Ghost rules discussion

[marbleman]

There have been so many observations regarding TDM since I drafted the addendum that I'm having trouble categorizing these and forming a cohesive ruleset. Might need a bit of help here.

[demagogue]

@demagogue: Yes that trick works in many places in various missions I've played since then. It could be very important in preventing busts in future runs. May I ask what YouTube LP shows it?

Here's the video timed to where it happened.

Now that I look at it again, I think what happened isn't that trick. I think the player just hugged the wall and it was close to the end of the light radius, so things were dimmer because of that, not any thing inherent to corners or leaning per se.

But actually that makes me suspect this may be behind the phenomenon you saw. It's very common that mappers will drag their light radii (radiuses?) out to the edge of a wall so there'd be a natural fall off there. We get kind of trained to keep the light radii as tight as possible because light radius has probably the biggest impact on performance as anything. I mean having multiple light radii overlap is a big FPS drain, and the easiest way to avoid it is have the radii hug the walls.

In TDM, I've also noticed that enemies occasionally alert to seeing fastened rope arrows, but such alerts also do not count towards the stealth score. Just like reacting to open doors, I likewise think these alerts should bust Supreme, but not regular Ghost. Enemies don't deviate from their path or move if stationary, so they are equal to first alerts. It should be added to the amendment under Supreme rule #4.

FYI -- since I worked on exactly this, I can let you know how the system came to be -- the reason tools, bodies, open doors, etc., don't count towards the stealth score is because of attribution. We didn't want the score counting towards other AI putting the AI on alert, so the system counts alerts when a trigger's attribution arg lists the "player" property. Of course sounds the player makes or being seen is easily attributable to the player, but seeing or hearing tools or doors or bodies will be attributed to the tools or doors or bodies, not to the last person using them; and it actually wouldn't even be easy to have the system know or remember that.

So we had a choice, either have every tool or body count against the player (even if some were clearly caused by other AI or there for plot reasons), or just count alerts carrying attribution to the player. Between those two, having it count some alerts clearly not caused by the player is just unfair on its face, so we decided to just keep it according to attribution, even if it does end up not counting tools, etc., as a rule.

So that's how it ended up that way, and I still think between those two options it's still the better option, as in not allowing clearly unfair hits. IIRC it'd be very technically hard to have tools or bodies carry a new arg like "last owned by / caused by" to wedge the player in that way, and if we can't easily do that, then there's no easy way for the game to know who used to own those tools.

But anyway, having ghosting rules beyond the stealth score, where the player can take account of such details themselves, is perfectly understandable and the way to go.

[klatremus]

There have been so many observations regarding TDM since I drafted the addendum that I'm having trouble categorizing these and forming a cohesive ruleset. Might need a bit of help here.

From what I can see in the discussion, since you suggested the original amendment, the main additions would be:

1. (Strongly) suggesting the use if the stealth statistics tool.

2. Sleeping AIs alert 1s which dont offer audible cues. If we suggest the stealth tool, then this wouldnt be an issue. Just check that tool when done with sleeping enemy's room.

3. Alerts to removed light sources does not bust Ghost.

4. Alerts to ropes or other tools used busts Supreme but not Ghost.

[marbleman]

Thanks, I'll get on it soon. What shall we decide regarding AIs alerting to missing loot, which is 1) always scripted/set up by the mission author, 2) doesn't affect the stealth score, BUT 3) can easily go undetected as it can take several minutes for it to trigger and 4) looks like a 4th-level alert and spreads among AIs, often causing several of them to sweep the area?

[klatremus]

Alerts to missing loot should be allowed for all modes, seeing that it's such an integral part to Thief. As long as no other rules are busted in the process of course, meaning if you're spotted during the searching for example. What can be troublesome by allowing it though is, what if a player uses the enemies alerting to missing loot to their benefit? Like what if during the search guards leave their post, enabling you to get through otherwise impenetrable areas? Or even enabling you to steal more loot you couldn't before.

[marbleman]

I've been thinking about it for a while, and I'm also leaning towards allowing it. Glad you do as well.
I think it'd be fine to use this to one's advantage because it takes a certain amount of skill to sneak by fully alert guards, especially in TDM. This should obviously be reported though.

[Galaer]

I'm against allowing missing loot alert simply because it leads to 4th alert. I don't buy excuse that this is integral part of TDM mechanic. Isn't it the same in Undercover (T1)? It's not allowed there, so why would it be allowed here? The only mission I encountered that had this mechanic was Tears of St Lucia and it was only in 3 spots. Avoiding these pieces of loot doesn't make loot objective impossible to complete. So I would say that it's fine to skip this loot. As for detection of alert - most of the time you need to spend couple of minutes waiting in shadow to check if enemy is alerting to missing loot. It's really not that huge hassle. And also it's really not common type of alert.

[klatremus]

But the 4th alert is not from seeing or hearing you, but instead detecting something you stole, which is the whole point of being a thief. Besides, after you finish the mission the next day they would obviously detect everything being gone anyway, so logic says these alerts would occur sooner or later regardless, the difference is only that you are still there to hear them. Objectives and loot have always been at the forefront of the gameplay. Alerting to doors being open or tools left behind is NOT the point of being a thief, on the contrary, a thief is supposed to conceal such things, so those should be busts. Alerts to pickpockets are scripted and always happen, so those are not even true alerts to me. To be honest, I think alerting to loot should be allowed in the original Thief games also. The reason I haven't argued it is because there is only 1 mission ever that does it that I have played, which is Undercover, and there you can just get them after the alarm is sprung so it has no bearing on any kind of ghost mode success or loot count.

I likewise think alerts to objectives missing should also be allowed. Not if they see you or hear you do the deed, like in Tears of St. Lucia, but simply from the item missing. I think the same should apply to Thief, which means Into the Odd would be Supremable.

[demagogue]

As for missing loot alerts (i.e., "absence marker" alerts), it's not a general mechanic, but only for special items specifically added by the mapper for plot or flow reasons. So I think I would use the rule for plot-triggered alerts, i.e., not count them as regular gameplay busts. (But I might still count it towards supreme ghosting.)

But it is still an alert for something the player did too; so I understand the logic if someone wanted to count it. It's just, if taking loot by itself counted as a bust (in some FMs, there's really no way to stop the alert; it's designed to ensure the alert happens, it's just a matter of the delay), then it wouldn't be much of a thief game where you're supposed to be rewarded for taking loot, not punished. =L

[Galaer]

klatremus, you are losing me here. You want to allow missing loot alert even in Thief games? Are you out of your mind? It's clearly a search mode and it's clearly created by player. Are you REALLY sure that it's within spirit of the ghost to allow this kind of alerts. Because I don't think so.

You told me before to not use real life logic too much, so I'm gonna tell you the same, you are using it too much. In Thief games we never cared about what will happen the next day. The most important is night when Garrett is present in the mission. And it was always like that. Nobody cares about consequences happening the next day. Also this kind of alert in Thief games may be rare, but it actually happens in more than one mission. But sure, there are some based on Undercover and they too have this kind of alert. And there are others and you know one of them - Into the Odd. You classified that as a supreme bust and for a good reason, it's a comment to missing loot and it sounds like 1st alert. Making a Profit also use this kind of alert, but to being pickpocketed or to missing body discovered and it ends with heavy search mode too.

As for missing loot alert, I read Chalice of Kings report and I wonder if it's possible to just quickly switch troublesome loot with non valuable item of the same shape to avoid missing loot alert. For example: in Tears of St Lucia - there is golden chalice on altar and there is non valuable chalice in one of storages. You would be forced to move this object to chapel and quickly exchange it. I didn't check this idea yet, but it's worth to try.

[Cigam]

Galaer, surely the theoretical spirit of the rules has to be tempered by what a player can reasonably be expected to determin or know?

Even if you camp out near a piece of loot you have just swiped for an hour, to check if some future guard will come through and react, it is always going to be possible that the guard has just distance-deactivated. Realistically it is not reasonable to expect people to always know such things.

Perhaps a compromise would be to have some sort of "ignorance is bliss" clause?

If you never see or hear any evidence that a guard has reacted to a specific piece of loot theft then it is not a bust? Whereas if you hear a guard grunble or witness them in search mode, then honour-dictates that you investigate what you did to cause this, and go back and not do it?

But then that approach has its problems. Realistically you either excuse such reactions full stop, or you require players to be psychic.

[Galaer]

@Cigam: I have no idea what you mean by distance deactivated guards, but if enemies don't have random patrol routes (and probably in most of FMs they don't have), then you only need to wait couple of minutes for alert. Since it usually takes couple of minutes to sneak through rooms patrolled by enemies, it's not that hard to notice missing loot alert.

[Cigam]

Galaer, If you move far enough away from an AI in Thief, then it freezes. They only operate while you are within a set distance from them.

Plus an AI might not even start patrolling until a conversation has triggered.

Camping out at each loot location isn't enough to prove the matter, unfortunately.

[Galaer]

@Cigam: Ah, so you meant guards not walking, because you are far away. That's not really any problem in Thief, because enemies are usually close enough to quickly alert to missing loot. Most of troublesome loot in Undercover is watched by stationary guards. Into the Odd has 2 women walking around cage with egg. In Making a Profit there is several monsters and one woman who will quickly make missing item/body alert. So it's hard to not detect. And also you will not have enough time to run far away to freeze AI.

As for 2nd situation - the only place I know is cemetery in Undercover. And yes, this one may be hard to detect, but mission is short and easy and good indication of this alert is launched alarm. It was also well documented by other ghosters that loss of these pieces of loot will alert Hammerites.

Camping for every pieces of loot in Thief isn't necessary, because it's rarely used by creators alert. And by the way, my previous post was mostly focused towards TDM.

[klatremus]

Are you out of your mind?

I certainly hope not, but you can never be sure.

I am mainly using Thief logic. At the core of gameplay has always been objectives and loot. Those are the reasons you are playing the mission at all. Take those out and what is left? Like I said before, I have never really thought about missing loot alerts until very recently, as the only mission I had experienced it in was Undercover, where you can take the loot after the alarm and be good for Supreme. Recently I discovered T2X mission 4 (coin stack on gambling table) and Into the Odd (the golden egg which is both loot and objective). In T2X I didn't care too much because it was only worth 10 and the mission couldn't be Perfect Supreme Ghosted anyway. In Into the Odd I took the bust but begrudgingly so, because I felt it was a bust by design and the author's choice more than bad ghosting. Plus it was the only bust and the last item I took in the mission.

Since we are now writing rules for a new mod from scratch, we have the chance to change things we feel the need to. We wouldn't change core rules, but then again alerts to missing loot aren't even mentioned in the original Ghost rules. Since there were multiple pieces of loot in Tears of St. Lucia that caused alerts, I figured this could be a common occurrence within that mod's fan missions. If not, then I guess it is not that big of a deal. But this mission is one that came along with the installation, so I thought those would represent what to expect in other missions also. Also, learning that they are scripts deliberately input by the author makes it almost like just another challenge. I compare it more to perhaps a change in patrol route after a certain event happens, or the spawning of new enemies to increase the challenge. It brings an extra aspect to ghosting that we haven't dealt with before, dealing with alerted enemies and how to best deal with them. I think that could be a fun aspect of ghosting. Like I said before, you could possibly use their alerted state to get into previously inaccessible areas, or get loot you couldn't before. Or you have to plan your route accordingly and take this risky loot last. Plus these alerts aren't normal alerts: 1) They do not have settling remarks, and 2) They do not count towards the stealth score. And piggy backing on what others have mentioned, you have to wait for patrollers to come by to be 100% sure. And how can you ever be absolutely certain? I agree with Cigam that you either have to allow them or disallow them, not require players to know everything. Alerts to tools left behind or doors left open you can confirm because you are right there and would close the door or remove the rope arrow immediately, but loot is gone forever. You can't replace them.

I vote for allowing missing loot alerts in TDM. I honestly think it would make ghosting more fun, and isn't that why we play this game?

[Galaer]

I'm of course vote for disallowing that. To be honest, hearing that very good supreme ghoster who was avoiding alerts made by him and now saying "let's allow search mode", is really sad. I don't know if it's short sign of weakness of yours, but that's really disappointing. So I guess you don't care about troublesome loot in Undercover taken at the beginning of mission, instead near the end, which will result in alarm at the beginning of mission. That's really sad.

Also don't be too happy if others will agree with you. You are supreme ghoster and in supreme rules there is rule about not manipulating AI and this activity is clearly manipulating AI. So you will not manage to use it anyway.

[marbleman]

I know of at least two other missions where these alerts happen, Penny Dreadful 2 and The Painter's Wife, and I haven't played that many TDM missions.

I was inclined to count them as busts when I first learned that they look like 4th alerts, but my main reasoning for allowing them is that one can never be 100% sure when these alerts will happen. This is the same reason hidden objectives are not necessary to complete for Supreme, simply because the player might not know about them. If I complete a report and claim a successful Ghost, and then later find out that AIs in a mission alert to a piece of loot being missing, does that invalidate my report? I don't think so.

If you know these alerts happen, you can choose to skip the corresponding pieces of loot and add it to your report, simple as that. Or you can try to take them last and then rush to the exit so that mission will end before they happen if that makes it any more acceptable to you.

Also, calm down a little. It seems you're taking it way too personally.

[Galaer]

TDM is too slow to rush to exit with loot that makes missing loot alert. Of course you can say that you are oblivious to this alert even if you know it happened or think that it will not happen. The same story can happen in Running Interference. You must escort Basso and if he will alert guards, then it always counted as a ghost bust. I mean, it's Basso and Jeniviere who alert guards, not Garrett. And you can stay all the time outside for Basso and Jeniviere and when they will appear and mission will end, you don't need to check if they alerted anyone. Let's be oblivious to that and be optimistic. But no, we still count that as a ghost bust.

Another example of alert not triggered by being seen or heard is if you put dead body in front of non alerted AI. Again it will move and it will lead to search mode. If it's servant, then it will run away. But I would still call this activity a ghost bust.

My huge problem with allowing missing loot alert are 2 things: it's a search mode and it's not common alert. If this would be 1st alert just like pickpocketing alert, then I would allow this no problem. If this alert would affect every piece of loot in every mission, which would make ghosting impossible in TDM, I would also allow that no problem. But the thing is - it's really rare alert, so I don't see any problem with avoiding these pieces of loot. And when you say you want to allow this alert, you sound more like loot hunter than a ghoster.

Another weird thing is that you want to allow this alert, but disallow another special alert about noticing open doors. Again AI must be programmed to notice open doors. Usually if open door is on their patrol route, they will enter room and close door without any comment. And if open door isn't on their patrol route, they will ignore it and leave it open. Plus this alert leads to 2nd alert, so it's lighter, but still disallowed. On the other hand missing loot alert leads to 4th alert and you want it to be allowed. You are creating paradox here.

About not knowing about missing loot alert, making report and then learning from others about another missing loot alert you didn't know - something like that was happening in the past. Other ghosters playing the same mission and informing that something that first ghoster thought wasn't bust and it was bust in the end, so first ghoster was changing his report. Good example is Hexameron's report about Chalice of Kings. Originally he thought that it's impossible to switch crowns without alerting guards, but later Peter Smith proved that it's possible. So Hexameron changed his report to failed. It happened to you too. I remember that you, marbleman, claimed supreme ghost success on Disorientation and then after many months mentioned that you failed it by not sending elevator. So this is really point of honor. There was time when there was discussion that made more precise what damage property is. That means that some of my reports are wrongly claimed as success or wrongly claimed as fail. I'm planning to do a turnee though my old reports after finishing ghosting rest of T1/T2 missions. I remember about that, so don't worry, this invalidation affects me as well.

Anyway, I'm gonna still avoid this missing loot alert even if it's gonna allowed by you. I really feel that it's not in the spirit of ghost to allow it.

[marbleman]

You know, I would skip those pieces of loot too if I know they'll cause alerts. The situation becomes tricker in a mission like The Painter's Wife, where AIs react to you stealing the objective item. This falls under "immediate consequences of completing objectives," which was already ruled to be acceptable.

[Galaer]

But objective item and common loot piece has different importance. Objective item must be taken for mission to complete, while common loot piece can be skipped. But is that really apply to "immediate consequences of completing objectives". I thought it is allowed if you grab item and at the very same moment you break other rule - like you are taking item that emits light. Or when objective says to destroy something, but it leads to damage property. Still you need to avoid being seen or heard while doing that (like explosion being heard by AI). That's why I thought this rule doesn't apply to alerts that may happen couple of seconds later.

I would personally still classify your situation as a ghost bust as you don't have objective to alert anyone (unless you have and you didn't mention about that). I also don't like excuse about Undercover alert being scripted, because it's clearly activated by Garrett and it launch alarm, which alert every Hammerite in Cathedral. This mechanic of activating something through reading scrolls is introduced at the beginning of mission to enter Cathedral through main door. In FMs is also used to open doors or summon new enemies. It's only in Undercover it launch alarm.

[Cigam]

Galaer , such loot-alerts are extremely common in T3. It might not even be possible to complete any mission without them.

I know the focus hasn't been on that game here, but surely the rules should be for all Thief games, rather than different rules for different games.

Plus the rules shouldn't assume that such situations would only occur for AIs that stay close to the loot, or that such alerts will otherwise be easily detectable. Nothing stops the next FM author putting in a loot alerting guard with a very long Kidnap length patrol.

If you disallow all such busts then how can anyone truly know that there were none? All they can say is that they saw no evidence of one.

I understand that the other option of allowing them seems odd. But then nothing stops you making your own judgement. You can judge that the person who skipped a piece of loot did a better ghosting run than either the person who took it without ever discovering that a later guard would alert, or the person who already knew that this would happen, and took it anyway.

In a similar way that I personally wouldn't use a breath-giving root as I would treat any consumable that gives a potion-like buff the same as a potion. But others have accepted this. But that doesn't stop me from thinking that such items should be avoided, even if technically allowed.

[Galaer]

I have no idea what's the situation with T3. I played it long time ago and I never played any T3 FMs. If missing loot alert is so common like you say in T3, then maybe it will be allowed. I really don't know about that.

As for missing loot alert in TDM I already made my statement and I'm not gonna repeat myself.

As for consumables - they must be consumed to say that you are doing chemical run. This root you mentioned, I'm guessing is from Sturmdrang Peak. If yes, then you are just chewing it, but not eating. It means that it stays in your inventory. Invisibility cape from Bathory Campaign also isn't consumed and it reappears in your inventory after use. And you don't drink holy water, you use it on water arrows instead, so again it's not consumed. That's why these items are allowed. But some of them you don't need to use it if you want extra challenge.

[klatremus]

I really don't care if I make you sad or disappointed, Galaer. Such a comment will not change my opinion. I too think you are taking this way too personally, if this is truly affecting your attitude towards me. You are also very negative in your commenting. You quoted me saying "let's allow search mode" (which I didn't say by the way), instead of spinning it positively and saying that I want to encourage players to obtain more loot. Allowing this will ultimately make the ghosting experience longer and more complete, but you chose not to focus on that. I feel ghosting is already very restrictive, so when we have the chance, why not loosen it a bit.

The biggest reason I have for allowing loot is the fact that you cannot be sure what loot items trigger alerts and which ones don't. What if you have a table with 6 pieces of loot and one patroller with a route around the whole building but with random pathway. Should you take 1 piece at a time and wait for him in between each time? This would take much more than 3-4 minutes each time. And you'd have to do that for every single piece of loot in a mission, and you'd have to track all the patrol routes to know exactly where they could go. Sure, if I know some pieces trigger alerts then I could skip them, but other players might not know about that and take them. I think the rules should apply equally to everyone. That's part of the fun in comparing reports. Also, what if a loot item is right by the exit but can get spotted by someone. Is it ok to take it and quickly exit, before anyone sees it's gone? You didn't get any alerts while playing the mission, so is that then allowed? What if the item is a bit farther away and you probably got it without alerts, but you can't be sure? If you allow these alert types, then you remove all those issues. And I again go back to the real world case of the loot being detected as gone the next day anyway, so at what point they happen seems a bit artificial to use as argument.

Comparing to detecting door open is not right, because a player can easily close the door immediately to prevent this detection. You cannot replace loot because that isn't a gameplay mechanic, since taking loot is the whole point of the game.

And you've got the Undercover loot alerts wrong, Galaer. The loot item at the start of the mission triggers the alarm because the enemies have seen you, not just from seeing the loot gone. Even though you are disguised as a novice, the enemies still observe your presence, so when you take the loot item, they react to you as an enemy and they know you are there. Other pieces of loot in the mission like the ones in the graveyard you can take without them having seen you, and all they do then is give a verbal alert with no settling remark, just like the ladies alerting to the missing egg in Into the Odd.

Also, for the record, I am not saying we should change the rules to allow this in Thief. I am only saying to allow it in TDM, since we are in the process of establishing those rules. Although they play similarly, they are run using completely different engines, so the rules cannot be compared 100%. Highest difficulty for example forces hardcore both for vision and hearing, which makes it much more difficult than it ever was in Thief. This makes ghosting harder, so why not tweak it to allow missing loot alerts in order to balance it a bit? Getting more loot is after all more enjoyable, isn't it?

@marbleman: With the current rule set in Thief, taking an objective that triggers enemy alerts will still bust Ghost. In Supreme rule #14 for example, it says "as long as it doesn't alert enemies". However, I still think we should loosen this rule for TDM also, and allow objectives being detected gone as ok. I don't mean allowing alerts if enemies see or hear you complete an objective, but only if they later see it is missing. For example Tears of St. Lucia they hear you destroy the statue, that is still a bust.

I summary, I think we should allow missing loot, objectives and pickpockets, but not allow detection of open doors or presence of rope arrows or other tools. Doors and tools the player can easily reset.

[Galaer]

To be honest, I think alerting to loot should be allowed in the original Thief games also.

That's what you said before in post #458, klatremus and that's why I replied to that. As for Undercover first piece of loot, you are incorrect. I nudged guard observing golden hammer out of a bridge, so he couldn't see and alert to missing loot. Then patroller came (it's impossible to not trigger him) and he alerted to missing loot and launched the alarm. He didn't seen or heard me.

I don't think this is unfair to compare this alert to alert to opening doors, because you can avoid it by skipping the loot. Yes, the point of this game is collecting loot, but we are playing ghost mode. Ghost mode is about avoiding any alert made by player and that's nothing new. I mean, all of us avoided some pieces of loot in the past in order to maintain ghost, so I don't really get why in this situation you are making such a huge problem. Also you mentioned that it will b e fun to allow it. I don't get it why. It will lead to more tedious waiting and guards will stay more sensitive.

As for patrollers with random paths, they are rare. I think you are too negative about the whole situation. Detection of this kind of alert isn't the worst thing in universe. I guess, you can make many more examples of random patrollers in missions you played than this single priest in Tears of St Lucia, which will prove to me that random patrollers is common problem in TDM. In my experience I didn't encountered any other random patroller yet. And let's not forget that it's loot that has this special property, so you only need to worry about places exclusively visited only by patroller with random route.

And please, don't use next day logic of a real life. I mean, what's the point of ghosting, then, if your crime will be detected the next morning anyway? Once again, the most important is what's happening during mission.

[klatremus]

That comment I made didn't mean I wanted us to change the rules. I have many things I don't agree with in the original Thief rules, one is alerts to missing loot, another is unnecessary pickups. I think you should be allowed to pick up expensive weapons and potions for Supreme, they are as valuable as loot and then you don't have to go buy them at the store in the future. But the rules have been in use for so long now, only clarifications are needed and those would be major changes that would invalidate previous reports. Previous reports for TDM are for older versions of the engine, where the detection and stealth system was very different. We just recently got into TDM ghosting.

I might be wrong about that piece of loot then Galaer in Undercover, so I apologize. There are other loot items though where they don't raise the alarm.

If missing loot alerts is such a huge point of contention across the board, perhaps we should just let it be up to the player's conscience and not make a hard rule about it. However, most of the commenters in this thread seem to be leaning towards allowing it.