ICA Electrocution Phone removed from HITMAN 3

Hitman General
329

You raise an interesting point. If they were to change the contract creation system so that it allowed for limiting the items you’re allowed to bring in (not forcing a specific kill method, but maybe Disallowing some?) that would solve a lot of issues that creators tend to report on. One of the most annoying things I see is being forced to use a specific kill method, but if the restriction was instead on what I was allowed to have, it would be a lot more palatable.

Instead of telling me I have to use an explosive device, just don’t let me bring in an emetic one. I may still be able to find one in the level, but I can’t choose to start with the old fart briefcase and just cheese it. I’d vote for that. Then they can load up the inventory with whatever OP devices they want to and the contract creators can specify what items they want to allow or not.

8 Likes
330

That would be perfect. For those of us who don’t give a hoot about Contracts (ME ME ME ME!), it would give IOI the licence to add some fun OP items to the game without spoiling the ability for Contract creators/players to set/play contracts with meaningful puzzle and/or challenge elements.

2 Likes
331

Has IOI ever addressed why they put a system in that allows them to set restricted load-outs but not contract creators? There are so many escalations that IOI created (or their sanctioned creators) that have restricted load-outs. I think the entirety of the 7 Deadly Sins and the Deluxe Edition content were all restricted load-out yet the contract creation system never allowed it. That, more than anything, makes creating interesting contracts more difficult, in my opinion at least.

332

In late H2016 Travis asked for feedback to improve contract mode. Since then we heard of nothing with substance.

7 Likes
333

url

6 Likes
334

Ok, kinda off-topic, but I find it funny so I’m sharing it. Fuck it. :joy:

Anyone else notice the online Hitman community is the first to complain about ioi making and offering content that in their opinion, restricts game play yet the MOST restrictive content in the entire game actually comes from the player base with user-created contracts? :joy: :joy: :rofl:

3 Likes
335

Something to note about nerfing the electrocution phone would be it would bring inconsistency to the game. Currently the way the game works electrocution always kills and is always an accident.

Having one specific item that has an electrocution that doesn’t kill but instead KOs would be very weird (and also probably annoying to implement) when literally every other scenario in the game behaves differently. The same logic applies to making the electrocution phone a non-accident kill (it is weird to have one specific electrocution kill that isn’t an accident). The other alternative would be to only have it actually electrocute someone when they are in a volatile situation, but then at that point the current set of electrocution tools already work just fine for this so there’s not really much point.

As far as I can see, the only viable way to bring it back and stay consistent with the game mechanics would be to have it as it behaved in Hitman 2.

1 Like
336

We already have that with the taser. It electrocutes the holder but only knock them out, unless they are touching water, at which point it becomes fatal.

You’re partly onto something though, as one argument made is that if the phone were nerfed, we wouldn’t need it since we already have the taser. I’d argue that the point of the phone is that that it is a phone; it’s innocuous, unsuspicious, and people instinctively pick it up. So it can be used anywhere, and so long as ICA id making a disguised electricity-spewing device, why would they not make it fatal. Ergo, keep it lethal and keep it as a phone, as that’s totally something ICA would create.

337

Well, when a lethal electrocution happens - it lasts for a few seconds (illuminated skeleton and all). The nerfed EP would electrocute for a very short instance. With potentially flammable or explosive situations - the short zap would be enough to ignite the hazardous element. With water?.. I guess we could say it (the stored charge) found a way to escape. If they’re not in water then the charge didn’t find a way to escape (fully). This way it shocks them for 1 second.

Now this makes me think of it being usable more than once if it KOs an NPC. Since it didn’t fully expell its stored charge.

But would that mean another KO would render it useless? :thinking:

Edit: Okay! How is this for a compromise? Let the player set its Lethality.

:green_square: :green_square: :green_square: :red_square: :red_square: :red_square: :black_large_square: :black_large_square: :black_large_square:

:green_square: :green_square: :green_square: :red_square: :red_square: :red_square: :red_square: :red_square: :red_square:

:point_up_2:

338

The taser doesn’t knock out, I just tested both proximity and remote tasers and they just always kill always regardless of water.

339

Hmmm, did they change that?

340

There are instances when guards will pick up a taser. I’ve seen it done in speedruns where it’ll be activated and it will kill them. Then there are the times when it’s already activated but in a briefcase. THEN (be it guard or reg NPC) once they step into a puddle they will get electrocuted.

I’ve also witnessed an active, sparking taser device being carried. I think only 47 can do it… I’m kinda confused about it myself.

Edit: Currently, there are no electrocution weapons/items that will KO an NPC. I suppose we could think of the (new) mechanic as how an explosion will kill up close, but will accidental KO at a certain distance. A little further and it just knocks them down. Maybe like if you threw an apple or muffin at someone.

341

I think the thing is for an item that is an electrocution phone it still feels odd for it to KO especially when tasers (which are essentially the same thing except only guards will pick them up) will kill not KO.

The explosion kill/KO at a distance analogy doesn’t really work when that is a universal rule across all explosions in the game. The electrocution not killing would however be a purely arbitrary change just for one item and one that I don’t think makes much sense.

I’m certainly not opposed to a phone that KOs NPCs, indeed a concussion phone would be a pretty cool addition to the game. I just think it should not be the behaviour for an electrocution phone when it is inconsistent with the rest of the game.

342

Boy, this place is pretty heated. Better not stay in here too long lest I get cooked.

So, I think the idea and mechanics of the Electrocution Phone and the “morality” shall we say, of removing it, have been muddied due to Hitman’s dedication to a single-player package being used as a multiplayer format.
There’s no one clear answer that can please everyone.

But I think, in essence though, why IOI removed it in the first place comes down to 3 points:

  1. Leaderboards, Competition and Speedrunning.
  2. The way it trivialises Accident kills.
  3. Renders many “electrocution” complications far too easy in Contracts.

Given that much of the game’s “competitive/multiplayer” nature is reliant on a very specific Silent Assassin bonus, offering an item that makes one kill extremely easy and a “freebie” to players, totally changes the game’s meta. If, we can call Hitman a game with an established competitive ‘meta’.
It’s so easy and quick to use, that if you’re not using it when you can, you’d be left in the dust of other players’ scores. It also requires no premature setup, which leads me to…

The fact that it trivialises Electrocution kills and Accident kills in general. Nearly all accident kills require some form of preparation, or the use of “Assassin Math” as I’d like to coin it.

  • Electric kills need a puddle and a taser.
  • Explosion needs a propane tank and an explosion, taser or a gunshot
  • Falling kills need a valid railing
  • Falling Object kills need specific placement of NPCs under things
  • Drowning needs an emetically poisoned NPC and toilets

So many of these need specific situations, illegal actions, and one-attempt scenarios to pull off successfully, to be able to walk away scot free. It’s meant to be challenging to the average player.
But the electrocution phone renders the Electrocution kill extremely easy. Not only is it a portable puddle and taser, but its completely legal and offers as many attempts as you’re able to. NPC didn’t notice it? Pick it up and try again. It only shocks one NPC and doesn’t run the risk of killing a Non-target in the area.

My third point relates to what @Urben mentioned earlier. It makes Contract creation difficult, especially when dealing with Electrocution and Accident kills.
If you’ve spent a great deal of time figuring out the perfect lure spot to a puddle, or sneaky accident that’s very specific to your contract’s challenge or even tone you’re going for, to see it so easily bypassed by a powerful item is disheartening – especially if there’s little way to restrict it.

So, I can’t say if it was fair or not to remove it or keep it, but I hope we can find a compromise in Freelancer. It would fit perfectly there, especially with other items like the Jerry Can (that may or may not require illegal actions alongside it too).

This specifically is what we should have gotten if the EP wasn’t removed.
And I do hope we can get some improvement with it in the future. Allowing us to restrict player loadouts or starting points or further specify kills would lend great depth in how I would want to create a contract.

I think in that case, since those aren’t straight-up “mechanics” of the game, and more bugs in IOI’s wobbly NPC simulation, that they are well within their right to remove or “fix” issues like that.
Bugs like that, the gun lure, or the “tranq glitch” aren’t exactly common knowledge, and usually require some level of skill to pull off. I kinda frown on things like that being used as legit methods in contract creation, since they’re not supposed to happen in the first place.

7 Likes
343

Quelle Surprise.

20 characters

1 Like
344

Oh gun lures are a definite mechanic, at least the general “drop a gun on the ground, wait for a guard to find it” variant is; they recorded specific voice lines for it: “what’s that doing there, kids could find that!” and other such stuff.

The three-bullet-disctractions does appear to be a bug as the way to do it is very inconsistent (ergo-buggy) behavior.

Honestly, you’ve said everything I wanted and more than what I did earlier in the thread.

1 Like
345

That dialogue isn’t specifically for that, but in general. Enforcer NPCs pick up weapons (with dialogue) whenever they see one laying around, regardless if you personally dropped it or not. They use the same dialogue when picking up weapons from dead or unconscious guards (after they’re revived). So it’s more of a “keeping the level tidy” thing.

The gun lure trick is an A.I. exploit. You can’t use it on Enforcer NPCs and you can’t use it on regular NPCs if you’re wearing an Enforcer NPC disguise.

1 Like
346

Actually, you can use it on regular NPCs regardless of what disguise you’re wearing. It’s just easier to do when you’re wearing an enforcer disguise.

Edit: That’s assuming you’re in an area where other NPCs are. If you were in your suit or some other Non-Enforcer disguise - you’re more likely to become compromised.

347

For the record, when I said “gun lure”, I was referring to this one:

The ability to put a gun on the ground and have a guard notice it, and then remove it to a locker is clearly programmed into the game intentionally and is a mechanic that IOI wanted to be there. That is neither a glitch nor an exploit. It’s just part of the way the game is designed to work. One of the established rules, if you will.

The other one, that I linked here, can effectively be used to get an NPC to follow you anywhere on the map and is not the same thing.

3 Likes
348

Here’s the thing, i’ve never found consistency in that. Some guards do it, and others don’t. Generally, the ones following the main target do not as they call someone else (as their AI Directive is to follow the target).

I’m not convinced it was specifically for that, especially since the dialogue sounds very surprised a weapon is just…there. No, the dialog implies this is an intended mechanic, and these lines are reused in both situations.

EDIT; Basically what @schatenjager said.

1 Like