PDA

View Full Version : LOCAL DAMAGE: Effects of Wounding Enemy's Limbs



Hypevosa
15th May 2009, 16:34
First, I promise this isn't like a fallout 3 kind of thing, I don't want guards head's flying off when I shoot them with an arrow, or guts flying everywhere, or dismemberment... But remember how in Thief 1 and 2 you could blackjack someone in the kneecaps and they'd be knocked out -- just don't want a repeat of that.

When I played the first game, I liked one of the first scenes in the movie where it shows Garrett taking a shot at a guard and getting him right in the neck, instantly killing him. I also wanted that to be applied other places.

Shoot a guard in the face and he dies, hit his helmet and it just splinters off.

Shoot a guard in the arms he has trouble with a bow or a sword.

Shoot a guard in the legs, and he can't run as fast.

Torso is just higher damage than limbs (other than the face)

A simple application of area specific damage would make the game awesome in my opinion... At the very least we should have to use a blackjack on someone's head to knock them out.

Hypevosa
15th May 2009, 17:42
bump

GmanPro
15th May 2009, 20:09
I'm all for it, but chances are I will never notice it. Gonna be too busy ghosting through the whole game :D

Hypevosa
15th May 2009, 20:15
See, I'd play mister sandman and knockout every single person in a level... looting as I went of course, but as soon as everyone was sleeping I'd have free reign to run about and collect anything I didn't pick up the first time through. I just preferred the security to make a mistake, but I never really used my bow to hurt anyone. I'd just like to have to hit someone on the head to knock em out at least... and the area specific damage would be there for if I were running through the streets back to my house and I needed to slow a guard down, I'd put a nice big arrow in one of his legs if not both. Or if I were cornered by a bunch of thieves I'd probably put one or 2 in their sword or bow arm.

DarthEnder
16th May 2009, 00:31
See, I'd play mister sandman and knockout every single person in a level... looting as I went of course, but as soon as everyone was sleeping I'd have free reign to run about and collect anything I didn't pick up the first time through.This is essentially my favorite way to play through Thief.

Play on expert, but disable every single thing in the level. Knockout guards and innocents, douse steam golems, slay undead, turn off cameras.

And then, once everyone is down for the count, go back through the level finding every little nook and cranny for loot and items.

Hypevosa
16th May 2009, 01:54
yep :D Mister sandman was a fun way of playing, getting every last person knocked out was definitely a challenge in some missions, but the fruits of my labor were well shiney enough for the effort.

Hypevosa
17th May 2009, 04:48
Bump

ToMegaTherion
17th May 2009, 08:39
While there is of course nothing wrong with the idea, I feel that the designers should take a few core aspects of the game and really spend a lot of effort improving them, rather than making lots of little changes to various aspects.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
17th May 2009, 10:03
Bump

There is no need to keep bumping your thread, please.
If people find the content interesting and wish to reply, they will. :)

huzi73
17th May 2009, 15:58
Good idea,though id rethink the whole deflecting off the helmet thing,if a certain guard doesnt "rotate",has his back turned and is wearing a helmet,hitting him in the face could be difficult.I love the idea though...

Hypevosa
17th May 2009, 19:29
Good idea,though id rethink the whole deflecting off the helmet thing,if a certain guard doesnt "rotate",has his back turned and is wearing a helmet,hitting him in the face could be difficult.I love the idea though...

Well in that case you just crouch down and put the arrow in the base of his neck... he'd either bleed out or he'd be dead because his brain stem wouldn't be working so well anymore. It would be the equivalent of a backstab with a bow.

johny2211
17th May 2009, 20:26
im all for this idea, just as long as it doesnt mean we get the same kinda horrible effects thief 3 had when backstabbing/blackjacking freezing you from moving for 3 seconds while a animation is played of you hitting them on the head was horrible. and if you didnt get in the right possition just slightly it didnt work, drove me nuts when all i wanted to do was knock out a guy and run to get the next guy quickly before he realised his mate was in trouble. so yeah this idea is great but i hope it dont come at some gameplay cost or horrible bugs from complex ideas.

Hypevosa
18th May 2009, 00:36
See, if they start working with it early, then they can fix any bugs associated with it before release - hitting someone in the head with a blackjack really should be the only thing that knocks em out. I don't care how much their knee hurts, they won't lose consciousness from a hit there.

WVI
18th May 2009, 20:38
I'm not sure how better to phrase that, but I think shooting a guard in the head and shooting a guard in the foot should have different results. I'm not trying to give Thief an FPS flavor or anything, but let's say you spy a guard you want to kill without alerting anyone. If you hit the head with a broadhead arrow, he'll likely go down with little noise. If you hit him in the chest, he'll probably die noisily, alerting nearby guards. The arm or the leg isn't going to kill him, but several might make him bleed to death. On the flipside, if a guard's chasing you, you should be able to slow him down by shooting him in the foot.

So with this type of limb-sensitive setup, running becomes easier while assassinations become harder.

Sound like a fair trade? Excuse me if something like this was already in the games and I never noticed.

EDIT: Also, zombies could be unique in that they work more like the old enemies; that is, that it doesn't really matter where you hit them.

Yaphy
18th May 2009, 21:10
I say yes. It does sound like a good idea. But how realistik should it be? I mean, should you be able to shoot a broadhead arrow at someones arm so they drop their weapon?

huzi73
18th May 2009, 21:30
Why not?Hit a guard,he drops his bow,grab it,and his unarmed,forcing him to run for help.Creating a good distraction,or enough chaos in one area,to allow you to pass a previously heavilly guarded area with ease,since many guards converged on your previos location

Terr
18th May 2009, 21:36
I assumed "arrow headshots" would be standard, given the state of the industry. Arm-hits are also do-able, although the tricky part comes in animating how they'd pick the weapon back up, or how to deal with both-arms-disabled guards.


Oh. Oh, I see. Running away, eh? You yellow bastards! Come back here and take what's coming to you. I'll bite your legs off!

Nate
18th May 2009, 21:51
So if you hit a guard in the leg, he is slower chasing you? Sounds good....but I don't really ever shoot at guards. I might knock them out with gas arrows/mines and blackjacks..but usually will just bypass them.

Myth
18th May 2009, 21:55
The more realistic the better IMO. This sounds great, and it could increase the difficulty at Expert - hit him on the back of the head, or the blackjack attempt fails (currently it's either "touch him anywhere" or in the case of TDS - auto aimed). A broadhead to the face, coming from a crouched Garret deep in the shadows could and must be deadlier than one shot in the shoulder.

WVI
18th May 2009, 22:26
Let's just say a guard's dead if you take out three limbs. >_>

Nate
18th May 2009, 23:27
No, he can still bite you on the ankle.

WVI
18th May 2009, 23:52
...Oh, whoops! Didn't realize that this topic was already made. Could've sworn I checked.

Hypevosa
18th May 2009, 23:55
I'd say make the guard vulnerable, but don't just kill him outright. Allow the player the decision of finishing him off, or just knocking him out.

Also, it would make it a little overpowering if taking out 3 limbs was all you had to do to KILL someone.

WVI
19th May 2009, 00:03
That's 3 broadhead arrows, as much as it takes to kill most alert people in the first place.

Hypevosa
19th May 2009, 00:27
see, but it's a game... that's why you don't die in 1 shot from a guard's sword necessarily. shooting someone in the extremities with a bow 3 times is not lethal, unless they're stupid enough to rip the arrows out... in which case they'll bleed to death. Even if you hit a major artery your own arrow shaft keeps it from bleeding severely, allowing someone to seek treatment (assuming they don't take too long to get to a medic). So unless you want to have them map the major arteries as well... it shouldn't kill anyone to hit em 3 times in the extremities. And I don't think arrows are going to take off limbs Fallout 3 style

WVI
19th May 2009, 00:28
Erm...I mean in previous games, that's how many hits it took.

Hypevosa
19th May 2009, 00:29
I never played on anything but expert, I'm not accustomed to killin anyone so I'm no expert XD I just remember killing spiders and buricks and elementals and undead

Myth
19th May 2009, 04:39
Even a single arrow lodged in one's intestines will give him such immense pain that he would not be capable of moving fast or swinging a blade. Every twitch or even breath will burn his insides out. 3 arrows may not instantly slay a chainmail clad guard, but they should cripple him and make him wail in agony.

Hypevosa
19th May 2009, 21:02
Agreed, but that's where you get into gameplay vs realism. Realistically, you're correct, but as a game mechanic, it would cause the game to become far too easy... that or you'd trade off the fact that when Garrett get's shot once he's down for the count as well. That's why there's a health system to begin with. So let's just assume that these guards' chainmail is extremely tightly woven, and is able to block arrows from penetrating deeply. The reason limb damage is more considerable, is because of the fact that a player has to be skilled enough to make said shots, and is being rewarded for them.

I also think that this would be a good idea to implement due to the fact that your broadhead arrows are no longer just cheap noisemaker arrows while playing on expert difficulty (where you aren't allowed to kill anyone anyways), but can actually serve a greater purpose.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
19th May 2009, 21:47
FYI: As requested by Hypevosa, i have amended the title of this thread. :)

MasterTaffer
20th May 2009, 02:04
A shot to the head should kill, especially when the target is unaware or your position.

I don't see the need to hinder targets by shooting them in the leg, though. Garrett has always been faster than his opponents in the previous games (with the exception of the haunts), so the need to maim/hamstring them seems like overkill to me.

Thugo
20th May 2009, 03:38
I never could understand how an arrow through the brain while unaware = kill, BUT an arrow through the brain while alerted = a flesh wound?

Myth
20th May 2009, 03:56
I never could understand how an arrow through the brain while unaware = kill, BUT an arrow through the brain while alerted = a flesh wound? IRL combat is virtually impossible to represent with our current gaming technology. It has to account for reflexes, parries/dodge, force, weight, skill, center of gravity for each body, momentum, armor, it's just too much.

So instead of trying to figure out how to take in to account the chance for the arrow to graze the guard's helm only, to be deflected/dodged, etc. they just say "if you fire 4 shots, one hits and kills. so in game - 4 shots = death". That's true for most games i think, and we all know that super realism is boring any way.

Hypevosa
20th May 2009, 05:12
A shot to the head should kill, especially when the target is unaware or your position.

I don't see the need to hinder targets by shooting them in the leg, though. Garrett has always been faster than his opponents in the previous games (with the exception of the haunts), so the need to maim/hamstring them seems like overkill to me.

Lets say there's an archer amongst the group chasing you down, intermitently firing at you. why not make the distance a little greater? Or better yet you run through a narrow corridor with many guards in hot pursuit. You shoot the lead man in the legs and the others can't get around him. Other thieves should also be around the same speed as Garrett since they aren't hindered by equipment, hence an arrow to the leg would provide just edge needed to scat. As for hamstringing, which I didn't mention in THIS thread... hamstringing could be a means of rendering an aware opponent helpless, allowing for a coup de grâce or just a knockout.

The reason you might wish to do that would be if you cannot run for long or else you would end up in a highly populated area, or running through an alarm, etc... this allows you to end a conflict before it spreads to the rest of a facility.

MasterTaffer
20th May 2009, 05:20
Lets say there's an archer amongst the group chasing you down, intermitently firing at you. why not make the distance a little greater? Or better yet you run through a narrow corridor with many guards in hot pursuit. You shoot the lead man in the legs and the others can't get around him. Other thieves should also be around the same speed as Garrett since they aren't hindered by equipment, hence an arrow to the leg would provide just edge needed to scat. As for hamstringing, which I didn't mention in THIS thread... hamstringing could be a means of rendering an aware opponent helpless, allowing for a coup de grâce or just a knockout.

The reason you might wish to do that would be if you cannot run for long or else you would end up in a highly populated area, or running through an alarm, etc... this allows you to end a conflict before it spreads to the rest of a facility.

While I'm sure these finesse moves sound good in theory, but in reality it's far safer and quicker to drop a flashbomb and run while the opponent is blind. It gives you several moments to beat feet and obfuscate (Conceal in shadow) and the guard won't see which direction you went, making it harder for him to track you.

Garrett has never been a fighter, and all these combat moves actually take away from the spirit of the game. They'de be better suited for a different game series.

Hypevosa
20th May 2009, 20:21
While I'm sure these finesse moves sound good in theory, but in reality it's far safer and quicker to drop a flashbomb and run while the opponent is blind. It gives you several moments to beat feet and obfuscate (Conceal in shadow) and the guard won't see which direction you went, making it harder for him to track you.

Garrett has never been a fighter, and all these combat moves actually take away from the spirit of the game. They'de be better suited for a different game series.

You don't always have flashbombs (especially if they go to the old mission structure where you can't stock anything). These are hardly combat moves, he's not doing some whirlwind sword move or a jumping overhead strike. Also, these moves don't take away from the spirit of the game in the slightest, as a thief would use any advantage he could gain to escape his captors. How is AIMING a combat move? How is attempting to equalize a battle not a thiefly virtue? Why murder, and get yourself known as a killer, when you can wound?

Mainly I want Broadhead arrows to be able to serve a better purpose than simply being cheap noisemaker arrows, because ESPECIALLY on expert mode where you can't kill people, that's the only purpose they can serve. It's an option for players, and it's not one where you're directly seeking conflict, but seeking a way out of it (which is why it's not against the spirit of thief).

MasterTaffer
20th May 2009, 20:41
You don't always have flashbombs (especially if they go to the old mission structure where you can't stock anything). These are hardly combat moves, he's not doing some whirlwind sword move or a jumping overhead strike. Also, these moves don't take away from the spirit of the game in the slightest, as a thief would use any advantage he could gain to escape his captors. How is AIMING a combat move? How is attempting to equalize a battle not a thiefly virtue? Why murder, and get yourself known as a killer, when you can wound?

You seem to have some serious confusions on what combat is.

Combat: Noun, a fight, struggle, or controversy, as between two persons, teams, or ideas.

The fact that you've put Garrett into a fight at all puts him in combat. Aiming at a guard indicates intent to harm. And you really put your foot in your mouth when you said, "How is attempting to equilize a battle not a thiefly virtue." Being in a battle is the exact same as being in combat. Hamstringing and fireing at your opponent is combat. Most of your suggestions are more remeniscent of of a game like Assassin's Creed rather than Thief, which has long prided itself as a "pure stealth game."


Mainly I want Broadhead arrows to be able to serve a better purpose than simply being cheap noisemaker arrows, because ESPECIALLY on expert mode where you can't kill people, that's the only purpose they can serve. It's an option for players, and it's not one where you're directly seeking conflict, but seeking a way out of it (which is why it's not against the spirit of thief).

If they don't have a use on higher difficulties, then don't waste money on them. Just because you HAVE equipment doesn't mean you have to use it on every opportunity.

Hypevosa
20th May 2009, 21:06
You seem to have some serious confusions on what combat is.

Combat: Noun, a fight, struggle, or controversy, as between two persons, teams, or ideas.

The fact that you've put Garrett into a fight at all puts him in combat. Aiming at a guard indicates intent to harm. And you really put your foot in your mouth when you said, "How is attempting to equilize a battle not a thiefly virtue." Being in a battle is the exact same as being in combat. Hamstringing and fireing at your opponent is combat. Most of your suggestions are more remeniscent of of a game like Assassin's Creed rather than Thief, which has long prided itself as a "pure stealth game."



If they don't have a use on higher difficulties, then don't waste money on them. Just because you HAVE equipment doesn't mean you have to use it on every opportunity.

You take the word combat out of context. It's combat "Moves" that are being discussed. When I think of "moves" in combat, I think of specialized things that not the average person can do, and something that gives an edge in a fight that no one else has. Garrett has no "moves" as he doesn't seek fights, or excel at them. If he's in a fight, he's doing a poor job, or just got shafted by lady luck. Anyone can aim an arrow at a leg instead of a chest, and anyone can cut someone's hamstring. I'm not saying Garrett should be given the ability to deflect a sword, pushing a guard over exposing his back legs, and then hammying him and slitting his throat. I'm suggesting the player do all the work to get there. In my oppinion, if i'm hammying someone I'm playing the game wrong, but there are different players who feel conflict is inherent with thievery, and this should be an option for them.

The problem with your argument is that the player doesn't always put garrett into a fight, sometimes Garrett is forced into, or finds himself in a fight he didn't want to be in. And I did not put my foot in my mouth because, as I just implied, sometimes combat is unavoidable. Running into a room with 5 guards and swinging at the first one is not thiefly, and is stupid. Picking open a door to have a guard staring at you immediately on the other side, as well as one patrolling behind you is, yes- very unlucky, but also is unavoidable. You can't push the player to save every 10 feet in case a guard shows up they didn't know was there, or if someone turned on all the electric lights while they were in the middle of a room, or if the last patrol of guards just entered the well lit barracks you entered. There are alot of situations where combat is unavoidable, and these options, I feel, would be in any thief's inventory of aces.

EDIT: forgot to address the arrows. Anyways, it's not that I buy broadhead arrows, I don't since I don't feel I have a use for them now. However, as any tool a thief carries should, it needs to be used in the best manner possible. If my goal is to not kill anyone, I may have to wound someone to the point where escape is easier. A thief never KNOWS what situations he may become caught in, and needs to be prepared to do anything.

Espion
20th May 2009, 21:11
I'm for locational damage in principle (though I'd likely never take advantage of it) but Master Taffer has a point with the flashbomb. And even if I didn't have a flashbomb, I'd use my mobility to escape the guards rather than turn and shoot at them.

But that's just my personal preference. Locational damage with wounds that endure the rest of the mission would be good. Maybe Garrett could get man-traps. Not only would it cripple the guards leg but he'd make a hell of a racket to provide a short but possibly useful distraction... I'm just thinking out loud here, but generally I could see a use for locational damage.

Besides, it's pretty much standard these days anyway.

MasterTaffer
20th May 2009, 21:16
You take the word combat out of context. It's combat "Moves" that are being discussed. When I think of "moves" in combat, I think of specialized things that not the average person can do, and something that gives an edge in a fight that no one else has. Garrett has no "moves" as he doesn't seek fights, or excel at them. If he's in a fight, he's doing a poor job, or just got shafted by lady luck. Anyone can aim an arrow at a leg instead of a chest, and anyone can cut someone's hamstring. I'm not saying Garrett should be given the ability to deflect a sword, pushing a guard over exposing his back legs, and then hammying him and slitting his throat. I'm suggesting the player do all the work to get there. In my oppinion, if i'm hammying someone I'm playing the game wrong, but there are different players who feel conflict is inherent with thievery, and this should be an option for them.

And I have to ask how you're going to hamstring an armed guard without him impaling you before, during or immediately after the act.

And in order to fire accurately, you'de have to slow down, take aim and fire, giving your opponent time to catch up before hand/turn you into a pincushion. At which point, the question becomes obvious: Why not keep booking it and lose them from the fact you're faster to begin with?


The problem with your argument is that the player doesn't always put garrett into a fight, sometimes Garrett is forced into, or finds himself in a fight he didn't want to be in. And I did not put my foot in my mouth because, as I just implied, sometimes combat is unavoidable.

I challenge you to name ONE forced combat section in all of Thief outside of the Dark Project's training mission.


Running into a room with 5 guards and swinging at the first one is not thiefly, and is stupid. Picking open a door to have a guard staring at you immediately on the other side, as well as one patrolling behind you is, yes- very unlucky, but also is unavoidable. You can't push the player to save every 10 feet in case a guard shows up they didn't know was there, or if someone turned on all the electric lights while they were in the middle of a room, or if the last patrol of guards just entered the well lit barracks you entered. There are alot of situations where combat is unavoidable, and these options, I feel, would be in any thief's inventory of aces.

Considering situations like those can be avoided by waiting patiently in the shadows and scanning for any patrols that pass through the area and keeping your ears open at doors, I wouldn't even TRY to label those moments as "unavoidable." They are triggered by a lack of patience and caution, not bad luck.


EDIT: forgot to address the arrows. Anyways, it's not that I buy broadhead arrows, I don't since I don't feel I have a use for them now. However, as any tool a thief carries should, it needs to be used in the best manner possible. If my goal is to not kill anyone, I may have to wound someone to the point where escape is easier. A thief never KNOWS what situations he may become caught in, and needs to be prepared to do anything.

Just because you HAVE a tool doesn't mean you have to USE it.

http://pix.motivatedphotos.com/2008/6/16/633492362160958416-suitability.jpg

Hypevosa
20th May 2009, 21:49
And I have to ask how you're going to hamstring an armed guard without him impaling you before, during or immediately after the act.

And in order to fire accurately, you'de have to slow down, take aim and fire, giving your opponent time to catch up before hand/turn you into a pincushion. At which point, the question becomes obvious: Why not keep booking it and lose them fromt eh fact you're faster to begin with?

I challenge you to name ONE forced combat section in all of Thief outside of the Dark Project's training mission.

Considering situations like those can be avoided by waiting patiently in the shadows and scanning for any patrols that pass through the area and keeping your ears open at doors, I wouldn't even TRY to label those moments as "unavoidable." They are triggered by a lack of patience and caution, not bad luck.

How I'd hammy: Probably, I'd wait for him to do a power attack and lose balance when I dodge it by circling him, putting me in position to cut his hamstrings.

And who says that you're always faster than your enemy, garrett has many more factions after him than guards, mainly other thieves guilds who want him to be part of their fold or who are maddened by the fact he pulls of jobs they can't. So I can deffinately see a bunch of thieves chasing garrett, who should be as fast as him. Unless you want them to make all the enemies slow for you master taffer? Maybe the shot would be preempting the fact that he would see you, in a second anyways (turning on the light you just turned off and were hiding in the corner next to, meaning he's too close to not brush as you pass) so that way you can make your quick escape before he turns on the light and hammers you to death with whatever weapon he's got.

Alright forced fight (unless you knew it was coming by cheating, or reloading an old save):
Thief Gold - Down in the bone hoard - in pursuit of the Mystic's heart. Once you get past the statues that instantly smite you if you fall upon their gaze, you're presented with a dark room with the chest in the center (containing the mystic's heart). As soon as you approach the chest, a hammerhaunt instantly spawns right in front of you, and blinding lights turn on over you head. There's very loud tile floor AND bright light. Unless you knew it was going to happen, you were forced into combat. Since he just saw and or heard you, even if you back into the shadows he still "knows" where you are long enough to hand your ass to you, excuse the cut, it was made with a blunt object. (Now, knowing this could happen beforehand, you can just barely enter the circle, backing out JUST before he sees you, and then blow him away with a fire arrow or a holy arrow. But if you are playing through the first time, just having gotten there, you're forced into that fight since behind you is a series of things you cannot navigate quickly enough to escape, or you'd be esploded. You can also just attempt to run and grab the gem and run out the portal in the back, but you risk a hammer to the skull, as well as missing the chest and having to go back for it).

As for your last point, assuming guards still whistle and cough incessantly like they did before, yes... you can always know someone's there before opening a door. You can, alternatively, always have an invisibility potion in stock. You can always have a speed potion for fast getaways. You can always have flash bombs you save for those really sucky moments. The problem is people don't always have those options, so making use of something they almost always have a few of (broad head arrows) is not some arch sin against thief.

I feel as though I understand where your argument comes from. You're afraid that Garrett will become an unstoppable fighting force, ruining the need to be stealthy in the game. Maybe they'll overdue it and take control away from the player saying "Press x to pull the blocking hammy". The point of my argument is to allow for the OPTION. A thief's best defense is his ability to exploit all his options and skills to the best of his abilities. Why would it ruin the game completely to be ABLE to do any of these things? You still have no incentive to kill, waste supplies you might need, or reveal your location. The game wouldn't reward you for performing these actions, and still rewards you for being stealthy and not exposing yourself to the world, or having to hurt anyone to begin with (except maybe a minor concussion). Why is this so egregious to you to even offer these choices?

EDIT: And in response to your picture, I say that I'm not arguing that people should, just that people CAN to begin with. (broadhead arrows are hardly bazookas... really? that's the fire arrows' job)

MasterTaffer
20th May 2009, 22:25
How I'd hammy: Probably, I'd wait for him to do a power attack and lose balance when I dodge it by circling him, putting me in position to cut his hamstrings.

Sorry, but I'm going to have to roll my eyes, good sir.


And who says that you're always faster than your enemy, garrett has many more factions after him than guards, mainly other thieves guilds who want him to be part of their fold or who are maddened by the fact he pulls of jobs they can't. So I can deffinately see a bunch of thieves chasing garrett, who should be as fast as him. Unless you want them to make all the enemies slow for you master taffer? Maybe the shot would be preempting the fact that he would see you, in a second anyways (turning on the light you just turned off and were hiding in the corner next to, meaning he's too close to not brush as you pass) so that way you can make your quick escape before he turns on the light and hammers you to death with whatever weapon he's got.

The only enemy in the entire Thief series I have seen faster than Garrett were the Haunts in Thief 1 & 2. I'm just going off of previous games where Garrett could seriously book it. The latter situations you name can be avoided, ONCE AGAIN, by patience, caution and observation while obfuscated in the shadows.

Oh, and I would assume at this point that Thieves Guilds and other thieves were smart enough to stay out of his way in the City, especially after he made an example of a City Warden like Ramirez.


Alright forced fight (unless you knew it was coming by cheating, or reloading an old save):
Thief Gold - Down in the bone hoard - in pursuit of the Mystic's heart. Once you get past the statues that instantly smite you if you fall upon their gaze, you're presented with a dark room with the chest in the center (containing the mystic's heart). As soon as you approach the chest, a hammerhaunt instantly spawns right in front of you, and blinding lights turn on over you head. There's very loud tile floor AND bright light. Unless you knew it was going to happen, you were forced into combat. Since he just saw and or heard you, even if you back into the shadows he still "knows" where you are long enough to hand your ass to you, excuse the cut, it was made with a blunt object. (Now, knowing this could happen beforehand, you can just barely enter the circle, backing out JUST before he sees you, and then blow him away with a fire arrow or a holy arrow. But if you are playing through the first time, just having gotten there, you're forced into that fight since behind you is a series of things you cannot navigate quickly enough to escape, or you'd be esploded. You can also just attempt to run and grab the gem and run out the portal in the back, but you risk a hammer to the skull, as well as missing the chest and having to go back for it).

First time in the Bonehoard, the light turned on infront of me rather then ontop of me, and I had time to stop myself from walking into the light since I was going slowly because of the tile flooring. COnsidering the res tof the bonehoard was one giant booby trap At that point, it become about either patiently going along the sid eof the room slowly or just running around the Haunt and avoiding the light to grab the Mystic's Heart. You never have to fight him, and simply running into the alcove behind the chest gets you the hell out of Dodge.

It was not unavoidable. I avoided it by being, surprise surprise, cautious. Taking my time prevented me from getting surprised by it. And even if you are caught off guard by it, you can still just run over to the chest, grab the mystic's heart, and get out of the before the Haunt lays a hand on you.


As for your last point, assuming guards still whistle and cough incessantly like they did before, yes... you can always know someone's there before opening a door. You can, alternatively, always have an invisibility potion in stock. You can always have a speed potion for fast getaways. You can always have flash bombs you save for those really sucky moments. The problem is people don't always have those options, so making use of something they almost always have a few of (broad head arrows) is not some arch sin against thief.

And yet, I would think going into a mission without a proper plan B and without proper equipment would be an arch sin for a thief. Planning ahead rather than living in the moment makes situations like the ones you keep listing null and void.

Hell, the fact that you can ghost through every mission in all three games throws a giant hole in the "unavoidable" arguement.


I feel as though I understand where your argument comes from. You're afraid that Garrett will become an unstoppable fighting force, ruining the need to be stealthy in the game. Maybe they'll overdue it and take control away from the player saying "Press x to pull the blocking hammy". The point of my argument is to allow for the OPTION. A thief's best defense is his ability to exploit all his options and skills to the best of his abilities.

WRONG, a thief's best defense is proper planning and patience. The military has something called the 6 Ps: Proper Planning Prevents Piss Poor Performance. The 6 Ps hold true for everything.


Why would it ruin the game completely to be ABLE to do any of these things? You still have no incentive to kill, waste supplies you might need, or reveal your location. The game wouldn't reward you for performing these actions...

No, but it significantly takes away the threat to life and limb as a penalty for lack of caution.


and still rewards you for being stealthy and not exposing yourself to the world, or having to hurt anyone to begin with (except maybe a minor concussion). Why is this so egregious to you to even offer these choices?

Because it creates a precident to increase combat prowess int eh game, gearing it closer to games like Metal Gear Solid, where being caught has far less tension because you're capable of hindering your opponent far too efficiently. And that's a slippery slope that will likely lead to segments where you would have to USE these moves in a forced combat scenario, or god forbid, a dreaded boss fight.


EDIT: And in response to your picture, I say that I'm not arguing that people should, just that people CAN to begin with. (broadhead arrows are hardly bazookas... really? that's the fire arrows' job)

Missed the point of the picture.

And I'm curious, as well. You seem annoyed that there aren't any uses for broadhead arrows on higher difficulties. What about mines? The explosive varieties don't have any uses on higher difficulties either.

Broadheads and mines are for the lower difficulties, where killing is an option. They are not without use, just not on higher difficulties, where they expect you to be BETTER at sneaking.

Terr
20th May 2009, 22:57
Mainly I want Broadhead arrows to be able to serve a better purpose than simply being cheap noisemaker arrows, because ESPECIALLY on expert mode where you can't kill people, that's the only purpose they can serve.

That's not enough? IMO if I'm playing on a no-kill expert mode, then making them "non-lethally-wounding-or-crippling" is not necessarily a big improvement, since I'll be ghosting anyway.

Hypevosa
20th May 2009, 23:01
Sorry, but I'm going to have to roll my eyes, good sir.

The only enemy in the entire Thief series I have seen faster than Garrett were the Haunts in Thief 1 & 2. I'm just going off of previous games where Garrett could seriously book it. The latter situations you name can be avoided, ONCE AGAIN, by patience, caution and observation while obfuscated in the shadows.

Oh, and I would assume at this point that Thieves Guilds and other thieves were smart enough to stay out of his way in the City, especially after he made an example of a City Warden like Ramirez.

First time in the Bonehoard, the light turned on infront of me rather then ontop of me, and I had time to stop myself from walking into the light since I was going slowly because of the tile flooring. COnsidering the res tof the bonehoard was one giant booby trap At that point, it become about either patiently going along the sid eof the room slowly or just running around the Haunt and avoiding the light to grab the Mystic's Heart. You never have to fight him, and simply running into the alcove behind the chest gets you the hell out of Dodge.

It was not unavoidable. I avoided it by being, surprise surprise, cautious. Taking my time prevented me from getting surprised by it. And even if you are caught off guard by it, you can still just run over to the chest, grab the mystic's heart, and get out of the before the Haunt lays a hand on you.

And yet, I would think going into a mission without a proper plan B and without proper equipment would be an arch sin for a thief. Planning ahead rather than living in the moment makes situations like the ones you keep listing null and void.

Hell, the fact that you can ghost through every mission in all three games throws a giant hole in the "unavoidable" arguement.

WRONG, a thief's best defense is proper planning and patience. The military has something called the 6 Ps: Proper Planning Prevents Piss Poor Performance. The 6 Ps hold true for everything.

No, but it significantly takes away the threat to life and limb as a penalty for lack of caution.

Because it creates a precident to increase combat prowess int eh game, gearing it closer to games like Metal Gear Solid, where being caught has far less tension because you're capable of hindering your opponent far too efficiently. And that's a slippery slope that will likely lead to segments where you would have to USE these moves in a forced combat scenario, or god forbid, a dreaded boss fight.

Missed the point of the picture.

And I'm curious, as well. You seem annoyed that there aren't any uses for broadhead arrows on higher difficulties. What about mines? The explosive varieties don't have any uses on higher difficulties either.

Broadheads and mines are for the lower difficulties, where killing is an option. They are not without use, just not on higher difficulties, where they expect you to be BETTER at sneaking.

So we're all supposed to play like you? It's one thing to try and play a game completely against what it's supposed to be, but the inability to make even the slightest error or play the game in your style is putting too much on the player. Garrett is not a fighter, and he should never be able to just straight out win a fight with a guard. If he's got his dagger/sword out and he can fight a guard successfully on hard or expert difficulty, there's a problem. But there's equally a problem when the game FORCES the player to play a single way, or to never make a mistake. Thief is a stealth game, and stealth should be the primary focus, but inherently there must be a penalty for failing at the primary focus of the game - which is combat. Thus combat should be the second most important aspect to the gameplay, and paid it's due attention (or else every mission would be if you're spotted you start over). Making combat unwinnable and unenjoyable is not a good option either, as purposefully making an experience unenjoyable for the player is against the purpose of playing a game.

That said, adding the element of being able to disarm, disable, or out right kill a guard by making a skillfully placed shot would make combat enjoyable. The ability to make an unwinnable fight, winnable by taking advantage of your abilities would be enjoyable. Nothing compares to being able to sneak past an entire fortress' guards without one even knowing you were there, and nothing beats walking around knowing that no one is still awake to disturb your work, so stealth will always be more rewarding than combat. However, I stand by my statement when I say this could never break thief as a game to include it, but only make thief more enjoyable, which is the ultimate goal of games in the first place.

And no, I did understand the point of the picture. If you have a tool, you don't HAVE to use it, nor should you necessarily consider it if the circumstance doesn't call for it. However, we don't have the tool to begin with, and I believe we should at least have said tool. I just try to make my posts enjoyable.

MasterTaffer
20th May 2009, 23:15
So we're all supposed to play like you? It's one thing to try and play a game completely against what it's supposed to be, but the inability to make even the slightest error or play the game in your style is putting too much on the player. Garrett is not a fighter, and he should never be able to just straight out win a fight with a guard. If he's got his dagger/sword out and he can fight a guard successfully on hard or expert difficulty, there's a problem. But there's equally a problem when the game FORCES the player to play a single way, or to never make a mistake. Thief is a stealth game, and stealth should be the primary focus, but inherently there must be a penalty for failing at the primary focus of the game - which is combat. Thus combat should be the second most important aspect to the gameplay, and paid it's due attention (or else every mission would be if you're spotted you start over). Making combat unwinnable and unenjoyable is not a good option either, as purposefully making an experience unenjoyable for the player is against the purpose of playing a game.

That said, adding the element of being able to disarm, disable, or out right kill a guard by making a skillfully placed shot would make combat enjoyable. The ability to make an unwinnable fight, winnable by taking advantage of your abilities would be enjoyable. Nothing compares to being able to sneak past an entire fortress' guards without one even knowing you were there, and nothing beats walking around knowing that no one is still awake to disturb your work, so stealth will always be more rewarding than combat. However, I stand by my statement when I say this could never break thief as a game to include it, but only make thief more enjoyable, which is the ultimate goal of games in the first place.

And no, I did understand the point of the picture. If you have a tool, you don't HAVE to use it, nor should you necessarily consider it if the circumstance doesn't call for it. However, we don't have the tool to begin with, and I believe we should at least have said tool. I just try to make my posts enjoyable.

My biggest issue it is making combat more robust, and combat is something the game actively has you avoiding. When you make an aspect of the game that is frowned upon by its very design more robust, you end up on a slippery slope that leads the game away from the pure stealth experience it is into "stealth action," like Hitman, Splinter Cell, and Metal Gear Solid. And by doing that, Thief loses its unique quality.

I love stealth action games. I actually think Splinter Cell Chaos Theory is the greatest, most polished game I have ever played. But I dont' come to Thief for combat options, I come to it because it is one of the only pure stealth titles around. That's what differentiates itself from the rest of the library of stealth games out there.

Improving the game and adding new features is fine as long as it doesn't lead the game away from its identity, which is what I feel your suggestions would do in the long run. It will create a combat mechanic for the game that is not really there now, and as time goes on combat will become more of a focus, which for Thief is a BAD thing.

Hypevosa
20th May 2009, 23:36
My biggest issue it is making combat more robust, and combat is something the game actively has you avoiding. When you make an aspect of the game that is frowned upon by its very design more robust, you end up on a slippery slope that leads the game away from the pure stealth experience it is into "stealth action," like Hitman, Splinter Cell, and Metal Gear Solid. And by doing that, Thief loses its unique quality.

I love stealth action games. I actually think Splinter Cell Chaos Theory is the greatest, most polished game I have ever played. But I dont' come to Thief for combat options, I come to it because it is one of the only pure stealth titles around. That's what differentiates itself from the rest of the library of stealth games out there.

Improving the game and adding new features is fine as long as it doesn't lead the game away from its identity, which is what I feel your suggestions would do in the long run. It will create a combat mechanic for the game that is not really there now, and as time goes on combat will become more of a focus, which for Thief is a BAD thing.

This really wouldn't make the combat more robust than it is already. If you want to look at the first 2 games, you really can fight off a hoard of 5 enemies with your sword. The ability to block means no fear of fighting because you can always block and slash when a guard leaves himself open. Then he bends and can be hit again while he's distracted by his own pain. By encouraging these ideas, I'm attempting to encourage that the combat become more like what a thief's combat, if he/she engages in it, should be... calculated (at least more so than block slash block slash). I can't beat you in a sword fight but that isn't a problem if you have no sword or are helpless anyways.

The game already IS stealth action for some people, because that's how they want to play it. To you it's total stealth, for me it's a stealth with action elements (I try to knockout everyone in every level, and try to kill every creature. Which is just as much a challenge as not being seen by anyone). And to some it's stealth action, because they're only as patient as they can be, before they just end up stabbing that guard that keeps turning at the wrong times.

So yes, I am suggesting a new mechanic, but at the cost of the old. Fighting should not be something you can blindly run into since you're not a knight, but something that needs to be calculated and as well executed as it's planned. I think these elements allow for such combat.

I think you'd appreciate this: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation/544-Thief-The-Dark-Project

Taffer17
7th Jun 2009, 04:40
the other games did have local damage, it just wasnt very realistic. unless u hit them either in their upper torso or head, they would only get injured and begin searching for you or run off and sound the alarm. it did still matter where u hit them, although hitting their legs wouldnt affect their mobility at all. personally i think this worked best in thief

Hypevosa
7th Jul 2009, 14:42
well I saw someone actually brought this up so I thought I'd bump it.

Direlord
7th Jul 2009, 17:16
I'm not to wild about the helmet idea but hit boxes would be a nice change of pace. Especially the shooting in leg to have them slow down.

kabatta
7th Jul 2009, 17:58
I would place my vote upon trapps that immobilize guards. I'm an rogue/thief/assasin kind of rpg person, but I can imagine this beying created in-game. Alltough it might sound a little violent, The idea of wounding guards seems fine to me. The more content, the better by the mentioning that it doesn't alter the game drastically.
Oh...and to explain "trapps": flash mine, gas mine,frogg egg. Things that are used in many strategies.

Hypevosa
7th Jul 2009, 22:49
I never knew frog eggs could be used as a trap? o.O do you press r instead and they open up when someone walks by as opposed to having a loyal following frog beast?

jtr7
7th Jul 2009, 23:12
.....................

Hypevosa
7th Jul 2009, 23:22
like I said I never even knew you could just plant them, if I used them, I tended to throw em like grenades... to the same, albeit slimier, effect.

jtr7
7th Jul 2009, 23:35
.............................

Hypevosa
7th Jul 2009, 23:55
actually if you hit your target right, the frog spawns, contacts the target, and immediately explodes, so it's exactly like an impact grenade.

jtr7
7th Jul 2009, 23:58
......................

Hypevosa
8th Jul 2009, 00:01
see, since they killed people (even if it never counted towards a kill count) I never used them like that, I always used them on the big boiler dudes instead, so 2 frogs and they're out. I never had a hard time getting close enough to use them like reliable grenades either. If I just let em hop around, then the bots would just shoot em at a distance and that didn't work so well >_>

jtr7
8th Jul 2009, 01:12
......................

TheEye
15th Jul 2009, 17:44
unnecessary

Hypevosa
15th Jul 2009, 23:58
ok, well if we go with "unnecessary" then

Don't give anyone any equipment, or let them buy any, and just let them use stealth to go through the entire game.

There's no point in calling anything in a thief game "unnecessary" because when it comes right down to it, all you should ever NEED in a thief game is the ability to use stealth and to pick up loot and keys. You don't NEED any other equipment.

Nate
16th Jul 2009, 00:20
Sigh, typical Hypevosa over reaction/over dramatization.

Hypevosa
16th Jul 2009, 00:44
how's that an over reaction? really all you actually need is stealth to succeed in thief, everything else is secondary, everything else is just another option or add on. >_>

Options just make the game a little more fun, than strictly having what's "necessary".

Nate
16th Jul 2009, 06:16
Your argue that if people think Combat Localized Damage is unnecessary, then they should also think that equipment and tools are unnecessary for a Thief game......seriously dude, you don't see the problems with that 'logic'?

I am pretty sure you don't believe what you said, that you in fact said it for overly dramatic effect. It is possible that you were trying to make a 'slippery slope' argument....but just so you know, ALL slippery slope arguments are logical fallacies (politicians like to use them because most people in the general population aren't educated enough to resist flawed logic).

Still, in case you really think the 2 points are related though, I will spell it out for you.


Localized damage (while interesting) would be a bit of work for the devs without much reward. Most players are going to play the game as it is intended (a sneaker) and not as a melee combat simulator. In the end, a localized damage system would be rarely used = unnecessary.

However, equipment is a core Thief concept. Equipment requires players to immerse themselves into the master thief persona. Choosing their equipment prior to missions requires players to carefully consider what they know of their target and what items will be most useful to attain their goals. What equipment is available (or found) during missions has a profound impact on player strategies and tactics. The intelligent use of equipment and environment is what results in the satisfaction of a job well done.

Equipment = Essential!

Nothke
17th Jul 2009, 09:56
Let's just say a guard's dead if you take out three limbs. >_>


No, he can still bite you on the ankle.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhRUe-gz690
as you see he can!

I'm not for dismemberment, this would make a game unnecessarily gorry, and also would take too much time for devs to make it. The same can be said for arrow areas... But these are more interesting, headshots would be good... But what I want in Thief 4 is that broadheads should stab opponent and stay in, not dissapear as always, I was dissapointed when I saw there was no such thing in DS. There was it in Soldier of Furtune 2, long before DS, when you throw a knife, you go to a vicim and see the point where you hit him, and pick it up.

donsgood
19th Jul 2009, 06:27
it would make the game better yes

PJMaybe
20th Jul 2009, 06:14
Most of the discussion around area damage has been about how guards will fight or run. I think for Thief the important thing is how much noise they will make - and it will be much easier to implement.

Head/ neck shots should be instant with no noise. Chest should be a quick shout for help and then death. Any other area should leave the guard calling for help as he either searches or flees. I know they already implemented this to some extent but their shouts should attract more attention.

Its very very satisfying picking off a guard with a head shot from the opposite side of the garden etc.

jtr7
20th Jul 2009, 06:46
.....................

Hypevosa
21st Jul 2009, 01:06
it doesn't have to be gears of war graphic, yuck :P The suggestion is just to give localized damage different effects on the enemy, not cause dismemberment and gory explosions... I'm fine with a fire arrow leaving a huge black mark on someone's chest, we can just assume their cooked thoroughly, I don't need (nor want) to see their innards spill on the ground.

And actually I do believe that equipment is non-essential, because it's not... The game allows for people to never have to use equipment (except for the odd rope/vine arrow at some points I believe...) - thereby meaning it's not essential. However, it is a very nice thing to have, gives the player something to spend their gold on that makes sense, and there would be a good deal of people thoroughly frustrated if it wasn't there. The suggestion for localized damage is a nice thing to have, and just like equipment, not everyone will use it often/use it ever, but it still is something that could also frustrate people... why is a headshot not a headshot? I'd think an arrow through the eye would be fatal/coma inducing to nearly anyone. With games today, it's also something that's expected, and some would be let down if it were otherwise. I just expanded the idea to include non-lethal but useful skill shots, so those of us who don't want to kill, but still wouldn't mind slowing the guards down a bit, have a bit of an advantage as well.

My dad used to tell me a story about something that happened in an emergency room at the hospital he worked at. A man was just sitting in the emergency waiting room one day, and a nurse came over to him, looked him over and told him it was the emergency room and that she needed to know his problem. "I have a headache..." was the man's reply. The nurse was a little confused and said to him "Sir, this is the emergency room, if all you have is a headache there are other people who need attention". So the man looked at her a moment, took off his hat "Mam, I have a head ache" and there was a knife through the middle of the man's head lodged into the hilt. Whoever was trying to kill him, managed to get the knife RIGHT inbetween the two lobes of his brain, performing what was a kind of mini-lobotomy. I refuse to believe that our arrows do this every time we shoot someone in the head though.

Kold
21st Jul 2009, 01:42
I would like the idea of knicking a guards lead-arm hindering him from using a sword/whatever.. I wouldnt want it to get too... complicated though. I mean, this is a stealth game ja? There should be more incentive to be STEALTHY than to just wave your dagger (or maybe shortsword? =P) around in every guards face, in the light...

kungfuasaurus
21st Jul 2009, 05:40
I think it'd be cool, but you'd have to have limits, like have it less\not effective on armored guards (depending on if they're wearing armor where you shot them or not). Shooting a guard in the leg and have him limp after you or something would be cool, or hit his arm and he has to switch hands, making it less effective unless you shoot the other arm.

Hypevosa
23rd Jul 2009, 04:02
yes, complete debilitation would not make for good gameplay, you'd just shoot everyone up and waltz around. There tends to never be more than 20 broadheads anyways.

jtr7
23rd Jul 2009, 04:26
..............

Secondary
1st Sep 2009, 02:02
rather be sneaky any day. but yes, realistic damage would be cool, but should be rarely called upon. i rarely kill anyone in stealth games, and when i do, im not going to take the chance that my arrow wont kill him instantly, cant have him screaming and letting everyone know whats going on. i just take a little longer to aim.

Davehall380
1st Sep 2009, 14:30
how's that an over reaction? really all you actually need is stealth to succeed in thief, everything else is secondary, everything else is just another option or add on. >_>

Options just make the game a little more fun, than strictly having what's "necessary".

It could be argued that up until TMA, every item that Garrett possesed was necessary. Necessary in the mission sense is lock-picks, rope arrows and keys. Water arrows, blackjacks etc fit around your style of play. However, all of the original items were necessary to allow players to play the game as they saw fit. I for one never used fire arrows (the exception being soulforge). For others though, this could always be a priority buy.

Davehall380
1st Sep 2009, 14:32
The only convincing time that ive seen enemy armour having a positive effect on gameplay was with the non-KO guards. There helmets (city guards and mechanists) meant that they had to be avoided, or killed. When damaging the guards, its probably best to keep it as simple as possible. As most levels probably dont contain more that 20 armed actors, disabling the 'grunts' with arrows would quickly remove alot of the danger.

13LACK13ISHOP
1st Sep 2009, 15:18
It would be to easy. This is only balanced in games with guns because guards can hit you from a long way away and still be a big threat. Most guards have melee weapons so all you would have to do is aim for the legs with a bow and run. There would be nothing they could do to stop you. You would only need 1 fire arrow per guard because they would be near useless. The only thing they could do is call for help.

Davehall380
1st Sep 2009, 15:25
Agreed. By having an alerted guard taking multiple arrows without damaging there movement may be less realistic, but it does motivate the player to avoid contact. Stealth kills are still possible, but disabling a guard with a sword is potentially damaging to the game balance. Do we really want to compensate this by having guards dressed in heavy armour?

13LACK13ISHOP
1st Sep 2009, 15:36
Maybe some sort of poison arrow which causes slowed movement speed for a short while thus helping you to escape.

I think some hammers should be dressed in full heavy armour which makes them immune to broadheads and swords,blackjacks and zombie swipes but slightly slows movement speed meaning you can get away but if you get cornerd you are stuffed.

Davehall380
1st Sep 2009, 15:39
Not to sure about the poison arrow - would this be a temporary attack on the body, and then what happens. "Oh crap im poisoned, ok now im not, back to the front door to finish my shift" :-)

Love the idea about armoured hammerites though. The hammers in TDP and TMA were often towering, heavily armed fanatics, but fell down quite easily to a few arrows. And in TDS they looked like poo. Give them lots of armour and then feel there religous zeal all over your lovely new hammer shaped face.

13LACK13ISHOP
1st Sep 2009, 15:47
As for the poison arrow- temporary so its not overpowered.

When the guard is cured it will act the same as it would if you had escaped after being spoted or just fired a few broadheads at him. The part about him finishing his shift after being attacked is still unclear. We dont know how a guard will react when he has been attacked and lost a target.

Davehall380
1st Sep 2009, 15:51
Very true. It would be good to be able to slow enemies down (temporarily to escape). However, in the previous games garrett was much faster than the guards, and on the rare occasions when it was difficult to escape, a flashbomb usually provided the right solution to escape (and in a strange pacman situtation he would usually end up blackjacked)

Hypevosa
1st Sep 2009, 17:46
Maybe all levels could have a doctor's quarters where the wounded could go and be treated - the same with reviving the bodies of the unconscious (giving more incentive to hide them). NPC's giving up chase would immediately set their course for the doctor's quarters, get themselves a little drugged up and fixed up, and get back to their post. If the doctor is conscious they're out in 30 seconds and they're fully healed, if he's not they take a minute to just drug themselves up and do what they can and then they leave - as good as they can get, meaning they don't regain the health lost in the attack, despite being able to perform well again.

Davehall380
1st Sep 2009, 19:48
I like the idea about a doctors surgery, but this would probably have fairly limited application. For example, we have seen many levels that have guard quaters, so a doctors surgery would be ideal. However, in levels like life at the party, where would the city watch go? Also, it can take some time to traverse across a level (praticulary in TMA and TDP), which may mean that a guard can take quite a long time to get where he needs to go to 'drug up'. Good idea though, and it gets around the realism issues with damaged AI's.