Jump to content
The Dark Mod Forums


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by Springheel

  1. They're already experimenting with a game that has a neighbourhood of characters controlled by AI.  Each AI was given a "prompt" of a paragraph detailing their personality and relationships, and then the AI took it from there.  The characters set up a party, sent invitations, and then showed up at the correct time.

  2. 28 minutes ago, stgatilov said:


    1. Player can carry body up ropes, vines, and ladders. All of them are quite situational, but still it shows that it was never planned to restrict possibility of lifting a body up.

    Letting the player carrying the body on ropes and ladders was definitely not an intentional design decision.  But given that it's been present for so long, it's too late to change it now.

    • Like 2
    • Thanks 1
  3. 1 hour ago, Baal said:

    That is a good example of the mapper having to consider what players could do. If the rules of the game make it possible that the body could somehow get out of reach, you should take that into account. 

    That's exactly why there is resistance to changing "what the players could do".  No mapper can be expected to consider what players MIGHT be able to do in the future when the rules change.

    • Like 1
    • Thanks 1
  4. 2 hours ago, Obsttorte said:

    Some ai' have there horizontal vision modified, either because they wear a helmet or a cape or because they have an eyepatch. It may not be necessary to take these things into account as the play may not end up within the viewcones of those special cases anyways. Thoughts?

    What method do you plan to use to block their vision?  Humanoid AI with special cone values always see less than the default, not more, so if it's an extra spawnarg, a default block value should work in those cases.  There might be special AI, like spiders or willowisps, that see more than 180 degrees though.


  5. 2 hours ago, chakkman said:

    Unless there are other factors which I'm not aware of. Can there be a difference in terms of sensitivity of alertness between the difficulty settings? Or, is there a difference between the different guard types?


    There is a difference...professional guards have slightly higher acuity settings than generic thugs, for example.  Drunk guards have much worse acuity.  Alert guards might even have their acuity boosted--can't quite remember.  Mission authors could also affect those settings based on difficulty, though I don't know if many do.

    • Thanks 1
  6. Quote

    That's the thing: KO'ing moving guards is simply too hard/impossible. The game penalizes this approach too much.

    I remember the last time someone made this claim, someone else posted a video showing that you could actually walk behind AI without alerting them on most floor types.  Only the loudest ones (dry leaves, gravel,  metal) cause problems, and that's exactly what moss arrows are for (what is the point of them otherwise?)


    • Like 1
  7. 1 hour ago, wesp5 said:

     In my opinion this makes the world much more consistent and does not change other details, as like you say, Menoa could be Ireland and the moors could be from Spain. These are less consistency problems to me than the climate, the architecture and the language.


    Putting Bridgeport in the British Isles is just as, if not more, inconsistent with existing details (setting aside the fact that the wiki says it is "on the coast of Southern Europe").  Last I checked there was no "large mountain range" north of London, no "warm, temperate sea" to the south with a "much hotter continent", no "range of mountains that inhibit overland attacks" between England and Ireland.  It would also be difficult for Bridgeport to be the "commercial center of the Empire" when it is not connected to the rest of the Empire by land.  There would be no "Builder Roads" leading to the capital.

    If you find it easier to accept all of that than to imagine that this alternate version of earth might have a slightly cooler climate and a more generic fantasy culture than the real world, then more power to you.  But don't pretend it's anything other than personal preference.

    • Like 1
  8. 56 minutes ago, Obsttorte said:

    Nevertheless I consider it worth mentioning that said ruleset is an issue and has been brought up for discussion in the past, and the only way I am aware of to actually get to know it is to read it up in the wiki. Due to the fact that the game comes with a tutorial mission I am not sure that a lot of players consider looking at the wiki

    The rules are also explained in the tutorial mission.  It's also one of the loading screen tips of both starting missions. 

    And while there have been one or two vocal opponents to the current ruleset, I think they would be far outweighed by the number of people complaining if a core mechanic suddenly started behaving differently without warning.

    • Thanks 1
  9. 1 hour ago, wesp5 said:

    I completely agree! Bridgeport on the map is in southern France which doesn't fit at all, regardless on how you call it. Is the in-game map part of the core game or did mission authors use historical maps whithout thinking of the consequences?

    Given that the point about France not existing has already been made, what "consequences" are you referring to?

    • Like 2
    • Thanks 1
  10. 41 minutes ago, snatcher said:

    I read carefully all posts in this topic. Everything there is to be said has been said, in my opinion. My goal wasn't to bump this topic to resume the discussion but to make a particular point a few years later: what if?


    I don't get your particular point.  Has something changed in the last "seven years" to make the previous arguments invalid?

    • Like 1
  11. There are 2 issues here that should be kept separate.

    1.  The in-game experience of the blackjacking system.  It can be frustrating because of issues that are difficult for the player to understand/control.  This includes getting too close the AI, not aiming correctly, or hitting an overhead obstacle--I would bet these 3 account for 99% of complaints.  This issue would be solved by implementing the nonphysical solution that is on the bugtracker.

    2.  The design of the blackjacking system.  While there is a bit of a learning curve, I think the system is logically consistent and good for gameplay.


    This thread has a tendency to conflate issue 1 with issue 2.  I doubt there would be many complaints about #2 if #1 wasn't a problem.

    • Like 2
  12. 1 hour ago, chakkman said:

    Is this stated somewhere in the Wiki? It should, because, it's a pretty important information for people like me who wonder why their knockouts don't work.

    Yes, it's on the wiki.  You literally quoted it on the previous page.


    You can successfully knock out:

    1. Unarmed civilian AI from any direction, any time.

    2. Bare-headed guards from any direction when relaxed, or from behind when alert and/or their weapon is out.

    3. Helmeted guards from behind when relaxed (helmeted guards cannot be knocked out when alert and/or when their weapon is out).

    All armed AI are harder to knock out when the AI has drawn a weapon, because they are assumed to be alert and ready for you. Either they have searched for you or been warned by a friend that something is wrong.



  13. 7 hours ago, Obsttorte said:

    @SpringheelYou are right, both rules you state are simple and logically consistent, but ...

    You write about them beeing harder or easier to ko. But that is not the representation in game. This is nothing continuos reaching from un-ko-able to ko-able, but a binary system, in which the ai can either be knocked out or not. So as logical as those rules are, the current system simple isn't based on it.


    That's incorrect.  TDM has 3 states related to KOing.  Can be KO'd from any direction --> Can be KO'd from behind --> Cannot be KO'd.  Where an AI falls on that spectrum depends on its headgear and its alert state.



    Harder to KO in which way exactly?

    See above. 


    No, you can't.

    Now you're making claims about your personal experience in specific missions.  I can't speak to those.  Mission authors can change the rules and people can think they're executing a KO correctly when they aren't (hitting a low ceiling or getting too close have been common issues in the past).  There also seems to be misconceptions about how the rules actually work. But I've never noticed anything to suggest that the system wasn't working correctly, despite the flaws of the current, physics-based system.

    • Like 1
  14. 4 hours ago, chakkman said:

    It makes even less sense that helmeted guards cannot be KO'd when they're alerted.

    According to your explanation, alerted guards dodge arrows and blackjacks. Why do alerted helmeted guards dodge arrows and blackjacks better than guards without a helmet?

     No one said alerted helmeted guards dodge arrows better.  A helmet blocks an arrow regardless of alert state.

    There are 2 basic rules regarding KOs:

    1. AI wearing a helmet are, regardless of alert state, harder to KO with a blow to the head than AI without a helmet. 

    2. AI who are relaxed and not expecting an attack are easier to KO than one who is alert and ready to react.


    As far as I can see, both of these rules are simple, logically consistent, and are well established game concepts.  If we were doing it over again, I would probably have suggested AI with helmets are immune to blackjacking entirely, but that was a concession to our art design--most citywatch and guard heads had helmets at the time, and we didn't want to make things too difficult for the player.


    • Like 1
  • Create New...