Elusive Target #18 The Chameleon 01.13.2017 (13.01.2017)


#459

I don’t think that “only explosion kill” would be wise, everybody would be just using FE:s once again.


#460

I don’t think it will - they would say DO NOT PACIFY THE TARGET like they did on that other Elusive Target where you couldn’t hurt the guy, if that was a fail condition.

If you pacify him you just lure a guard to wake him up and lose 20k on the body found rating. Or more likely, just restart the mission.


#461

If you pacify a target and then proceed to dump his body from a fatal height, it counts as an accident kill. They fixed that some time ago.


#462

That would be the ultimate IOI troll to HMF though, wouldn’t it? Launch an ET that was explosion only and watch the community literally explode. You’d have hundreds of 16-second YouTube run-throughs pile up while everyone else is baffled about how to place an explosive with a controller.


#463

I do too. Remember that scene in Grosse Pointe Blank when they freak out at Martin Blanke because he was supposed to make the victim look like a heart attack and instead it all went wrong and he had to shoot him in the head?

We do specific kill conditions in Contracts mode all the time which is much more restrictive than this - wear a certain disguise and use this loud weapon. Why is this any different?

I would think IRL most contracts would come with specific kill conditions…


#464

This belongs here.



#465

There was a Keller story by Lawrence Block where he has to go kill this guy, but he has to make it look like an accident to get paid. He flies across the country (to Oregon, as I recall).

So, after poking around a bit, it turns out the guy actually ordered the hit on himself because he has inoperable cancer. Insurance thing. Keller likes the guy. Understands his predicament. Ultimately kills him and flies back to New York.


#466

Considering how many non explosive accidents are on the map, it should not be an issue. The target will undoubtedly find his way to some of them. The fun part for me will be making him go where I want him to.

Maybe this will force some players to come up with more creative approaches than fire extinguishers. And maybe we will see a little more variety at the top of the leaderboards. I am fine with this restriction.

It was not a fail condition for Bangkok. So that is irrelevant. And I doubt this will be a reoccurring theme for ETs. Don’t worry about it. There will be plenty of reasonable ways to kill him.

ps. Bangkok has toilets. Lamps. An oil barrel which is not explosive (even if ignited with an explosion). and don’t forget coconuts. Although I used an explosion to knock them down, it was a non explosive accident.


#467

I wonder why the ET is called the Chameleon, and what is a guy like himself doing in the militia camp? Maybe he is known for changing how he looks, blending in?


#468

I meant to say, “And, of course, the map/route makes a difference” In the last ET his route was so restricted that a push was the only non-@cjgarof accident kill viable for most players. The Colorado map, on the other hand, is littered with accidents just waiting to happen. Having decided to go with this accident restriction, it would be great if IOI have designed a route that is borderline hilarious: pausing unnecessarily long at a balcony edge, examining the toilet, checking out the exhaust system under the car, stopping for a cigarette next to an oil tank and saying something like, “You know, this habit is going to be the death of me”, and so on.


#469

It’s counts as Accident: Fire, so i think it’s fine.


#470

I kind of feel like this is on @IOI here TBH, they have not made it clear at all. And given that many casual players will have used lethal poison and seen NPCs react - and their scoreboard react - as if it is an accident, it’s a simple mistake to make.

I think for the briefing on this one, they should simply say YOU CANNOT USE LETHAL POISON TO ELIMINATE THE TARGET 47 in the briefing, just like in the other one in Sapienza the other day they said NO HARM CAN COME TO THIS GUY etc. Like, really be obvious about it, because otherwise you know a bunch of upset people will just post about how they poisoned his food and how unclear it was in the briefing.

People just want a fair stab at these things and to feel like the rules of engagement are clear, which is totally understandable.


#471

Thanks to you, he has made a video correcting his mistake.


#472

He didn’t make a mistake in his first video to be fair. It’s just that some people were misunderstandig it


#473

Why are so many people worried about this ET? It’s only the Colorado map with a few restrictions :smiley:


#474

Not worried, dissapointed. Also not a few restrictions, but alot


#476

Nope, he said in relation to bodies found it counts as an accident, which is correct. He also said that the guards lingering over the poisoned body will say it’s an accident ingame, which they do.

He did not say anything that isn’t correct


#477

For those on Xbox and would like to explore accident opportunities I created a contract in Colorado some time ago with every non-explosive accident in mind. It’s a tough puzzle based contract, but it might help re-familiarise you with the map and identify good accident spots.

Title: An Accidental Arrangement
Contract ID: 3-09-4126010-05
Platform: Xbox One


#478

long ago i saw a vid where the fail screen shows up after you grab a FE, well, that video became real. as forthe said, im not worried, just dissapointed. i was going to prepare some cool chain reaction using a car or 2, now its gone. must be an accident but NOT an explosion accident HAHAHA. why??? as i said before: poor execuse.


#480

That he was referring to accidents made sense, since before the patch that changed the poison accidents kills were the only kills where you didn’t have to worry about bodies found. So with that change it’s not so weird to refer to something that works the same way.

If anything, if people would just take a little time to test stuff theirselves and get to know the game they wouldn’t be confused at all