The recipe for a good mission?

[Subjective Effect]

I'm not attacking you. I think your opinions show both prejudice and narrow-mindedness. I've explained why.

 

I wouldn't mind at all if you weren't so prescriptive.

 

And I don't think including that it's your opinion is in any way a buy out for being both incongruous and prescriptive.

 

I never tried to tell you what missions to like or not - but the prescriptive nature of your suggestions does the opposite. In effect you are being a hypocrite here.

 

The thread will never get back on track because I think that what you have posted is harmful to the cause and until you see that how can I just ignore it?

[Macsen]

The thread will never get back on track because I think that what you have posted is harmful to the cause and until you see that how can I just ignore it?

It will, because I can ignore you. Goodbye.

 

Three more suggestions:

 

Use Marble sparingly - It may look good on the floor but marble makes a hell of a lot of noise underfoot and sneaking very difficult. The player shouldn't have to travel everwhere at a snail's pace just because you want to the floor looking nice and shiny. Gameplay is more important than looks, as the thief games can attest to. Put a rug down or something.

 

Give arrows and tools sparingly - Gas and water arrows should not be plentyful enough to be a get out of jail free card in every situation. The player should have enough on his person to use at a few choice moments, but not feel that he can douse every torch and gas every guard in the mission. But never put the player in a position where he cannot complete a mission without being seen because he's run out of something.

 

It should be ghostable - The mission should be completable without requiring the player to be seen by any hostile AI.

[Subjective Effect]

What an immature response. I expected better.

 

Onwards: I think your arrows and tools point is important and correct, as is the ghostable one.

[Springheel]

I disagree that missions have to be ghostable. It's an artificial playstyle that's fun to try as an added challenge, but mappers shouldn't go through the effort of adding forced 'dead zones' just to make it possible. The thief has tools for a reason.

[Fidcal]

Macsen probably means ghostable as well as 'normal' play. So you can ghost if you want but you don't have to. I assume anyway. There are different definitions of ghosting anyway. I'm a semi-ghoster not hard core. My preference is to have loads of ammo and tools - but to use them as little as possible. So, satisfying if I can get through without a KO or putting out a torch - but I'll use them if it seems appropriate. So for me yes, the ideal mission would be ghostable but if most players want to be free with cosh and water then that's fine too.

[Sotha]

Use Marble sparingly - It may look good on the floor but marble makes a hell of a lot of noise underfoot and sneaking very difficult. The player shouldn't have to travel everwhere at a snail's pace just because you want to the floor looking nice and shiny. Gameplay is more important than looks, as the thief games can attest to. Put a rug down or something.

 

It should be ghostable - The mission should be completable without requiring the player to be seen by any hostile AI.

 

One should use marble realistically: such stone surely gets awfully cold during the night and especially during the winter. That's why there is usually carpets on the stone. Some non-living areas might not be equipped with rugs, but probably there aren't many guards there. (So gameplay-friendly choices can easily be realistic ones.)

 

I don't think every mission should be ghostable as such. It is, however, good if the players cleverness can yield a ghostable result. For example luring the guard watching a map-bottleneck door away with a noise arrow. Bottleneck areas should be commonly avoided, but is very uncommon to have a high-security bank vault with multiple ways in, so surely those bottlenecks will be present in many maps. And it is okay.

[Springheel]

I don't think every mission should be ghostable as such. It is, however, good if the players cleverness can yield a ghostable result. For example luring the guard watching a map-bottleneck door away with a noise arrow.

 

Oh, I agree with that completely, but that's not the definition of 'ghosting' that I'm used to seeing. I thought ghosting meant not using any tools or leaving any trace of your presence. The mapper has to go out of his way if they want to make sure that's possible, which I don't personally like.

[Sotha]

Oh, I agree with that completely, but that's not the definition of 'ghosting' that I'm used to seeing. I thought ghosting meant not using any tools or leaving any trace of your presence. The mapper has to go out of his way if they want to make sure that's possible, which I don't personally like.

 

-Really? We should write some kind of glossary to get our terminology right, as I thought ghosting means that no one sees you.

 

It would be a bore if there was always a guaranteed no-tools no-trouble entry in our maps.

[Ombrenuit]

I see no problem with using 'should' and 'always' because I've already made clear at the start of the thread that I'm taking about my preferences for a mission.

 

I guess what Subjective Effect is saying nicely is no one cares what you personally like Macsen. I'm not going to make a thread in off-topic about my favorite foods.

Edited December 8, 2007 by Ombrenuit

[Macsen]

I guess what Subjective Effect is saying nicely is no one cares what you personally like Macsen. I'm not going to make a thread in off-topic about my favorite foods.

And yet you frequent forums every day to read the opinions of other people. Imagine that.

 

I, on the other hand, want to know what other people like in their missions, being a beta mapper who plans on building a few. Which is why I started the thread.

 

P.S. Are you guys always this grouchy? Or did you all get out the wrong side of the bed this morning?

[Subjective Effect]

As I've explained - if you were less prescriptive I wouldn't mind.

[Crispy]

P.S. Are you guys always this grouchy? Or did you all get out the wrong side of the bed this morning?

I think they're always this grouchy. Don't worry about it.

[Baddcog]

-Really? We should write some kind of glossary to get our terminology right, as I thought ghosting means that no one sees you.

 

It would be a bore if there was always a guaranteed no-tools no-trouble entry in our maps.

 

 

There is a hardcore set of ghosters that typically hangs out at the eidos forums. their rules are simple.

 

Don't be seen

leave no evidence (other than missing loot)

don't be heard above suspicioun (Is that a rat, did I hear something) basically level one alerts is the max.

If an ai hears or sees you for sure (I saw you, come on out) level 2 alert than the ghost is busted.

 

They even go so far as to complain about friendly ai in missions, because even though they are friendly, if they saw you they saw you.

 

Personally I like to play what I call appartition mode

 

Much like Fidcal, I'd rather not ever be seen or heard and I try not to use too many tools. But if they are alerted above level 1 I will hide and wait, not reload/retry. So at the end of the night they just think they were seeing things (must've been a ghost - the house must be haunted)

[Macsen]

It's really up to clever mapping to try and please those that want to make use of their tools as well as those who prefer to ghost. The advanced physics gives the mapper all kinds of oppertunities for clever use of tools beyond what was on offer before. Imagine for instance drawing out a guard using a noise arrow and then pulling on a rope arrow to make a box fall behin him, blocking his route back to the door he was guarding (or on top of him if you want to be mean). But at the same time you could just use the box and arrow to scale one of the windows over his head.

 

Like with the multiple entrances, there could be a path for tools and a (more difficult) way for those who want to pass through completely undetected.

[Springheel]

My problem is when it becomes obvious that the mapper has placed things just to give the player a way to "pass through completely undetected." Like those alcoves conveniently placed just far enough apart that you can get from one to another before a guard comes by. Or the guard that conveniently turns his back to the important doorway for 10 seconds every 30 seconds. Etc.

[Komag]

I also don't care about absolute ghosting, and it's not something I ever consider when mapping. I consider good sneaking, but why do we have thief tools if you're not supposed to use them?

 

I think having a bottleneck passage with a couple guards that are IMPOSSIBLE to sneak around is fine now and then if the situation makes sense (really valuable loot display, etc). You have to distract them somehow, or gas them, or whatever, and that's part of the game to me. Of course, alternate pathways is cool too, and maybe there will be some hard to find secret passage through the rafters or under the floorboards or something.

 

But anyway, in my missions are ghostable it will be entirely be accident, so hardcore ghosters will probably just have to play some other mission than mine.

[sparhawk]

I think having a bottleneck passage with a couple guards that are IMPOSSIBLE to sneak around is fine now and then if the situation makes sense (really valuable loot display, etc). You have to distract them somehow, or gas them, or whatever, and that's part of the game to me. Of course, alternate pathways is cool too, and maybe there will be some hard to find secret passage through the rafters or under the floorboards or something.

 

As much as I like alternate pathways, I find it quite uneblievable, if somebody builds a special vault for his most valuable treasures, surround them with guards and does everything that you can NOT reach it, only to leave a gaping hole open for players to snatch it. I mean, that feels like the super villain in those movies, where he has the self detruct button conveniently put on his his desk for everybody plain to see. Why a self destruct button anyway???

[Subjective Effect]

Agreed. Realism is key. The thing with realism is that often there will be multiple ways to do certain things (just look at any building - there are loads of ways in), but sometimes there is only one way.

[sparhawk]

That's right. But a secure vault is built for a reason. Of course, you can claim that medieval castles were often taken over by enemies, and as such the current owner might not hvae had the opportunitie to find all the loopholes.

 

I think that this was a good thing in the original Thief missions. They usually didn't give the feeling that things were placed there for the players convenience.

[metabaron]

That's right. But a secure vault is built for a reason. Of course, you can claim that medieval castles were often taken over by enemies, and as such the current owner might not hvae had the opportunitie to find all the loopholes.

 

I think that this was a good thing in the original Thief missions. They usually didn't give the feeling that things were placed there for the players convenience.

 

 

Right,

 

don`t forget, it´s a game, not reality.

 

The most important thing is, for my opinion, that the game give us a (virtual) reality

in which we can move/act and in which things are possible, that won`t work in real live.

Without givin`us the feel to be the superhero, which can sneak between hordes of guards, without being recognized.

I think thief1+2 were close to that (closer than other games are/have been).

[i dont wanna speak about thief3 ].

 

it`s nearly impossible to sneak between guards, that are (in worse case) aware, that you

are coming. They will have enough light and will be enough man to build a circle

around the house, vault or whatsoever, in which they can see another.....and for sure...you..

 

so is the reality.

 

in thief, there are little loopholes (yes..specially for the player), but they are not that obvious,that i think, i´m the superhero but a good thief and acrobat.

 

If I want 100% reality, i would turn my computer off and went to the city shopping.

 

For my opinion u r all on a good way to make the best, what an independent group

can make out of thief. possibly better than a company would make, because u r more

enthusiasthic for it and there r no commercial interests.

 

keep up ur good work

Edited December 10, 2007 by metabaron

[metabaron]

...by the way:

 

just in this moment im playing TDS (for the cradle-mission).

Am i the only one, who`s been sucked by the

hints in the loading-screens?

 

Thats the atmosphere-killer itself. please avoid

giving hints during the game.

 

 

What is the manual for?

[sparhawk]

Not only the hints in the loading screen gave to much away. Also the placement of readables felt as if you were being pushed with your nose on any available hints. Important notes were placed three four times to emphasise the point that players are stupid and you really shouldn't miss the clue that this over secret gem is placed there.

[Macsen]

Another good point that ties into what you said Sparhawk is the length of readables. Unless the map maker can spin a hell of good yarn I think people should aim for about 3 pages max. One clue should be enough but not if it's on page 12.

 

Regarding the ghosting I mentioned earlier, I think it should be possible to get through mission without letting a guard become aware of your presence. It's up to the map maker to make this realistic and not repetitive (enless alcoves like Springheel said). A good example I think is the Bank misson from Thief II where you hve to shut things down all over the building just to open the vault, a realistic amount of work to get in, while still being able to ghost past all the guards and machines. The last defence for a valuable object would probably be a machine or a lock anyway, since they're probably expecting an armed attack not a thief with all night to figure out how to beat their security system. The guards could be overwhelmed by a small gang, but they'd be stopped by the security system at least long enough for some elite reinforcements to show up.

[Gildoran]

Another good point that ties into what you said Sparhawk is the length of readables. Unless the map maker can spin a hell of good yarn I think people should aim for about 3 pages max. One clue should be enough but not if it's on page 12.

I think that also ties into what was good about Thief's method of introducing the player to the world. Unlike RPGs that force you to read lengthy boring history novels before you can play the game, Thief gives you history/background as one small piece of the puzzle at a time, leaving you curious and wanting to know more. Learning about the world was often the apt reward for exploration.

[Macsen]

Exactly. That's another reason why I think the dark mod should be deliberately vague about the city's history and not ascribe too much detail to the factions. For one thing people will mostly ignore it, and also because it's better for a world to grow organically as a community project and without the artifical restriction of pre-designed plots. It would be nice to enter each level with the same anticipation and knowing the same amount about the world as you did when you first heard a guard say, 'I'm going down to the bear pits tomorrow...'