About Koing

[sparhawk]

Oh come now. There's a huge difference between respawning guards and having them wake up. Respawning already exists in D3 and would require no work--you just have new guards appear on the map. That's not the same as having an existing KOed guard wake up, transition believably from ragdoll to model, and have the AI then behave in a realistic way.

 

It seems we are talking at cross purposes. I don't mean the technical problems involved, because this would be the smallest issue. I talk about that I don't like this as a gameplay feature.

[Irenices]

Whats the plan for what guards will do with dead or unconscious bodys? It seems pretty unrealistic for them to just leave a unconsious body on the floor where they found it, maybe move it to a bed or something?

[sparhawk]

They hack it to pieces.

 

Seriously. Why should they drag them away? They have to look for the perpetrator first.

[Vadrosaul]

We can't just leave him here like this!

 

...I mean you can't just leave them there like that!

[Ishtvan]

Step 1. Pat down for coins and other valuables

 

Step 2. Apply first aid

[sxotty]

I thought you black jacked people at the top of the neck? Depending on the helmet it might not even matter.

 

I have knocked myself out while wearing a helmet twice. Once snowboarding and I knocked myself out hitting soft snow, and the other mountain biking. In both cases I had a good helmet that dissapated the force of the blow across a wider area and one that was padded with materials they did not have back in the day. So trust me you can get knocked out through a helmet. (The snow one I torpedoed into the snow and went in like 5 feet, but I think it compressed my neck and knocked me out, the other was just banging the head after trying to bunny hop across a creek).

 

I think you should allow more player freedom, if a person wants to KO everyone you should not get all up tight about it. Unless you are some religious group forcing people to do it your way or not at all. You want a broader cross section playing the mod, not just a small group. At least that is what I would suggest. The more ways to accomplish a mission the better the replay and the more realistic as well. (Though the uber violence route obviously isn't realistic). To bad you cannot find a good way to simulate climbinb so that something such as climbing a rock wall was feasible.

 

And btw on the meter idea like golf games, that is ok but don't waste too much time on gimmicks like that, most things like that are either just annoying, or you figure out how to do it right every time and it is simply an added boring step. The more you can get the player to think, the better the experience will be.

[sparhawk]

Unless you are some religious group forcing people to do it your way or not at all.

 

That would be Oddity.

[oDDity]

I'd hate to play snotty at any game, since he obviously has no time for rules.

Every game should be playable any way the player wants to play it, and not how it was desgned to be played.

What you fail to realise is that your choice comes from the wide variety of games that are available for you to play, while each one of those individual games is designed for a particular playstyle and with particular rules.

That doesn't make each game a fascist ritual, a game is better when it's targeted and finely tuned for a particular playstle.

[sparhawk]

A game is better when it offers more variety on gameplay. You seem to fail to realize that the reason why Thief is still popular is EXACTLY because of that. Games with a single minded gameplay are played through once, and that's it. Tell me how many games you know where a long term community exists and which offers the stringent gameplay you try to enforce.

Games only survive because of editors and variety.

[oDDity]

Thief fanboys still exist because the franchise was still going last year. There have been 3 games released now. That tends to keep it going when you have a new game in the series to look forward to all the time..

Had there only been Thief 1 and nothing since that, do you think we'd be making TDM now, or there would be any but a few interested in it a fter 7 years?

Long term communities exist for many shooters, like half life, doom and UT.

Having an editor attatched makes far more of a lasting fanbase than gameplay variety.

[sparhawk]

Long term communities exist for many shooters, like half life, doom and UT.

 

Care to expaline how many fans exactly there are which still play the original levels either of Hlaf Life or Doom or UT? I can tell you how much. Probably less than 1%. Because the rest of the players are using mods, and are playing the online maps. Half Life would be NOTHING if there were no Counterstrike, because of all the cool game it was, nobody would still run it except for CS. And it's pretty similar for the other games as well. Of course does another installment breath new life in a game, but T2 was long ago, and the announcement of T3 was much later.

[oDDity]

Who still plays the old Thief OMs? I certainly don't, and haven't for years.

The only life in Thief are the fan missions and campaigns, and fan missions can get a lot of variety into what you call restrictive gameplay and I call targeted gameplay.

Seeing as how we're making this for the express purpose of fan missions and campaigns, there won't be a problem with repetitive gameplay, even if you weren't allowed to BJ and kill your way though a level.

I'm only suggesting realistic in-game methods for limiting the KOs and kills.

[Macsen]

Impossible to argue for restrictions or for open ended gameplay. The trick is to get the balance right between the two, depending on the game. It should be up to the FM maker whether BJing guards wll be allowed or not, anyway, so there's no much point arguing about on this day.

 

I played UT last night. Probably multiplayer that keeps these shooters alive.

[ZylonBane]

And btw on the meter idea like golf games, that is ok but don't waste too much time on gimmicks like that, most things like that are either just annoying, or you figure out how to do it right every time and it is simply an added boring step.

If I'm understanding what they said correctly, they aren't talking about having an actual meter on the screen (god help us). They're talking about "heavy" blackjack blows, much like the heavy sword swings in Classic Thief, which you get by holding the attack button for an extra second or so. And it's not just an extra boring step-- by requiring more time to ready a heavy blackjack swing, it slightly narrows the attack window on your target and forces the player to think a little more tactically.

[bob_arctor]

Yeah I'd be happy with that. I don't like artifial restraints but making each blackjack a bit harder, a bit more satisfying, and giving it more risk/reward balance questions (could I get away with it? Should I just leave him?) would be best.

[Al3xand3r]

I agree with Oddity in that certain helmeted guards shouldn't be blackjack-able only because certain FM authors may want to add areas or make full FMs that are harder exactly because you can't blackjack the guards there. Why shouldn't they have that option, it sounds pretty simple to add. Just make sure that there are also blackjack-able guards, possibly without a helmet at all or simply with lower quality helmets for use in the more standard FMs/areas.

 

In the case that the light/heavy blackjack blows get added this addition would basically mean three levels of guard "toughness":

 

Guards without helmet = can be blackjacked with a light or heavy blow

Guards with low quality helmet = can be blackjacked only with heavy blows

Guards with high quality helmet = cannot be blackjacked

(add the coresponding blunt arrow cases)

 

The same coresponding difficulties could exist in the ability to kill guards:

Guards with no or very light armor = can be killed relatively easy if your sword/dagger/whatever hits

Guards with medium armor = can be killed but it's difficult to hit the right uncovered places

Guards with heavy armor = cannot be killed with just force (fire arrows would prolly still cause damage but require more than one and only in certain vulnerable spots to incapacitate them)

 

The above would make people able to make more varied FMs too. Nearly invulnerable guards make sense in that a lightly equiped thief doesn't have the means of penetrating a heavily armored guard. They would sort of work as extra tough and different challenges in that if you will be required to plan your escape in case those guards notice you if you want to stay alive, or simply be so good you avoid everyone. Of course certain FM authors may want to add them as "bosses" that you can't steal a certain object from without getting spotted making the escape plan a requirement.

 

A thief that steals so many things of great value will surely make the rich ppl in that city more worried and equip their guards better... If 10 guards got blackjacked in that count's house I'll buy better helmets for a few of my guys to prevent that from happening and give that pesky thief a hard time if he tries to steal from me. If others got slaughtered I'll give the guard captains heavy armor and some of the other guys medium armor so that they can protect my things better. Etc.

 

The backstory involved would be up to FM authors of course, if they wish to add one (I don't think EVERY guard placement should be excused by backstory).

 

Not sure if this is what you all are arguing about as topics often get sidetracked and not very easy to follow...

[bob_arctor]

Sounds good.

 

However you think heavy armour is impervious to fire arrow?

 

They kill robots!

 

At the least you'd roast inside your tank-think armour!

 

Everyone should die to fire arrows.

[oDDity]

Yes, since fire arrows are actually explosive arrows, and are basically just a mine that can be shot as a projectile, armour is not going to protect you much, but certainly the guards in heavy armor will require more hits from fire arrows to kill.

[Al3xand3r]

Well I'm fine with that, I wasn't aware of the exact properties of the fire arrows so I did my best to take them in account for the heavily armored guards just to avoid people whining as if I had suggested unrealisticaly invulnerable guards or anything like that.

Glad you liked the rest suggestions - which probably aren't all that new, it just seemed people were arguing over simple things really so I thought I'd write that to show how everyone can (and probably should be, atleast eventually) be pleased relatively easily.

Edited February 27, 2006 by Al3xand3r