kaldor

If I have learned one thing about this mod community, then that the "freedom of mappers" has a very high value. So, if you like bots, put them in your map. If you don´t, well then don´t. Although I dislike these bots, I will play maps with them. Maybe with less joy, but that´s my personal problem then You can have my ration, too. Just keep them

Maybe such steampunk designs will appear very extravagant in TDM. Like something only rich people can afford - and the rather poor "medieval" people stare at it in astonishment and envy. BTW: Somehow it came into my mind, that in T1 was a very important person, called Victoria. A coincidence?

So, the "lanternbot" you quoted has a typical gothic styling?

Not at all! You don´t like it? I think those pretentious buildings reflected very well the megalomania of these mechanists..

I guess the Thief series and TDM should be seen rather in the "steam fantasy" genre. It differs in the timeline, which is more like the medieval Gothic era (12th - 16th century) than the Victorian age (18th century), which is the classic steampunk era. That´s the reason why the items of the linked movie don´t really fit into Thief or TDM. In T2 the mechanists also introduced some aspects of Art Deco, which was popular in the 1920ies - and I think that fits really great! That is one of the main aspects, I didn´t like in T2. Steambeasts ... It´s okay to me, having a steam engine that forges something or produces electricity.. But something that acts like a robot needs advanced electronics! Even nowadays, we don´t have such robots. To me, that was like a "no go" in the series. Sure, one can always argue that magic is involved, or souls or something like that. But I won´t buy it. It is somehow wrong in the scenario, in my opinion.

What I meant with similarities is: It is like building a car that looks like a Porsche 911, but not calling it that way. It is some sort of plagiarsm. But I am not a lawyer - and if you say it is not a problem, I will believe you. Apart from the law and the possibilites, I guess the main reason why Eidos (Square/Enix) is not going to attack TDM, is that it will not continue the official Thief-story. That will be reason, why I will buy Thief 4 (if the previews arent´t that terrible). I want to know whats going on with Garrett. That way, both thief-like-games can coexist.

Hey there! After 8 years of work, and shortly before release, Activision/Blizzard prohibited the fan project for Kings Quest 9. Read the story here: http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/27441/Activision_Shuts_Down_Kings_Quest_Fan_Sequel.php Okay, TDM is trying not to harm the IP of Eidos - or recently Square/Enix - with not mentioning the main chars and places. But, come on, the reference is absolutely clear. I am not sure, if this mod could be sued despite not having "Garrett" and "Hammerites". I am a little scared, as they want to release "Thi4f" in the next years. Don´t you think they might have an interest in shutting TDM down? Are you prepared for a response on this?

The item is held constantly in the distance you picked it up. So if you stand very close to the item, you will hold it that close, and avoid hitting the furniture

I think that´s pretty awesome. Makes me feel like a kid again, climbing around. But, this also spawns endless possibilites a mapper has to think of.. I also experienced, that some horizontal areas are not to be mantled on, even if they look like they could. Some lanterns are climbable, some not. Is that decided by the mapper? Damn! *reloads mission*

hehe.. I reinstalled the mission just because of your comment, and found those arrows! And, hey, I did NOT spawn any rope arrows for it.

Ah, I see. I found the solution to my problem. But, like the others, can not finish the map due to the objectives bug. But anyhow, it´s a great and inspiring mission. Did you realise that the player can climb nearly all the roofes in the starting area? Sadly, nothing is found there. But it is fun walking that thin ropes

I am wondering, too. A thief needs his lockpicks Somehow I am stuck in the mission:

The longer I am thinking about it, the more I like it. It creates a dynamic community and setting. But there is one thing: You already said, there can be heated arguments about nearly everything. So who does the mapper ask? The team? The community? Who can decide, if discussions tend to become endless? I would prefer the team to have that "authority". Not because of the definition of the universe, but because those discussions are tedious.. I also think you TDM-people created two different things: - A toolset to create thief-like games, with game dynamics, models and so on. and additionally - A "ruleset" for one specific steam-fantasy world. With Bridgeport, Menoa, the Builders.. So why the separation? Because there will be mappers who don´t care about canon at all. They will have a Garrett, or something completely different. You can not prevent that. That´s also the reason why I said we need an official campaign. But maybe that is not necessary. Maybe we just need a name for that universe. Like "Bridgeport Shadows" (or whatever), to state the difference. Any mapper who wants to use the setting of this specific universe, has to keep to the canon in the wiki or forum - or not to use the name and logo of it and create his own universe. What do you think?

Don´t call me a bureaucrat, but there are two discussions paralled here. Voiceovers and informations in the wiki. Hey, take it with humor. I got your point, but just couldn´t resist viewing your "contradiction". But I still feel different, and if I ever have the time to make a map, I will insert such voiceover - and if I have to record it on my own Well, I guess that is the central question here. How many details do we (community and team) want to be nailed down. This is a general question that NEEDS to be answered. Take 'Star Wars' for example: There are a lot of details defined and writers can only create stories inside that narrow borders. You cannot write a story that kills the main protagonists or changes the empire´s status. In the 'Dungeons and Dragons' ruleset it is different: Monsters and items are described, but a game master can imagine any fantasy world he/she wants with it. In my opinion, TDM should be a compromise of both. With SOME defined details that all have to agree, but with the freedom to create a campaign that has a relevant impact on his/her world. Linking to difficulty was not my idea, but having an optional toggle stands in contrast to the current difficulty system. You would have to completely change the menu. Maybe the current settings "Easy, Expert, Ghost" could be pre-defined suggestions, and a player can customize all the options. You could add a "Custom" button with checkboxes for the detailed stuff (voiceovers, opened windows, etc).

Really? Never mind! @topic: In the old discussion, I remember the idea that clues could be bound to difficulty. So someone that plays on "hard" does not get the additional clues, but one on "easy" hears them.. How about that?

hehe.. You guys have put me down, when I suggested that audio comments as clues in the "unopenable doors"-thread! But anyhow, I still think they will greatly add to the game.But that also means, there is only one hero. If a mapper/designer has his own ideas, he must record his own voice-files To the topic: I guess, having no "official" campaign is a problem. A story lives with the strong characters. But inventing those characters into the void can be hard and spawns a lot sub-universes. So, maybe there could be some official top-people (chief of the inventors, high priest of the builders ...) and some informations, that make them suspicious or somehow interesting. Mappers could then refer to them in their missions.

But due to the short route, it made the situation more challenging. You have less time to act. Actually, he caught me in the first attempt. Making him stop somewhere from time to time would (maybe) make it too easy.

Hi! I wondered if - in a later DM version - the AI would not generally be alerted by sounds of the player, if also NPC are in the area. For example, in one of the maps, there is a "cook"-NPC running around in a kitchen. In the hallway (behind a closed door) stands a guard. When the player knocks out the cook and starts running around in the kitchen, making noises, the guard will be alerted. But how could he know, that there is a stranger and not the cook doing his job? Do you think this is a problem, or should remain unresolved for reasons of gameplay (and complexity) ? The other way round: It could add to realism and difficulty if the guards would react to some NPC actions. Maybe there are REALLY rats and the guard takes a look. Or a NPC drops something and the guard would leave his normal track to check out. On "easy" setting, that would be inappropiate. But on "normal" or "hard", that randomness would add to the experience, imo. I guess these events need to be scripted (still on a random base), so they appear when the player is around and are not executed too often. greetz, kaldor

Hi there! I played it on Hard in about 30 minutes. Well, I did not ghost it and knocked those guards out. Missed about 500 in loot, which means I am not a good thief Thank you for the great work! I really enjoyed it. Some thoughts: greetz, kaldor

And thats good, IMO. First of all, using the term "dumbing down" is insulting the mappers following that way. We are talking about decoration here that only adds to the map, and is not the main challenge the mapper is creating. So, to contradict you, it would not simplify the map if the decoration is identified as such, but would focus the player on the real tasks out there. But, and I think this is where I agree with you, placing unfrobable doors in important areas of the map (e.g. centered hallway), would be a mistake, as the player always would try to open it and gets confused if nothing happens. I did not suggest a rule, but a recommendation. Any mapper can do what he/she wants. But to say nothing about the topic in the wiki would be irresponsible, especially regarding that AI issue. Again: We are talking about decoration. Using that decorative doors too often would be a "bad style". Leave that to the mapper. Personly, I like maps that have that "immersion" of being in a real town that lives. Okay, you are right about that audio thing. Hehe, I would like to have no dummy-doors in missions at all, too. But there are cases, where those doors are needed. What I wrote for the wiki is just a proposal, so change it in any way, if you want. But I am absolutely convinced, this topic should be mentioned in the wiki for mappers.

What do you think about this for the "Doors" wiki? (I have no idea how non-frobale items are called or created in the editor, so that should be added). Doors as decoration In many cases, e.g. in city streets, doors are essential to create a feeling of immersion. But doors are also an important element of gameplay in TDM, so a sharp differentiation between decoration and openable doors is necessary. Especially because the player might take a long and frustrating time to search for a key or lever to open that door. Also, frobable doors as decoration can lead to problems with the AI opening them accidently. We recommend to create decorative doors as non-frobable items, also those to be opened with a lever. [add technical stuff here]. That way, the player can be sure about it and proceed with the real challenges in the map.

I think, the information about doors is very essential to the player and can ruin the experience, if the way of how to handle that changes too widely from mapper to mapper. Well, there are new players, but also experienced people that maybe won´t look at anything that looks like a openable item again and again, just to see that 90% of them are decoration and then (later) miss those which are important. So you better not use the same models for cupboards that can open and those that can not. Especially regarding doors, there should be confidence in the gameplay. The level designers of T1/T2 had their own rules, which they applied to. I would prefer an "audio" signal over visual, but that doesn´t seen to be consensus here So, being not frobable in a consequent way - meaning that those doors _never_ open - should be a good compromise of gameplay vs immersion. There could be a (short) text in the wiki area about how to create doors, that explains that. That would not be a "rule", but a recommendation to mappers.

I don´t know if our hero gets a voice (more than "oww" and "aaah" when hit).. Maybe if you frob a non-openable door he could say "It´s stuck!" or "Not a chance!" ... something like that. That would not break the immersion, but make things clear. In the Thief-Games, I remember Garrett talking often to himself

[as long as there is no other thread, I will post here] I completely agree! Thats part of the fun - but maybe there are other opinions. I think you contradict yourself here. A non-openable door always communicates to the player and always breaks the immersion. A thief with a lockpick should open any door, using keys is already breaking the immersion (but is a excellent thing for gameplay, tho). The only difference a mapper can make about non-openable doors, is how much the immersion is broken. In my opinion, regarding doors (and not open pathways), it would bother me more when there would be a visual hint than a "touching" or "audio" signal. I can agree a door being not frobable, acting like it would be made of stone Even if that means, I got there for nothing.

um.. why not starting a new discussion in the "The Dark Mod" category? We´re not talking about the mission anymore Can the admins of the forum copy those entries regarding the "non-openable" doors in this new thread? I think the discussion is worth it! Especially, because maybe others want to say something about it and won´t look in a FM-thread