Bakerman on 19/11/2009 at 13:58
Quote Posted by jtr7
Describe "pretty simple thing", B'Man. :sly:
I assume you're referring to my statement that it'd be quick and simple to implement peeping. I've got to preface obviously that I don't know anything about the innards of the engine EM might be using, but I'll go from my experience.
When leaning, I'd control the lean with a raycast, so you don't evnd up leaning through walls (shoot a line, don't lean any further past where the line hits geometry). Any half-decent raycast system will be able to return information about the object hit. So in whichever bit of the code that performs the raycast, you add a little if-clause to check whether the hit object was a door. If we're leaning forward and we're hitting a door, we can activate 'keyhole' mode and remember the door object.
In Torque, the position of the camera is calculated every frame by the object that the camera is attached to. It's be nearly trivial to, if the player was in keyhole mode, grab the position of a bone in the door model (I'd assume EM's engine can do basic skeletal animation they can access through code) and return that as the camera position.
That's the basics. Once leaning is disengaged, keyhole mode would be deactivated and the camera returns to normal.
Add effects like fade in/out, sanity checks on the door to make sure it has a keyhole, and that we're looking through it in the right direction, and maybe allow a small amount of camera movement to simulate moving the eye around.
Quote Posted by sparhawk
And as a matter of fact, if you absolutely want keyholes you can easily do them by leaving a hole in the door where the player can look through.
Fair enough, but I think that *would* require some level design concessions - if the height of the hole is slightly wrong, the player's eye point when crouched wouldn't be able to see through it.
Quote Posted by The Shroud
What do you think, Bakerman? Want to try it in the game you're working on?
Eh, given it's a sci-fi setting and action-oriented, I'd probably not - I just brought that up because I had an idea of how I would go about implementing it if I were going to add it to the game. But maybe as a proof-of-concept for you guys, sure ;)... if it's as little work as I think it is!
(Actually, as a disclaimer, I said it would be easy if you already had leaning and doors... TGE doesn't really have any concept of a door, so heh :p... I'm still working out how to implement them properly!)
Quote Posted by The Shroud
It really seems as if you're ignoring most, if not all of the important points I've made and focusing strictly on a debate with Bakerman.
Hey, he ignores my arguments too! Don't feel left out ;) :p
The Shroud on 19/11/2009 at 23:35
Quote Posted by Bakerman
and maybe allow a small amount of camera movement to simulate moving the eye around.
I was going to say that this wouldn't be very useful, since the player can't actually shift their field of view past the keyhole, only within its confines. But it could be quite useful when zooming in with Garrett's mechanical eye, since at that stage his field of view through the keyhole would be greatly magnified to encompass the entire screen - thus, the player could shift the camera a little to focus on a particular point in their field of view and then zoom in further to see that point in enhanced detail. With this technique, a player might conceivably discern distant details and happenings, since as we all know, the farther we see, the broader our cone of vision gets.
Another use for keyhole-peering is when looking
out from a room (for instance, into a hallway) to spot something specific that can't be figured out by listening - like the precise moment a stationary guard turns his back, cuing the player that it's safe to open the door without being seen. Here's one situation off the top of my head in which keyhole-peering would have been useful to me:
In Thief 2, during Running Interference, there was a time when I was hiding inside the second-floor bathroom, listening through the door (leaning to enhance the audio). A guard could be heard patrolling up and down the corridor outside in a relatively short route. I could gauge his general proximity to a certain degree by the volume of his footsteps, but I couldn't tell
precisely the moment he passed the door because there came a point when his footsteps' volume had essentially reached its peak and ceased any discernible variation by which I could assess his exact position. It was several moments before his footsteps began to recede, leaving me with a very rough window (perhaps somewhere in the range of 5-7 seconds) in which to guess the right moment to open the door and slip out of the room unnoticed.
I had watched his patrol route from the shadows earlier so I knew he would be turning around and heading back my way very shortly - not giving me much time to open the door without his hearing it...slip out...close the door...hurry up the hall...listen at the next door...judge it safe to enter the room...open that door...slip in...and shut the door - all before the guard would turn around and potentially catch sight of me. Lots to do, flawlessly, in a very short span of time, which meant a requirement for great precision of timing.
That would have been an excellent moment to peer through the keyhole of the bathroom's door into the hall outside, to spot the
exact instant the guard passed by. If I had been able to do that, I could have better estimated the soonest moment that the guard would be out of earshot, thereby providing me the longest possible span of time in which to do everything I'd planned before he'd turn around and notice me.
Since I didn't have that option, I ended up being forced to gamble - resulting in my finding out (the hard way) that I should have backtracked to the staircase and followed quietly behind the guard to traverse the hall unseen, rather than try to use the adjacent rooms to sneak around him (not to say that it
can't be done that way, but it's risky and involves a bit of practice and/or luck). Now, of course, I know better - but that's only after screwing up. If Garrett had screwed up like that, he might be dead now. Like Bakerman, I feel like a cheater if I learn ways to complete missions only through trial and error. I'd rather
succeed the first time, using wits and common sense, instead of illegitimately acquired knowledge. And if I had been able to peer through keyholes, that original plan I'd had just might have worked after all.
The above is merely an example. I'm sure I could come up with numerous others - both ones that really occurred in the previous three games and ones that might occur in the fourth - but I think that's enough for now.
Quote Posted by Bakerman
Fair enough, but I think that *would* require some level design concessions - if the height of the hole is slightly wrong, the player's eye point when crouched wouldn't be able to see through it.
True. But nothing says keyholes can't be placed at the proper height for peering through them while crouched (or the reverse - adjusting the crouch height to correspond with the height of the keyholes).
Quote Posted by Bakerman
Hey, he ignores my arguments too! Don't feel left out ;) :p
:)
jtr7 on 20/11/2009 at 00:16
I ignore the stubborn, the deflections, the perpetually baffling, and the mind-screwers, and you ignore my disclaimers.
I know damn well I'm talking to brick walls, but that doesn't stop me from remembering there are others who read this and will read this in the future. Gotta keep it off-the-wall and interesting since it's one dead-end topic after another.
And I'll bet you think I'm angry--again.
Chade on 20/11/2009 at 01:10
Imagine we give guards an extra alert state: the "friendly" alert state.
This is a state a guard enters into when something innocous happens nearby: something which makes him think a another guard/servant might be near (i.e., picking an example totally at random, opening a door).
In this state the guard stops, turns his head, maybe takes a few steps towards the disturbance, calls out pleasantries, etc ... Once the guard gets no reply, he might grumble a bit about how everyone else is always "so rude" and go on his way.*
If guards were alerted by opening doors, it might make sense to give Garrett more tools to avoid this possibility. As it stands, though, you can open and close doors without any consequences. So I don't see much point.
* Or if you really wanted to, you could say that if another guard is near, that guard might even respond briefly and that would be the end of it. OTOH, if no-one replies, the guard might even get a little suspicious,and glance around for a few seconds before going on his way. This would add another dimension to the ghosting experience: only take certain actions when you can fool a guard into thinking somebody else was responsible.
The Shroud on 20/11/2009 at 04:22
Quote Posted by jtr7
I ignore the stubborn
Let me get this straight. You're ignoring my points, explanations, examples, answers to your questions, questions to you, and everything else I may write - because I
haven't changed my opinion?Quote Posted by jtr7
the deflections
Those are called counter-arguments.
Quote Posted by jtr7
the perpetually baffling
I don't think I'm that confusing. My points have been pretty clear all along.
Quote Posted by jtr7
and the mind-screwers
You're accusing me of screwing with your mind now? I must be dishonest, is that it? Can't possibly really mean what I've been saying? Can't
actually be seriously discussing this subject? That's pretty cheap.
Quote Posted by jtr7
and you ignore my disclaimers.
The fact is, unlike you,
I have been responding to your points, making some pretty damn good points of my own while I've been at it if I don't mind saying so - points which I suspect even you have such difficulty deflecting that your last resort is to avoid addressing them altogether. Maybe this is some obscure kind of unspoken sign on your part? Since the notion of you conceding even
one point, no matter how small, is pretty blatantly out of the question, regardless of whether or not that point may actually hold merit, maybe this is as close as you can bring yourself to an admission of defeat? As Melvin Udall said, "What if this is as good as it gets?"
Quote Posted by jtr7
I know damn well I'm talking to brick walls
Do you think the term "brick wall" somehow fails to describe
you? You don't budge in the slightest - yet you think of
us as brick walls. I could make a good case for both Bakerman and myself admitting to some true statements from the opposition on a number of occasions - the same can
not be said for you.
Quote Posted by jtr7
but that doesn't stop me from remembering there are others who read this and will read this in the future. Gotta keep it off-the-wall and interesting since it's one dead-end topic after another.
Dead-end, perhaps, in that we're not heading towards where you'd like us to go - which is total agreement. I mean, let's face it. You're not interested in coming over to
our perspective, are you? You therefore can't (legitimately at least) hold it against us for not coming over to yours.
Quote Posted by jtr7
And I'll bet you think I'm angry--again.
Sounds like it, yeah. You're very good at projecting that vibe, whether you intend to or not.
Bakerman on 20/11/2009 at 05:07
Quote Posted by Chade
Imagine we give guards an extra alert state: the "friendly" alert state.
This is a state a guard enters into when something innocous happens nearby: something which makes him think a another guard/servant might be near (i.e., picking an example
totally at random, opening a door).
In this state the guard stops, turns his head, maybe takes a few steps towards the disturbance, calls out pleasantries, etc ... Once the guard gets no reply, he might grumble a bit about how everyone else is always "so rude" and go on his way.*
If guards were alerted by opening doors, it might make sense to give Garrett more tools to avoid this possibility. As it stands, though, you can open and close doors without any consequences. So I don't see much point.
You're right that guards don't respond to door opening at the moment. I'd enjoy if that were rectified in T4 though :p.
I do really like the idea of AIs reacting to each other though - aside from any gameplay/difficulty enhancement, it'd just make the game that little bit more immersive, and could prompt some amusing emergent situations.
Quote Posted by The Shroud
I was going to say that this wouldn't be very useful, since the player can't actually shift their field of view past the keyhole, only within its confines.
I found that moving my eye around before the keyhole afforded a few more degrees of vision. Nothing major, but when you've only got a few degrees to start with... :p Also, it would let you feel a little more control, instead of feeling like you're wearing a straitjacket. Even if it's not actually extremely useful.
Good example, Shroud. I kind of thought of another one, prompted by your mention of guards turning around. (Guards turning around is in itself a gameplay concession designed to make it easier :p.) At Bafford's, the guard to the throne room turns around periodically. It was necessary for the designers to make an odd entrance to that room, with two side-doors in deep shadow, ensuring the player wouldn't bumble out the door into full view of the guard while he was facing the door.
Those wings allow the player a safe spot to wait and watch for the guard's back to be turned. I think it fits the design of that space better to have one large central door (who wants to enter their throne room via side-doors?) - and if you could peek through the keyhole, then you'd be able to spot when the guard's back was turned.
In that way, this simple mechanic actually allows designers to improve their levels, and not have to make concessions that mean players won't make silly mistakes because they didn't have the tools to scout out the situation beforehand.
The Shroud on 20/11/2009 at 07:02
Quote Posted by Chade
Imagine we give guards an extra alert state: the "friendly" alert state.
This is a state a guard enters into when something innocous happens nearby: something which makes him think a another guard/servant might be near (i.e., picking an example
totally at random, opening a door).
In this state the guard stops, turns his head, maybe takes a few steps towards the disturbance, calls out pleasantries, etc ... Once the guard gets no reply, he might grumble a bit about how everyone else is always "so rude" and go on his way.*
* Or if you really wanted to, you could say that if another guard is near, that guard might even respond briefly and that would be the end of it. OTOH, if no-one replies, the guard might even get a little suspicious,and glance around for a few seconds before going on his way. This would add another dimension to the ghosting experience: only take certain actions when you can fool a guard into thinking somebody else was responsible.
Good idea, I like it.
Quote Posted by Chade
If guards were alerted by opening doors, it might make sense to give Garrett more tools to avoid this possibility. As it stands, though, you can open and close doors without any consequences. So I don't see much point.
Actually, in Thief 2 guards do notice doors opening and closing (as well as lock-picking) if they're close enough. I'd still argue that their hearing should realistically be much better than it is.
Quote Posted by Bakerman
I found that moving my eye around before the keyhole afforded a few more degrees of vision. Nothing major, but when you've only got a few degrees to start with... :p Also, it would let you feel a little more control, instead of feeling like you're wearing a straitjacket. Even if it's not actually extremely useful.
I think this would be the sort of thing that would work better if they went with sparhawk's suggestion of just putting actual holes in the keyholes that the player could see through if they tried. On the other hand, if they implemented a separate view (like that of scouting orbs), it might be better to leave that out. Not that I'd complain if they put it in.
Quote Posted by Bakerman
At Bafford's, the guard to the throne room turns around periodically. It was necessary for the designers to make an odd entrance to that room, with two side-doors in deep shadow, ensuring the player wouldn't bumble out the door into full view of the guard while he was facing the door.
Those wings allow the player a safe spot to wait and watch for the guard's back to be turned. I think it fits the design of that space better to have one large central door (who wants to enter their throne room via side-doors?) - and if you could peek through the keyhole, then you'd be able to spot when the guard's back was turned.
In that way, this simple mechanic actually allows designers to improve their levels, and not have to make concessions that mean players won't make silly mistakes because they didn't have the tools to scout out the situation beforehand.
Excellent point! :thumb:
Beleg Cúthalion on 20/11/2009 at 08:24
Just as a side-note: This "friendly alert state" already exists in TDS, just because it sounded like you thought it didn't.
DJ Riff on 20/11/2009 at 10:02
I think it would be much better if Garrett could push/pull the door just slightly and peer into the gap. More the gap, more things he can see, but also more exposes himself. So, door interaction should be following:
1. Open / close — just as in T1-T3 using 'action' key. The door opens/closes as fast as possibe (and as noisy as possible)
2. Pull — grab the door using 'grab' key, then scroll the mouse wheel or move forward / backward or rotate the view. The door rotates at any angle you want.
3. Push — simply walk into the door and it will rotate if there's enough space for that.
So, there won't be any predefined movement, and the player will able to peer into the room without making noise or being seen, but also to quickly open the door if they're being chased.
Chade on 20/11/2009 at 10:28
Quote Posted by Beleg Cúthalion
Just as a side-note: This "friendly alert state" already exists in TDS, just because it sounded like you thought it didn't.
More unappreciated thief 3 facts, huh? What exactly do guards do in that state? What triggers it?
