hostage situations

[Galaddin]

there are going to be hostage situation maps in inf 3.0 right?
if they're going to be anything like the ones in counterstrike, i have a suggestion to make; terrorists can only kill hostages if a ct fires upon one of them and that terrorist who gets shot manages to say something along the lines of "we're under attack"... then the terrorists can start executing hostages without any penalties and consequently if x number of hostages get killed, the ct's lose...

just a suggestion

 

[Bad.Mojo]

Its really very simply why the terrorists would not want to kill hostages: Hostages make good shields.

The Anti-Terrorist squad is not going to fire if there's a risk of killing a hostage. Sure, I guess the Terrorists could go blow away all the hostages they want, but the ATs shouldn't be penalized for it, its not their fault the terrorists are blood thirsty psychopaths, and in that case the ATs are free to act with impunity and take down all the bad-asses. The point of INF is to think, not act so damn hastily. The terrorists need to take out their enemies, right? But they are barricaded and need to cover multiple breach points. So, what do they do? Use innocent by standers as a bullet proof flesh vest. And life is good.

 

[Twinkacide]

But people are stupid. And like ruining things. So you're going to run into terrorists who just kill all the hostages for the hell of it. It's the same mentatlity that creates TKs. Point is, you need some way to prevent the Grief Player from screwing up the game for everyone else, either by preventing them from taking the action or making their action irrevant.

I'm not sure the idea of making the CTs automatically lose when all the hostages are killed is a great one though. All they'd have to do with the added requirement of having to notify the teammates is run into battle mashing a key bound to say the attack phrase. Then the guy sitting in the hostage room hoses the hostages, CTs lose. Repeat. Doesn't sound right to me.

 

[-Lost-]

but infiltration won't have hostages in it as far as i know. it's a military conversion, not a counter-terrorism one.

Lost

 

[TaBu[NiW]]

Quote from the Roadmap:
Release Mission Class- Place a character or characters in a level and tie them to the Release Mission Class and designate them as hostages or enemy VIP you wish to capture. Character will be bot controlled and will react specifically to what's going on around them. Specify in the mission class what % must make it to a certain area alive. They will follow the player closest to them within a certain distance before they start to wander randomly or hide for shelter.
-----

TaBu[NiW]

 

[Warren]

This is going to be one of the handful of difficult options to include. I do want to remind people of the "get out of jail free" card we placed at the bottom of the roadmap. /infopop/emoticons\icon_wink.gif The fact of the matter is, it's a game, which means people aren't really going to care who the hostages are, what the aftermath of their actions are, if people know what their cause is, if they'll be made a martyr, if their picture will be all over the news the next day, ... what we're doing here is placing relatively sane people (you guys, and I use that term loosely) into the role of a terrorist mind where the only thing that matters in the end is points and if you survive. Adding the element of hostages in a game between human interactivity is like playing russian roulette. With bots, you know they are programmed to give a damn. A normal person will usually take one of two roads- I care only about getting those CT units, or I care about lasting the duration of the round with as many hostages still alive so I can get more points than the other team. We have to find ways to make it appealing to even care if those hostages live. Ending a game simply because the terrorists kill all the hostages leaves SO many problems open. For starters- if the terrorist team is already winning by a lot of points, then killing the hostages and taking a small "point cut" for that round to win a game would be worthless. Making the terrorists unable to kill hostages would be pretty damn unrealistic.

I think it would work best if the terrorists have to actually protect someone, or visa versa. If the target of your destruction is already in your grasp- in a game that means game over most of the time. You will always have that guy who wants to ruin the game for others. We will of course be looking into a simple voting system for people to kick/ban players or change maps on the fly, but that doesn't make the game any more fun. We'll be considering options, but just keep in mind this has to be worth playing and it has to be fairly realistic.

Another option I just thought of is, if we made bot ai for Inf good enough, make anti-terrorist missions one sided- ie, the terrorists and hostages are all bot controlled. Everyone who enters the game for that round are CT players and must capture those hostages and/or kill all the terrorists. Then we have more control over how the terrorists act in given sitations. Maybe at a certain point if they "feel" they are comprimised, they'll go looking for hostages to kill. Or maybe we just make it so they don't have that 'feature.'.. or maybe an optional skill level. This style of play might be beneficial for everyone. I could imagine on a Bastard' O map like BridgeTooFar, a 16 man CT team would rock! Anyway, it's early enough in the game that we can still look for some good ways to make the whole CT/T style missions work well.

------------------
Warren
Project Coordinator
i n f i l t r a t i o n
http://www.planetunreal.com/infiltration

Questions? Are you a FNG? Check out our Roadmap.
Then check out our FAQ.

 

[Bad.Mojo]

While I certainly like the idea of bot controlled (I have played with the following scenario - Take all of the Army skins, and make one of them you, and then take the three male warbots and make them an all bot enemy team on high accuracy/strafing/berserk attack - it should add up to 11 bots or so, I can't remember cause I'm drunk, but if you're Malcom - the one with the beret [the commander] then its all good, and a very, very hard scenario indeed) it is indeed very difficult. However, the CTs should not be responsible for the blood lust of a terrorist. If a really CT squad were to come across a group of terrorist freely executing hostages, their sole purpose would be to take those terrorists down, before they could execute any more hostages. Thus, it is my opinion that to enforce strategic gameplay, the CTs should not be responsible for hostage's lives, because, frankly, IRL, they are not. Rather, they should be there solely to neutralize the situation. Of course, the terrorists would want to keep the hostages, as they are their bargaining chips. In game, they would act as their shields. IRL, a CT is not allowed to eliminate a terrorist unless their weapon is at high ready, or they are posing a direct threat to a hostage or CT. My question at this point (as drunken as it may be) is is there any way to implement such a thing in INF? Otherwise, can we safely assume that hostages act as pawns and only pawns,in such a scenario? If a CT hears "hostage down" it is their duty to eliminate any and all terror threats to the hostages, and thus "win" the mission. I think that would be the best scenario. The hostages play the parts as "props" in the mission, and as thus do not directly effect the terrorists or counter terrorists in any way other than how they react to certain threats (do they have a shield? do they act with impunity? etc., etc.)