Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Objective stacking

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

  • Objective stacking

    I mentioned this to TM not long ago and he said it sounded good so here goes:

    Would it be possible to make a mutator that destroys various objects when they come into a certain radius of an objective? Household items, bolts, flares, potions, bodies, crates and other objects. The reason I bring this up is because when i'm playing a game as a thief and the guards are heavily objective stacking, I might as well give up. It's just that hard to win. It also could be used on doors to avoid blocking with crates and whistlers. Another use could be to turn it into an actor to place it in areas that are often blocked with crates and such.

    Go ahead and criticize but I think objective stacking kills the game for the thieves.
    <-- Resident Nightblade suggestion attorney...

  • #2
    Stacking is not always bad ... sometimes it's the only way to win as guard. Though it's cheap and not fair. Stacking with one or maybe 2 items is the limit for me though.

    Your suggestion has problems on it's own. For example if you place something right next to the door or even caltrops in the doorway which is normal, it would remove those. Same goes for things near the object. It would also look wierd if the objects just disapear in thin air.

    I don't think this would work well
    On demand this signature has been changed. I hope nobody was insulted or got harmed due to my signature. If this is the case, I'm fully responsible for the harm that was done. Do you feel harmed or you simply want a listening ear?

    Call 0900-PHAE

    Comment


    • #3
      Someone do as he suggests! (But don't expect ppl to use it. :lol: )
      btw: Small fonts are gay!
      AlienMode ThieveryUT adaption
      Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better.
      Life is a bitch, then you get cancer. One story is good till another is told.

      Comment


      • #4
        I think it might be nicer just to have a cylindrical blocker above and (a little bit) around objective items, that only stops non-player objects. So the area around an objective item would always be clear of junk. Either that, or all objective items should be large enough that normal stacking is ineffective.
        Immortius' Forge

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Firetiger
          I mentioned this to TM not long ago and he said it sounded good so here goes:

          Would it be possible to make a mutator that destroys various objects when they come into a certain radius of an objective? Household items, bolts, flares, potions, bodies, crates and other objects. The reason I bring this up is because when i'm playing a game as a thief and the guards are heavily objective stacking, I might as well give up. It's just that hard to win. It also could be used on doors to avoid blocking with crates and whistlers. Another use could be to turn it into an actor to place it in areas that are often blocked with crates and such.

          Go ahead and criticize but I think objective stacking kills the game for the thieves.
          yeah this is a great idea i support it . make them blow up like amine thought. the game would be much cooler.
          I have sex with my hand!

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by PhaeThorn
            Stacking is not always bad ... sometimes it's the only way to win as guard. Though it's cheap and not fair.
            At those times when it's the only way for guards to win, that's because the guards have done something to secure their loss sometime during the game, and stacking is a lame attempt to reverse the inevitability. It's like chess, where the game is lost 20 moves before checkmate, except the looser attempts to distract the winner or switch pieces. Not arguing with you, Phae, just expounding on what you said.

            I like the idea. Objective stacking is a weakness of the game, a not-intended effect of the dynamics of the game.
            "Garlisk's got a lov-el-y bunch of coconuts."

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by immortius
              I think it might be nicer just to have a cylindrical blocker above and (a little bit) around objective items, that only stops non-player objects. So the area around an objective item would always be clear of junk. Either that, or all objective items should be large enough that normal stacking is ineffective.
              Seeing as you can't drop anything while crouched (carried bodies, inv. items, traps etc) maybe the devs could copy that part of the code and create a cillinder around every objective item where this code is used. The cillinder would be two guards tall and 2 guards wide.

              Comment


              • #8
                The worst thing I've encountered is pincushioning an objective, or the chests in Skeltston. Come on...that's just lame. It's already going to be a monumental task to get the map, chances are you won't, but with bolts in the chest, it's even harder.

                Comment


                • #9
                  I think that instead of preventing stacking, that the red icon be extended by a certain distance for every item in the area around the objective regardless of walls and other actors.

                  This means that if a chest on skelts gets pincushioned with the map inside, the map would be frobable from the other side of the wall. Ok, that's probably a little too far, maybe have an additional frob distance of 2 whistler heights maximum.
                  Hippopotomonstrosesquippedaliophobia, n. See also Irony.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by The Dragon
                    The worst thing I've encountered is pincushioning an objective, or the chests in Skeltston. Come on...that's just lame.
                    I agree, that's not fair play at all.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Wow there seems to be some mixed feelings about this, but how could my idea be changed to make it work? Might be cool if things come into the radius rather than disappearing, they'd bounce off a certain distance (a couple feet mabye). Except for bolts and such since that wouldn't look right.
                      <-- Resident Nightblade suggestion attorney...

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by The Dragon
                        The worst thing I've encountered is pincushioning an objective, or the chests in Skeltston. Come on...that's just lame. It's already going to be a monumental task to get the map, chances are you won't, but with bolts in the chest, it's even harder.

                        It's one of the lamest things guards do, and a major reason why I avoid playing that map... Someone ought to change the map so the "pincushioning" and 'knowing where the map is by the red mark' are two problems no more.

                        Then that map would be really good, imo... not that it's bad right now... but it could be better

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          I disagree, Buho. Sometimes, you really DO need to stack even if you've guarded well.
                          Let's face it, on maps like Folly... even with the chest on the ruby, a decent thief can make an easy snatch. On Nost, the lyre often needs some kind of additional protection. On Skelts or Gerome it just isn't really necessary, so I tend not to do it.

                          Stacking is MOST useful when you kill a thief carrying a major objective in an open area. If you don't cover it to a degree, it's just going to get snatched by an invis thief.

                          Pin-cushioning objectives is a bit too far.
                          Nightmaster,
                          .:Mockers Thievery Guild:.
                          - "until the cat is skinned"

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            I remember I'm a heavy DM assualt on Gerome, I was the only guard left..... all my men slain, I resorted to all lameness possible as a guard.... and I won the match vs. 3 thieves.

                            I think something like this depends on your situation; if there are 5 guards on Skelston, for example, and 1 thief.... pincusioning and stacking is lame. However, and equal number thieves or more turns the tables and stacking is nessasary.
                            -TuF- Emptying clan servers of their own clan members since 2010
                            - Agg moderator campaign supporter 2011
                            - #2 of 3 LANers of the Apocalypse!
                            -YT

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              I remember once playing skeltstonhead and being the last thief with 4 guards. I had the loot and the map was in the east seaside house (the one with the boxes to get over the wall). The game was mine really, but because of the objective stacking I didn't win. There were household objects piled several feet around the chest with pincushioning. After that match I was really furious at objective stacking. With a good pair of headphones with the sounds turned up loud, you can hear the thieves coming long before they arrive. With my headphones I can hear thieves crawling in the grass and can tell which direction it's coming from.
                              <-- Resident Nightblade suggestion attorney...

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X