The Stevie D dumb-ass thread

[Red]

Well, I'm inclined to wait for me to have some money to spare and finding it in the low-budget bin at a wall-mart for 10-15$ (cdn) before making any maps for it...

[Flamescreen]

I would suppose it would be there by now...
Have you tried E-bay or something similar? someone might want to trade it.

[Stevie D]

Well, I'm inclined to wait for me to have some money to spare and finding it in the low-budget bin at a wall-mart for 10-15$ (cdn) before making any maps for it...

I'm sure there are enough disenfranchised Fallout purists out there who've turned their noses up at FOT and would be only too happy to let their copy go for a pitance.

Gambling

I didn't play much further than half-way through the single-player campaign and can only remember one character with which you could gamble. (The bitter mechanic at one of the BoS bases, IIRC).

I'm thinking of including a few characters in my map with whom the player can gamble. Are the 'games' you can 'play' much fun, and would this feature be worth including?

Steve

[OnTheBounce]

I'm thinking of including a few characters in my map with whom the player can gamble. Are the 'games' you can 'play' much fun, and would this feature be worth including?

Gambling is handled in an abstract manner, just as it should be in a skill-based system. In other words, all you do is gamble by putting your stuff up for what you want to gamble for and it's resolved w/the click of a button. No flashing lights, or strumpets in short skirts tittering about w/trays of intoxicating beverages.

That being said, I have to say that Gambling is quite possibly one of the most over-powered skills in the game. If you have it tagged and a few points put in it you'll be robbing people blind. I'm not sure of the exact mechanics involved - the programmer that implemented it unfortunately no longer works for MF, so Section8 couldn't get us any info on it - but since there's no way to limit what someone will/won't gamble for it's almost like giving everything that person has away. For instance, one of the QMs in the core campaign can gamble, so the player can get anything in the QM list for free. Ridiculous, I say.

Basically, it's probably okay to have some extra items that the player might want/need available through some gambling schmuck. However, you may very well want to be very careful w/what you give that person.

OTB

[Stevie D]

Comprehensive, OTB, cheers. So say a PC and an NPC meet and both have identical gambling-skill percentages, I take it it's exactly 50/50 as to who wins?

Talking of skills: how does the chance to lock-pick tag on door-entities work? The default is 0, which I'm guessing means no chance of lockpicking, no matter the character's skill-level. But what does altering the tag affect?

Thanks again,

Steve

[OnTheBounce]

YW, SD.

So say a PC and an NPC meet and both have identical gambling-skill percentages, I take it it's exactly 50/50 as to who wins?

I've been trying to figure it out myself. NPCs seem to be terrified of PCs w/high (i.e. Tagged) gambling skills. If you go in like that, you're essentially looking at having to bet multiple times the amount that the NPC is putting up to get the odds right, and then you'll still win pretty easily. Unforunately I have no hard data, but it seems skewed in the PC's favor.

Talking of skills: how does the chance to lock-pick tag on door-entities work? The default is 0, which I'm guessing means no chance of lockpicking, no matter the character's skill-level. But what does altering the tag affect?

You're correct, leaving the Difficulty at "0" makes the lock impossible to pick. However, any other value entered in that field is subtracted from the character's Lock Pick skill. Use a negative number to make the lock easier.

OTB

[Stevie D]

I've been trying to figure it out myself. NPCs seem to be terrified of PCs w/high (i.e. Tagged) gambling skills. If you go in like that, you're essentially looking at having to bet multiple times the amount that the NPC is putting up to get the odds right, and then you'll still win pretty easily. Unforunately I have no hard data, but it seems skewed in the PC's favor.

OTB

OTB,

Would it be possible to rig a chain of events so that if a certain NPC lost either a pre-set or random number of rounds of gambling, that it could trigger an event that would make him (and perhaps his mates) get pissed off and attack you?

Steve

[Max-Violence]

Also, SD, you have to make sure you check/tick the "Lockable" box of the door/chest/whatever in order for the PCs to be able to pick it. If the box isn't checked/ticked, the PC will get a "Does Nothing" message when he/she tries to pick it.

[OnTheBounce]

Would it be possible to rig a chain of events so that if a certain NPC lost either a pre-set or random number of rounds of gambling, that it could trigger an event that would make him (and perhaps his mates) get pissed off and attack you?

No, it wouldn't. What you could do would be to have the NPC go hostile if/she had less than a certain number of items in his/her inventory. This would require you to set up the entities in question and give them a Tag Name, then have a "Quantity Unit" (Unit X has less than Y itemstagged at Anywhere.) The problem w/things like this is that if you have a player who has a larcenous heart you would end up triggering the events if he/she stole the items in question, even if he/she weren't detected.

OTB

[Max-Violence]

even if he/she weren't detected.

I'm 99% sure that if you were to add a "Can See" condition (Player Oblivious_N00b can see player Human), that would fix the problem of the NPC becoming hostile without knowledge of the PC's actions. IIRC the "Can See" condition won't get met if the PC is in Sneak mode (i.e. the NPC doesn't actually SEE the PC 'cause the PC is "invisible" to the NPC). Of course, the problem would still exist if the PCs had more than the "thief" in LOS of the NPC and not all of 'em were in Sneak mode, but you could prolly throw in a "Quantity - Player in Zone" condition to rectify that.

[OnTheBounce]

I'm 99% sure that if you were to add a "Can See" condition (Player Oblivious_N00b can see player Human), that would fix the problem...

Yes, you could do that, but what if the player simply had a character stroll up our high rollin' NPC w/o going into Sneak mode? Then the "Can See" condition would still be fulfilled.

I think the "Can See" condition was a bit poorly implemented. There should be an option to have a zone qualifier added. So that you could have triggers w/conditions like "Player Ecneloiv-Xam Can See Player EcnuobEhtNo in Zone "OTB's Study". But you know what they say, "If 'if' were a fifth, we'd all be fucked up."

Edit: I just thought of something, namely to use the "Skill Use Occured" trigger to trip a variable. The following shows some promise:

• Set up a mission variable, e.g. "bosStoleSomeShit" = False
• Set up a "Skill Use Occured" trigger with the target being the gambler and the skill in question being Steal. The entity that is supposed to use the skill would be left blank.
• When the condition in the second article is fulfilled the variable is set to True.
• Having the variable being False would be a condition for the NPCs going hostile, along w/the Quantity Unit trigger.

OTB

[Stevie D]

Edit: I just thought of something, namely to use the "Skill Use Occured" trigger to trip a variable. The following shows some promise:

• Set up a mission variable, e.g. "bosStoleSomeShit" = False
• Set up a "Skill Use Occured" trigger with the target being the gambler and the skill in question being Steal. The entity that is supposed to use the skill would be left blank.
• When the condition in the second article is fulfilled the variable is set to True.
• Having the variable being False would be a condition for the NPCs going hostile, along w/the Quantity Unit trigger.

OTB

Couldn't that work if the second line read "Skill Use Occured" = Gambling?

Also, please forgive my lack of knowledge of triggers and events as they're still an unknown territory for me, but it is possible to set up 'traditional' AND and OR logic routines for triggers? ie:

IF "Skill Use Occured = gambling" AND "Sour_Faced_Gambler's_Scrip = <50" THEN set Index "Lairy_Gamblers" to hate "Player_Index"

I can see that it might look a bit pedantic me asking all these things about gambling, but it's fairly important to me to know how far I can push these exact mechanics, as I've got the idea for an entire sub-mission riding on them.

Also, at the risk of belabouring the point, could you answer this one, please, as it's quite important to my planning of the map:

I've got in mind a few one-off set-piece encounters with various unpleasant characters, and what I'd like to know is if you turn nasty on one member of a team ('team' as in game-mechanic term), do all the other members of that team turn against you, even if they have no line-of-sight to the fight? (eg: they're on the other side of the map). What I'm trying to say is: if I've got one baddie who I want to act independantly from everyone else on the map, do I need an entire team allocated to him?

Thanks as always,

Steve

[Jimmyjay86]

Stevie D. Asked

I've got in mind a few one-off set-piece encounters with various unpleasant characters, and what I'd like to know is if you turn nasty on one member of a team ('team' as in game-mechanic term), do all the other members of that team turn against you, even if they have no line-of-sight to the fight? (eg: they're on the other side of the map). What I'm trying to say is: if I've got one baddie who I want to act independantly from everyone else on the map, do I need an entire team allocated to him?

Yes, the entire team will turn against you at least for a short time. This is one reason why I wish there were more available teams in the game. Nevertheless you can still get around it without necessarily making a special team for one character. In my map I have two teams for raiders; bad and good. The raiders always start out good until triggered to turn bad. This will prevent all of them attacking you throughout the map. Unless you attack the good ones, then you are screwed!

Then I trigger each separate group to change teams when you get in a specific zone or are visible. I think you could possibly use this arrangement in your map with a little modification. And then also make sure that each entity holds their position or takes cover if possible when they are under attack. That way they won't come charging from all corners of the map when you decide to attack them.

[Stevie D]

Thanks, JJ,

If I could follow your train of thought, perhaps, would this be possible?

* Say I link all my potentially hostile NPCs to Team 3.

* For each group or individual I want to have as a seperate sub-scenario but linked to Team 3 as per your method I assign one of OTB's mission variables, ie: "PC_Pissed_off_Gamblers = False".

* For the gamblers' den, I could create an area, called something deeply imaginative like "Gamblers_Area"

* Every time the player enters "Gamblers_Area", it triggers an "IF PC_Pissed_off_Gamblers = True THEN make Team 3 hostile to the PC."

* But if I'm friendly with the gamblers at the time, though, but manage to set off the "Skill Use Occured = gambling" trigger as per our earlier discussion, that would set off two events: First, it would make Team 3 hate the PC; second, it would make PC_Pissed_off_Gamblers = True.

* But when the player leaves the area, it triggers a "Set Team 3 to be neutral towards the PC." event.

Obviously, I'm displaying my embarrassing lack of knowledge of the technical terms, here, but is the above possible?

If it is, it would provide a method of ensuring that each distinct group that uses the Team 3 label would have a 'memory' of whether or not you've pissed them off.

[Jimmyjay86]

Yeah, that is not a bad way to handle it. One word of warning with using variables though: they are case sensitive and when you use long names, there is the possibility of screwing up the name.

"pissed_off_gamblers" is not the same as "Pissed_Off_Gamblers"

Also I haven't had too much luck with the changing back to the neutral team after you exit the zone. They stay pissed off at you if you have fought with them. Even friendlies that you accidentally hit with too much FF will attack you and stay pissed at you for awhile, then suddenly will go back to friendly.

All I can say is make a little experimental map to try things with. Sometimes that helps the best. Cause I'm not 100% sure if what you have in mind will work but it does sound ok.

[Stevie D]

Actually, JJ, scrap what I said in my last post, your suggestion was much better. It took me three times of reading it to realise it's a much simpler method and would achieve the same end.

Point taken over variable case-sensitivity, thanks.

Also I haven't had too much luck with the changing back to the neutral team after you exit the zone. They stay pissed off at you if you have fought with them. Even friendlies that you accidentally hit with too much FF will attack you and stay pissed at you for awhile, then suddenly will go back to friendly.

To be honest, that wouldn't bother me; if the PC manages to piss off any of the groups in this map, I'd prefer them to stay pissed off and your method of simply transferring malcontents into the permanently angry team is just what the doctor ordered. Especially since I'm planning to have each of the groups isolated to discrete encounters, with a soundly defined area allocated to each.

Proper job! I can carry on making this gambling encounter, now, thanks!

Steve

[Stevie D]

A question for JJ86:

JJ, I was thinking about the technique you outlined a while back (the one about dumping groups that are pissed off with the PC into a perpetually angry 'aggressive player' index). So, I've got a set of conditions in which the group will become angry if the PC fulfills them, that's great.

BUT, what happens if a trigger-happy player waltzes into the encounter and starts plugging away just for a laugh? Would it be possible to transfer the group to the 'aggressive player' index then, rather than have the entire generic 'neutral player' index become furious, resulting in most of the population of the map firing at the PC on sight because of one, isolated fire-fight?

A couple of quick questions for all veteran FoT modders

* Are there hot-keys to the Show Tile Bounding Box and Only Show Tiles On Current Level commands?

* The Climbable (sp?) tag. If I attach it to a single-unit depth tile, like a roof-cap, will the FoT engine just have a character that walks up it (or a 'staircase' of roof-caps) hop from one to the next like the usual stair-tiles; OR, as I suspect, will it screw up and show the climbing-ladder animation, since the tiles aren't default stairs? (Blimey, that must be tough to understand).

Thanks, gents,

Steve

[OnTheBounce]

BUT, what happens if a trigger-happy player waltzes into the encounter and starts plugging away just for a laugh? Would it be possible to transfer the group to the 'aggressive player' index then, rather than have the entire generic 'neutral player' index become furious, resulting in most of the population of the map firing at the PC on sight because of one, isolated fire-fight?

Well, I'm not JJ86, but you'll just have to be satisfied anyway.

So, you're trying to avoid the infamous FO RPG "the whole town wants my fucking head" syndrome, eh? It's easily accomplished with the use of "Tag Names". You will note that in the Editor ReadMe (AKA "Sacred ReadMe") Tag Names are referred to as "a way to affect one entity among many" or something along those lines. If you want the people in one area to be switched over to an enemy Index all you have to do is give the NPCs in each area the same Tag Name, then set up a trigger for each Tag Name that you're using that looks like this:

Condition: BoS has greater than 0 kills of [X Index] at [Y Area].

Action: Switch [Tag Name] to [Z Index].

If I'm on crack at the moment and this can't be done, I recommend setting up multiple indeces for the neutrals and affecting the change of an entire index.

* Are there hot-keys to the Show Tile Bounding Box and Only Show Tiles On Current Level commands?[/b]

Unfortunately, no.

* The Climbable (sp?) tag. If I attach it to a single-unit depth tile, like a roof-cap, will the FoT engine just have a character that walks up it (or a 'staircase' of roof-caps) hop from one to the next like the usual stair-tiles; OR, as I suspect, will it screw up and show the climbing-ladder animation, since the tiles aren't default stairs? (Blimey, that must be tough to understand).

I don't know off-hand. Check the stair tiles (make sure you've Updated the Tiles, first) and see if they carry the "C" flag. If they do carry that flag then flagging the caps should give the same result.

BTW, I recommend setting up a small map that you can experiment on. Nothing big, just some plain dirt tiles with some walls on it that you can experiment w/things like what you're asking here. Also very handy if you set up dummies so that you can test new weapons out. You can set the DT/DR of the dummies to simulate various armor levels, too. :twisted:

OTB