superweird to see the column with S and C on the mission downloads page - and C barely used even though there are clearly campaigns. I was confused at first and still am a little bit tbh.

11 hours ago, Obsttorte said:

Still they would have to deal with that, but will only do so if it has any benefit for their work. And currently I see none. Maybe you should ask the authors who created a series of missions what they think about your proposal

Definitely. I think it should be up to the campaign creators whether they want this or not.
As for the benefit I'd like to disagree. I think it makes playing the missions way more attractive for new players. Again, I don't know if there are any right now and what the overall state of TDM is.

[Proper Campaigns/Missionpacks]

I don't quite follow regarding the balancing difficulty. Wouldn't this be solved by following the below suggestions?

- offer a separate Core Mission Pack ("CMP") (for new players mostly, if there are any RN), which include ready-mapped campaigns, .pk4-zipped together retrospectively.

- a Development Mission Pack (DMP), including unzipped, uncompleted campaigns, for TDM enthusiasts (arguably >95% of all players ). So this is the default one that already exists. As the name suggests, this offers the most up-to-date mission list, with unzipped and incomplete campaigns.

- this zipping-together for the CMP campaigns could be done almost automatically, except the loot balancing. For that, mission authors would first need specify an easy amount and a near-impossible amount of pre-shop gold available for successul mission completion. The more narrow this range, the easier it would be to specify. These min-max values are then transformed based on the possible min/max loot from the previous mission via variables and/or described in this section.

Watcha think?

7 hours ago, wesp5 said:

In my opinion it would be enough if campaign or series missions are at least recognizable in the mission list, but even that is not the case in the core game right now...

I had a quick look at the 146 entries and it looks like they are rather easily discernible, mostly with the syntax "[campaign name] [number] [mission name]". What did I miss and/or what do you suggest?

[Proper Campaigns/Missionpacks]

How time flies...

I just spent an hour looking a bit into things to get a rough overview. Here's the "progress":

- read the thread again to re-aquaint myself with the state of affairs

- downloaded No Honor Among Thieves and compared the files with the campaign tutorial

I think the tutorial is rather straightforward and seems to include most of the functionality discussed here. Next I will try to set up some dummy missions myself and play with the values. Also I'd like to get an overview over campaigns that are completed and could be bundled together retrospectively.

[Proper Campaigns/Missionpacks]

@Darkpixel I might have a look into that, since that's a feature I'd like to see in TDM. My programming experience is medium at best, but I can give it a try. I'd give it 20% that there'll be a useful end result, my time and concentration levels is also not super high. It could help with motivation if we could team up and chat about some milestones.

In my opinion, that would also be something for newcomers who want to have a better overview and want more immersion in the sense of a completed game. Nevertheless there should still be an option to download the missions individually, as demagogue said.

[Conceptual MultiPlayer idea]

On 4/30/2020 at 9:12 AM, peter_spy said:

Ithe main argument was that it would be too hard to do from scratch, even for a team. And that person basically made the whole groundwork alone (while looking/copying/modifying solutions from other games, obviously, but still). Of course it's not as polished as TDM, e.g. the AI is hardly there, yet it's a proof that a lot can be done, to some extent, just by one person. We'll see if he/she has the patience and determination to finish it.

Seems fascinating to me... It sounds like this individual is not really "known" in the TDM community? Did anyone talk to him/her about intention of this game? Do you know whether this person would accept help from an accomplished community building a medieval stealth game (the TDM community, that is ) - and if so, would some of you consider splitting your workload between TDM and this new stealth game project?

 

edit: I just watched the first demo video. Apart from the running speed, which is hilariously off (way too fast), I freaking love what I see here...

edit 2: The menu style seems heavily TDM-inspired (though really unpolished still from an arty perspective - I think menus / GUIs are still placeholders)

[Conceptual MultiPlayer idea]

On 8/28/2009 at 5:41 AM, Crispy said:

Yes, I was about to post defending multiplayer maps - there is quite a bit of design that goes into them (the good ones, anyway). It's hard to compare the effort involved between single/multiplayer maps

On 1/15/2010 at 3:03 PM, New Horizon said:

I think the best bet for network support would be if another group decides to start up a separate branch of the mod to create a multiplayer patch. There does seem to be some interest amongst some in the community to do that.

On 4/2/2010 at 5:06 PM, Midnight said:

I've only just come across this project called Thievious thanks to a post by clearing at TTLG. Although I was doubtful at first (inspired by TDS??) I was suitably impressed at the in-game videos and the potential that this could have, although the title of the mod sounds a little silly so I've suggested 'Thieves' would make a better name for a co-op Thief game.

Now, I know that the TDM team aren't considering any multiplayer development, and most TDM fans (myself included) are primarily interested in a single player experience, but co-op would be a worthwhile addition to TDM gameplay since thieves would often (in the real world and in this universe) collaborate and are not always the lone wolf characters that most of us associate with Thief.

I would hate to see this co-op project fail to progress because it's just a one man tech demo at the moment with no real support, and at the same time, it would be disappointing if it were to be completed, only to have one or two playable maps.

On 4/2/2010 at 6:34 PM, Midnight said:

If that's possible (that different branches can be kept in sync) then that would certainly make it easier to have missions that could be played in both. The T2 multiplayer patch has shown how many single player missions can translate to co-op quite easily (surprisingly), but there have also been many that would need some tweaking, or might not be suitable at all

On 4/3/2010 at 11:41 PM, New Horizon said:

I think it's highly unlikely our team would take on such a project. As we've stated many times, it's enough work maintaining the single player codebase. If a dedicated team of coders came along and wanted to create a separate branch of the Mod with multiplayer, that would be great. If it were kept in perfect sync with the main branch, maybe it could even be merged back into TDM.

Simple answer is that we can't, but perhaps someone else can.

On 10/3/2010 at 11:22 PM, stumpy said:

the only problem with multiplayer is that everyone will want to play the thief.

On 10/3/2010 at 11:39 PM, pusianka said:

Multiplayer games are the future of gaming, it's much nicer to share adrenaline and thrilling moments with a friend. In that case the animations of the thief has to be done.

On 10/4/2010 at 12:30 AM, taaaki said:

Multiplayer is a biiiig can of worms in a thief-like genre.

Co-op: do you split loot/pickups or have a shared loot/pickups? saving and loading (do you allow it and if you do, how do you synchronise saves with minimal disruption to play)? It will get a bit frustrating if the other player is a dunce and keeps alerting the guards while you are trying to carefully sneak by a guard post undetected. It also affects the way mappers design their maps.

Thief vs. guard: to me, TDM is a slow-paced game, so I would imagine this could get rather boring for either of the parties.

On 10/4/2010 at 1:05 AM, pusianka said:

When I say multi I mean coop mode and rather only for two people maybe three. When you play coop you usually contact with your mate and try to plan moves together. It would deffinetly affect the way mappers would create their maps but I guess there is no prob with putting an option saying "mission for 1 player only". I suggest you look at SCCT coop mode. It would be my favourite game if they allowed FM making.

On 10/4/2010 at 1:33 AM, nbohr1more said:

There is a co-op 3rd person Thief style mod being worked on by another author:

Thievious

There was talk of sync-ing his project with TDM but he did not appear to respond to that idea AFAIK...

On 10/4/2010 at 2:56 AM, New Horizon said:

Regarding your requests/suggestions for multiplayer and third person.

1. There will be no 'official' support for third person.

2. There will be no 'official' support for multi-player.

Some other group may decide to make their own '3rd person or multiplayer mod' for TDM, but it will be their responsibility to make sure the existing maps work, or break compatibility and take off in their own direction.

On 11/29/2010 at 5:10 AM, Ishtvan said:

That sounds interesting, but you'd have to add multiplayer support to TDM first. We didn't make maintaining D3 multiplayer support a priority, and therefore many TDM things (e.g., frobbing) would be broken if there were more than one client connected.

On 1/23/2011 at 8:27 AM, Fidcal said:

Multi-player is not officially planned for Dark Mod although maybe someone else might get it to work. But machinima isn't limited to multi-player is it?

On 3/7/2011 at 6:06 AM, Ishtvan said:

Just a cautionary note, we didn't go to great lengths to support multiplayer in all the additions we made to D3 (things like frobbing, for example). So having multiple bots at once may be tricky.

On 4/9/2011 at 9:53 AM, Tels said:

Personally, I have had always a feew ideas (like make a multiplayer sneaker game in the browser) that would attract a larger audience, but that would boil down again to the two questions:

* who will join (I am a coder, not an artist)

* and will the audience really care, anyway?

On 4/30/2011 at 4:57 AM, lost_soul said:

Well for starters, the player model is only half-animated. This can be seen in a few FMs with mirrors. I don't know about the underpinnings of the game though and whether network play would work. Another conceivable problem would be the ragdoll physics. Let's say player 2 knocks out a guard. His system has to transmit the exact position of the limbs of the body to the other players and update accordingly. I think a lot of games that have ragdolls only render them on the client, like ut2004. It isn't like Quake 2, where there were strict character death animations. Player 2 could be dragging a guard through a hallway and have it get stuck on a door... etc

Coop play would really be awesome though. I think somebody was working on Coop at one point...

On 5/12/2011 at 7:27 PM, frogdude said:

this may have been said before, i didn't have time to read the entire forum, but i believe that a multiplayer component would greatly increase the mod's popularity, with Thievery being outdated as well. I know that Thief is primarily a single player experience, but i found Thievery's multiplayer very gratifying in it's days, exactly how i would have pictured the multiplayer of Thief 1&2, if they would have ever had one:)

Since Doom 3 had multiplayer support, i'm thinking my suggestion is not extremely unrealistic. But then again, i'm not a programmer.

On 5/12/2011 at 7:46 PM, Baddcog said:

Can't say multi will ever happen, probably would take a lot of coding and coders are in short supply these days. However, if anyone ever stepped up and got it done it would be done. So you never know.

it's open source so there are no roadblocks, just not any road crews either.

On 5/12/2011 at 8:04 PM, demagogue said:

I would personally love multiplayer too. Just looking at it a little myself, it'd be a big task! Every system locked in to the local player, like frobbing & objectives, would have to be redone to negotiate multiple players using it in the same game... But anything's possible. Maybe someone will take it on someday

So, here's another round of chronological talk about MP (I selected between and within posts, so this is no exhaustive or even objective representation of the discussion). Some themes that come up multiple times are:

1. Implementing MP is very difficult but not impossible, maybe an independent party could have a crack at it.
2. the theme of "frobbing" comes up several times (but I'm sure it's only one example of a lot of things that'd need tweaking)
3. "Thievious" seems to be (have been?) another Mod project in the style of Thief with MP in mind, although at least the link above seems to be dead. I didn't search further about this yet.

 

[Conceptual MultiPlayer idea]

The earliest MP-related posts in this forum. I only did a quick search and might missed important discussion points, but hopefully not. Will search for newer posts later
(Disclaimer: selected for relevance IMHO and edited for conciseness - click on the quote's link to find the original posts)

On 1/27/2005 at 5:09 AM, New Horizon said:

A multiplayer Thief inspired mod is already being produced over at Black Cat Games. It's called Nightblade. We've chosen to focus only on single player as they are sure to produce an amazing product.

On 1/27/2005 at 1:06 PM, Dram said:

I must add to this. I saw that nightblade has torches that cannot be taken out. Sadly it is no longer like thief. (...) (it also has no real-time-dynamic-lighting)

On 1/27/2005 at 7:04 PM, Guest Jarvis said:

The thievery formula is probably one of the best multiplayer thief formula's out there. It's not perfect, but it's a lot better than most people give it credit for.

On 5/28/2005 at 5:21 PM, Demigod said:

Since quake4 uses the same engine as doom3, just with some opts and custom work (vp's and scripts etc) thrown in it’s not really a big change is it? The fixes and changes to net code are patchable, as Id have always done ala quake 3 and 2

If you want massive multiplayer then the quake wars engine (Doom3 + mega texture + net code change) would be better, there the net code has (seemingly) been changed quite a bit from doom3 in quake 4 it hasn’t, sure it has more modes which can be modded easier than adding them in, but other than that its the same basic code base.

I cant see this being a big change and in all honesty It would probable be possible to backport your work from quake4 to doom3 and vice versa, though any custom code from quake4 you use would have to be rewritten or changed, just as some of blackcats ut mods work on ut2004 and 2003.

On 6/23/2005 at 11:57 PM, obscurus said:

The Dark Mod would certainly look very nice for this kind of thing, but I don't think that Doom 3's multiplayer code would be up to it (although Quake 4 might do the job nicely - I wonder if the Dark Mod would work with Q4 with a little tweaking?)....

On 6/24/2005 at 2:28 AM, obscurus said:

As far as I know, D3 would just take a lot of coding to get a decent multiplayer experience out of it, whereas it is a relatively trivial task to do what you are suggesting with UT2K4 + Nightblade. It should in theory be possible to port the Dark Mod to Quake 4 and add multiplayer stuff with little difficulty (but I am a mapper, not a programmer, so I could be wrong).

On 10/6/2005 at 5:03 AM, Dram said:

Alternatively you can try Thievery, which is a thief multiplayer mod for UT, however, even that is starting to show it's age. The devs of thievery are now working on nightblade for utk4

On 11/7/2005 at 1:23 PM, bardic said:

So the base mod won't have any, but anyone who feels the need to mod the mod could do it themselves and release a multiplayer version of the Dark Mod. At least Doom has multiplayer support, no one has ever been able to make a multiplayer mod for the previous Thief games because those engines didn't support it at all.

On 1/15/2007 at 4:42 PM, Gildoran said:

Don't forget that for a multiplayer mod, we have to understand the netcode and design around it. I don't really know how D3's netcode works or what the caveats are, and I'm assuming that's also the case for our other programmers

On 8/6/2007 at 5:44 PM, greebo said:

There is a rudimentary mechanism for multiplayer map cycles in Doom 3. It basically consists of parsing a .cfg file for the desired map order.

On 7/27/2008 at 10:14 AM, Komag said:

Indeed we all hope the best for Nightblade, it has always been a promising project. They are more focused on multiplayer, whereas Dark Mod is focused on single player

(... lot of talk about Nightblade so far. I don't know it, maybe I should also look into this.)

[Conceptual MultiPlayer idea]

Awesome, this will come in handy.

[Conceptual MultiPlayer idea]

Agree. My point above was not to point out a short-coming, but rather a positive point (i.e. no need to offer just one mode).

Anyway, I might as well get started forking (not even sure if that's the right term, that's how noob I am) TDM and start crafting about. Don't imagine I ever finish, but I'll try to keep it orderly in case anyone wants to ship in/take over.

[Conceptual MultiPlayer idea]

6 minutes ago, demagogue said:

But my experience wtih T2MP is that coop is different. For coop, you're not waiting for people to join servers, you're contacting a friend or two directly and asking them if they want to play a map coop with you. It's something you play with your friends. And that can still happen even if people aren't joining servers.

I agree with your post almost 100% except for this point. I think your falsely equating coop/comp with friends/strangers-over-servers. How about you make an appointment with friends and still have a competitive mode - namely when it is not shown/known who plays which character in the game? Think the werewolf game, for example (or any semi-cooperative game for that matter).

[Conceptual MultiPlayer idea]

1 hour ago, cabalistic said:

One thing to note in general: no matter whether you're integrating MP into TDM or start a new project, it's going to take a lot (I mean, seriously, a lot) of work to get something playable. And judging from the activity in this forum, I think there is a high probability that you'd end up with fairly empty servers - which is the death of any MP game. While I'm sure the idea of having an MP thief game, I'm not sure the player base is there to justify the enormous effort it'd take

Good point! I guess when tackling on such a task, one needs to find different rewards whilst doing it. Like, completing a project that has taught a lot of programming/server/... lessons on the way. So then, even when it becomes a ghosttown, it was not all for nothing.

Also, the way I imagine is not that people meet randomly on servers. Rather, I think a few people make an "appointment" in these forums here and then 5-15 people play a map maybe once a month or so. That's how I imagine it, again, I could be completely off (I have no experience on which to base my estimates on).

[Conceptual MultiPlayer idea]

4 hours ago, demagogue said:

TDM is by far the best base for a MP thieving game IMO. Why reinvent the gameplay wheel when we already have the whole game in place now?

What specific technical aspects make TDM most feasible for a TDM MP version? This questions sounds strange I guess. But as OrbWeaver pointed out, TDM is optimized for AI and visibility depending on static/dynamic light (reflections). So of course, that's needed in your coop description. But in your competitive style MP idea, is there also AI? (Again, I have no MP experience in general ^^)

And on a related note, how ensure that real-player guards experience the same visibility that the thieves' light gem indicates? I guess light settings in the game have to be really low? Or should the thieves in complete shadows be actually invisible until the player guard comes close enough - event though player guards don't see complete darkness but ambient lights?

Without much knowledge about game engines and the TDM structure in particular, it's impossible for me to say if TDM is the correct platform. But it seems so, if:

• maps do include AI
• the MP mode should be seen as an extension of TDM rather than a semi-related side project.

4 hours ago, demagogue said:

In that respect I disagree with Nico that it should be a very specific type of new gameplay, we should keep our existing gameplay as far as possible.

See my last bullet point above. In order to get a quicker version of MP in place, one should not start with unconventional, harder to implement ideas. However, IF there is a MP in place sometime with TDM, esp. a competitive mode, I'd love attempting to implement the idea above as another possibility

Alternatively of course, I might have a look into OS game engines - and how to export assets from TMD and import these to the new engine in a streamlined process. In the unlikely case of ever finishing such a mammoth project, I think the TDM should decide if it should carry a "TDM" label then.

 

[Conceptual MultiPlayer idea]

@OrbWeaver this makes a lot of sense, thanks! I heard about Thievery before, don't know why I never tried it... let's give it a shot!

Ok then, since I agree that the TDM engine is not the most suitable for a MP project, this thread can be moved elsewhere I guess. But please don't delete it

[Conceptual MultiPlayer idea]

Okay, I'd like to throw in one idea. Open the spoilers for several disclaimers.

Spoiler

1) I know ideas are a dime a dozen - and I guess aspects of my idea are kinda unconventional.
2) I haven't been part of this community for a looong time, I don't have a clue about current plans and state/health of the Dark Mod community.
3) I doubt what I suggest is close to technical feasibility. Nor have I any idea about the implementability. I might look into that though, because at least I find the following idea of mine interesting
4) I never really played multiplayer games. My idea below is purely hypothetical, might already exist in this exact form, might be interesting in my head but totally boring to MP veterans... ok... enough excuses for now.

Here it goes.

Imagine
1. a real-time, online Multiplayer for Dark Mod (or similar 3D-first-person-medieval-theft-style game inspired by thief)
2. every real person has an account with a virtual money balance as acquired by playing the game
3 however, if one's virtual character dies, so does the account, and then the money is gone. One can decide to start fresh with a new account though.
4. top players and their accounts are listed somewhere on the games central website, bla bla bla, so there is motivation to have a long-lived character with a lot of money

So far so good (?). Now for some gameplay specifics:
5. there are maps, of course. Everyone is free to design Maps. (since availability of maps is certainly one of the bigger bottlenecks, the initiative for someone to submit a map should be rewarded, or at least not made difficult).
6. There is an official entrance for the map, where the guards enter. And then there is a (or several?) inoffical entrance(s). There thieves might enter. The map creator is responsible for making sure both types of entrances (official and inoffical) exist. (As with single-player maps, the map creator should make sure there are official and inofficial routes throughout - in other words, an interesting, explorable, thief-style map).
7. The map creator is also responsible for making some riddles, which potential thiefs must solve in order to get into the map. Riddles should be hard (only solvable with a "hacker-mentality" - think of the cognitive tasks thieves face when trying to get entrance to a complicated system) (or, metaphorically speaking - the thieves play out their own version of a cutscene before a heist - of course only in their mind, not with a video )
8. The goal of the guards is to, well, guard a specific object (or keep thieves from achieving a certain objective) for a certain amount of time. If they succeed, they will be paid accordingly (or rather the player's accounts)).
9. Per map, there is a maximum number of guards. This number is defined by the map creator. Also, the map creator equips each guard. Before a map starts, each guard position must be filled. If more people are interested than open positions exist, there will be a competitive selection procedure (maybe one-on-one fights in a "sandbox" mode against contestants? Or a quiz how well they are familiar with the map they want to guard?)
10. Importantly, the map creator CANNOT specify routes of guards. This is up to the players playing the guards.
11. Even more importantly - the group of guards do not know when of even if thieves will appear. This should encourage patrolling-style behaviors automatically.
12. The entrance riddle of thieves should be difficult. This is the main trade-off for the lucrative prize, together with the high guards:thieves ratio.
13. Within the map, there is no chat. People (guards and thieves) should only be allowed to cooperate via game-play elements. Therefore, guards writing letters should be possible, but thieves might steal this information within the map. (maybe talking is also possible, but this should be audible in a realistic way - thieves should be careful to not raise their voices and were they want to speak)
14. When the set time for a map is done, the players may decide each time if they want to play for the guards or the thieves next time.

All in all, I believe this gameplay style would offer trade-offs for each party (guards, thieves) to make it difficult for both but balanced. Going back to the disclaimer: I'm aware that the online, real-time nature of my suggestion is difficult to implement at best, impossible at worst.

But then, why these specific ideas? I believe such an approach could circumvent several dangers Dark Mod is facing:
- rather unrealistic/easy AI --> not an issue here, because there is no AI, only natural human intelligence.
- small ratio between map playing time : map creation time (not so much an issue as maps may be reused, but the feel for the mission is kinda new each time)
- this might inspire some opening up of the community to new players, or encourage people to hand in maps, with the prospect that they might be used in a real-time, MP, higher-stakes scenario.

So! I think I'm ready now being torn apart by you guys

[Newbie DarkRadiant Questions]

I'm working through this tutorial:

 

http://wiki.thedarkmod.com/index.php?title=Roads

 

But the alpha patches and the grass/road textured patches are z fighting instead of blending. What is the one important step/parameter/... so that the alpha patch leads to blending?

[TDM 2.05 official introductory missions]

Well, there is a third mission in the storyline that finishes the arc.

Ah, I didn't knwo there was something planned already. Would be sad if this third mission wouldn't see the light of day, so I hope someone experienced offers his/her help.

[TDM 2.05 official introductory missions]

I never finished Saint Lucia before now (since I couldn't find the entrance to the church that wouldn't hunt me down). But I have to say, THIS is the best TDM mission I played, especially after you made it easier. It has everything, the vertical design with the amazingly beautiful sewer section, including the lowest depths there that really made me shiver. I don't 100% like the slum section in the beginning, though extremely beautiful and detailed as well, it feels really linear. It would be awesome if there were two or three houses you could walk around or something. I also had trouble opening the crate containing the statue weep box, because I didn't realize I need to frob the lid for the lockpicks to work.

 

I small plea for the first mission before that: I had trouble operating the number wheels on the safe. Would it be possible to show the help text everytime the closet is oppened as long as the player didn't rotate a number wheel yet?

 

Also, I was kinda sad when I finished the three introductory missions. Maybe, would it be thinkable to choose yet another existing mission and, with limited work on it, make it fit into the storyline?