Thief (4) Features. What we know is in, what we know is out.

Starker on 11/7/2013 at 09:48

Quote Posted by Renzatic

Seems to me you're all saying one choice is better, when truthfully, both sacrifice something.

Phrases like "AFAIC" and "we felt" typically indicate subjective opinions rather than objective facts.

Flavia on 11/7/2013 at 09:52

Quote Posted by Chade

This leaves the issue of what to do with locks in safe areas. It would be nice if these could be designed to avoid the "sigh, yet another mini-game" effect. We need a mechanism that can do longer drawn-out locks in patrolled corridors, as well as short but satisfying locks in safe areas.

Uhm... focus? :rolleyes:

Chade on 11/7/2013 at 10:35

But I won't be using focus. Alternatively, if I were, why would I waste my finite focus resource on a lock in safe area?

Flavia on 11/7/2013 at 10:38

Quote Posted by Chade

why would I waste my finite focus resource on a lock in safe area?

Why not? Do you have any better uses for it? :p

Chade on 11/7/2013 at 12:18

*shrug* ... you knows ... ?

I don't think focus is the right answer though. Even if I don't have a better use for it, other people will, or will legitimately disable it. At the end of the day, there are two use-cases for lockpicking: 1) an environmental obstacle that restricts Garrett's movement until he spends time in a particular spot to disable it, and 2) a storytelling device to make the player feel more like a thief. A good lockpicking solution should handle both use-cases, with or without focus.

operativex on 11/7/2013 at 17:01

Quote Posted by Renzatic

T3&4 give you a much more (well relatively) true to life lockpicking experience. It adds complexity and variety to the gameplay, at the expense of being locked in front of the door because the keys you usually use for movement and being used for lockpicking.

Well what else are devs supposed to do? Allow players to perform parkour while lock picking? It's inherently an immobile activity.

TDS lock picking wasn't perfect by any means, but it was a step in the right direction from T1/T2 in the sense that it made lock picking more interactive.

Renault on 11/7/2013 at 17:15

Quote Posted by Chade

How else would you suggest TDM lockpicking works? I see "going back to the beginning" as a feature, not a bug.

Not really trying to bash TDM lockpicking overall, but I think when you have to wait for a sequence to finish, that's more of a passive thing (T1/T2 is like this too), where TDS lockpicking always has you searching for a sweet spot, so it's really more on the active side. If you were picking a real lock, you'd never be sitting around waiting for something to happen, you'd constantly be working the lock. I guess my only suggestion for TDM lockpicking would be to prevent overly long tumbler sequences, but obviously that setup is up to individual FM authors.

So I guess, and I can't believe I'm saying this, but out of the three options (T1/T2, TDS, TDM), I actually prefer TDS lockpicking (of course minus the HUD, which you can remove with mods) because it's a more active process.

operativex on 11/7/2013 at 17:59

Quote Posted by Brethren

I would agree with this.

Just as important as the actual lock picking itself, is the frequency in which you'll encounter locked doors and their difficulty. If they can pace it properly to where it isn't too frequent and keep the tumbler counter low for average doors (3 tumblers) and maybe 5 for treasure chests, that will work just fine.

Shalebridge Cradle comes to mind when I think of overkill lock picking. Every lock in that level, especially all the cell doors, were level 5 and it just became really tedious after the second lock.

So in short: a more engaging lock picking system that takes great skill to master, but paced properly so it doesn't become tedious and appropriate lock difficulty for the area/chest you are breaking into. If I'm lock picking the door to a bathroom, please don't make it a 5 tumbler lock!

Chade on 11/7/2013 at 21:39

Quote Posted by Brethren

That's a good point. It's true that the ideal lock-picking mechanic would require the player to be actively making progress.

TDM's mechanic could accommodate that to a certain extent, if people were to give locks more smaller sequences. In practice, though, I get the impression that mission authors aren't moving in that direction? Is there a good reason why not? Is it just cultural? Not really that important?

Springheel on 11/7/2013 at 21:47

Quote:

I think when you have to wait for a sequence to finish, that's more of a passive thing

Listening to the sequence is the main way to learn where the end is (which is the 'sweet spot'). If you miss it, it means you haven't learned the sequence well enough to anticipate the sweet spot. The listening is not passive, it's you actually "learning" the lock.

(I suppose if you have lockpicking on the easiest setting, you could just wait for the delay and rely on reflexes to hit it, but that's not really the way the system is supposed to work...it's a pattern recognition system, not a reflex system).

There are two ways to make locks more challenging in TDM...you can increase the duration of the pattern (which does increase the frustration if you miss it, but also increases the tension when AI are around), or increase the number of tumblers.