Ghost rules discussion

[Vae]

@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.

According to that interpretation from the statement, "All AI and devices must remain in their normal state and not react to anything you do or initiate in the game.", whenever the player triggers a script, which temporarily removes the AI from their "normal state", then the player busts Supreme.

I would say this is an incorrect interpretation, due to perceiving that statement as an absolute, rather than it being qualified and applied within the context of the rule itself:

4. No Alerts of any kind from any AI or Device: No first alerts, no comments at all from AI. A single chirp from a Watcher, “Musta Been Rats…”, zombies groaning, etc are a bust. All AI and devices must remain in their normal state and not react to anything you do or initiate in the game. AI walking around and muttering to themselves or having a conversation with another AI are fine.

Notice the heading and context of the rule is alerts. So the statement, "All AI and devices must remain in their normal state and not react to anything you do or initiate in the game.", is not an absolute statement, and is in reference to the player being detected or initiating something which causes the AI to change state from (Level 0) "normal state", to the (Level 1) alert state.

This would mean that if the player triggers a script, and it causes the AI to take an action, make a remark, or enter into a conversation with another AI, as long as that AI or AI's stay at the (Level 0) non-alerted state, a Supreme bust has not occurred.

[klatremus]

I was not interpreting the rule in an absolute sense at all. I would never say the rule means that regular conversations triggered within the game, even if it starts only because Garrett crosses an invisible line, to be a bust. That would be in an absolute sense. I was quoting that statement from the rules because it specifies situations that goes beyond normal comments that indicate AIs' reactions to something you do, something beyond simply being seen or heard, but still triggering some kind of alert. I took loot, that initiated a response (scripted or not) from the enemy. The result of that script is for him to say "someone must have stolen that" is to me an alert of some kind.

The part in bold that you reference "No Alerts of any kind from any AI or Device" doesn't refer to the level 0 or 1 states that it seems to me you on the other hand are taking as an absolute. It is instead talking about "alerts of any kind" as the heading, so that is the context, not the state levels you mention. Then it goes on to list "first alerts" as an example of what that could be, but then it also lists other examples of what such alerts could be. So to me, "All AI and devices must remain in their normal state and not react to anything you do or initiate in the game" goes beyond a normal first alert state to include other scenarios that could also cause alerts.

[klatremus]

New discussion topic: Are using EMP grenades to turn off lights (and other electrical devices) in T2X property damage? Real EMP grenades cause power surges and voltage spikes that are damaging to most electrical systems. In game, any lights taken out by EMPs can't be turned back on, so I always figured they were broken. Plus, if you use an EMP on a turret, the whole device shatters into pieces. Cameras turn off when hit, though I'm not sure if they can be turned back on. I thought the whole point of those grenades was they target the device's electrical system, not just turn them off like when you douse a torch.

[downwinder]

i also wanted to add it would be nice since there is unlimited reloads allowed in ghost and supreme ghost,why not add the number of times a quickload/load of saved game is done during a run,so we know how good of a job they did over all on reloads

[marbleman]

I always considered using EMPs on robots and turrets to be clear property damage, but it never occurred to me that it destroys lights rather than shutting them off. To confirm what you said, I found a light with a lightswitch and used an EMP on it to see whether the lightswitch will turn it back on after that. Indeed, the answer is no. So yeah, I stand corrected, any use of EMPs is property damage since they don't just shut off electrics but completely fry them.

[klatremus]

Another question:
Are free items allowed to be retrieved from the loadout screen for Supreme? Supreme rule #5 talks about purchases and going to the store, but if it's free, it isn't a purchase per se. I assume you wouldn't get free items at the store, but instead privately from a known associate. Or did the rule just use the word "purchase" assuming anything you could get ahold of during loadout? What do you guys think?

[lordhern]

I placed my opinion on your last video on youtube. free is no bust. some FM's required a few free notes for the folks who did not read the notes on the download. If you have to pay it a bust.

[ultravioletu]

I personally think that the loadout screen is the store, which is to be avoided: "This thief doesn’t even go to the store to chance being seen and identified purchasing said items" - but then following this interpretation, visiting in-game stores like the one in Calendra's Cistern should be a bust too.

[Galaer]

@klatremus: You will not like my answer, because I'm gonna try to analize the whole rule. So supreme rule says:

"5. Inventory and Weapons: You can not purchase weapons and inventory items from the store at loadout. This thief doesn’t even go to the store to chance being seen and identified purchasing said items."

So explanation of this rule implies that Garrett doesn't enter shop, but it's completely wrong. How else would he know what equipment is available at the moment? And not just that. In some missions Garrett can buy information scroll and he knows what info it contains (there is short description when you select this scroll). The question is how does he know that. How does he know that? Scroll can't be publicly available, because otherwise Garrett would know in full detail what it contain. And there would be no point of selling it in the shop. There is only one explanation. Shopkeeper explained what Garrett can buy in the shop. In other words, not only Garrett has been seen, but also talked with shopkeeper. And player is forced to visit shop before mission. So description of this rule doesn't make any sense.

So now let's talk about request scrolls available in shops. They give usually new objectives, in Lost City OM contract from shop changes 3 junk masks into loot. Since I proved that Garrett has been seen in shop, it means that player has dilemma. Buy request and try to complete new objective or if you are greedy, avoid buying it and completing challenge. Rule #2 mentions to complete all optional objectives, but gives leeway of not triggering some of them. Isn't buying requests a process of triggering them and shouldn't it be excused for supreme? Also let's not forget that the sources of most of Garrett's objectives are people. He communicates with them. By doing that he of course risks being identified as well, but he continues doing that. Of course, risk of being identified is present every time, but I don't think there is any need of being paranoid about that.

Another thing is inside mission shops. Visiting them is allowed for supreme. The question is why you can visit them without having any objective and you can even purchase items absolutely necessary to progress mission (like rope arrow), but you must avoid shop before mission. What's the difference? Just because you can see shopkeeper who has neutral AI? But you can imagine it's the same story in before mission shop. Does it really make big difference it is during mission shop? I don't think so. So this explanation of rule where before mission shop is forbidden, but inside mission shop is OK, I find it weird.

I think the main reason for adding this rule in supreme rules was to prevent making missions easier. That's why you also can't spend your equipment. But at the time there was really no items during loadout that could make missions harder. So I think buying these requests no matter if it's free or not should be allowed, because it makes mission harder. A bit analogy to Rule #6a: you can't turn off lights, but turning on lights is allowed and it makes mission harder.

[marbleman]

I think you're overanalyzing it. The loadout screen isn't a literal representation of an in-world store. What you get here can come from different sources (shops, Garrett's associates, etc.), which explains how Garrett can know what's in the readables he's getting.

But I don't know what to make of this rule. If it says you can't get anything from the loadout screen, including tips, which you naturally wouldn't be getting in an actual shop, then I wouldn't take anything from it, free or not. Not taking tips doesn't refer to "this thief doesn't go to the store"; how I interpret it is that "he tries to contact as few people as possible." Who knows what information they may divulge later.

[Galaer]

The loadout screen isn't a literal representation of an in-world store.

I disagree with you here. Thief 3 doesn't have any loadout shops, but it has shops in the hub. And Thief 1 and Thief 2 have certain limitations, it doesn't have any hub too and that's why there is no other shops than loadout store. But still I think this loadout store should be treated as your normal shop. Or maybe this loadout store acts as local Thieves' Guild. That's why it has these requests and hint scrolls and it also gives you chance to buy equipment.

Edit: Wait, in Mission 4 in Thief 1 our starting point is shop. You can easily figure out that this shop perform function of loadout store. He's there and he got lockpicks from shopkeeper. This proves that Garrett doesn't avoid shopping between missions. He doesn't hide from shopkeepers either. How about that?

[marbleman]

And there's also a loadout store before mission 4. So Garrett goes to one shop before going to Farkus. Makes total sense.

But think what you want to think.

[Galaer]

And there's also a loadout store before mission 4. So Garrett goes to one shop before going to Farkus. Makes total sense.

But think what you want to think.

Unless he buys stuff in the same shop. After all, it's equipment store and loadout stores contain equipment. Plus Farkus dies when Garrett is about to leave shop. Makes total sense. Also what's the point of going to 2 equipment stores during one night?

[marbleman]

Sorry, man, you lost me there. But as I said, think what you want to think.

[Galaer]

One more thing - if you enter loadout store just before Assassins, check instruction for using lockpicks. Description mentions that it was given by Farkus and it's in your equipment during transaction. This means that only way for this kind of transaction to happen is inside Farkus or after leaving his shop. But assassins outside Farkus's Shop prevents second possibility from happening. This whole loadout transaction must happen in Farkus' Shop.

[Starker]

Would Garrett visiting a shop really mean anything with regard to a voluntary playstyle, though? The point of ghosting is not to emulate Garrett as closely as possible, after all. And not all FMs have Garrett as the protagonist.

[Cigam]

New discussion topic: Are using EMP grenades to turn off lights (and other electrical devices) in T2X property damage? Real EMP grenades cause power surges and voltage spikes that are damaging to most electrical systems. In game, any lights taken out by EMPs can't be turned back on, so I always figured they were broken. Plus, if you use an EMP on a turret, the whole device shatters into pieces. Cameras turn off when hit, though I'm not sure if they can be turned back on. I thought the whole point of those grenades was they target the device's electrical system, not just turn them off like when you douse a torch.

""No property damage" means no visible damage"

If they cause no visible damage then they are like rope arrows? Real world logic says arrows would put a hole in the beam, but hey. No visible harm, no foul..

Something being shut off does not mean that it is visibly damaged. Even if real world logic says that there would be internal damage as the reason for it being off. Not if it looks the same as any other undamaged, but off, switch.

[Starker]

How do we know the electrical systems are busted anyway? Maybe it just trips a breaker or something? Turrets are one thing, but lights shouldn't be much more complex than wires going to a bulb in the first place.

[klatremus]

Going back to the free items at the purchase screen discussion, I appreciate everyone's comments. I think it's important to stick to the current wording of the rule and try to understand what the original intent was. Stretching the "real world" aspect too far just makes the discussion derail, and sometimes silly. Since there are disagreeing views here, I think it's best to keep the rule as it has always been interpreted, namely that anything you can get (whether free or not) is a bust to Supreme. That seems the safest solution.

[Galaer]

Stretching the "real world" aspect too far just makes the discussion derail, and sometimes silly.

I don't think I'm stretching this rule too far. After all, interpretation of this rule already is using "real world" aspect. Also if you are scared being identified, you should also avoid being seen by any neutral AI.

[Galaer]

Another counter argument to yours, klatremus, is your interpretation of this rule makes regular ghost harder than supreme ghost. Usually every aspect of supreme ghost is the same or harder than regular ghost. This time it makes it easier.

Other than that this rule never mentions any requests situation. The rest of this rule mentions only tools that can make missions easier (potions, rope arrows, scouting orbs). Also how can you know what's the original intent of this rule was? This gimmick happens very rarely. The first instance is in Lost City OM. The only supreme ghost reports of this mission belongs to you and Travis Whitsitt. So my question is: Did any of you ask the question about Gervasius' request when you were making your reports or did you just assumed it's forbidden to buy it? Maybe it would be better to verify this aspect of this rule with Peter Smith?

Also let me remind you that yours interpretation of the rules isn't always very strict. I'm talking here about grabbing rope arrow in Shipping and Receiving. Rope arrow isn't needed to complete any objective or getting any loot (you can stack crates), but you allowed that, because it's easier to get some loot. Isn't it the same situation with requests? Sure, reward doesn't appear in the stats, but Garrett isn't charity institution. You can easily imagine that he's completing objectives for the sake of getting more money after completing mission.

That's why I think this aspect of the rule should be excused for supreme ghost.

[klatremus]

Your arguments are good here Galaer. I must say that I largely agree with you, and think probably free items should be allowed, but I'm not sure. I wasn't saying not to apply real world logic because I disagree with you, I just think that you maybe took it a bit far, that's all. I don't agree it would make Ghost easier than Supreme, because even though you get an extra objective, they are usually optional (and those aren't required for regular Ghost) and you still don't need to adhere to Supreme rules to complete them. As far as the Lost City request, it costs 150 to obtain, so that would definitely be a purchase and certainly against Supreme. Yes the rule only mentions equipment, but that doesn't mean it doesn't include other purchases also. Like you said, contract requests are rare, so it would be weird to mention rare opportunities as examples in the rule.

I am not always that strict about the unnecessary pickup rule because there is a balance between risk and reward. Does he risk stacking crates (and you'd have to make many stacks to get all those spice bags) or just take a rope arrow? The rope arrow isn't against the rules, and if you use the item to your benefit then it doesn't go against the rule either, which says "don't pick up what you don't need". Well, I strongly felt I needed that rope arrow, and I think a careful thief would make the same call. If there were no rope arrows in the mission, then I would have to stack boxes and that'd be ok (but tedious).

Edit: And I did contact Peter Smith, so maybe he replies.

[Galaer]

The reason I'm saying that regular ghost is harder than supreme ghost in this aspect is in ghost buying request isn't against rules. Sure, you need to buy it an read it, but after reading it stops becoming optional objective and you have no option to abandon it. And this request objective can complicate your ghost run. For example: in Lost Among Forsaken each relic spawns new zombie, so ghosting through ruins becomes harder.

Also don't you think that this no purchase rule go a bit against Rule #2 about completing all optional objectives. Sure, you are allowed to not trigger. But what do you think was intent behind this rule? I think it was to not trigger objectives that leads to alerts or damage property. So avoiding this objective not because it's impossible to supreme ghost it, but rather because it's purchase, sounds weird.

Also I wanted to mention once again shops inside missions. You excuse making necessary purchases in inside missions shops. You can imagine that loadout stores have shopkeepers who knows Garrett and his activity (example: Thief 3 shopkeepers know him). On the other hand in FMs you usually visit city you never visited before, so shopkeepers just don't know you. Don't you think that risk of being identified is higher in them than in loadout stores?

About Lost City request - yes, you spend 150 loot for request, but in return you get 120 loot for each mask. There are 3 masks in Lost City, this means 360 loot in total. This means that Garrett ultimately gains 210 loot based on this transaction.

Ultimately right now it's only you who supreme ghost missions, klatremus, so it's your decision how you want to play. But have in mind that currently by doing supreme ghost you are missing some content.

[ultravioletu]

It occurs to me that this rule is kind of pointless. Usage of most items is directly prohibited by other rules, and I had to be very creative to figure out use-cases in which the spirit of supreme ghosting would be deafeated by loadout purchases. Something like buying a rope arrow instead of doing something "troublesome" to get one in the mission, or buying potions to use them in stacks and to avoid returning in-mission items that otherwise should have be used instead. Anything else?

[Cigam]

Just some thoughts. If you think as I do that the rules are primarily concerned with game mechanics, then freebies at loadout would still be forbidden, as it is the mechanic of entering the mission with extra assistive items that is the issue. Doesn't matter if that extra moss arrow cost 25g, or was given away for free. It is the same mechanic.

Once you enter a mission you are now dealing with the mechanics of obtaining in-mission items. This is not outright disallowed, but you must be conservative. Buying in-mission store items comes under this new mechanic.

Finally, the rules are concerned with the mechanics of the alert system, rather than simple AI awareness of the player, and friendlies don't alert. Hence being seen by store-owners is not a forbidden mechanic.

So yes, the "flavour text" associated with the rule forbidding the mechanics of obtaining loadout goodies, might provide a "flavour" explanation about not wanting to be seen by shopkeepers or anyone else, and real-world logic would say that this would extend to in-game stores. But the mechanics are obviously quite different. And the mechanics of being seen by neutrals and obtaining items in-mission, are not disallowed.