Has anyone ever tried a "loot limit"?

[Professor Paul1290]

I'm wondering if there have been any TDM or Thief 1 or 2 FMs that had an objective that said you couldn't take more than a certain amount of loot.

 

I'm kind of thinking about how to dissuade a player from trying to search every nook and cranny of a map the first time through. In most Thief missions you're encouraged to go everywhere at least once to check for and steal all the loot, but this might not be ideal in some situations. Perhaps there could be multiple ways to a certain objective but I want the player to feel that they can choose what they think is the "more effective" a route and ignore a certain area if they want to, so I don't want them to feel like they have to go their eventually anyway for the loot.

 

I kind of think perhaps a way to do this would be to remove the want/need to get every single piece of loot by limiting how much loot the player can take. Perhaps this could be justified by saying that they don't want to raise too much suspicion afterwards from too many things going missing.

 

Do you think this would work or would it seem too out of place or silly?

 

 

This might or might not belong in the editing forum. I thought it would fit here since it's more about the idea rather than specifically doing it in TDM. (though advice on how to handle this would be nice too.)

Edited May 4, 2011 by Professor Paul1290

[demagogue]

I scripted an FM that was in this neighborhood (for the Bank contest if you remember that one way back when; it's funny how often I script FMs for contests even if I won't make them). Anyway, it was something like the objectives set it up so it forked... Either you didn't get any loot or you had to get all of it or something bad would happen (you might not have to make it an objective, but have something happen in-game to dissuade the player). The story explained it like it was some kind of framing situation -- not your ordinary bank heist; robbing a bank of a particular thing and you couldn't take anything else so it didn't actually look like a bank robbery -- so it mattered how it appeared, like you were saying. But I did it to play with the old rules... Having all this loot around you but you're not supposed to take it, and how many people would cave in to temptation? I think I even called it "Resisting Temptation" or something like that. So obviously I think the idea can fly.

[jaxa]

It would be neat if that could have an effect on guard amounts + etc. in subsequent missions in a packaged campaign. Steal now, get more equipment, face bigger/more patrols.

 

One problem I see is that there's no way to tell how much loot something is worth before you pick it up, other than memory / common sense.

[Baddcog]

Interesting concept since usually the objective is to gather loot.

 

I agree with java that it could be hard for player to determine loot values.

 

Maybe bets as a 'bonus' objective to not steal anything other than mission objective loot pieces. They could still pass mission if they do grab loot, but would be a challenge for a lot of players to not grab any. Of course author couldn';t sneak 'unusual' loot in there (a recent mission had a lit candle stick as loot - I grabbed to extinguish but got loot instead)

 

I made a T2 'crap mission (contest) where the whole point was to return every piece of loot in inventory to it's rightful owner because you had a sudden urge of conceinse. Not quite the same but similar I guess.

[Fidcal]

One way is to make all other objectives optional. As soon as the player has enough loot to fulfil the objective then up comes Mission Complete so he can never get all the loot in one session.

 

You might phrase the wording so it's not obvious. For instance the main objective might be "You are a thief. Lord X has about 9000 loot. Your only purpose is to get 3000 of it." Other objectives: "while you are there see if you can find his sceptre", "Might be useful if you were to find some info about..." That gives the player some incentive to play again if he didn't get all the loot or find all the other objectives.

 

Another way is to set invisible objectives to reach each of say 20 rooms. Each one triggers a counter that adds up to 5. Then you have a master visible objective: "Visit at least 5 of Lord X's rooms" This objective state would be set complete by the counter.

[Professor Paul1290]

Come to think of it, I wonder if it would work to "un-loot" all the remaining loot after the player gets a certain amount. However, I'm not quite sure how feasable or practical this would be in TDM and I'm not sure if it would be to strange and immersion breaking.

 

Something else that might work is perhaps putting a "soft" time limit on the mission. Not something short enough to put the player in a big hurry but enough to encourage them to pick their route more carefully and to convey that they want to "get in, steal, and get out". Perhaps something along the lines of having additional guards wake up or come in after a certain amount of time.

[Sotha]

Something else that might work is perhaps putting a "soft" time limit on the mission. Not something short enough to put the player in a big hurry but enough to encourage them to pick their route more carefully and to convey that they want to "get in, steal, and get out". Perhaps something along the lines of having additional guards wake up or come in after a certain amount of time.

 

In some thread around here we concluded that the sneaking game players can be roughly divided into at least two categories (certainly there are more categories, but this came up in the thread):

1. Planners
2. Explorers

Planners are players who like to have a map and make a grand plan how to make the best entrance to the location. They go in, get the most important and valuable objects and get out. Like real thieves.

Explorers are the type of players who do not love maps and plans, they just want to walk through the mission double checking every nook and cranny. Even if the mission briefing hints an obvious location for the player to go in first, the explorers can go somewhere totally else.

 

It is quite easy to see from the FM authors and player feedback who is a planner and who is an explorer. I emphasise that neither of the ways are 'wrong.' Both ways are correct and fun ways to play sneaking games.

 

I see that you are not the exploration type player as you want to focus on the "get in, steal, and get out" theme. That is fine. I'm also that kind of player. But I wouldn't want to rob the explorers the enjoyment playing my missions by setting a time limit. It is nice to make a mission enjoyable to most player types.

 

But if the time limit fit seamlessly to the plot of the mission, and would not feel forced and unnatural, then why not. And if the exceeding time limit would only make things harder, but not insta-fail the mission, I see no issues in using such a gameplay element. Actually I find it interesting. Maybe the player character is poisoned? Maybe the duchess will realise the courier was intercepted and key was stolen if the courier does not return by midnight...

[Thiefette]

I guess I'm an explorer. I make it my personal objective to get all the loot which means looking in every nook and cranny. I enjoy seeing where I can get to just to see what's there. Sometimes I'm rewarded sometimes I'm not. Either way its okay. I find it a challange to sneak up to a guard and take him out with a blackjack to the head ('m not much into killing except spiders) or just get by him/her without arousing suspicion. I would feel like I hadn't completed the mission if I didn't get it all. Just my opinion.

[Professor Paul1290]

I see that you are not the exploration type player as you want to focus on the "get in, steal, and get out" theme. That is fine. I'm also that kind of player. But I wouldn't want to rob the explorers the enjoyment playing my missions by setting a time limit. It is nice to make a mission enjoyable to most player types.

 

But if the time limit fit seamlessly to the plot of the mission, and would not feel forced and unnatural, then why not. And if the exceeding time limit would only make things harder, but not insta-fail the mission, I see no issues in using such a gameplay element. Actually I find it interesting. Maybe the player character is poisoned? Maybe the duchess will realise the courier was intercepted and key was stolen if the courier does not return by midnight...

 

That is a very interesting point and pretty much what I'm getting at. Also, I think you just pointed out something I probably should really think about since it seems that a straight-up loot limit would not be the best way to approach this.

 

For most FMs I usually don't plan my route through from the beginning and I tend to make it a point to go everywhere, but do have a set of procedures to handle commonly occuring situations and room configurations that I apply as they come up which I suppose can be called a plan in a sense. That being said, you are right in that I like planning or at least preparing my moves ahead of time to some extent.

 

However, my underlying intention is not so much to discourage exploration as much as provide a sense of urgency and weight to the player's actions.

 

I like the idea of the sort of "soft" time limit that brings in more guards since it provides a bit of urgency but it's not a hard pass/fail condition. If the player thinks allowing reinforcements to arrive is worth being able take more time to complete a given task then that option stays open to them. The point of this is that I want the player to weigh their options and essentially figure out which outcome would be more beneficial to them.

 

Now that I think about it, perhaps a loot limit should work the same way. Instead of being an essential objective maybe it should trigger something to happen in-game. I'm thinking perhaps after you steal a certain amount of loot all the guards would go into a higher alert status when it becomes obvious things are going missing.

[Sotha]

Now that I think about it, perhaps a loot limit should work the same way. Instead of being an essential objective maybe it should trigger something to happen in-game. I'm thinking perhaps after you steal a certain amount of loot all the guards would go into a higher alert status when it becomes obvious things are going missing.

 

Hm.. I don't think it is good to bind this to player amassed loot total. It is difficult for the player to see why (s)he is punished with extra guards.

 

I see it more intuitive if there was an extra plot element which the player can be aware of and understand. Messing with this plot element will then result in problems depending how the player deals with it.

 

Few examples:

 

Crown of penitence: The player can substitute the crown to avoid trouble.

Knightons: The player can disable the alarm to avoid trouble.

Transaction: The player can clean up the room after Grenefelds death to avoid trouble.

 

 

 

The mapper can easily flag central easy to spot loot as important. When the object is stolen, the AI's will get alarmed. Then the mapper can set an arbitrary AI to summon more guards in the location if that particular AI gets alarmed. And he certainly will be since the AI's spread the word of trouble.

 

Or the map could have a plot element which gives the player 30 mins time to work after opening the bank vault before automagic alarm systems call half the city watch to the bank.

 

The cool thing about TDM is that it already offers an incredible amount of options for the mappers, who are slowly just grasping what all kinds of things they can do. I don't think it will take long until we see mapper imposed death-traps where one thing triggers another causing a chain reaction which essentially blows the location sky-high (giving urgency and grievious weight to the player's actions).

[stumpy]

if you punish players for going over a loot limit then less people are likely to play your next map. players don't like to be punished for something that a game is based on ie stealing as much loot as possible and outwitting guards and owners of said loot, so your in a thieving guild, then the boss says if you steal too much then we send the heavies round to break your legs, your more than like get a transfer to another thieving guild that doesn't have weird rules.

Edited May 5, 2011 by stumpy

[Baddcog]

Even time limits aren't looked upon too kindly. Calendra's Legacy had one, but it was really tight. The main problem with it is a lot of players are explorers and time limits count against that.

 

I like to explore maps quite a bit myself, like to find all the places to go.

 

Though I can see a mild time limit being fun too, a little more fast paced action. Would need to be for a reason though, someone returns and you'll get caught most likely. I can see it working best in a map that really doesn't have much exploring to do. Maybe a few paths through a mansion but a quick moving player could basically explore it all AND get out in time.

 

I think the problem with the CL mission was that it really seemed like a big city level and made you want to explore, but the time limit was like 10 min, and if you didn't focus on going straight to the objective as fast as possible you could not make it, even then you were left with maybe only a minute to spare.

[Professor Paul1290]

I agree that it would be extremely annoying if it was something that didn't have any context.

 

It makes more sense as an optional goal with consequences. It would make sense if most of the gold and jewels in the house suddenly disappeared would be reason to raise alarm and "THIEF! SEARCH THE PREMESIS!". (perhaps there could be "unusually well trained guards" mentioned in the briefing.) It wouldn't be an instant-fail, but it certainly would change your situation somewhat.

 

Likewise I think it would make sense if you were taking your sweet time looting the place then all of a sudden the master of the house returns with guests to entertain. Again, it wouldn't be instant-fail, but now the population of the house just went up and it becomes a bit more difficult to get around unseen.

 

 

The mapper can easily flag central easy to spot loot as important. When the object is stolen, the AI's will get alarmed. Then the mapper can set an arbitrary AI to summon more guards in the location if that particular AI gets alarmed. And he certainly will be since the AI's spread the word of trouble.

 

Now this is rather interesting. I think I saw this mentioned somewhere but I totally forgot about it.

Edited May 5, 2011 by Professor Paul1290

[eigenface]

I think the Planner versus Explorer dichotomy makes a lot of sense, Sotha. And it brings to light a problem I have with most thief and dark mod missions, nay, most video games period. My problem may be due to my own obsessive nature, and I'm curious as to whether anyone else thinks the way I do.

 

At heart, I'm a planner - I want to carefully come up with a winning strategy, then get in and get out, like a real thief. Exploring every last nook and cranny in a mission is an immersion-breaking process in and of itself, because it has no analogue in real life. In real life, it's ridiculous to think about "exploring everywhere" and "stealing everything", because there's always, always more, way more than you could ever possibly explore or steal. And as you steal more and more, the odds of getting caught increase and increase, eventually approaching 100%. In real life, you want to achieve your one narrow objective quickly and with as little risk as possible. Finding the edges of the map and hunting down every last piece of loot are processes inherent to the artificial nature of your environment, and they draw attention to it.

 

In practice, I'm an explorer. Why is that, when I've just spent the last paragraph trashing that gameplay style? Because in the back of my mind, I know the game world is artificial. I know it has physical boundaries and a limited number of loot items and enemy AIs. And I know it was all made for my entertainment. Perhaps I don't have the discipline to plan an execute a "get in, get out" strategy when I know I can just use brute-force and inevitably win by attrition (I'm counting blackjack KOs as "brute force".) But I think there's more to it than that. Let me explain.

 

In the back of my mind, I know everything in the game world was put there because the author thought it would contribute to the experience in some way. And I want the full experience. I want to appreciate all the author's work, and wring every bit of fun out of the mission. Ironically, that ends up being less fun, because I won't stop searching until I run into the game world's boundaries and limits, and then immersion is broken. In fact, immersion is broken even before I find the boundaries, because I know they exist and I'm actively looking for them the whole time I'm playing. I'm thinking "It that a frobbable door? Nope, it's a scenery door. Is there a way up to that window sill? Could be a hidden loot item up there. Can I get to the area behind that grate? I don't think so, I bet it's one of those unreachable areas they put in to make the mission feel bigger." The most immersive part of the mission is usually near the beginning, when I haven't started worrying about the boundaries, and for a little while I have the illusion of endless possibilities. Does what I'm describing sound familiar to anyone?

 

Sandbox or "open world" games attempt to address this problem by giving you a larger environment than you can possibly explore (or at least, larger than you probably will chose to explore.) The problem is, game development resources are still limited, so the open world ends up being a whole lot of boring interspersed with little nuggets of interest. The environment may be vast, but that usually just means the interesting events are spread more thinly. Obviously, this reflects my own negative opinion of sandbox games. I know the idea is that interesting events are meant to be procedurally generated, emerging from the interactions of the AIs in different situations, without the need for each event to be individually designed. I'm of the opinion that designed events are usually more interesting, at least with the current state of AI. Closed-corridor games-on-rails like Half Life 2 are often more immersive than open-world games, because the rails games do a better job creating the illusion of a large world than the open-world games do fleshing out and populating an entire large world. I know there are people who find the process of wandering around an open-world environment immersive in and of itself. Personally, I end up doing something similar to what I do for thief and dark mod, only instead of searching for the boundaries of the mission, I'm going down an estimated mental checklist "Have I done everything interesting I can do in this sandbox?" or "How much more wandering around am I going to have to do before I stumble across a new interesting event, and is it worth it?"

 

I think thief-style missions are the perfect compromise. They're not closed-corridors; there's plenty of room and alternate routes for you to wander around and encounter emergent AI behavior. And they're not open-world; they're small enough the "density of interest" can still be pretty high, even with the modest development resources of fans. In my opinion, the problem is this: not enough priority is placed on creating the illusion of a large world without boundaries or limits. Part of the problem is players have become savvy - they know there will be unreachable areas put in to make the world feel bigger. Nonetheless, there are simple things authors can do to take away or greatly reduce the player's awareness of the boundaries of the environment.

 

For example, add unpickable locked doors with no key. I know this is anathema to some people. I've heard people say "Every locked door either should be pickable or it should be possible to find the key." Clearly, they were Explorers. Of course every lock has a key, but maybe it's behind the locked door. Maybe it's miles away on the other side of town with it's owner. Maybe it's been washed away from his mugged corpse in a gutter somewhere and carried down a storm drain. Just because the key exists doesn't mean you have a real chance of finding it. The real world is full of locked doors whose keys you'll probably never find. But those locked doors will always represent possibility. Or a convincing illusion of possibility, in a game environment. As long as there's another locked door (and there will always be other locked doors), there's the possibility you'll find another key and open up a new area. Maybe you just haven't found it yet. I've heard people say "Every unopenable door should be a scenery door." In my opinion, that takes away half the reason for putting the door there in the first place. Sure, it looks like a door, but everyone knows there's nothing behind it but a blank wall. They know it's not a door door. If it's locked, it not only looks like a door, but also the player has to think of it as a real door, because they never know whether or not they can open it.

 

To those who like to scourge every corner of a map until they're sure there's nothing left to frob, this probably sounds like a nightmare. To me, who likes the illusion of a large world with limitless possibilities, it sounds like just the antidote I need for my dark mod ennui. When I find a key, I think "Ok, this must go to either that one locked door at the Builder Cathedral or that other locked door at the blacksmith shop - all the other doors are scenery." Again, this is a very artificial, immersion-breaking thing to think. But if all those scenery doors are changed to locked doors, getting a key is only half the battle - then I have to figure out which lock it fits, same as in real life. Did I get it off a Builder? A guy in an apron with a welding mask? Did he have a readable on him/near him? If you want to go easy on the player, the key can have a convenient label inscribed on it, visible in the item title like "Cloister". If not, probably still good to have a title that reminds the player where they got it like "key from Builder". This is what mission authors do already, of course - I'm just making the point that a lot of locked doors won't make it impossible to find your way around the mission. If anything, having a only a few real doors among a sea of fake doors is a crutch that allows the player to navigate the mission as an artificial space with a few "interactive nodes" ("I got a new key, so I should go to one of the locked, non-scenery doors"), as opposed to navigating the mission like a real world location, that is, by applying logic and context ("I got a key off a Builder, so I should go to the Cathedral").

 

In a mission with many locked doors which may or may not be openable, the only sensible thing to do is come up with a strategy to achieve your goal - be a Planner. You may take targets of opportunity along the way, and you may see opportunities you never get to take - who knows whether or not you ever had a chance, just like in real life. No point worrying about the bars of your cage, because you'll never know them when you find them. Of course, unopenable locked doors are just one way of creating the illusion of a limitless world. I'm sure there are other ways. We just have to consider options that may have been ruled out by conventional wisdom.

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not throwing Explorers under the bus. I actually think the spirit of exploration is better served by uncertainty. Maybe not the spirit of scourging every nook and cranny, though. Sorry Scourgers, I'm throwing you under the bus. It's okay though, basically 100% of all thief and dark mod FMs thus far accommodate scourging. No reason not to have a few Planner-centric missions as well.

[rich_is_bored]

If the player encounters a door that is indistinguishable from other doors and yet it cannot be opened that's bad design. Doors open by nature. That doesn't mean you can't use doors as decoration but if the player can't access the "room" beyond then you need to give the player a reason to disregard it. Bar the door. Make the knob fall off. Have an inhabitant threaten the player. Anything other than falling back on the excuse "There is no key. I cannot pick it." That's going to get old really quick if people don't employ some creativity.

[stumpy]

we usually leave the handles off doors that cannot be opened by any means, else players will wander around a map trying to find a key for the door they cannot pick the lock on.

 

And for loot there's really no way in real life you would ever know how much loot there was in a theft, having to find every single piece of loot in a map is also irratating, but setting the loot needed to a lower level than the actual total amount of loot in a map allows for the explorers and planers to play the same map without too much problems, planers can finish once they've done want they want to do and explorers can load an old save and try an find all the loot who's maximum is listed in the stats screen at the end.

 

As for knockout limits its currently not doable due to AI getting stuck with other AI in doorways, either due to the door not opening properly, or 2 or more ai's opening and closing the door at the same time or a few nanoseconds after the other ai, or just bodily walking into each other blocking the doorway.

[Springheel]

we usually leave the handles off doors that cannot be opened by any means

 

There's a lot of disagreement on that issue.

 

http://forums.thedarkmod.com/topic/12577-door-handleslove-or-hate-them/

[eigenface]

"If the player encounters a door that is indistinguishable from other doors and yet it cannot be opened that's bad design."

Yes yes, I already know many people like to assert that, but I have yet to hear any counterarguments to my above reasons explaining why it's actually good design. This seems like one of those things "everyone knows", that is, one of those things everyone takes for granted and doesn't question.

Also, "indistinguishable" is misleading - the door on the Cathedral is in fact distinguishable from the door on the random house, and the player should know to try the key they took from the Builder on the Cathedral instead of on the random house.

[rich_is_bored]

If a door is interactive, it's reasonable to assume it can be picked or unlocked with a key. This isn't a foreign idea. You employ it every time you play a map.

 

In your example, the doors are distinguishable by context and appearance, but not by function. The problem is this random house has a door that clicks like it's locked because it is just as the cathedral door was. It must have a key if the behavior of doors is to be consistent throughout your map.

 

You can't rely on players to do what you want when you want. Players have the luxury of choosing their own adventure. All you are doing as a map author is guiding their choices. This means affording them choices when it suits the experience you are trying to create and denying them choices when it does not.

 

That random house with the unpickable unlockable door is perceived as an option. To your players it harbors potential secrets/loot if only the missing key were found. You set them on this course by placing a door with all the proper cues in their path. And so begins a fruitless search that ends with frustration. Certainly there are better ways to immerse the player than to distribute random doors all over the place that lead the player to search for keys that don't exist.

 

Bad design. That's that.

[eigenface]

"If a door is interactive, it's reasonable to assume it can be picked or unlocked with a key."

 

It's reasonable to assume this in the artifical world of the video game, because virtually every map made so far follows this convention. It's completely unreasonable to assume this in real life - there are interactive doors everywhere which you'll never be able to unlock (in fact, all real doors are "interactive", except fake doors on a movie set or something.) The question is, is there any gameplay or atmosphere advantage to be gained by breaking with this convention? A convention is not the one right way, nor even necessarily a good idea (I bet there are several conventions of dumbed-down console FPS games which you don't like.) As I've argued, I think interactive, unopenable doors have the advantage of making the video game world seem less artificial, by creating the illusion of a large world without physical boundaries - from the player's POV, there's always the chance they'll find another key and unlock a new area.

 

I think I understand now why you've mistaken this for bad design. It's probably my fault for not making this clear in first place: there are NO non-interactive doors. You're imagining a map with some scenery doors and some locked, unopenable doors. Yes I agree, that would be misleading and frustrating to play, but that's not what I was suggesting. Every door in the map which would normally be scenery is now locked (with no key or ability to pick.) So you're not misleading the player - the whole point is you're not leading the player at all, at least not with "special" (interactive) doors. When all the doors are interactive, navigating the map is no longer about figuring out which doors are real and which ones are scenery in this artificial environment. Now there's no point to thinking about the artificial boundaries, because you'll never know them when you find them.

[Fidcal]

Yes it's only bad design if you mix them up ignorantly and the player is expecting a certain convention. If you intend to make a special variation and state in say the readme that all doors are frobable but not necessarily openable then I would play it like this: I wouldn't worry about doors I can't lockpick. I would keep a lookout for keys etc. Any keys I find I need to find which doors they fit. The other doors I don't worry about (to be honest that's how I mostly play anyway unless I get stuck and there is some reason to think I've missed a key.) It's a different mindset but the player needs to know in advance. I mostly focus on objectives. If I finish objectives and there is a frobable door I can't get through I'm not going to waste too much time on it. I trust the mapper to provide a clue or some clear indication like a nearby shelf with a key or a nearby guard with a key. I'm not going to search a city for a key under a brick in a back alley without a reason.

 

But if the game has lots and lots of frobable doors with no reasonable clues or help such as the above then it probably is bad design. Personally I would stick to frob = interact in all things. It is generally accepted in Thief and Dark Mod that it is the highlight that defines if the player can use something.

 

In any event, even if having all doors frobable is not bad design but simply 'different' it still might not be so enjoyable for the majority.

[rich_is_bored]

That clears things up. I'd prefer there be a more substantial clue than the lack of a key but that's a matter of taste I suppose.

[eigenface]

Fidcal, I agree the readme should let the player know the mission is breaking a common convention, otherwise they'll certainly expect the same kinds things they've played 100 times before. In fact, it should probably state this twice, once explicitly ("Not all locked doors are openable") and again in the story ("This is a wealthy part of town, and the denizens know the first thing a rich man should buy is a good lock. I'll probably never get inside most of these houses.")

 

"In any event, even if having all doors frobable is not bad design but simply 'different' it still might not be so enjoyable for the majority."

 

That seems premature, because the idea is completely untested. Not sure if the majority are scourers or what. It might be worth thinking about the question: Does the majority even want the illusion of a large world without boundaries? I assumed the answer was yes, but I could be wrong. Maybe most people want to find the limits of the artificial environment, so they can make sure they didn't miss anything. To me, running into contrived boundaries always kills the atmosphere, fake doors remind me the world is fake, etc.

[Baal]

I like the idea of not knowing for sure if a door can be opened. But you have to limit the space of a mission and I don't think you can always find a logical reason why a path possible in the real world would be blocked in the game.

In a big, poor part of the town, for example, there would be a lot of doors. None of these would be a serious obstacle for a masterthief so you just have to arbitrarily block most of them.