TTLG|Jukebox|Thief|Bioshock|System Shock|Deus Ex|Mobile
Page 27 of 28 FirstFirst ... 27121722232425262728 LastLast
Results 651 to 675 of 690

Thread: Ghost rules discussion

  1. #651
    Member
    Registered: Mar 2018
    But it's yours reaction, not plant's reaction.

  2. #652
    Member
    Registered: Apr 2016
    Location: France
    That's true, and what the plant does is based on you just stepping into its radius, it's not an AI that detects and reacts to you. Really a borderline case this.

  3. #653
    Member
    Registered: Mar 2018
    I would classify pitcher plant to objects that hurt you when you touch them. For example cauldron filled with lava to forge something or hot stove. These objects hurt you whenever you will get too close to them, but they don't count as AI.

    Also I believe that normally pitcher plants are indestructible. I only played Lingering Whispers that allowed destruction of these plants with fire arrows.

  4. #654
    Member
    Registered: Aug 2003
    Location: Phoenix, AZ, USA, Earth
    Hmm...yes that's s tough one. I think Galaers comparison to hot items is a good one. An Artificial Intelligence has to be intelligent and aware enough to alert to you, not just hurt you by impact. I think youre ok here and it doesn't bust any rule from what I can see.

  5. #655
    Member
    Registered: May 2008
    Location: Southern,California
    i got a question ,i might have asked it once before but i forgot if i did,is taking dewdrop in a mission any kind of bust?

  6. #656
    Member
    Registered: Aug 2003
    Location: Phoenix, AZ, USA, Earth
    It would only bust Supreme's unnecessary pickup rule, unless of course Dewdrop is an objective or useful for something important.

  7. #657
    Member
    Registered: Oct 2013
    The rules say "2. No combat damage may be dealt or taken and no knockouts or kills of any kind are allowed".

    Well, the Eyeballs and plants are alive, and you would be killing them? Mind you, that would mean that cutting vines and grass is disallowed also.

    Of course that is using real-world logic. In terms of game mechanics, you could argue that it only qualifies as a "kill" if there is an associated life mechanic that gets ended.

    Eyeballs stop moving so not allowed. A plant that causes pain passively because of thorns or similar is allowed. Static vines are allowed. A plant which actively attacks you (by emitting gas for example), not allowed?

  8. #658
    Member
    Registered: Oct 2013
    I have a question. There is a long history of saying that busts that occur directly as a consequence of taking a single general loot item are not excused.

    I think the thinking is that even if there is an objective to steal X amount of loot, there is no objective to steal THIS specific candle-holder etc. So the removal of a light source when it is taken counts.

    So here's the question, if the objective was "steal ALL loot", would any busts that occur as a direct and immediate consequence of taking a piece, such as a light going out etc., be allowed then?

    Or would there still be too much distance between the objective, and these individual busts?

  9. #659
    Member
    Registered: Aug 2003
    Location: Phoenix, AZ, USA, Earth
    First, this only applies to Supreme. Second, I have never seen such an objective, except for one that triggers once you find all the loot, in which case it isn't excusing taking the light-emitting loot because you didn't have the objective in the list prior to finding it all. The only case I can see if there is an optional objective up front to find all the loot. Since optional objectives are required for Supreme, then it would excuse such busts, as long as it didn't alert enemies to your presence.

    And back to your prior comment, cutting vines would never count as a kill for example, so it's not just a matter of destroying something that is alive. Rather, it must display some sort of response to the player to count as a bust.
    Last edited by klatremus; 13th May 2022 at 22:45.

  10. #660
    Member
    Registered: Apr 2016
    Location: France
    In mission 2 of Godbreaker, you have an objective to kill all craymen in a certain area. The person giving you this objective also says that one of the ways to do so is to summon fire elementals who will do the job for you. However, does this excuse all the second and third alerts in the mayhem that ensues when you do this?

  11. #661
    Member
    Registered: Oct 2013
    marbleman, it sounds as if the objective itself simply tells you to kill the crays, whereas you are not explicitly instructed to do so via the elemental summoning? This is a suggested optional possible method of completing said objective? If so, then not sure the indirect busts this method would generate get a pass?

  12. #662
    Member
    Registered: Aug 2003
    Location: Phoenix, AZ, USA, Earth
    What is stated in the objective exactly? Anything beyond what is written (or heavily implied) there wouldn't be excused. If it says to carry someone out, it implies knocking them out first. If it says to find a way out of a building and the only way is to blow something up and that instantly checks off the objective, that would be allowed, but not alerting someone else in the process. So I don't think whatever someone is telling you, even if that person is the one who gives you a new objective, would be allowed if it incurs further busts.
    Last edited by klatremus; 22nd May 2022 at 13:56.

  13. #663
    Member
    Registered: Apr 2016
    Location: France
    It's stated to kill all enemies. You can do that by summoning fire elementals to do the job for you. So there are a bunch of alerts as the fire elementals and crays are fighting, but they alert to each other, not to you. Still, it's you who causes this mayhem in the first place.

  14. #664
    Member
    Registered: Aug 2003
    Location: Phoenix, AZ, USA, Earth
    See if the objective said to summon fire elementals to kill the craymen then I'd be saying that's fine. Even though the craymen gets alerted at that point, it's not to you and you followed the objective. Then it becomes like the Adrius objective in Calendra's Cistern where he goes on a rampage after you trigger him, but doing so is instructed in the objective. Sure, you can choose not to trigger that objective, but that is another story.

  15. #665
    Member
    Registered: Aug 2003
    Location: Phoenix, AZ, USA, Earth
    Quote Originally Posted by Galaer View Post
    @klatremus: As old timer who understand original intent of this rule you may not realize that this rule may be confusing for new ghosters. So I propose this change:

    "You aren't allowed to alert or kill enemies in any other way that allows you to do it without being seen or heard. With exception of rule #12:

    A) Example of alerting AI without being seen or heard would be dropping killed or unconscious body in front of them to lure them out.

    B) Example of killing enemies without being heard or seen would be nudging AI into water for them to drown.

    C) You also aren't allowed to initialize any infighting. For example by opening door for opposite enemies to see each other or by creating AI to fight with other AI. Exception to this rule may be fight started by listening to scripted conversation."
    I don't think we need a big rewrite of that rule. To be honest, your suggestion sounds more confusing to me than what's already written. I suggest just separating the two points in the rule from:

    "5. Garrett must not cause suicides of AI or melees that intentionally cause AI to attack each other, with the exception of rule 12."

    to

    "5. Garrett must not cause suicides of AI. Garrett must also not cause melees (enemy infighting) and intentionally cause AI to attack each other, with the exception of rule 12."

  16. #666
    Member
    Registered: Mar 2018
    I disagree with your way to keep this rule as short as possible. My proposition contains examples how you can achieve killing and alerting without being seen or heard. Yours doesn't. Also your proposition is also confusing: melees (enemy infighting) and causing AI to attack each other they are thew same things. So why are you separating them? Look, other rules have good clarification what they represent with some examples. This rule has nothing. I don't really get it what confuses you in my proposition as I wanted to explain this rule as I wanted to explain it as clear as possible. So could you be more specific?

    Upon reading my and your proposition I would say that "suicide" is probably not a good word as AI never kill themselves. It's probably to call it "accidents" that are caused by player to kill AI like making them drown or crashing their heads with elevator.
    Last edited by Galaer; 24th May 2022 at 02:44.

  17. #667
    Member
    Registered: Aug 2003
    Location: Phoenix, AZ, USA, Earth
    I meant to write "that intentionally cause", not and, as they are obviously connected. I guess a better way to write it would be "Garrett must not intentionally cause melees (enemy infighting) where AI attack each other, with the exception of rule 12."

    I guess if you absolutely need examples of this, we can include that in the rule. I just dont see how anyone could mistake what it means to cause a fight or suicide. But ok.

    This sentence confused me in your suggestion:
    "You aren't allowed to alert or kill enemies in any other way that allows you to do it without being seen or heard." Especially the part in bold.

  18. #668
    Member
    Registered: Mar 2018
    By first sentence I meant to say that "You aren't allowed to alert or kill enemies in any other way than mentioned in other rules".

    As for examples: put yourself in shoes of new ghoster who doesn't know all specifics of this challenge, so he takes them entirely from the rules. This person may not know what suicide means, because AI don't usually kill themselves. This person may not know what rules means about causing infighting as usually you do that by luring enemies to each other. This can also happen by accident or be scripted. Also there is no specification that triggering fights by listening to conversation is omitted, so new ghoster may interpret this as a bust. That's why these rules should be as clear as possible.

    Also I have no idea why you insist with this confusing word "melees". If you check Google it has couple of meanings, which already is confusing. And since it's very similar to word "melee" it can be interpreted as "people who use melee weapons". That's at least how I was interpreted this word for couple of years. Why not just call it "enemy infighting"?

    And one more thing - your proposition of this rule omits alerting to the killed/unconscious bodies, which is presented in original rule. 1st half of this rule ("Garrett must not cause suicides of AI or melees") forbids causing suicides and 2nd half ("that intentionally cause AI to attack each other, with the exception of rule 12") put extra reason for avoiding suicides by causing enemy attack each other. Though to be honest I find it weird wording. Enemies very rarely attack each other upon seeing body, usually they just go into search mode. But I guess this is just an oddity of the old rule.

  19. #669
    Member
    Registered: Oct 2013
    What exactly are you trying to forbid? Any Player action that would cause or result in an AI alerting, dying, taking damage, or attacking another AI? (with the exceptions of whatever is excused by the script or objective rules?)

    I think the problem with using a term like "intentionally", is that it is still a bust even if the player does it by accident, or didn't realise that their action would result in this outcome? I mean, that I didn't realise that there was a guard under the lift I sent down does not absolve me?

    And talk of "in-fighting" might not cover the situation where only one AI is actually attacking another. Such as releasing a spider so it will chase the maid away from her position. They are not fighting as such?
    Last edited by Cigam; 24th May 2022 at 17:47.

  20. #670
    Member
    Registered: Aug 2003
    Location: Phoenix, AZ, USA, Earth
    @Galaer:
    Also there is no specification that triggering fights by listening to conversation is omitted, so new ghoster may interpret this as a bust.
    Listening to conversation is a script and this is exactly what rule #12 is discussing. Also, under Commentary and Interpretation of Ghost Rules, step 6. Scripts further explains this.

    Also I have no idea why you insist with this confusing word "melees". If you check Google it has couple of meanings, which already is confusing. And since it's very similar to word "melee" it can be interpreted as "people who use melee weapons". That's at least how I was interpreted this word for couple of years. Why not just call it "enemy infighting"?
    I agree the word melee doesn't bring anything vital to the rule, so this can be changed to enemy infighting or enemies alerting to each other.

    And one more thing - your proposition of this rule omits alerting to the killed/unconscious bodies, which is presented in original rule. 1st half of this rule ("Garrett must not cause suicides of AI or melees") forbids causing suicides and 2nd half ("that intentionally cause AI to attack each other, with the exception of rule 12") put extra reason for avoiding suicides by causing enemy attack each other. Though to be honest I find it weird wording. Enemies very rarely attack each other upon seeing body, usually they just go into search mode. But I guess this is just an oddity of the old rule.
    I'm sorry Galaer, but you have misunderstood the rule. It is not saying that the suicide causes the infighting. There are two separate issues in rule #5. First it is saying you are not allowed to cause suicides (nudging guard into water, putting crates in the way for a patrolling guard so he falls into lava, etc). In the same rule but separately it is also saying you are not allowed to cause enemies to start fighting together (leaving doors open so they see each other, releasing caged spiders so they chase someone, etc). One does not cause the other. This is why I suggested the rewording in post #665 above to separate those into two separate sentences, because I saw that you were confused.

    @Cigam:
    I agree "intentionally" is misleading and should be removed. All alerts or fights should be included, not just planned ones. And I also agree it shouldn't just be fighting, but enemies simply alerting (and perhaps running away) to each other too. That follows the rule's spirit.
    Last edited by klatremus; 24th May 2022 at 19:13.

  21. #671
    Member
    Registered: Mar 2018
    I guess english still has a lot of nuances hard to understand for me. One more thing that I would think it would be good to add to this rule is information that you are allowed to manipulate result of infighting by saving and loading game. We take that for granted, but new player may not know about that.

    Also speaking about this fact a question: what if on battlefield is pool of water (like canal in city), what if one of AI fighting will stand for second above water and we use save/load to make him fall and drown? So is this situation gonna count as suicide caused by us and disallowed or count as allowed manipulation of infighting (as it was done by saving and loading game)?

  22. #672
    Member
    Registered: Aug 2003
    Location: Phoenix, AZ, USA, Earth
    It's ok, Galaer. I have lived in the US for so long I consider myself a native speaker almost. Sometimes it's good for us to get a foreign speaker to help clarify the rules. I will write up a new suggestion with the examples later today. No saving and reloading has never been a bust, but if excessively used, perhaps its frowned upon and disliked. But I agree that would be good to include in the rules.

    And likewise in your last question, no that would not be a bust. You are not causing the suicide, the game engine is and is outside your control. I mean if you reload later in the mission the guard will just fall in then, so you have to play the rest of the mission ironman to avoid it? No, loading is ok.

  23. #673
    Member
    Registered: Mar 2018
    Quote Originally Posted by klatremus View Post
    And likewise in your last question, no that would not be a bust. You are not causing the suicide, the game engine is and is outside your control. I mean if you reload later in the mission the guard will just fall in then, so you have to play the rest of the mission ironman to avoid it? No, loading is ok.
    Yes, guards may for second be above water and then return to ground and sometimes they will go too far above water or pit and they will fall on their own. But my question was actually about intentionally sending guard into water to drown through saving and loading, because for example weaker AI is our ally and stronger AI will easily kill him.

  24. #674
    Member
    Registered: Aug 2003
    Location: Phoenix, AZ, USA, Earth
    If there's only a second or so when the guard is over water and you intentionally save reload then just to get the guard killed, that would not be allowed. But if you find the guard dead and it might have died because of you saving earlier when you were elsewhere, then nobody would call it a bust. It's difficult because it isn't really covered by a rule, but I think it goes against all ghosters' conscience to use exploitative tactics like that to get enemies killed. Its different if enemies are already in a scripted fight like in Mines of Margroth and you reload until you get a desirable outcome, because enemies would die regardless.

  25. #675
    Member
    Registered: Mar 2018
    Good to know. One more question (a bit off topic): I was wondering if damage property rule was always in ghost rules, or was it added to the rules at some point. I'm asking because I have 2 successful reports that allowed destruction of wooden planks, though didn't mention about that. I'm talking about Vanguard's Enterprise (T1) and dafydd's Docks... All Aboard (T2).

Page 27 of 28 FirstFirst ... 27121722232425262728 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
  •