Can't Wait To Get Stoned

[Maximius]

A suggestion, how hard would it be to give the THief a small pebble to toss himself, to distract or attract AIs as needed. Im taking this from FarCry of course, the main character had a pebble in his grenade inventory that served those purposes. I realize there are noisemaker arrows but they seem to be big distractions, Im thinking of something that would only be heard in a very small radius. I could model a pebble if necessary....

 

A few quick questions about the guards throwing stuff. Is it possible to make the guards not throw stuff in certain areas of a map? For example, if Im stealing all of Lord Balfords rare mask collection, how likely is it that a guard will start tossing bottles about the room to try and nail me in the rafters? Not likely if he stands a chance of smashing an artifact or two. Or imagine Im hiding in the rafters of the nursery, is a guard going to chuck bottles with infants sleeping around him? If the bottle tossing could be shut off on an individual AI basis, then I would only turn it on for AIs patrolling outdoors or in big open areas like a dining hall or barn but not for interior guards.

 

Another question somewhat related, can levels of difficulty be different in different areas of the same map? Say for example I have a map of a city street with a mansion on it that I wish to burgle. If I'm spotted by the Citywatch on the street, its no big deal as long as I can evade them. But if I'm even spotted for a second by the mansions security staff, its game over. Why? Cause if the Citywatch sees me its nothing big as long as I can avoid their grasp, they have no idea what it is Im up to. But if Im a private guard and I see a professional thief lurking about the grounds, no matter whether I can catch him or not, Im going to sound the general alarm and send a heavy guard contingent to the areas with valuable/sensitive items. So even if they cannot nip me, Im going to find 10 guards covering the vault now instead of one or two on patrol. So can game goals be set differently for different guards, or different areas of the map, or can "triggers" be set that change the maps goals once the Thief enters a certain area of the map?

[ZylonBane]

On the other other hand, AIs have been doing it in games for decades and nobody has cared.

Yes, in mindless arcade-style games. Thief aspires to a slightly higher level of realism than that.

[Springheel]

It's surprising how many things players just accept once they're in the game environment (as opposed to just talking about it), even in games with 'higher levels of realism' like Thief. No one thinks twice about the fact that doors just automatically close behind guards without them having to turn around and pull them shut, for example. Or that weapons just sit on AI's backs with no obvious sign of support. Or that AI arrows just magically appear on AI's bows when fired. Etc.

 

A few quick questions about the guards throwing stuff. Is it possible to make the guards not throw stuff in certain areas of a map?

 

I don't think we'll be setting anything like that up specifically. But we do have plans to allow mappers to designate high and low security areas that trigger special behaviour in AI (which sort of answers your second question). Whether throwing things is a behaviour easily managed with scripts I don't know--we haven't started working on that yet, so there are a lot of questions about how it will turn out.

[New Horizon]

Probably shouldn't be too hard to allow some settings on AI to adjust individual frequency, or if they even throw something. We'll deal with that if we have time, but there are higher priority issues and this particular one would be done during the tweaking stage.

[Ishtvan]

@Maximus: To set up something where being spotted by one specific group of guards causes mission failure: An FM author can set a different "team" integer on the AI, and "no alert" objectives should be able to be specified by team, so you could easily set up something like you're saying. In addition, you can use the idLocation system to partition the map up into different locations, and you could have an objective with combined components: "don't be seen by mansion guards while in the mansion location"

[Maximius]

thanks for your replies all, bog I cant wait to play this fucking game. I think little tweaks like that, taken in their total, will add a lot to the immersion of the game, not just because, for example, the guards throw stuff at you or being spotted inside the house ends the game but because you can make them do it in a way, and at a time, that makes sense. As Im learning in modeling, little things can add up to much bigger effects, I think the same hold true here.

 

Speaking of modeling, please see my latests plant specimen, clocking in at a mere 160 polys!

Edited December 27, 2006 by Maximius

[Crispy]

A few quick questions about the guards throwing stuff. Is it possible to make the guards not throw stuff in certain areas of a map?

You will be able to turn off the throwing behaviour for individual AIs (not yet implemented, but I intend to do it). AFAIK it would then be simple to set up scripts that will toggle that property on and off when the AI walks into different areas.

 

So yes, but you'd have to set it up yourself - we're not going to spend time implementing that specifically when it's already pretty easy with scripting.

 

Ishtvan answered some of your next question already - but yeah, all that should be doable with Doom 3 scripting (it's very flexible, not like Thief 3's hamstrung triggerscripts).

[Springheel]

Of course, if you turn off throwing things, then if a player hops up on a table AI will be left with nothing to do but shake their fist (assuming we have time to make that animation).

[Maximius]

Of course, if you turn off throwing things, then if a player hops up on a table AI will be left with nothing to do but shake their fist (assuming we have time to make that animation).

 

Thats the main reason I plan to make getting spotted a game ending offense, in some areas at least. Ill have to look into this scripting at some point too.

[Springheel]

I plan to make getting spotted a game ending offense

 

That's already quite easy using our objectives system. You can set all kinds of things as mission failure conditions.

 

Of course, if you do that, then you don't really need to turn throwing off anyway...

[ZylonBane]

Thats the main reason I plan to make getting spotted a game ending offense, in some areas at least.

Wow. Fuck you too.

[Crispy]

I mostly agree with ZylonBane on this one (though I wouldn't put it so bluntly). If I want to run around with guards chasing after me then I should be able to! Forcing a playstyle on a player is generally a bad thing.

 

A better solution to the table problem, if you want to stop AI throwing things, is to make sure that there are always some ranged AI around that area. Non-ranged AI will call for missile backup when they can't reach you (even when they are throwing things at you), so as long as there's an archer around the player won't be able to use the exploit for long.

[Komag]

Please, individual authors can make missions or areas that end game on a sighting if they wish, if it fits what they want to do with their mission, story, etc. I'm sure there will be a big variety of missions and playstyles, and some people like "forced" styles now and then since it's not the same to only "self-impose" things.

 

Sort of like in Tony Hawk, you want to get the goals/challenges, because if you only just make it up yourself that you want to try to jump 5 park benches in a row that's kinda dull, but if the game gives you a challenge it's different.

[Fidcal]

Crispy: I'm with Komag on this. You say "Forcing a playstyle on a player is generally a bad thing." My view is that forcing a writing style on a level editor is wrong. He/she should be free to write absolutely any kind of game they wish so long as they make it clear in the readme so the player can choose whether to play it. To have a constraint, pressure, or bias applied to any creative art is wrong in my opinion.

 

I generally like semi-ghosting but the notion that nobody should write an all-out combat mission without being criticised (for play style alone) is repugnant to me. "I don't like xxx because it is not Thief-like" is fair comment; "xxx has no right to be so unThief-like" is not.

 

Yes, a mission can be annoying; I've abandoned many a one with a curse - but I defend the freedom of the mission author to produce the level THEY want and not just write for the majority.

[Crispy]

Yes, a mission can be annoying; I've abandoned many a one with a curse - but I defend the freedom of the mission author to produce the level THEY want and not just write for the majority.

You've definitely got a point (and Komag too). I just think that "automatic fail" situations should be treated with caution and used sparingly; hence my use of the word "generally". If the mission is designed with those kinds of restrictions in mind then it can be a good thing. It's just not something I'd necessarily encourage people to do unless they've got a good reason for doing so.

 

Regardless, I am (and the rest of the Dark Mod team are) heavily in favour of mappers having lots of freedom to design their missions, so there's no need to worry about that.

[Maximius]

For me, its a realism thing, I think that if you get spotted, at least in certain areas, the game should end because thats what would happen in RL. Not that everything in a game should reflect RL, I understand its a game after all, but to me it was always an illusion buster to have guards spot a Thief meddling around in the vault or the wine cellar, and then after the Thief slinks off they go right back to doodling along on their patrols. When the character is on the mission in a sensitive area, best be on your toes or its curtains.

 

The reason I feel this way is that when such standards were made possible in the Precursor FMs, I thought of it as an immediate improvement. I cant remember if not getting spotted was a goal in the Precursor games but it should have been. Now fine, I understand the Mod is flexible enough to set various goal levels and I have no problem with that. But at the very least I will make it clear in the intro what level of difficulty I the author intended the map to be played at and will heap scorn upon those who chose the easier levels. Perhaps even make certain areas of some maps off limits unless you play it on the toughest level.

[Springheel]

I understand its a game after all, but to me it was always an illusion buster to have guards spot a Thief meddling around in the vault or the wine cellar, and then after the Thief slinks off they go right back to doodling along on their patrols. When the character is on the mission in a sensitive area,

 

We're addressing that issue as well, but in less restrictive ways than 'automatic fail'.

 

We're intending to include an "emergency alert" state that AI go into when there is obvious evidence of an intruder. Mappers can set all kinds of special case behaviour for AI in this state--they can change patrols, run to block exits, set off alarms, etc. Even if the mapper sets no special behaviour, the AI will remain alert for the rest of the mission, so you won't have to worry about guards finding a dead comrade and then going back to yawning and cracking their knuckles on their regular route.

[Fidcal]

That sounds ideal to me Springheel. Will the level editor be able to disable or timeout that default on-going special alert state? Depending on the mission I'd be interested to see how it would be with a timeout after say 15 minutes. (actually I think one can tinker the alert time in T2 anyway per individual AI.) The player would have to either quickload or else divert to some other avenue/task and come back much later when they've cooled off. I see a re-arrangement of the guards, some extra guards brought in, higher alert, one or two keeping running round in a panic, but just like real people they eventually over time start to relax the alert but keep the extra sentries and patrols etc. Some players might actually deliberately trigger this for an extra challenge - especially on a replay. Mind you, my idea raises the problem of a second major alert! What then. Dunno unless you can detect its a second major alert and make this permanent. Can't keep bringing in more and more guards can we? Hehe!

[sxotty]

This feature is perfect already. It is to punish people trying to exploit, so don't waste effort trying to make it not work b/c some fragile vases are around or some other silliness.

 

The guard smashes the vase and the thief cannot get it seems fair enough.

[OrbWeaver]

The guard smashes the vase and the thief cannot get it seems fair enough.

 

It is likely that a guard who smashed valuables to stop them from getting stolen would not remain a guard for very long. You might as well blow up your house to keep out intruders.

[Crispy]

His job probably isn't worth much anyway if a thief manages to steal everything that's valuable in the mansion on his watch.

 

You're right that having guards destroy valuable objects is bad for the thief as well, so as far as gameplay goes it's fine.

 

Still, if mappers want to prevent guards throwing stuff in critical areas, then they'll be able to. Power to the people and all that.

[Ishtvan]

The residents didn't seem too concerned about exploding cannonballs in T2.

[Taffer36]

Springheel: It's surprising how many things players just accept once they're in the game environment (as opposed to just talking about it), even in games with 'higher levels of realism' like Thief. No one thinks twice about the fact that doors just automatically close behind guards without them having to turn around and pull them shut, for example. Or that weapons just sit on AI's backs with no obvious sign of support. Or that AI arrows just magically appear on AI's bows when fired. Etc.

 

Uh... no. We do think twice about it. In fact, it breaks immersion. It's just that we are forced to accept it. While it isn't the biggest deal in the world, it's ridiculous to say that it doesn't break any immersion. It would add greatly to the immersion if these things were fixed in Thief. So yes, in fact, little things like this do break immersion and remind us that all we're doing is playing some computer game.

 

Maximus: For me, its a realism thing, I think that if you get spotted, at least in certain areas, the game should end because thats what would happen in RL.

 

In real life when thiefs are spotted the game ends? Does the thief just throw himself upon the mercy of the guard and his pointy sword because he has been spotted?! I always thought that was one of the most enjoyable parts of the original Thief. It was always fun trying to get away once you'd been spotted and alerted the guards. While the guards' behavior of returning to their patrols after a time was rather stupid, that doesn't change the fact that it was fun. I am looking forward to seeing how I will have to avoid these more intelligent guards.

 

On another note, I'd also like to see how guards will react to their comrades dying or passing out. A great immersion breaker in Thief was when you would knock out or kill a guard, the guard next to them would simply say something like "oh no, they've killed him!", and either start searching for you or they would run away to get help (at least I think they did). It would be much better if they kneeled down by their comrade and tried to help them or something like that. Maybe the guard should first assess if the situation is dangerous or not. If the thief is out in the open they should give chase. Maybe if they are in a group the other guards should assess whether they should aid them in giving chase, or if they should aid in helping the downed guard (so the group would split; the number that stays to aid the downed guard could be dependent on how badly he was injured. Just being knocked over by a thrown crate would only yield one guard to help him stand, versus having a mortal chest wound caused by a broadhead would yield quite a few guards).

[Springheel]

Uh... no. We do think twice about it. In fact, it breaks immersion. It's just that we are forced to accept it.

 

I guess some people can suspend their disbelief to greater degree than others. If little things like those bother you, then you certainly won't be happy with TDM--or any other computer game that attempts to simulate human behaviour.

 

There are some fun flight sims out there though.

[New Horizon]

Uh... no. We do think twice about it. In fact, it breaks immersion. It's just that we are forced to accept it. While it isn't the biggest deal in the world, it's ridiculous to say that it doesn't break any immersion. It would add greatly to the immersion if these things were fixed in Thief. So yes, in fact, little things like this do break immersion and remind us that all we're doing is playing some computer game.

 

Well, at the end of the day...we ARE just playing some computer game. I have an Atari 2600 in my back room. I can still plug that sucker in and transport myself within the reality of those particular games. Yes, they were just simple blocks on a screen, but my mind filled in the blanks. Limitations within the game play a part in breaking immersion, but our inability to forgive modern games play an equal role. When I fire up a game, I still expect to do some of the work in padding out the game within my mind, and to be honest...I enjoy doing so, it keeps me involved in the game.

 

 

On another note, I'd also like to see how guards will react to their comrades dying or passing out. A great immersion breaker in Thief was when you would knock out or kill a guard, the guard next to them would simply say something like "oh no, they've killed him!", and either start searching for you or they would run away to get help (at least I think they did). It would be much better if they kneeled down by their comrade and tried to help them or something like that. Maybe the guard should first assess if the situation is dangerous or not. If the thief is out in the open they should give chase. Maybe if they are in a group the other guards should assess whether they should aid them in giving chase, or if they should aid in helping the downed guard (so the group would split; the number that stays to aid the downed guard could be dependent on how badly he was injured. Just being knocked over by a thrown crate would only yield one guard to help him stand, versus having a mortal chest wound caused by a broadhead would yield quite a few guards).

 

Nice ideas in theory, but they go beyond the scope of what we're going to be capable of pulling doing. It would make for nice window dressing to have the guards do all these extra things for a wounded comrade, but we would somehow have to complete all the 'basic essentials' for Thief Style gameplay in record time, balance it until it works flawlessly...and THEN have to worry about balancing all this extra stuff. Add in custom animations, and you're looking at a lot of extra work. We will try to improve Thief style gameplay where it can be fairly easily incorporated...such as the tossing of bottles, rocks and other projectiles. A throwing animation is far easier than some kneeling animation that would have to account for all the clipping that would go on with the AI's clothing.