Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Dvelopers Look Please! Suggestion for guard confinement...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Dvelopers Look Please! Suggestion for guard confinement...

    This, I thought, could really work! It would change Thievery quite a bit, but I think for the better.

    Anyway, does anyone else get alittle annoyed that the guards don't behave like guards? I mean, real guards would follow set paths, on patrol routes. Obviously, though, this would make for boring gameplay for the guards.

    So, I think that when picking to be a guard, you should be confined, broadly, of course, to areas pertaining to different objectives. So when picking to be a guard, you also will select which section of the map you guard. Keep in mind though, that you'd only be able to select areas that the devs determine to be important (ie, around loot, around objectives, etc.).

    However, so as not to have too many guards gangning up on thieves, each area would have a maximum number of guards. So, guards would be as evenly distributed as possible.

    As a side note, I'm not sure exactly how the game would show the guards that they could not go beyond a boundary. I don't like the idea of invisible walls, but obviously, the devs couldn't go rearranging the map layouts just to accomadate this idea.

    I think that's it for my idea. DEVS PLEASE CONSIDER THIS!! I think it would seriously help thievery. I'm open to any suggestions to modify this idea, so that it would not get to be annoying, being constrained to certain areas. Thanks for any feedback on this!
    2
    No, I like to be free to roam the map.
    100.00%
    2
    Yes, I think it would make more sense for the guards to have pseudo- patrol areas.
    0.00%
    0

  • #2
    So erh... im chasing this thief when suddenly i cross the border and should return to my patrol?...

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Master-Builder
      So erh... im chasing this thief when suddenly i cross the border and should return to my patrol?...
      Exactly. Not only is there not reason to confine guards to a specific area when all the thief activity is somewhere else, but it's not fair for the guards. They lose out on action, and the guard team loses out on having its forces where they're needed. Not being able to chase a thief would seriously hinder guard play, and sometimes a team will have several players stake out different areas away from the supply chest, with one player carrying supplies to those players away from their source of supplies.

      I can only speak for myself, but I suspect I speak for a large number of players when I say that I'd find it VERY frustrating to have my play as a guard limited in that way.

      "Thief here, need backup!"

      "Can't man, not my jurisdiction."

      Comment


      • #4
        LOL! Reminds me of that IBM commercial with the security guards chasing some guy through a corridor. They come up to the 'end' of their patrol route, stop, and call into their radio, 'Sector G clear'. Then they just turn and walk away.

        Not so great of an idea my friend, but keep em comming anyways, ya might stumble onto a good one!

        Kiech
        www.thecrackaz.com
        Kiech

        Comment


        • #5
          Nah... I'd rather not see this implemented.
          JM

          Comment


          • #6
            maybe this should be handled with an "alerted - not alerted!-Status...

            before an alert is triggered, guards are limited to patrol routes - indoors maybe because of "not alert"-Status locked doors. THieves could of course open all doors, and if they open a door that would normally be locked (for guards), the guard of that area would gain access to the opened area for investigation....
            Of course if the Thieves are so cunning to shut the door again, they could fool the guards that everything is fine

            But there should be conditions when an alert can be triggered, because the guards would otherwise use it right at the start :twisted: - Maybe if a Guard or Thief gets killed...

            There should be no notification, that a Guard has been killed, an the one who had been killed should have a spawn pause - when another guard finds the corpse, the alarm can be triggered - and if that doesnt happen, the killed guard could spawn after a amount of time and then trigger the alarm, giving the Thieves time to complete the objectives unoticed. If a Thief gets killed the alert could be triggered imedately. How bout an Alarm-timer (like MGS)? Lets say 5 minutes where the Guards can roam and the Thieves have to wait for things to die down - after that the Guards could be forced back to their old areas per teleport (or something)

            i think that would be nice, cos it would make two phases in the game - the "sneaky" would be more important, and the "search and destroy"-phase would only occur if the Thieves messed up
            My leet Thievery Map
            My leet UT3 Map
            My leet AS Map

            Comment


            • #7
              *sigh*

              Stop and think what it would be like to play a guard under these conditions. As a player, you KNOW there are thieves about, and that they're already working towards their victory conditions. But an arbitrary set of game parameters are preventing you from moving from a limited patrol path or area, and you can't do anything about it. That is the very definition of frustration. To know there's something you have to stop, but not to be able to do anything about it. There's already little enough interest in guarding, if you make it frustrating and absolutely no fun to play, even more people will try to avoid it.

              While this idea and its variants my increase "realism", they'll make the game no fun to play.

              Comment


              • #8
                hey, thief was about a thief - and not guards, sry

                but who said lets place the patrol zones in the middle of nowhere? Of course they should be on key places where action is guaranteed...and if theyre cleverly linked...whats the problem with that? Better than running around with no plan (like me :grin: )
                My leet Thievery Map
                My leet UT3 Map
                My leet AS Map

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Schleicher
                  hey, thief was about a thief - and not guards, sry
                  And this isn't Thief. This is a MULTIPLAYER game, in which the players take the part of both thieves AND guards. As such, both sides need to be enjoyable to play, or people won't play, and that defeats the purpose of having a multiplayer game in the first place.

                  Originally posted by Schleicher
                  but who said lets place the patrol zones in the middle of nowhere? Of course they should be on key places where action is guaranteed...and if theyre cleverly linked...whats the problem with that? Better than running around with no plan (like me :grin: )
                  Where they're placed is immaterial. It's an artificial restriction that will chafe even the most patient of skilled players. You're a new face here, in fact, the most recently registered account as of this posting. Have you actually played the game online yet? Have you played guard? Imagine not being able to leave your patrol area, but knowing that the other team is in an area outside of it, and that there's no one else there, or in position to get there. You have to stand still, while letting the other team run around there, getting closer to their victory conditions, not able to stop them, because of a completely artificial and arbitrary game parameter.

                  How can you even THINK that might be a good idea?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Schleicher
                    but who said lets place the patrol zones in the middle of nowhere? Of course they should be on key places where action is guaranteed...and if theyre cleverly linked...whats the problem with that? Better than running around with no plan (like me :grin: )
                    patrol zones exist- but I for one would not want to be confined to them as a gaurd-let the Ai to do that (side not: hoping that command gets fixed next rev). I also would not want guards to be confined to them as a thief-would not be much different then playing Thievery as single player. As for those running around, many have plans and are in fact following their own patrol routes. Sometimes, I work that way. Other times I enjoy the headless chicken imitations.
                    Give some taffer fire, and you'll keep him warm for the night with one less reason to cause trouble for the master.
                    Set a taffer on fire, and he will be warm for the rest of his life, and have no need to bother the master.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      umm i didnt mean the patrol zones should be active all the time...(Quote : Before an alarm is triggered)....when someone of the Thieves messes up they could be removed and everybody would be free to go anywhere....
                      Wouldnt this add an element of tension - a quiet phase before the fight....where u only can patrol, knowing theres something going on - and if hell breaks loose ( ) u dont know how much ur stronghold has been "infected" already

                      and btw this Thread is bout "suggestions" and thats what i did make : SUGGESTIONS, and yes ive played both sides (not that suchessfully ), and if u start that "hey ure noob"-Stuff on me u can (insert something bad)
                      My leet Thievery Map
                      My leet UT3 Map
                      My leet AS Map

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Schleicher
                        umm i didnt mean the patrol zones should be active all the time...(Quote : Before an alarm is triggered)....when someone of the Thieves messes up they could be removed and everybody would be free to go anywhere....
                        Wouldnt this add an element of tension - a quiet phase before the fight....where u only can patrol, knowing theres something going on - and if hell breaks loose ( ) u dont know how much ur stronghold has been "infected" already
                        It's precisely that "knowing something's going on" that requires you to start acting from the very beginning of the round. If guards are that restriced from the beginning, they'll never be able to set up defenses on key objectives. The thieves will end up winning most games. I don't think that's very fun.

                        Originally posted by Schleicher
                        and btw this Thread is bout "suggestions" and thats what i did make : SUGGESTIONS, and yes ive played both sides (not that suchessfully ), and if u start that "hey ure noob"-Stuff on me u can (insert something bad)
                        Yes, this forum is about suggestions. One was made, I stated why I thought it was a VERY bad idea. I never called you a "noob". I never insulted you. You seemed to be a new player, so I asked if you'd actually tried it out yet. If you'd played as a guard very much, you'd know that setting up defenses in the very beginning of a round is necessary to having a chance as a guard. You seemed to not to have a sufficient feel for the way the game plays to understand that. Any accusation of "noob", any insult, was purely inferred on your part.

                        Please also note that despite the fact that you have gotten rude with me in your most recent post, that I have not responded in kind.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          I like the freedom that you can get as a guard, allowing you to patrol for thieves, guard objectives, cut off escape routes, shift guarding position to the exit etc. If a thief dosen't want to be ganged up on, then he/she should become more inconspicuous and not attract the attension of all the guards. However being able to do this can create good distractions for other team-members.
                          With this idea implemented, like LR said, would make team-play more difficult and would also make the guard team-unable to change its tactics. For example the guards are aggressive at the start, but a fair number get sniped or Ko'ed along with many AI leaving no guard lives left. Therefore the guards decided to stick together near an objective to avoid being killed, but if they are restricted to different areas they would be easy to pick off. Thieves can gang up on guards, so if guards can't gang up on thieves there would be something wrong with the game as well as the teamwork side of the game which I find very enjoyable!
                          :swordthi: Vs

                          not vs and vs
                          .: Daymaster - Mockers Thievery Guild :.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            hm maybe ure right...

                            but i still like my idea
                            how bout putting more than one guard on a patrol zone?
                            and plz remove the tag bolts - they suck :wink:
                            My leet Thievery Map
                            My leet UT3 Map
                            My leet AS Map

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              I agree with all of you for the most part. But that's why I said this idea could be modified.

                              The "let's run around like chickens with their heads chopped off" is precisely what I hate about Thievery. All guards ever do is run around and try to kill thieves. While on the outside it does seem that it would stifle the fun for the guards, I'm confident that with some tweaking (in fact given all the good points you guys have come up with, a lot of tweaking), this could work very well.

                              I don't like how the guards in THievery don't act like guards in the least. Guards could still set up traps around objectives and loot. Confining them to certain areas, and by the way, I mean large areas (NOT dinky little paths liek for the AI), doesn't hinder any guard from doing this. Confining is such a strong word. I'm not talking about being on a track here. I know fun should always come before realism, but when both can work, it should be implemented, I think.

                              Scheinder, I like your idea of the contraints disappearing when there is an alert. perhaps this would work better alittle differently, I just haven't thought how yet... I hadn't even thought in terms of the constraints going away, but that's an excellent idea.

                              I'm not arguing with anyone, but rather I'm just trying to find a way so that guards act like who they are. This is just ONE suggestion. I'm sure there are others, but this one seemed like a good idea. I'm positive that this would work great with a lot of testing and altering... :grin: .

                              Also, as you said, laughingrat, the limit on how many guards in a sector could get annoying. That might be better left out.

                              Oh yeah, and I don't know if you remember me, but I played as Ghost before. I'm not a n00b, in the words of internet lingo :grin:. Well, that's it for now. As I said before, you all have very valid points, I'm not going to try and turn this into a "I'm right and you're wrong thread". Adios everyone!

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X