TTLG|Thief|Bioshock|System Shock|Deus Ex|Mobile
Page 10 of 15 FirstFirst ... 567891011121314 ... LastLast
Results 226 to 250 of 364

Thread: Ghost rules discussion

  1. #226
    Member
    Registered: Apr 2016
    Location: France
    Rocks aren't property, so it doesn't matter that you moved it, crowbar or no crowbar. Again, if I understand the wording of the rule and Peter's clarifications, the mere fact of removing an obstacle doesn't matter. What counts is visible or implied damage, as is with the case of using bolt cutters.

    The weakened wall being pushed out does not appear in a different state; it's just located in a different place, overturned. The rest of the wall already has a gigantic hole in it, which is not made by myself, so there is no damage here. Actually, I'm gonna bring up an example from Disorientation here, particularly the following passage: "There, I find a loose brick in the wall separating his shop from the alchemist’s. I take the brick out of the wall and pick up the alchemist’s key through the hole. Then, I place the brick as close to the wall as I can since I cannot place it back inside of it."

    There is no way taking out a loose brick out of that wall is property damage. The brick is already loose. The best I can do for Supreme is put it next to the wall, the nearest logical place. In Burrick, the situation is basically the same, but we have a loose piece of wall instead of a single brick this time. I don't see how it's different except we cannot put the loose wall close to the rest of it, which should be excused.
    Last edited by marbleman; 12th Jan 2021 at 07:50.

  2. #227
    Member
    Registered: Aug 2003
    Location: Phoenix, AZ, USA, Earth
    Well, thank you so much for responding Peter. I am happy your response was aligned with my ideas, not because I want to be right above all, but because I was hoping I had understood the main spirit of the rules and the main ideas laid out by the mode's creators. I think it is pretty obvious then that natural objects like boulders, foliage, etc. are not breaking the rule if destroyed, whether it is done by Garrett's hands, weapons, items, and whether there is visible damage or not. Those items do not even fall under the category 'property'. The rule was meant to cover man-made objects. However, there are probably going to be objects that fall somewhere between, and like Peter said "the distinction is arbitrary". Those cases the player will either just have to make a decision and report it, or first come ask here in the discussion thread and based on the consensus of the community hopefully we can come to an agreement. Something we haven't discussed before is if there are readables or story elements that make it obvious that something that appear natural (like icicles) have indeed been constructed by a person (like for example if in Trial of Blood a journal somewhere boasted about a person creating the icicles in order to block the passage for Garrett), then it would fall under the category 'property' because it evidently is someone's construct. But unless the mission says so explicitly, natural objects do not count.

    The other thing Peter points out (and marbleman confirmed) is that there has to be visible/audible or implied damage. And it should also take some sort of object/weapon/force in order to damage it. Thus, the wall in Sound of a Burrick is not property damage for two reasons: 1) It is weak enough for Garrett to simply push, and 2) It falls out in one piece, much like a door that can't be closed, and is not fragmented and therefore not damaged. You can imagine two strong guys coming there later and placing the wall piece back, without telling the owner the wall has been destroyed.

    Quote Originally Posted by marbleman View Post
    So how about this: any beast that can speak the language, like the apemen, can own property (and by that I mean something they've made, not icicles that grow in their habitat). Less advanced beasts and undeads cannot.
    This is a difficult distinction to determine. If you have a ruined house with haunts in it, breaking a door to gain access would still be property damage, even though it's not owned by the man who made it any longer, but instead undeads. Or did you mean since it was at one point made by men, then it would be property? Perhaps I misinterpreted. Maybe there won't be that many cases where this becomes applicable even, so perhaps there's no point in making it a rule. If we did, to me spiders, burricks and beasts like that no, people and apebeasts yes, undeads I would also say yes because in some missions there are clever ghosts that talk and make evil contructions. Zombies no, but then again they don't ever make anything (unless it was a modified clever zombie and in that case perhaps could talk). Craymen are sort of borderline. I'd say they probably fall into the beast category. I'm just thinking out loud as I'm writing right now, so let me know what you guys think.

  3. #228
    Member
    Registered: Jun 2000
    Location: Land of enchantment
    Thanks, Klatremus.

    I don't think it matters who or what occupies the building containing the property. It could be empty. To me, the only thing that matters is that the item / property was placed there by someone, some thing, who intended it to block passage. It could have been magic or a god. So maybe we need to replace the phrase "man-made" with "fabricated." My basic principle is to adhere to the concept of ghosting and to keep it simple. Moving a boulder is allowable because it is easily moved and was not fabricated -- just arranged -- and it is natural. Frobbing and moving loose stones in a wall is allowed because, even though the wall was fabricated, nothing is broken that was not already damaged. If you had to bash the stones with your sword or blackjack, I would call it damage.

    Another case not discussed immediately above is a passage that is boarded up. In one recent mission, the boards could be frobbed, removed, and set aside. I would not call that damage. In other missions I have played, one had to hit the boards with a sword or blackjack to remove them. They made a cracking noise, and the boards flew apart in pieces with a sufficient number of blows. I would call that damage. The distinction is the act of breaking or bashing something.

    Breaking icicles seems to be a special case that is allowable because they are natural. If you can prove, say by a readable, that the icicles were placed there deliberately (how would you fabricate them?) to block a passage, then I would be tempted to call that damage. Still, I don't really like that distinction because it adds complexity. I wonder if it has ever occurred. It would be simpler so say that breaking icicles is OK.

    Does all that make sense?
    Last edited by smithpd; 13th Jan 2021 at 11:29.

  4. #229
    Member
    Registered: Aug 2003
    Location: Phoenix, AZ, USA, Earth
    That is all perfectly aligned with my thinking. I agree with all you just said.

  5. #230
    Member
    Registered: Oct 2013
    If the prohibition on property damage is to minimise evidence of your passing through, and thee amount of suspicion raised, then isn't it the permanent altering of the environment that is the issue,rather than the fact that it was owned by somebody?

    Someone familiar with the environment might say "wasn't like that this morning", whether it is owned vines that were cut, or not.

    If the prohibition is simply about preventing the player from removing intentional barriers via "artificial" means, then it wouldn't matter whether you bash through a wall or neatly pry out the bricks, either way this is an artificial way to get past the wall. And either way you weaken its integrity from what it was. And it will look in a worse state.

    Still, 'no visible damage to intentionally-placed obstacles' is certainly clear. Though I still think causing visible degredation to such barriers and structures would count. Including the aformentioned brick and plank removals.

  6. #231
    Member
    Registered: Apr 2016
    Location: France
    @klatremus: What's your stance on taking the floating gold skull in Alcazar? It acts as an AI who can alert to and attack you, so by frobbing it, we're effectively removing one of the guards from play. That said, we're not killing or knocking it out, and we're not causing its suicide, which is what the rules disallow.
    Last edited by marbleman; 20th Jan 2021 at 12:54.

  7. #232
    Member
    Registered: Aug 2003
    Location: Phoenix, AZ, USA, Earth
    I haven't ghosted it yet, but its definitely coming up. I did think about that when playing though. I thought about checking stats, but if you say it doesn't count as kill, knockout or damage, that is interesting. Does it emit light? If so, taking it would remove a light source, and that's not allowed for Supreme at least. It's one of those one-of-a-kind special cases, how great of Schlock to give us that. It seems from your comment you're leaning towards no bust, am I right? To me it feels like a bust, without it necessarily explicitly breaking a rule. The fact that it's an AI to me is what makes it tough to accept. What say you?

  8. #233
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    AI or not, isn't it similar to turning off a watcher?

  9. #234
    Member
    Registered: Aug 2003
    Location: Phoenix, AZ, USA, Earth
    No, because watchers can be turned back on. I would more compare it to removing the watcher permanently then, or perhaps destroying it.

  10. #235
    Member
    Registered: Mar 2018
    @marbleman: I encountered these item enemies in one or two missions before, but to be honest I never count it picking them up as a ghost bust. Reason is simply - this is created by author game mechanic. Since he allowed picking up the hostile skull that is part of loot as well, then I think it's fine. Ghost rules only mention to avoid dealing damage and alerts, so just try picking up skull when it doesn't see you. No idea about supreme ghost, but like klatremus said, I think the biggest problem is, if item emits light.

  11. #236
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Yeah, by turning off I meant disabling. Not the best choice of words.

    At least the Supreme Ghost rules say:

    8. No turning off of watchers, or other security systems.
    Last edited by Starker; 20th Jan 2021 at 14:58.

  12. #237
    Member
    Registered: Apr 2016
    Location: France
    It does emit light, so it's not obtainable for Supreme. I am leaning towards no ghost bust although it's certainly weird. There is no rule that can even apply to this case; it's like if pickpocketing a guard would make him despawn. Scripted despawning of AIs is no bust though. The two guys having a conversation in Shipping and Receiving disappear, a whole bunch of people despawn over the course of Into the Odd. I honestly don't know what to make of this, but because the mission is ghostable and, with this skull, perfect thievable, I would take it for completion's sake.

    @Galaer: referring to it as a mechanic of the mission is certainly appealing. Earlier it's been said that taking damage is okay in Keeper of the Prophecies because it's a gimmick of that mission, even though it's normally not allowed. Perhaps such loot items could indeed be taken under the same pretense.
    Last edited by marbleman; 20th Jan 2021 at 15:04.

  13. #238
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Perhaps the "no turning off of watchers, or other security systems" rule should be changed to "no turning off or removing of watchers, or other security systems" to account for all cases? Cause the removal seems to be against the spirit of the rule at the very least.

  14. #239
    Member
    Registered: Aug 2003
    Location: Phoenix, AZ, USA, Earth
    @Starker: removing a watcher would be considered property damage, so it's already covered there. That wouldn't be allowed for both Ghost and Supreme.

    @marbleman & Galaer: I agree with your assessment that it's a game mechanic. The author made it frobbable and loot, so it's what the author has intended, albeit through a previously unseen mechanic. It's not damage, KO, kill or property damage, so I think we should be good there. If it emits light, then it's an easy decision for Supreme. So funny you mentioned the guard disappearing when picking pocket, because after your first message I had that scenario in my head in order to compare it to a more "normal" situation lol. Happy to hear it's Perfect Thievable though! Can it be Supremed, you think?

  15. #240
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Sure, the rule might be fine for watchers, because you can't steal them (or at least I'm not aware of a mission where you can), but it's more the "other security systems" part that I think would cover more ground, this case in particular.

  16. #241
    Member
    Registered: Mar 2018
    To be honest, this situation reminds me the most of something else that happens very rarely in FMs. Sometimes due to author's overlook, it's possible to carry conscious enemy. Normally it's not possible. This way you can move enemy in less problematic place. Is is a ghost bust? Well, I don't count it as one if I will manage to avoid alerts from him. But using this bug could count as exploit probably. So far, I didn't need to use this bug though.

  17. #242
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Well, exploits like nudging are grudgingly allowed after all. And same goes for removing guards from the game by trapping them, I presume. Feels kind of cheap, though.

  18. #243
    Member
    Registered: Apr 2016
    Location: France
    Alcazar should be Supremeable. Can't think of any situation that could bust this mode.

  19. #244
    Member
    Registered: Mar 2018
    What about tracking statue? It can see you even if you are in full shadow. I think it's possible to escape fast enough without being seen in light, but if it gets alive after grabbing book and if it can see you in shadow, then shouldn't it count as being spot by it? In other words - ghost bust? What do you think?

  20. #245
    Member
    Registered: Apr 2016
    Location: France
    I just played through this mission, and the staute didn't see me in the shadow. It does seem to have a proximity trigger of some sort though. If you approach it too closely, even from behind, it will alert and turn around. I also find it impossible to gauge its alerts, I don't think it gives any. It just has constant idle chatter.

  21. #246
    Member
    Registered: Aug 2003
    Location: Phoenix, AZ, USA, Earth
    Question: In T2X mission 4, there are two coin stacks on a gambling table that if stolen trigger a script where the patron comes over and says "Hey, someone must have stolen that!". As long as you are not visible when you take it, nothing else happens. Nobody attacks you and he doesn't give a settling remark. Scripts have been mentioned before as being ok, but here it ends in what I interpret to be an alert, though it isn't because of being detected. I'm thinking that those responses you would logically hear all the time anyway, once people finally realize all their valuables have disappeared. In my head I compare it to the alert in Into the Odd where the two ladies on the top floor of the marketmaster's alert to the golden egg being gone. However, that is different, because it is not scripted. They only alert once they see it is gone, as in when they happen to be at that location in their patrol route. In the T2X case, it doesn't matter where the patron is located when you take the coin stacks, he immediately stops whatever he is doing, walks straight over to the table and says the line, then continues whatever he was doing before. Initially I counted it as a Supreme bust, but ok for Ghost, because I saw it as a first alert, but I never felt 100% sure about it.

    Thoughts folks?

  22. #247
    Member
    Registered: Jun 2009
    Location: The Spiraling Sea
    The content of a triggered script does not constitute a First Alert. Because you were not detected, and there wasn't any settling remark or change of behavior after the fact to the AI in question, there isn't any First Alert. Therefore, no bust to Ghost or Supreme.
    Last edited by Vae; 21st Jan 2021 at 02:31.

  23. #248
    Member
    Registered: Mar 2018
    @klatremus: So, I think that changing AI route by taking loot may not be considered supreme bust, but the fact that it has voiced first alert towards loss of money, I would still considered this a supreme bust. Luckily you can skip this loot.

  24. #249
    Member
    Registered: Apr 2016
    Location: France
    While it's not a first alert, it's still a remark from that guy, so it'd be safer to skip it for Supreme.

  25. #250
    Member
    Registered: Aug 2003
    Location: Phoenix, AZ, USA, Earth
    @Vae: Supreme rule #4 says "All AI and devices must remain in their normal state and not react to anything you do or initiate in the game." That goes beyond the same rule also saying first alerts aren't allowed. To me that means if AI give any other indication besides normal first alerts that means they know you've been there, it's a bust. I don't think it's a Ghost bust however.

Page 10 of 15 FirstFirst ... 567891011121314 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •