Game News Vampire Bloodlines True Patch ver.4.02AT

[Wesp5]

Re: ....

This is not the Big War that Wesp has trumped it up to be.

I suppose that it's quite possible that Wesp trumped up a war, but in this thread I think that you managed to wage that war before he even was here.

I can assure you that it never was me that started any fighting .

Are you referring to stuff like lowered skill requisites for certain dialogue options and such? And removing the clan requirements for certain quests and extra rewards?

I think I lowered one dialogue condition for one Giovanni from Persuasion 9 to 8, one door difficulty from 11 to 10 (because I don't think 11 exists in the PnP rules) and made the former Nosferatu only CD quest available to all clans because Malkavian lines were already in the game. That's about all that I can remember right now.

That's not really true . Her dialogue file includes some unused dialogue which shows that Troika intended her to help you during the endgame temple fight because "My sword is still angry."! I restored that plot in the latest patch 3.5 and hid the Ra blade in the Fu Labs buildings instead...

Sounds like a cool idea. But won't the poor girl just die, even before the you-know-what-with-the-things?

I had no problems keeping her alive in the outer Temple level and she will not follow you inside.

But for that to happen I had to wring the necks of some goons, which apparently disqualified me for the bonus, since it was given for not killing anyone. Which makes no sense, because a) they're all going to get blown up anyway and b) killing them is encouraged by everyone.

Sorry, that's the way it's demanded but I was already made aware of this and in the recent patches added a hint to the quest log that not killing anyone would be rewarded!

See, in good old fashioned FPS spirit I reassigned my SPACE key to let me interact with stuff. Because finding E all the time was too much work for something I do that often. That's when I discovered my inability to operate containers: SPACE appeared to be hardcoded to close them.

This is just a random bug that can be circumvented as described in the patch readme by right clicking on any object inside the container. After that everything works fine and I myself use SPACE for "use" all the time too !

 

[mathboy]

Who made version 2.2?

# Included the unused histories so that each clan has seven plus none.
# Swapped trouble making history conditions with similar limitations.
# Provided twenty places for Malkavian voice whispers during dialogue.
# Restored welcome lines of Bertram including xp gain and log update.
# You will loose a humanity point for making Ash exchange his clothes.
# Fixed graphics of baton, VV photo, Megahurtz card and Gary's tapes.
# Restored xp gain for entering the Gallery Noir by befriending Chunk.
# Made Bruno attack on lockpicking the Giovanni Mansion meeting-room.
# Removed respawning at Lotus Blossom, Temple, Ventrue and Giovanni's.
# You will loose humanity for taking money after solving Tawni quest.
# Making love to Jeanette is now possible regardless of the storyline.
# Moved Giovanni loading tips up and added lost lines of the sweeper.
# Removed Gallery Noir key after use and made several items droppable.
# Lowered additional damage done by all weapons using the zoom modus.
# Renamed flaming crossbow to Kuei-jin and lowered the bow accuracies.

 

[RGE]

Re: ....

I think I lowered one dialogue condition for one Giovanni from Persuasion 9 to 8, one door difficulty from 11 to 10 (because I don't think 11 exists in the PnP rules) and made the former Nosferatu only CD quest available to all clans because Malkavian lines were already in the game. That's about all that I can remember right now.

I think I remembered lots of other changes hinted at or mentioned, such as the fae charm given by Isaac (was it ever supposed to only go to a Toreador?) and making it easier to mediate between the Asylum sisters, and possibly also to sleep with Jeanette. Though perhaps that was just some forumites at some game forum who thought that the Asylum-stuff was harder than it really was.

I had no problems keeping her alive in the outer Temple level and she will not follow you inside.

Ah, that takes care of that. And she still won't help out by donating some of her juicy demonhunter blood? Just asking... :wink:

Sorry, that's the way it's demanded but I was already made aware of this and in the recent patches added a hint to the quest log that not killing anyone would be rewarded!

Demanded? By someone, or by the game? Because I would've thought that the parking garage method would've worked just fine, since that allows at least one guard to be killed while sneaking down. Though, given that he is later respawned as a corpse, I suppose that may be a big, fat exception.

This is just a random bug that can be circumvented as described in the patch readme by right clicking on any object inside the container. After that everything works fine and I myself use SPACE for "use" all the time too !

Uh... when do I do that? While not using the SPACE key to open the container? I think that when I tried it, I simply exchanged the E key for SPACE and never assigned a secondary key. So I couldn't click on any items in the container, because it'd close as soon as I opened it, and at the time I didn't have another way of opening it. Not that it matters anymore, because I'm not going back to the untrustworthy, unreliable SPACE key made of FAIL.

 

[Wesp5]

Re: ....

I think I remembered lots of other changes hinted at or mentioned, such as the fae charm given by Isaac (was it ever supposed to only go to a Toreador?) and making it easier to mediate between the Asylum sisters, and possibly also to sleep with Jeanette.

The fae charm was already done by Dan Upright in his patch 0.4 and I think it was indeed intended to go to everyone. Mediating between the Asylum sisters got in fact very much more difficult because RobinHood70 restored an unused variable tracking all your responses to them and I lowered that condition afterwards only until it worked out.

Regarding Jeanette you and mathboy are right that this indeed goes a little bit far but she hints to it all over the place and I didn't like that this cool scene couldn't be experienced when you did everything right. A similar change was done to Larry's quest which could just too easily be missed and Troika did the same in their own patches when needed, I cite the 1.2 readme "- Modified E dialog so that it is easier to receive the "Thinned Blood" quest."

Demanded? By someone, or by the game?

By the game, by Troika, it's in the level. Contrary to what Tessera says I don't just change anything on a whimp .

Uh... when do I do that? While not using the SPACE key to open the container?

Normally the container autocloses when selecting an object so I do this with the right mouse button instead.

 

[oceanclub]

Courtesy

Imagine my surprise today when, doing a google related to Bloodlines, I stumbled across details of this "true" patch. "Hmm", I wondered, "I wonder what ol' Werner makes of this!" I decided to download the patch just to see what was different about it, and in the meantime, wrote a posting on comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action & .rpg.

You see, my interest is the fact that when Werner mentioned the ongoing patches on the newsgroup, I volunteered to fix the dialog files, the multitude of typoes, grammar errors and inconstencies one of my big bugbears and something which lessened my enjoyment of the game. If I'd known exactly how much it would have turned out to me, I mightn't have necessarily have stuck my hand up so quickly. In fact, I actually learned how to use "grep" simply because of the need to perform text functions on the files, in the process, turning up lots of mispelled variables that, when fixed, fixed actual gameplay.

Anyway, it was fun, Werner was a great guy to work with, I've sometimes been tempted to go back and check the dialog files again to see if I could do any more fixes, and then I remember I'm married with a job and can't do all-nighters any more. Myself and Werner still occasionally bicker online about the game (to him, it's the fount of all goodness; to me, it's a great game which unfortunately is fatally technically flawed, and which turns into an unsatisfying bash-fest at the end).

So a patch has appeared on the Internet, without my knowledge, containing a lot of my blood, swear and tears, and nary a mention was made to me of it. Not even a little thank-you email, or a "mind if we use all your work, Paul?" email.

I've been working on a small mod for Oblivion lately, for which I used some stock graphics around the web. I made sure to contact every single person involved and get their explicit permissions for each piece; sometimes, this involved following some convoluted email/web trails.

These guys had MY NAME and didn't even bother to contact me.

I'm pissed. Nay, pissed is an understatement.

P.

 

[Fez]

Oops, plagiarism?

Again.

This gets better and better.

 

[sabishii]

I'm returning to post one final rebuttal to this nonsense... and then I'm going to stop indulging Wesp's paranoia. Wesp has full access to my board and if he wants to hash this out with us directly, then he certainly has that option. I did have to suspend him once for two weeks, mainly because he was repeatedly violating the forum rules by launching far too many personal attacks. Hopefully, he has learned to stop doing that by now.

Why would you ban someone for too many personal attacks? Because you can't defend against them, no doubt.

 

[mister lamat]

this has been a stellar thread. most enjoyable. glad i could play my part.

 

[Woetohice]

__

 

[Fez]

I hope you are mature enough to enjoy the true roleplaying aspects of that porn.

 

[galsiah]

Re: ....

But for that to happen I had to wring the necks of some goons, which apparently disqualified me for the bonus, since it was given for not killing anyone. Which makes no sense, because a) they're all going to get blown up anyway and b) killing them is encouraged by everyone.

Sorry, that's the way it's demanded but I was already made aware of this and in the recent patches added a hint to the quest log that not killing anyone would be rewarded!

I second the opinion that whether it's demanded/in the game/... or not, a bonus for not killing on this quest is utterly absurd.
If anything, Tung specifically encourages a violent approach (or at least does nothing to discourage it). And all the guys in the warehouse are going to be killed by the explosives anyway.

You could argue that it makes sense to reward not killing guards in the surrounding areas (around the trains etc.), but rewarding non-violence in the warehouse is daft. It just makes it seem like an arbitrary action game challenge - detracting from the coherence of the game world.
You say you've made some changes in order to improve consistency/coherence. This would be a good candidate for that IMO. It's no big problem of course - but it is daft.

I'm not sure about some of the reduced requirements (not that I've come across many so far). In one sense it detracts from replay value, but I wouldn't particularly say that Bloodlines has an amazing amount of replay value in the first place. For an essentially linear game, it's got quite a bit - but it's still an essentially linear (in high-level structure), non-sandbox game. Is it reasonable to expect that most players will play through Bloodlines even five times? I doubt it. Twice or three times perhaps, but hardly anyone will exceed that. I think it's reasonable to work on that basis, and allow most content to be accessible in a few playthroughs.

If we were talking about a game which emphasized diversity/non-linearity/openness, and therefore replayability, in every aspect of its design, I'd argue differently. Bloodlines isn't such a game. It's got good replayability for an essentially linear game - nothing more.
Making patching/modding decisions on the expectation of an unrealistic number of playthroughs makes little sense.

 

[Drakron]

It goes both ways ...

If you reward no killing then the players will play the game without killing, if its the opposite then its as bad.

In the warehouse case I think the idea was "no detection" until he bomb is set, there are similar XP bonus awards and its hard to say what Troika really intended.

 

[Crichton]

By the game, by Troika, it's in the level. Contrary to what Tessera says I don't just change anything on a whimp Wink.

I can understand anyone being upset about not being credited for their work, but Wesp5, as much as I appreciate your bug fixes, I don't care if these "true patch" guys stole your work, stole your good name, got down with your girlfriend and maxed out your credit cards, if it gets me those wonderful bug fixes without all the bullshit quest/weapon/placement changes that you put in, I love it.

 

[RGE]

Re: ....

... but she hints to it all over the place and I didn't like that this cool scene couldn't be experienced when you did everything right.

But it is wrong. You can't enjoy such things if you want to stay pure and right!

A similar change was done to Larry's quest which could just too easily be missed ...

Yeah, I would've missed that one until reading about having to buy a weapon. Because the fireaxe isn't very good, and the automatic pistol seemed too expensive at the time (and someone is bound to drop one sooner or later).

... and Troika did the same in their own patches when needed, I cite the 1.2 readme "- Modified E dialog so that it is easier to receive the "Thinned Blood" quest."

Yeah, that "E" guy. When that fortune teller said his name while telling me how I should go around and ask people stuff to see if they want me to do anything, I thought that she meant that I should ask people "E", as in the "use" key. Easy for me to believe after the 4th wall breaking "whether you win or not is not important, it's whether you bought the game" line. Which I found funny.

By the game, by Troika, it's in the level. Contrary to what Tessera says I don't just change anything on a whimp .

No? You lie!

So was it always there then, or did you activate it? Perhaps they saw the wisdom of deactivating that feature? Well, one could hope.

Looks like something was done with it early on:

v0.4
-----
bonus xp for completing warehouse quest without killing should be awarded

Normally the container autocloses when selecting an object so I do this with the right mouse button instead.

Ah, I see. Not quite the same bug then.

 

[Wesp5]

Re: ....

... but she hints to it all over the place and I didn't like that this cool scene couldn't be experienced when you did everything right.

But it is wrong. You can't enjoy such things if you want to stay pure and right!

Hmmm, but you do it before you set everything right !

Yeah, I would've missed that one until reading about having to buy a weapon. Because the fireaxe isn't very good, and the automatic pistol seemed too expensive at the time (and someone is bound to drop one sooner or later).

That was the reason I changed it. After all his line for the quest is ambiguous enough as well and he should be able to notice the weapons you carry or the ammo you buy.

So was it always there then, or did you activate it? Perhaps they saw the wisdom of deactivating that feature? Well, one could hope.

Looks like something was done with it early on:

v0.4
-----
bonus xp for completing warehouse quest without killing should be awarded

Dan probably just provided missing xps because in the level itself the kills are actually counted. Although I don't know if they are ever checked afterwards. Still all of you may be right regarding the result. Although it will probably piss off the guy here who likes things unchanged , I will try to alter the bonus to that of the garage one, e.g. stealth until the bomb is planted and then it doesn't matter. But this will require quite some work.

 

[galsiah]

Re: ....

I will try to alter the bonus to that of the garage one, e.g. stealth until the bomb is planted and then it doesn't matter. But this will require quite some work.

That's certainly better than the current bonus, but I'd still prefer bonuses to be awarded for sensible game-world reasons.
Why is it better to plant it through stealth than to go in fighting? On a purely pragmatic level, it can often make sense to sweep through killing everyone you see - stealthily if possible -, rather than sneaking past and risking a fight with 10 to 1 odds if you are discovered. If it is somehow better, does the player have a reason to think that's the preferable option beforehand? [IIRC all the "I hope no-one saw you do it." stuff comes afterwards (e.g. Beckett conversation)]

If there's some indication I missed implying that a stealthy approach would e.g. keep the Sabbat off your tail, then fair enough (although it's hard to see how systematic extermination - noisy or otherwise - would tip anyone off). If not, then I'm not sure how it makes sense to grant extra experience for one method. Without the bonus XP, the level presents a relatively wide choice of options. With the XP you restrict pragmatic players to a narrow set of approaches.
Where there really is some good in-game reason to prefer one method over another, there's little wrong with granting extra XP (though the player should have ample up-front opportunity to see how this method might be preferable). I don't really see that this applies here.

Tung says that the humans there, "know the score", and are almost certainly looking to become the next wave of Sabbat. Wiping them out seems humanity neutral, in line with the masquerade and in line with Camarilla objectives. I don't recall any real clue that being noisy about it would be a bad thing.

The whole "stealth/non-violence = more XP" thing seems contrived and gamey without reasonable justification.

In fact, I'd say that: "entering stealthily, planting the explosives, then being seen leaving", is one of the worst outcomes (whether it works well for plot purposes or not). I'd say that the situation to aim for is:
(1) No-one that saw you remains alive.
(2) As many Sabbat wannabe's / potential masquerade violators killed as possible.

Killing the lot of them works; sneaking in and out gets you 1 out of 2. Sneaking in then running like hell fails on both counts.

 

[Wesp5]

Re: ....

I will try to alter the bonus to that of the garage one, e.g. stealth until the bomb is planted and then it doesn't matter. But this will require quite some work.

That's certainly better than the current bonus, but I'd still prefer bonuses to be awarded for sensible game-world reasons.

I understand your point but my view on things is that sometimes you just get the xp for doing something that would provide more experience because it is more work. It's similar e.g. to Romeros quest. Defending the graveyard is more difficult than bringing a girl so you get more xp and again you wouldn't know that you missed out on any...

 

[galsiah]

Re: ....

I understand your point but my view on things is that sometimes you just get the xp for doing something that would provide more experience because it is more work. It's similar e.g. to Romeros quest. Defending the graveyard is more difficult than bringing a girl so you get more xp and again you wouldn't know that you missed out on any...

Sure - but there's a difference between completing a task that's essentially difficult (defending graveyard), and completing a moderate task in a pointlessly difficult manner (sneaking into warehouse). In the first case you've helped out by completing a truly difficult challenge; in the second case you're simply making things harder for yourself for no good game-world reason.
I don't expect extra experience for sneaking from one end of main street to the other, however hard it might be - because it's pointless. Similarly, the extra difficulty of sneaking into the warehouse, then running out, is pointless (unless there's some credible reason for it to be useful). Helping Romero out by guarding the graveyard is worthwhile difficulty - it involves completing an essentially harder task, to allow Romero the easier course. Your efforts make a difference to the world, and are rewarded. The same doesn't apply to the warehouse.

Of course this specific instance isn't too important either way, but I think the principle is. Solving arbitrary, difficult problems with no game world importance shouldn't get the player XP. It simply makes no sense - how is he to know that you aren't about to award 10 XP for doing a quest in some arbitrarily foolish manner? He can't use good sense as a guide, once you start giving out rewards for nonsensical challenges.
The future actions of a player will be influenced by the reward structure you present early in the game. If he happens to choose some path which gets him XP for no good game-world reason, he's going to favour similar paths in future, in the hope of gaining more XP. This has everything to do with meta-gaming, and nothing to do with roleplaying / good sense / game world coherence.

By rewarding only those things which produce some worthwhile game-world outcome, you'd encourage the player to think in terms of the game-world - not in terms of arbitrary meta-games. It's always debatable which outcomes should merit the most XP of course. However, any two courses of action with essentially identical outcomes, ought to grant the same XP reward. Anything else encourages meta-gaming after any player comes across the first instance of such silliness.

Any player which gets the nonsensical reward is encouraged to meta-game (bad thing).
Any player who does not get the nonsensical reward is unaffected by its inclusion.

On balance you have a negative effect on the experience of most players (presuming you're aiming at players who like coherent, responsive worlds, rather than arbitrary meta-gaming).

[[I'd say that a game design which tends to focus the player on XP acquisition to such an extent is flawed in the first place, but that's a different matter.]]

 

[Wesp5]

Re: ....

Sure - but there's a difference between completing a task that's essentially difficult (defending graveyard), and completing a moderate task in a pointlessly difficult manner (sneaking into warehouse).

But that it the way Troika did it with Larry's Traffik quest too. I can't remember a reason for not being seen on that one either besides that both quests have some kind of training effect to improve the players sneaking ability.

 

[galsiah]

Re: ....

But that it the way Troika did it with Larry's Traffik quest too. I can't remember a reason for not being seen on that one either besides that both quests have some kind of training effect to improve the players sneaking ability.

If true, then Troika suck to an extent too.
The main importance is the effect on the player. If he's given specific instructions/clues that e.g. "If you can get in there without being seen, you might even learn something.", then it's fair enough: he's only going to try similar stuff in future when instructed somehow, and with some game-world significance/connection.

However, if (IIRC) the player is told something like "You might want some extra hardware if you're going in all guns blazing.", then it makes little sense to reward stealth - unless there's some reason to think that it's beneficial in game-world terms.
I'd say that Larry's quest is slightly more reasonable - since perhaps it makes sense that non-violence would be preferable from a humanity/masquerade perspective (since the guards don't know about vampires, and aren't going to die anyway).

However, I think that this ought to be indicated to the player if it's the case - e.g. with an "Even in combat areas it's preferable to avoid detection / needless killing." or something similar.

I don't see how the "some kind of training effect to improve the players sneaking ability", applies. For a start, it's not a use-based skill system - XP is rewarded for quest completion / tangible game-world implications. Rewarding occasional XP with a use-based rationale doesn't really make sense.
Second, there's as much reason to expect that the player character would learn something (for melee/strength/firearms/dodge...) from going in fighting. Why does sneaking lead to learning, and fighting not? It doesn't make sense.

If anything I'd say that Larry's dialogue encourages an all-guns-blazing approach. He certainly doesn't discourage it. His statement that you might want to buy more hardware, if anything implies that fighting through is the harder option. Where's the rationale for rewarding difficulty in one case, and ease in another?


In any case, the main point is the effect such rewards will have on the player's experience of the game. So long as he has some in-game reason to expect that a certain outcome/action is rewarded differently, then he can make future decisions based on game-world decisions alone (i.e. in-character / roleplaying). If he has no in-game reason to expect that the action would be rewarded differently, he'll start to make future decisions on non-game-world basis - e.g. "This game rewards stealth - I'll favour stealth.", "This game rewards non-violence - I won't kill."... (i.e. out-of-character decisions / meta-gaming).

The fact that Troika might sometimes have made this error doesn't make it less of an error. Troika weren't perfect. It's not like it's hard to fix - you can either remove the reward or justify it to the player in game-world terms. Justification's clearly harder from your perspective, since you can't alter the voice acting.

Again, it's the principle I'm mainly objecting to - the specific instances aren't too important. The most important design implication of any reward is the gameplay incentives it creates for the player. Any reward without game-world justification incentivizes meta-gaming. Where the aim is to present a coherent, involving world, this is EVIL.

 

[Wesp5]

Re: ....

it makes sense that non-violence would be preferable from a humanity/masquerade perspective

I think that's the right reasoning and I would apply it to all of the game. Jack states these two issues already in the tutorial: not giving in to the beast and keeping the Masquerade. They are valid for the warehouse as well as the parking garage regardless of what the actual quest giver demands from you and I did hint to the hidden bonus in the quest log.

 

[galsiah]

Re: ....

They are valid for the warehouse as well as the parking garage regardless of what the actual quest giver demands from you and I did hint to the hidden bonus in the quest log.

For the parking garage it makes some sense, sure - and, to be fair, there's little reason for Larry to tell you to adopt a stealthy approach, since he's not aware of the masquerade/humanity implications.

I guess my main objection is lack of game-world consistency: how is it ok to run around a combat area, using a load of masquerade-violating disciplines in plain sight, and leaving witnesses alive? The ability to do that without penalty indicates fairly strongly that masquerade considerations don't apply at all in combat areas. In that case, why does simply getting noticed / killing someone result in a drop in XP?
It just seems odd to allow the most blatant violations of the masquerade without real consequence, yet quibble about detection/violence - even where it doesn't violate the masquerade.

I'd probably prefer it if leaving any witnesses of masquerade violating acts alive in combat areas were a masquerade violation. I realize that's not something you can reasonably change in a patch (whether or not it's technically possible), but it would make for a more consistent game reality. If that were the case, I'd find all the rewards for stealth/non-violence much more in keeping with the setting.


For the warehouse, though, the same doesn't apply - again, the guys there are specifically stated to "know the score" (so killing them is good for the masquerade), and to be working for the Sabbat / aspiring Sabbat candidates - so killing them is good all around, and hardly a cause for concern on the humanity front.
Getting in and out without being seen makes good sense as a preferable solution. Getting in stealthily, then running like hell, has no real gain as far as I can see.

 

[Wesp5]

Re: ....

so killing them is good all around, and hardly a cause for concern on the humanity front.

But I thought that any unnecessary killing always brings you closer to the beast or at least it could be interpreted that way.

Getting in and out without being seen makes good sense as a preferable solution. Getting in stealthily, then running like hell, has no real gain as far as I can see.

Well, I don't know if it's even possible to sneak your way out without getting blown to pieces . But sneaking in has one big advantage namely that some additional Sabbat vampires will not appear at all thus making it easier to leave. Think about not enough time to alert the powerful backup...

 

[Elwro]

You're explicitly told to try and not kill anyone at the warehouse, iirc. (I forgot the reasons, though.) This motivates sneaking, and I always thought it was quite an easy level compared to e.g. the Elisabeth Dune.

 

[psycojester]

You're explicitly told to try and not kill anyone at the warehouse, iirc.

No Tung specifically mentions that the humans guarding the warehouse know the score and are on their way to becoming sabbat shovel heads so feel free to kill em