rainynight65 on 29/5/2009 at 07:12
Quote Posted by Wormrat
Another option would be some kind of punishment for excessive blackjacking; maybe a notoriety system like Hitman, where you lose money in between levels if you caused too much of a scene (justified in-game as "bribing the police"). That particular justification might not work for Thief, but I would like to see some incentive to not just clunk everyone on the head.
Again - the beauty of Thief was always that if you wanted to do exactly that, you could - no penalties, no incentives. (Except for the one to refrain from shooting people with broadheads because they made too much of a ruckus). Forcing a specific playing style was never something Thief did. Instead it allowed players to find the style that worked best for them. Why should that change?
Jah on 29/5/2009 at 08:24
Quote Posted by Kin
A KO limit is an unnatural addition to game. What will be next don't put out more than 5 torches?
Agreed. The reason I don't like blackjacking restrictions is that they feel so terribly arbitrary and gamey. "Don't knock out more than five AI's". Why five? Why not four or six?
Platinumoxicity on 29/5/2009 at 12:22
Every time I even think about knocking anyone out, the computer "slaps the keyboard off my hands and yells What the Taff?!"
So I'd have to say that the game doesn't need those limitations. It's everyone's own choice and I personally always feel that I'm doing something wrong when I knock someone out. (Like in "Running Interference" :mad: )
Tail on 29/5/2009 at 15:02
Quote Posted by 5tephe
Wait: you CAN knock out guards while they are looking for you? :wot:
Right. That was my reaction at the time, too! And with leaning forward, you can just bop them right on the nose.
Also, keep airborne blackjack stats!
Stath MIA on 29/5/2009 at 22:32
The solution to not wanting forced limits is to allow the player to set them him/herself, so that on Expert you can choose to give yourself a limit or choose not to, alternatively it could be made a bonus objective.
TheGrimSmile on 30/5/2009 at 00:41
I don't really like the idea of the slider, as it makes the difficulty hard to set.
It makes the number of knockouts seem, if anything, more arbitrary, as you don't know going into a level for the first time how many enemies it may or may not be appropriate to K.O.
It just seems like too many factors to control :erg:
I do like the idea of.. sort of limiting with the helmets and such defenses. Have any good ideas for something like that?
I can't really think of anything other than some head protection... other than being undead...
ASHASSIN on 30/5/2009 at 01:05
i reckon, along with the usual difficulty settings, there should be a seperate option to change all aspects of the game with sliders (buttons, switches, levers, valves, etc) then no-one can complain. from the amount of knockouts you can do, to the qauntity of food you can consume before those toilets really do look so much better. or something.
Peanuckle on 30/5/2009 at 03:53
Maybe the guards should just wake up after being KO'd after so long, or maybe they could be revived after being found by other guards.
In a city where Garrett's exploits are well-known, guards are sure to keep a full supply of smelling salts on hand. :D
Stath MIA on 30/5/2009 at 03:57
Quote Posted by Peanuckle
or maybe they could be revived after being found by other guards.
That'd give you some real motivation to hide bodies!
Taffer36 on 30/5/2009 at 04:15
I don't like the idea of setting a limit, because things can change midgame. That's why making it optional is so much better, because if something comes up in the middle of the map that you didn't foresee and you HAVE to blackjack some dudes, you aren't limited.
That said, I'd go a step further and put real-world limitations and not even have optional objectives. Just have guards that have helmets on, and on higher difficulty settings more guards have helmets as the missions progress. Done and done.
