My Mansion Loot

[sparhawk]

And I forgot to add. This option would probably be of high interest to ghosters. They tend to come up with all kind of crutches to get around the engine limitations because it does NOT support putting stuff back.

Especially when playing on higher difficulty levesl this could be interesting. And I think if we are able to put an item back, we should make use of that for the game as well.

[New Horizon]

On the topic of differences between loot and junk. Darkness_Falls nailed what I was trying so clumsily to get at. That the Loot should have more brilliance to it...without looking Vegas style. Perhaps this could be achieved by not using a specular map in the junk texture set...just leave them dull, and the loot specular would be slightly more obvious than normal.

 

I think that could work quite nicely.

[sparhawk]

I think that could work quite nicely.

They way you showed it on the picture is quite nice. It is so slightly different that you wouldn't recognize it when they are apart, but still it gives the loot a quality that makes you think it could be loot.

 

Nice job.

[Domarius]

My vote is for making the loot aesthetically distinguishable from junk somehow, wether it be with a more ornate texture, or a shiny surface like Darkness_falls was talking about. But I'm more in favor of the texture.

 

I would think that as your scanning around, you notice a plate with fancy decorations on it, and realise it is loot because of this, because you can tell it apart from the dull metal plate - even though they both use the same mesh.

[Darkness_Falls]

I also favor textures over shinyness, but think shinyness could be used as a cheap workaround for us and/or FM authors who don't want to take the time to make different (i.e., more ornate) textures for everything. Some (maybe most) loot objects should certainly have different textures to distinguish themselves. But New Horizon's mockup really shows that different textures wouldn't be needed for every piece of valuable loot, and I think it's cool to just have the slight variation NH's image shows for some loot. Sometimes just a more enhanced or brilliant texture like that can go a long ways.

[BlackThief]

regarding lootglint:

entering the stairwell:

 

 

...where's the loot?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

where's the loot?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

what we learned: lootglint is piece of shit - nobody needs it!

a good thief spotted the loot already on the first shot without lootglint...

 

 

[Springheel]

Be nice if the gems gleamed a bit thought.

 

BT, in the second picture, the bottom two shelves...what are those verticle black lines? Is that a model problem or just a weird shadow?

[BlackThief]

Be nice if the gems gleamed a bit thought.

 

BT, in the second picture, the bottom two shelves...what are those verticle black lines?  Is that a model problem or just a weird shadow?

it was a brush I forgot to delete

Edited March 20, 2005 by BlackThief

[oDDity]

YEah, that's ok for really obvious loot like a golden goblet sitting on a bookshelf, as long as we keep it all as obvious as that we don't need glint.

In T3, I had to turn glint on, since I was playing on hardest and you had to find virtually every piece of loot. Some of it was just a small ring lying behind a statue or someting. It would take for ever to spot that without glint, and I despise treasure hunts.

[_Atti_]

nice..i noticed the loot on the first pic:)

[Macsen]

I'd rather we do not have loot glint, and the map makers position the loot in such a way as it's rewarded for sneaking rather than turning the house upside down. Put it in plain sight, but in places you're more likely to get caught. I become annoyed with small rings hidden under the cushions of sofas; it rewards obsessive searching and luck, not sneaking.

 

Sneaking is what Thief is all about. All things should come back to sneaking.

[Springheel]

Aw, you guys are all pussies. I guess you want the loot floating in the middle of the hall so you can just run over it like pacman? Anyone not man enough to search through junkpiles looking for discarded silverware shouldn't even be playing this game.

[Renzatic]

Damn straight! I think we should make all the loot should be jet black too!

 

Seriously though, I think that for really small objects like rings or single gold coins tucked into a corner, a little loot gleem wouldn't hurt so much. Like Oddity I also hate the treasure hunts.

[Ishtvan]

Part of letting the player excercising their Thief skills is finding stuff that is hard to find. If they don't want to find every single tiny piece of loot, they should turn the required loot percentage down to 80% or whatever.

 

I don't like the idea of glint, but I do kind of frown upon mappers placing tiny pieces of loot in obscure corners, and then giving it such a large value that you have to find it, unless there is a readible or something saying that so and so lost their tiny but very valuable ring while playing in the music room or something like that.

 

Actually it's not all that bad, since we're going to have flares anyway, might as well use them in areas where it makes sense. In fact, we could have some metal loot textures in low light areas have really high spec maps/gloss maps, so that when you light a flare in that area, you actually will see the light from the flare glint off the metal, if that's possible to do with textures.

Edited March 22, 2005 by Ishtvan

[sparhawk]

The question where and how loot is placed is not one for us, because this is the FM authors decision. The FM author can ALWAYS place it that you never see the lootglint. If he puts a ring under a cushion, you will not find it, with or without lootglint. So the question is more, is it worth the trouble to implement this in hope to avoid such situations when we clearly know that we can't achieve this?

[New Horizon]

The question where and how loot is placed is not one for us, because this is the FM authors decision. The FM author can ALWAYS place it that you never see the lootglint. If he puts a ring under a cushion, you will not find it, with or without lootglint. So the question is more, is it worth the trouble to implement this in hope to avoid such situations when we clearly know that we can't achieve this?

Please....sweet Jesus. NO LOOT GLINT! Lets at least try to prove to ourselves we can do with out it. LOL

 

Like Spar said, it's up to the FM author NOT to be a tool and place something in a place that is too obscure...and if they do, then they need to provide adequate clues on how to find that piece of loot.

 

T3 was far too robotic with the glint and percentage thing.

[oDDity]

I rather have no glint as long as I not forced to find 90% loot just because I play on hardest - which means having to spend 30 tedious minutes at the end of a misison, searching every square inch of the entire map trying to fiind one last gold coin which could be literally anywhere.

The loot objectives to be should be optional. A thief would not waste his time in such a way. For a start the thief should not know exactly how much loot is in a building to start with, and he'd only start with a rough estimate of how much loot he thought he should get from a place like this. A thief wants to get in and out as quckly as possible, taking only what he knows for a fact is there, by searching the usual places where loot is kept in most houses, or what's obvious to see.

I think we should put a premium on time as well. Doing a job quickly should be seen as more skillful. I would even support a time limit on hardest for the real hardcore taffers - not only do you have to ghost it, but you have to do it in n time as well.

I'd like that.

[sparhawk]

That's why I said the loot requirement is the only exception where we allow to make the FM easier by the custom difficulty settings AKA playstyle.

[oDDity]

Amount of loot objectives have nothing to do with ease or difficulty. Having to find 100% of loot is not more difficult, it's just pointless tedium. There's nothing difficut about systematically searching every corner of a map till you find all the loot, it's just a pathetic, boring waste of time.

[sparhawk]

You shouldn't confuse difficulty settings with difficulty. Even though they will affect the difficulty map they are not neccessaryl inherently tied together. That's why I prefer to call them playstyle settings.

[SneaksieDave]

Interesting. In one way we the are pussies, but in another certainly comparable way, it's tedious or too hard? It should be separate from difficulty requirements? Heh. It has never been before. But, I digress. It's all a matter of perspective now, isn't it? ZING.

 

Loot glint was not needed in T1&2 (I mentioned them again! Gasp) and I don't think it shouldn't be here either.

 

I'll echo Spring: Anyone not man enough to search through junkpiles looking for discarded silverware shouldn't even be playing this game.

 

Edited March 22, 2005 by SneaksieDave

[oDDity]

Exactly. Anyone not man enough to prevent himself from falling into a coma while having to search the entire map with an electron microscope for a molecule of gold dust shouldn't be playing the game.

I play a real thief who doesn't demean himself by stealing a few pennies from the servants quarters. I quite happliy pass loot without lifting it becasue I don't deem it expensive enough for my tastes.

Loot objectives were always the weaskest part of the game.

Edited March 22, 2005 by oDDity

[sparhawk]

Somehow the term "duplicitous" comes to my mind. Don't know why, though.

[oDDity]

You forgot the dictionary definitions :/

[Ishtvan]

I agree the loot hunt is kind've lame, that's why we should have an option to set the percent loot down if you want. That's why we're making these playstyle options, for the very reason that someone might want to turn the AI all the way up and then set loot percentage to an "easier" value.

 

I don't think the argument of what a "real thief" would do works though. Remember we're not just playing a smash & grab burglar, we're playing an artist, who paints the canvas of others' worldly posessions with negative space.

 

Also, the "real thief" argument could be applied to blackjacking vs ghosting too. In real life, people do not move on predictable tracks, always looking straight ahead of them like cardboard cutouts. Supposing you have to move thru a brightly lit area with 5 AI walking back and forth thru it. A real thief under a time constraint (like get out before the sun comes up) is not going to sit there for 20 minutes timing all the peoples' motions until they find a "sweet spot" where they can run thru the lit area with no one looking. Real people are not predictable like that.

 

If forced to take a well-lit route patrolled by several guards, a real thief would even up the odds by knocking a few people out (ie, ambushing them in completely dark areas of their patrol). This also applies to crossing behind a stationary guard in a well lit area, esp if your path out of and back into the shadows will put you "out of reach" of the guard.

 

In real life, would you just cross and hope the person doesn't randomly turn around, then scream out an alarm before you can get to them to silence them? Or do you get as close as you can to the guard while staying in shadow, wait for them to turn around and then KO them, THEN worry about crossing the well lit area?

 

I would argue that the KO option is more viable for a "real thief," since in real life you can never be assured that a person will not randomly glance your way while you're taking 10 seconds to cross a fully lit area behind them. The consequences of them glancing back and seeing you may be death, and in life you don't get to reload. So I think a real thief would not so easily decide to abandon an open shot at the back of the guard's head in favor of a risky crossing behind them and hoping they don't look back (The best option is probably to cross closely behind them with the blackjack raised, ready to strike if they turn around, but sometimes the path to the shadows on the other side of the area you want to cross doesn't let you stay that close to them.)

 

(As a side note, this is completely OT, but this is another reason to make AI have a lot of random actions, like glancing behind them when on patrol. I'm tired of feeling like I'm ghosting past cardboard cutouts on tracks that will always keep looking the way they're walking unless I make a noise to alert them. Yes it will make ghosting harder, but it will also make it feel a lot more real, which makes it worthwhile IMO)

 

Anyway, sorry to rant. What I'm saying is: sometimes it's more realistic to KO people rather than try to ghost by them, but that shouldn't stop us from letting people choose a "ghosting" playstyle to get more challenge. Similary, it may be more realistic (as well as easier) to go in, find a few choice pieces of loot, and get out, but that should not stop us from letting people choose a higher loot requirement to add more challenge.

Edited March 22, 2005 by Ishtvan