Should Noise Arrows affect Stealth Score?

[Springheel]

Well, if a guard is on duty, and they find a noise arrow, they're going to assume there's an intruder fairly directly, I think. Far more so than if they hear suspicious footsteps or hear a vase thrown against a wall. Noisemakers are specific tools that intruders might use.

[SeriousToni]

No offense demagogue! I was just joking a little

[demagogue]

No worries; I felt really self-conscious & guilty about not understanding my own point I was trying to make well enough to just say it. It's "attribution is an issue".

 

Well, if a guard is on duty, and they find a noise arrow, they're going to assume there's an intruder fairly directly, I think. Far more so than if they hear suspicious footsteps or hear a vase thrown against a wall. Noisemakers are specific tools that intruders might use.

 

That's true. Also like seeing a body. I lean on that side of the fence when I think that it's fair to say no one else (AI) in the game is ever going to be using a noise arrow except the player. So it's fair to the player if a guard sees one that it's a strike against them. Attribution is more assumed.

[grayman]

There are two aspects to a noisemaker:

 

1 - the noise

2 - the arrow

 

It's possible that the arrow might bounce around enough to disappear from a searching AI's view. He might never "see" it.

 

So if all a searching AI is responding to is the noise, and he never "sees" what made it, there's a case for not counting it against the player. ("It was prolly rats.")

 

But if a searching AI "sees" the arrow, there aren't any rats that carry bows, so this would make it more suspicious, and could be attributed to an intruder.

 

Our problem is that the only thing a searching AI reacts to is the sound coming off the arrow; he doesn't actually "see" the arrow itself. But to an observer, when the AI walks to the arrow and kneels down to inspect it, it appears the AI has found the arrow. Once that happens, having the AI later attribute the disturbance to rats makes no sense.

[zergrush]

There are two aspects to a noisemaker:

 

1 - the noise

2 - the arrow

 

It's possible that the arrow might bounce around enough to disappear from a searching AI's view. He might never "see" it.

 

So if all a searching AI is responding to is the noise, and he never "sees" what made it, there's a case for not counting it against the player. ("It was prolly rats.")

 

But if a searching AI "sees" the arrow, there aren't any rats that carry bows, so this would make it more suspicious, and could be attributed to an intruder.

 

Our problem is that the only thing a searching AI reacts to is the sound coming off the arrow; he doesn't actually "see" the arrow itself. But to an observer, when the AI walks to the arrow and kneels down to inspect it, it appears the AI has found the arrow. Once that happens, having the AI later attribute the disturbance to rats makes no sense.

 

A clever player would then avoid shooting the arrow to the ground then. Perhaps shooting some kind of elevated surface, or even the ceilling, so the AI couldn't find it.

[demagogue]

In other words, it also becomes a gameplay mechanic if "seeing the arrow" counts against the player but not "hearing the noise", so it has that going for it too. That makes sense to me. A question grayman's post leaves a little open is how feasible it is to have a system accurately simulating "seeing" the arrow (since it's not technically what the AI is doing), definitely if a kneel animation is triggered, or if they walk over it. A proximity check might work, except if it's just over their heads they can't spot it, but maybe that's rare enough that proximity is ok after all.

[elwing]

What about noise arrow drop your stealth score only if the guard find the arrow?

a strange noise is just a strange noise, with all the machines around it might be just rats... but a diversion device on the other hand should give strong clue that someone is near...

[Obsttorte]

...there aren't any rats that carry bows...

Are you sure. A dumb guard might think so.

 

EDIT: I actually like the idea of threating the arrow in a different way then the noise it makes. As far as I know noise arrows stick in wood, too. This would also provide another method for mappers to weight the difficulty of their missions in regard to players aiming for a good stealth score. If you don't want the player to use the noise maker in a certain location, the mapper just don't add wood textures there.

 

As we're just talking about the stealth score, it may be a good idea to count it against the number of guards in a mission. Elite guards should therefore count more then normal guards. This would make the whole score more comparable. This may be mentioned before, so forgive me if so. But at the current state me thinks that the stealth score is only of any use when playing very short missions, where it is actually possible to reach a stealth score of zero while iron-manning the mission. (Getting a score of zero with tons of reloading doesn't make much sense).

[demagogue]

If you've read the ghosting threads, you know people that want to ghost will go to great lengths to get a perfect ghost even for quite long FMs. But they'll also usually themselves insist on doing it ironman, since no re-loading is usually part of the deal.

 

I think for most people, a lot of times it's just something fun to see when you're done. Like: "218! lol. I was busy in this one..."

 

In fact, I wanted to start a thread over at TTLG for people to post their Stealth Scores and tell stories, not only for people to show off their ghosting attempts or near misses, but even people with high scores may have funny stories to tell about them.

 

What about noise arrow drop your stealth score only if the guard find the arrow?

 

Yes, that's what we were talking about above. The problem is that, the way the code works (or anyway grayman reported), the guard never does "find" or see the arrow. He only ever hears it and starts searching around it, even kneels by it. So at best, to do this you would have to add code to simulate when he should see it, which might sometimes be inaccurate or some other issue.

 

But in principle I think it's a good solution.

[Springheel]

Would this same principle apply to other things? If a guard just hears a thrown rock, but doesn't find it, then the stealth penalty is less? If he hears a broadhead arrow zip past him and richochet off the wall, but doesn't see the flinders, it counts less?

 

I think that's starting to get into overly complicated territory IMO. My preference would be to keep the stat as simple as possible.

[grayman]

As far as I know noise arrows stick in wood, too.

 

They don't stick into anything.

[jaxa]

Question: can AI cause other AI to become suspicious? In that case the noise arrow could be treated as player-agnostic... something for the flowcharts.

[demagogue]

There are teams. AI become suspicious to anyone, AI or player, making noise on a hostile team, but not a friendly team. That's what I understood anyway. Or does only seeing a hostile AI raise an alert, not hearing?

 

Also IIRC, attribution of alert-sources is retained in the code, so only alerts attributable to player footsteps count towards the stealth score, not hostile AI footsteps, but it's been a while since I looked at the code so could be wrong.

 

Spring's response was the AI know that 'somebody' hostile is around, so it's fair to count it against the player, not a potential hostile AI. I'd say that's because only the player is using noise arrows (the AI don't know that, of course, but the system "referee" does.)

 

Edit: As an aside, I think the attribution issue can be alleviated some with the 'security locations' feature, because in places that a guard is not responsible for, like out on the public streets or bad neighborhood with lots of hostile AI, the mapper can specifically turn off most alert behavior against the player, possibly including noise arrows...

 

There's more to say to that, but I have to run to an appointment...

[Springheel]

Spring's response was the AI know that 'somebody' hostile is around, so it's fair to count it against the player, not a potential hostile AI.

 

I don't think it even matters if the AI knows that somebody hostile is around. If the player bumps a table and a vase falls off, an AI might wander over and decide that a rat did it. But the alert should still count against the player's stealth score. Meanwhile, on the other side of the mansion, a guard might kick a movable bottle that knocks a vase off a table. A responding AI might think an intruder did it, but it should NOT count against the player's stealth score.

 

The most important variables are whether the player is responsible for the behaviour, and whether it could have been avoided (scripted alerts, like the alarm in A Score to Settle, should probably NOT be counted against the stealth score, ideally, although that's probably too difficult to manage on a case by case basis).

 

That's why I think noise arrows should count. The player is responsible for the resulting alert, and they can be avoided. If you choose to use them to give yourself an advantage, great! That's what they're for, just like mines and your sword. But a player who chooses not to use them is at a disadvantage and should be "rewarded" with a higher score (assuming they care).

[Obsttorte]

Question: can AI cause other AI to become suspicious? In that case the noise arrow could be treated as player-agnostic... something for the flowcharts.

I think there are barks, so they can inform each other about suspicious things. At least this shows up in the console.

They don't stick into anything.

Really Why?

[Springheel]

Really Why?

 

They don't have a point.

 

http://wiki.thedarkmod.com/index.php?title=File:Arrows.jpg

[Obsttorte]

They don't have a point.

 

http://wiki.thedarkm...File:Arrows.jpg

I thought more in terms of game mechanics, but it's ok.

[jaxa]

I think there are barks, so they can inform each other about suspicious things. At least this shows up in the console.

 

What I meant is could AI do things that are suspicious to other AI. In which case the noise arrow can't be confirmed to be from the player until the player is found.

 

I voted yes after reading Springheel's 2:16 PM post. 1.) If the code can distinguish between actions caused/initiated by the player vs. others, then it would make sense to reflect only actions of the player in the stealth score. 2.) If you ghost, you get a better score than someone who uses a noise arrow or a different arrow as a distraction. It's a meager "punishment" at worst, and an encouragement of the most fun play style at best.

 

I'd like to see a mission that supposedly requires a noise arrow or distraction to complete. Like a guard standing at a doorway with no other way but an alert (or fight, or gas arrow) to move him.

Edited May 7, 2013 by jaxa

[demagogue]

The rules of ghosting cover that. A bust doesn't count against it if it's required by the objectives. That said, it's not really appropriate for our Score to deal with that by discounting it. Players can do that on their own informally. The score & alerts are just a bit of info to be helpful or fun for players anyway.

[Tels]

What I meant is could AI do things that are suspicious to other AI. In which case the noise arrow can't be confirmed to be from the player until the player is found.

 

Well, if an important item is missing, the player is immidiately blamed for it. Likewise for a body etc. All these things are always blamed on the player. Why should a noise arrow be different? If you (a guard) finds a noisearrow, they should immidiately assume an intruder, and this action should be blamed on the player.

 

With the "knock a moveable from the table" scenarios, we have a few special casings. A is that this could be from a guard (or rat) and B is that it is not that easy to track in the game. That is why sometimes things are not blamed on the player (the whole "track who set what in motion" thing) and sometimes things are immidiately blamed on the player (a body).

 

So, I'd say let them count for the stealth score. (and I personally do not care for ghosters or their special made-up rules or whatever. And we shouldn't cater for them, anyway, because they will make up new rules, anyway)

[Tels]

One more thing: The poll is suggestive. It says "why punish the player", but the stealth score is not punishment. It merely records your actions, and gives you points for actions that you caused and where noticed by guards. Otherwise, why "punish a player for merely using his tools", when his tool was the arrow-in-the-eye-socket?

[jtr7]

..................

Edited February 19, 2014 by jtr7

[jaxa]

That's basically what I said, and I ambivalently agree (I could go either way).

 

Also, happy birthday jtr7.

[ungoliant]

I've been thinking about this one for a while, and I've determined there's no possible way to make a "correct" decision on this one. People are gonna bitch either way, and if you give it to them both ways it opens up that door of players starting to customize their own personal gameplay mechanics, and God only knows what follows from there over the prolonged future. I wouldn't worry on it too much. Flip a coin and if anyone bitches, ignore it. Actually, if nobody has noticed how the current arrow mechanics affect stealth score (I sure didn't), then just keep it, and delete this thread like it never happened, lol.

Grayman might be right, some stuff about stealth score mechanics should be kept swept nicely under the carpet.

[Lux]

A broken noise arrow found on the floor should alert them to the presence of "a thief" or sOMEthing going on and put them in to some type of alert state but it shouldn't be linked to the player's score as the AI didn't see who fired the arrow. Can't the broken arrow on the floor put the AI in an alert state on behalf of "unknown enemy" until which time, later, the player is identified by them?

 

That way it would put the AI in alert and searching, but the players stealth score wouldn't be affected until the player (or any other supposed cause of the noise arrow) were identified by the AI. This seems the most realistic.

 

If that's not possible then yeah, we should leave it as it is.