Deus Ex Advancement Mod v7 Release

[Cybernetic pig]

Still sceptical about hardcore mode? Here is the thoughts of Obsidian Entertainment's J.E Sawyer:

This post is about game design. Just bear with me.

In the 1982 World Cup Group stage, the West German and Austrian teams found themselves in an odd situation. With the Algeria-Chile match already played, the West Germany-Austria meeting would be the final match of Group 2. Based on the point spread of all four teams in the group, West Germany and Austria knew exactly what results would allow both to advance: a marginal (1-2 goal) West German victory. After West Germany scored in the first half, both teams settled into what was effectively pantomime. For the remainder of the 90 minutes, they politely passed the ball in their respective halves of the field, opponents occasionally making halfhearted challenges - but no real scoring attempts.

The strategy was transparent to everyone, from the announcers to the angry crowd. Though popular culture condemned the match with names like Nichtangriffspakt von Gijón (Non-Aggression Pact of Gijón) or, even more pejoratively, the Anschluß, it ultimately allowed both teams to progress out of the Group stage. West Germany made it all the way to the final.

To half-solve the problem in subsequent World Cup Group stages, FIFA scheduled the final two matches for any given Group to take place concurrently. In the case of West Germany-Austria, it would have prevented the teams from building a strategy based on the outcome of Algeria-Chile. However, FIFA didn't really fix the underlying issue, which was the design of how teams accumulate points in Group and how those points determine who advances out of Group. And now, on Thursday, June 26th, it's possible we could see a repeat of the Non-Aggression Pact of Gijón at Pernambuco, Brazil, when Germany faces USA. As in 1982, due to the point spread between Germany, USA, Portugal, and Ghana in Group G, both Germany and USA will advance in the event that they draw - regardless of the results of the Portugal-Ghana match happening simultaneously. Given the widespread condemnation of what occurred at Gijón in 1982, it's unlikely to happen again, but nothing in the rules would prevent it.

When designing the rules for any challenge-based game, regardless of the form it takes, it's important to consider how the structure of the rules may promote working against the spirit of the game. What designers allow players to do may inadvertently reward behavior that even the players themselves find to be boring and unenjoyable. If these behaviors are advantageous enough, players will gravitate toward them with increasing frequency until they become the de facto "correct" tactics and strategies for play. One of the most commonly-discussed features that produces this effect is save scumming. Being able to save and load your game at any time is extraordinarily valuable for players, if simply for convenience. However, the way save/load works in conjunction with other mechanics can strongly promote reliance on save/load to overcome difficult situations.

As an example, many role-playing games use virtual dice to "roll" a check when attempting to overcome a single obstacle, such as a locked door. In such cases, the player typically has one "try" on any static obstacle. In practice, they effectively have as many tries as they want as long as they are patient enough to reload. This type of interaction doesn't test players' skills in any new way, it doesn't ask players to attempt any different tactic, and given the "one try" system the designers put in place, it seems to go against the spirit of what the designers were trying to accomplish. While players love succeeding at overcoming obstacles, the percentage who love doing it via save/load is probably very low. Even so, that's what the game's design promotes doing for the best outcome.

By writing all of this, I have no intention of placing any blame or fault on the players. In challenge-based games, designers present obstacles and create the rules and tools for overcoming those obstacles. Players can hardly be faulted for finding and taking advantage of shortcomings in how the systems interact. In the aftermath of Gijón, both teams had to deal with the anger of World Cup fans - especially fans of the Algerian team, who had been denied a chance at moving on due to the West German/Austrian collusion. And there is no doubt that the players who suited up and went on the field that day did not spend their young lives dreaming of strategic pantomiming. Still, FIFA's rules promoted that behavior - and still promote similar behavior. A repeat of Gijón at Pernambuco would produce justified howls of outrage. Still, a paraphrase of the old maxim applies: don't hate the players, hate the game design.

Source: http://twofoldsilence.diogenes-lamp.inf ... ssons.html

[DDL]

I'd say in any situation where players actively gravitate to savescumming, you've either set the penalty to NOT savescumming far far too high, or you've simply got a fuckstupid playerbase. Generally (if this ever happens at all) it's the latter.
And the answer is very very rarely "disable player-made saves". It's usually "accept your playerbase are morons. Deal with it."

I can't think of a single game, ever, that has had "no player-mediated saving" and that hasn't irritated the shit out of me because of it. Need to stop playing for any reason? HOPE YOU ENJOY REPLAYING FROM UR LAST AUTOSAVE LOL

It's like arguing that because one person might, just possibly, over the course of twenty-odd years, be able to chip their way out of a prison using a spoon...ALL SPOONS MUST BE BANNED FROM PRISON.

The spoons are not the problem, it's that one dude. And honestly, fuck that guy.


Plus even with these extremes (savescum all the things<--->NO SAVES EVAR, FUCKO) you have gradients between them. Take the lockpicking example in that quote.
The player response depends on a whole ton of variables: how common are lockpicks? Do they break if you fail? Do they break if you succeed? How skill-based is lockpicking? Is the process automated or is it a minigame? How tedious is the minigame? Does the process award additional experience?

And so on. If lockpicks are incredibly rare, valuable items that break regardless of success/fail, then personally I would definitely savescum it. Hell, I'd probably reload even if I succeeded, if the reward was worth less than the pick I consumed.
If lockpicks are more common, then I might allocate myself a mental budget (save beforehand, only reload if I've burned through more than half my picks).
If there's a minigame and it's fucking tedious, I would probably save beforehand, have a go, then decide "fuck this" and move on regardless of success/failure. If it's really tedious I might not even bother in the first place.

Conversely, if saves are disabled, I would approach the first scenario by...not using the pick at all (in fact I'd probably be so conscious of the fact that picks are rare and saves aren't allowed, that I'd never use picks until the final level, if at all). The second scenario might be similar: I'd look at my pick total, decide "I can maybe afford to lose two" and maybe have two goes, then I'd give up. If I didn't think I could afford the loss, I wouldn't bother at all (again, ending up with a massive surplus by the end of the game, probably). And for the minigame scenario...nothing really changes, actually. Shit minigames are a bane no matter what your save system is.

But basically: it's complicated.

Ideally you want situations where lockpicking is not simply "one way of getting to your objective" (i.e. you could also climb over, or take a different route) but more of a "quiet option that still leaves you free to use more blunt approaches on the SAME OBSTACLE if you fail" (i.e. if you can't pick the door, you can still smash it).

This is kinda where DX falls down a bit, since a ton of the lockpickable/multitoolable hatches are accessible only by picking/tooling (and usually contain the opposite of whatever you used to open them anyway ). You can't just go JC SMASH and get ur lootz, even though it makes sense for you to be able to (I can kill milbots in one hit, but I can't break open a fucking vent cover????).

[Cybernetic pig]

I can't think of a single game, ever, that has had "no player-mediated saving" and that hasn't irritated the shit out of me because of it. Need to stop playing for any reason? HOPE YOU ENJOY REPLAYING FROM UR LAST AUTOSAVE LOL

You do realize than in a number of games that has "no player-mediated saving", including Dark Souls (which I know you have played) you actually CAN save anywhere, right? However, the save deletes itself upon reload of the file, thus maintaining the benefits of restrictive systems in addition to featuring the convenience of player-mediated save/load.

It's like arguing that because one person might, just possibly, over the course of twenty-odd years, be able to chip their way out of a prison using a spoon...ALL SPOONS MUST BE BANNED FROM PRISON.

Restrictive save systems can have multiple positive benefits and next to no downsides, especially with the above described feature.
These benefits include stronger challenge, better game balance, stronger choice and consequence, tension and immersion.
Restrictive Save systems are often used to the greatest effect in survival horrors. Ask a survival horror enthusiast worth their salt and they will tell you, a restrictive save system really enhances the experience.

If you want me to go into detail regarding every single point then I will. J.E Sawyer only makes arguments for game balance here.

I assume your perspective on restrictive save systems has been tainted by modern games, because the majority of them do it all wrong. But hey, you played DS, which is the one modern exception. Would have helped if you knew you could actually save anywhere in it though.

This is kinda where DX falls down a bit, since a ton of the lockpickable/multitoolable hatches are accessible only by picking/tooling (and usually contain the opposite of whatever you used to open them anyway ). You can't just go JC SMASH and get ur lootz, even though it makes sense for you to be able to (I can kill milbots in one hit, but I can't break open a fucking vent cover????).

It is absolutely vital that the devs did this otherwise lockpick/multitool skills would have even less weight than they already do vanilla. "JC SMASH" (melee weapon + skill/aug) has other benefits than just smashing open movers (you can smash all kinds of objects, including NPCs of course). Conversely you cannot go around lockpicking NPCs etc.
Lockpicks + lockpick skill are for opening movers ONLY, whereas JC SMASH has all kinds of opportunities to smash the shit out of most objects in the game (in addition to infinite ammo, Bio Energy aside), so obviously if JC SMASH worked on all hatches then the game balance would be even more fucked than it already is as JC SMASH would be the obviously superior option to invest in over lockpick.
Likewise Multitool too needs keypads & control panels (both unbreakable) since you can JC SMASH the shit out of alarm panels, turrets, cameras etc. Those poorly balanced skills needed something that didn't make them completely outclassed and this was it.

[Cybernetic pig]

Anyway, save systems: you are going to be one of the hardest people to convince, if this doesn't convince you nothing will:

Dark Souls. Bonfire A to bonfire B. In between these bonfires are a series of obstacles specifically & intelligently designed to push the player's skills and resources. When the player finally reaches bonfire B his health and spells are restocked. If the player could place their own bonfires this design is non-existent as the devs cannot know when a player will place a bonfire.
Note that this example is for stronger challenge only, one of five of the benefits of restrictive save systems.

[kdawg88]

I have almost no problem with game exploits - if you can do it then you should. Strictly from the player's perspective, I don't differentiate between aspects of the gameplay intended to be there by the designer, and those that are not. Exploits are, in my opinion, is a crucial part of video games because it makes them more interesting and challenges expectations. I play Quake, for example, in which bunny-hopping, a physics exploit which helps the player gain speed, is an established part of the gameplay. It adds a whole other dimension to the game which was not there in the first place, and it is all the more exciting and interesting for it. I understand that savescumming is seen as stupid, but I maintain that if you can do it then you should. In fact I think in general it offers more opportunities for experimentation. You make a mistake, change something, and if that doesn't work, try it again. I think savegame restrictions can be equally as stupid as unrestricted savegames, if you have to go through entire sections of levels again because of a small, stupid mistake. Yet there are certain games with a higher focus on the use of proper mechanical or mental skills where I would agree with such a concept. I don't think players should be punished for making banal mistakes or for not having progressed their character enough, or something silly to that effect (not saying character progression can't be an interesting and meaningful skill in some cases, but it's just a vague example.)

[Cybernetic pig]

Oh no, not another discussion on exploits

There are good exploits and there are bad exploits. Quake bunny hopping was seen as a good exploit by the majority and in subsequent Quake/id releases the devs decided to intentionally keep bunny hopping as it increased the skill cap of the game and made battles more intense. Since Quake is not really about realism/simulation but all about skill this was perfect for all involved. Quake Bunny hopping had no real downsides, only upsides.

Bad exploits however (that's the majority of exploits) are usually recognised as such by players and developers alike, and are often patched thankfully. You and DDL seem to think developers/publishers spend money & time fixing them for no reason

[DDL]

I didn't mention Dark Souls anywhere in my post specifically because it DOES let you save anywhere, thus doesn't qualify as one of those stupid fucking games with no player-mediated saves. You can just stop playing any time you want, and rejoin any time you want. It doesn't penalise you for needing to stop playing at an unfortunate time.
Plus you can just back up your local save and the problem of saves deleting is gone anyway. Fuck spending two hours running to the same boss battle over and over.

Its games where stopping playing is literally "back to the last autosave point for you, fucko" that annoy me, especially when the autosave points are retardedly placed, which they often are. Either one every hour of play (gah) or at the other extreme, one every two minutes, so dying never feels punishing and frequently you want to replay a section coz it was really cool ("let's try doing that bit using different powers", etc) but YOU CAN'T BECAUSE THE STUPID GAME AUTOSAVED AFTER IT.

At one extreme you are basically unable to play the game any way but horrendously cautiously (because a single failure would lose you an hour of playtime) which means despite all the variety of playstyles available, you'll default to the one that has the least risk of death. Weighing up possibility of "doing something awesome" vs "dying and having to replay fucktons of tedious shit", I'll always end up doing nothing awesome, and resenting it.
And at the other extreme, you can't make saves because the game is making so many of them for you, so often, that everything loses meaning. You can't create any sense of danger for yourself if you tried. You're basically stuck in an involuntary savescum scenario.

Both of these problems can be easily and effortlessly circumvented by simply letting players decide for themselves.

People have done many "no save" playthroughs of DX, and that was something they did for themselves, even knowing that savegames are an option right fucking there in the menu. People needing a savescum-free environment can happily make one for themselves, there's no need to create an enforced one.


As for exploits, saying "there are bad exploits and there are good exploits" misses the point entirely. There are "things unintended by the designers". Whether they are good or bad, or even HOW good or bad they are, is not a flat boolean, nor is it universal. One man's ZOMG THIS BREAKS GAME 4 ME is another man's "oh this is awesome". I'd say quake bunnyhopping, for instance, is a fucking stupid exploit because it leads to everyone bouncing around like retards because it's...marginally faster. It's a competitive advantage that also looks fuckstupid. Like those games with poorly calculated coordinate movement where moving everywhere diagonally is sqrt(2) faster.

If you're (for instance) trying to create a dark dystopian futuristic deathmatch game with rocket launchers and mutant cyborgs and shit, having absolutely every player worth a damn running around by just waddling from side to side while making little rabbit jumps...because it's faster. I don't care if it requires skill, it looks fucking ridiculous. Even worse when you're playing some sort of gritty milsim call of warfare 8 shit and people ARE STILL DOING IT.

Conversely, I'd actually argue that rocket jumping, while also kinda stupid, is awesome because it's so wonderfully counter-intuitive.

It's not a strict "THIS IS BAD, THAT IS GOOD" situation, basically.

[Cybernetic pig]

an hour of play (gah)

I've never encountered such a game that forces you to go an hour or more without saving.

or at the other extreme, one every two minutes, so dying never feels punishing

Yes, there are plenty of these (modern games of course) and it sucks. An exception again being Dark Souls, which also saves every two minutes, it saves most choices made by the player, and doesn't allow you to revert on them, ever. Kill an NPC and fuck his questline? Tough, gone forever. Choice and consequence design enforced. It doesn't save locational & combat progress though, except souls acquired which can easily be lost by further fuck ups, which is also good.
With unlimited save/load all fucking players save scum, even unintentionally. Example: Talk to NPC a, choose dialogue option x, you die shortly after and your last save was before the NPC. what do you do? that's correct, you choose dialogue option y. Whilst you are at it you don't bother using your last LAM to blow a door as you found a vent afterwards that leads you inside with a JC SMASH and so on. Unlimited player-controlled save/load is shit. It's design is inconsistent with many a great PC classic.

Too many of you are too far gone to convince otherwise.

“The hardest thing to explain is the glaringly evident which everybody has decided not to see.”
― Ayn Rand

and frequently you want to replay a section coz it was really cool ("let's try doing that bit using different powers", etc) but YOU CAN'T BECAUSE THE STUPID GAME AUTOSAVED AFTER IT.

Yes, but as you said, all this bad stuff only applies to games with no player-mediated saving, or those with only one save slot that overwrites itself.
Just so you know, GMDX's optional hardcore mode features player-mediated saving plus multiple save slots. It's not as outstanding as DS's system, but it's the next best thing.

At one extreme you are basically unable to play the game any way but horrendously cautiously (because a single failure would lose you an hour of playtime) which means despite all the variety of playstyles available, you'll default to the one that has the least risk of death. Weighing up possibility of "doing something awesome" vs "dying and having to replay fucktons of tedious shit", I'll always end up doing nothing awesome, and resenting it.

In a survival horror specifically the above is exactly why restrictive saving is awesome. You should fucking FEAR death, which in turn makes you fear the monsters/experience as a whole. You should play cautiously. You should not be doing awesome stuff, but surviving.

I want to know which games have hour-long intervals between saving though

And at the other extreme, you can't make saves because the game is making so many of them for you, so often, that everything loses meaning. You can't create any sense of danger for yourself if you tried. You're basically stuck in an involuntary savescum scenario.

Yes, the worst. Allowing the players to save/load at will is far better than this.

Both of these problems can be easily and effortlessly circumvented by simply letting players decide for themselves.

GMDX does this. It also doesn't feature the problems you describe.

People have done many "no save" playthroughs of DX, and that was something they did for themselves, even knowing that savegames are an option right fucking there in the menu. People needing a savescum-free environment can happily make one for themselves.

No save runs are entirely different to the experience hardcore mode creates.

there's no need to create an enforced one

That's your shallow perspective.

There are "things unintended by the designers". Whether they are good or bad, or even HOW good or bad they are, is not a flat boolean, nor is it universal. One man's ZOMG THIS BREAKS GAME 4 ME is another man's "oh this is awesome".

Correct. Thankfully developers are for the most part in agreement that exploits that are against the spirit of the game and the experience they are trying to create should be abolished. Balance-ruining, immersion-breaking exploits or what have you, depends on what the devs were going for.
That's my mentality too.

I'd say quake bunnyhopping, for instance, is a fucking stupid exploit because it leads to everyone bouncing around like retards because it's...marginally faster. It's a competitive advantage that also looks fuckstupid.

And? You value immersion in Quake more than skill/gameplay?

If you're (for instance) trying to create a dark dystopian futuristic deathmatch game with rocket launchers and mutant cyborgs and shit, having absolutely every player worth a damn running around by just waddling from side to side while making little rabbit jumps...because it's faster. I don't care if it requires skill, it looks fucking ridiculous. Even worse when you're playing some sort of gritty milsim call of warfare 8 shit and people ARE STILL DOING IT.

Yes, you do

Conversely, I'd actually argue that rocket jumping, while also kinda stupid, is awesome because it's so wonderfully counter-intuitive.

What the hell!? It's just as stupid as bunny-hopping, but again increases the skill cap.

It's not a strict "THIS IS BAD, THAT IS GOOD" situation, basically.

[/quote]

Some exploits result in both positives and negatives, yes, but I'm talking about looking at it as a whole.
Bunny hopping: Higher skill cap. Looks stupid. One positive, one negative. According to most players and the devs themselves the positive result of this exploit is far more important in a MP arena shooter (that doesn't strive to be highly realistic) than the negative.

Now, in a game that somewhat strictly strives to simulate a real world scenario (exception to this strict design= good gameplay) and also strives to be balanced, I think the majority of Deus Ex's exploits should be abolished as they are all both counter simulational and counter balance.

[Cybernetic pig]

By the way, DDL, you wouldn't happen to know where I can find the code that unhides the ice pick/hack option when you upgrade computers to trained, would you? I'm struggling to find it.

[Jaedar]

Too many of you are too far gone to convince otherwise.

Dude, you realize you're arguing with 2 people(and maybe now me as well), and one of them basically agrees with you, right?


Personally, I don't mind save scumming being possible, but I'm sort of torn. On the one hand, player choice needs to have meaning and failing dice checks is part of the game, so it shouldn't be revertible. On the other, games are often poorly designed and a single bad roll/ poorly telegraphed choice can easily 'ruin' an entire playthrough. Then there's the small stuff like wasting valuable lockpicks in Deux Ex only to find the container only had 10mm ammo which you don't need.

I think what Sawyer is doing is certainly interesting, and I like that he's at least trying to advance cRPG design, even if I don't agree with some of it.

[Cybernetic pig]

Dude, you realize you're arguing with 2 people(and maybe now me as well), and one of them basically agrees with you, right?

I never implied otherwise. By "too many of you" I meant gamers as a whole. The majority have come accustomed to years of saving and loading anywhere. Arcade style no saving and 3 lives to beat the game was not ideal also but unlimited player-placed checkpoints is incompatible with many common game rules.

Then there's the small stuff like wasting valuable lockpicks in Deux Ex only to find the container only had 10mm ammo which you don't need.
.

Yes, I tried to cut down on the number of times this happened. I even considered going over the maps redoing the majority of movers to be more revealing. Well, not the majority, but all those little grey footlockers, I was going to give them a glass & metal lid rather than just metal. Invisible War did this mind you.

Anyway further updates on GMDX coming soon:

-New SFX such as unique sounds for activating/deactivating some augs (vanilla only cloak had unique SFX).
-All weapons can be heard at further ranges (i.e enemies 10 meters away don't have silent guns).
-Further increased enemy reaction times to sound events.
-Cameras give different signals when they spot a corpse.
-Cameras no longer trigger an alarm when they spot a rat carcass. doh.
-increased the default # of save slots for hardcore mode.
-Flares last/burn longer.
-Military bots and patrol bots can be heard at longer ranges (i.e stomping sound).
-Even more changes to gore
-increased chances that JC will gib to explosives.
-Fragments of all types last a bit longer.
-Further minor weaponry edits.
-Shotguns wielded by enemies give off a tracer effect like in Human Revolution.
-Turrets are only hackable via computers at hacking master skill.
-Got rid of the vanilla shotgun effect of the DTS so it can pass damage threshold checks more accurately.
-Increased swimming skill costs a touch.

Map stuff too, and more to come. Still looking for playtesters, this is a fucking joke.

[Jaedar]

Still looking for playtesters, this is a fucking joke.

I'm downloading v6 now, together with latest hdtp beta I could find and new vision. I have no idea where my previous deus ex install went. Swallowed by the warp, looks like.

Does this stuff work with steam deus ex or should I use cd version? Steam would prob make it easier to post screenshots, which is why I'm hoping it works.

[Cybernetic pig]

Steam should work fine.

Follow the installation guide closely, install to ProgramFiles(86x)\Steam\Steamapps\Common\DeusEx and all should be fine.

All feedback will be appreciated.

Would you mind letting me know when you are set up so I can send you some updates?

[Jaedar]

Would you mind letting me know when you are set up so I can send you some updates?

Right, I got everything set up I think.

Already spotted an error

http://cloud-4.steampowered.com/ugc/324 ... 92AEFB677/

There were 2 crates here, but one of them was empty? not sure if bug.
http://cloud-2.steampowered.com/ugc/324 ... 63B649CCB/

Anyway, then I died because I forgot to reload and forgot what the button for it was. Also, stealthed security bot was mean. I seem to recall you saying something about hacking being harder at low skill levels, but I could tell no difference hacking the unatco bunker.

[Cybernetic pig]

Right, I got everything set up I think.

expect a PM very shortly.

Already spotted an error

http://cloud-4.steampowered.com/ugc/324 ... 92AEFB677/

That's your error

Load the game via the desktop start menu or the optional shortcut that the installer asked if you wanted to install.

There were 2 crates here, but one of them was empty? not sure if bug.
http://cloud-2.steampowered.com/ugc/324 ... 63B649CCB/

You'll occasionally come across empty crates. I think it's Kaplan or Shannon stealing again :p
GMDX features less resources than vanilla so sometimes a crate doesn't have anything. But why would all crates have something in them anyhow? Consider it like Morrowind or Fallout where you search a container and sometimes nothing is in it.

Also, stealthed security bot was mean.

This is an error (fixed as you'll see when I send you the files), it's not meant to be cloaked until combat.

I seem to recall you saying something about hacking being harder at low skill levels, but I could tell no difference hacking the unatco bunker.

It's not harder, just a die roll that if failed locks you out of the terminal temporarily, sounds an alarm and drains your bioelectricity.

Trained= 50% chance of initial detection
Advanced= 25% chance of initial detection
Master= Undetectable