PDA

View Full Version : Ghost ruling: Is a required action that kills AIs acceptable?



Vanguard
16th Oct 2002, 16:22
In the Cistern FM, you MUST hit the switch to flood the cistern. This is how you get to the other passages that are halfway up the wall. This kills the bugbeasts that were roaming at the bottom of the cistern. You flipping the switch killed the bugbeasts. The switch is required to continue the mission. This seems a ghost bust based on the same arguments we had relating to banner slashing. In some FMs, you MUST slash a banner to continue either because there is a passage behind it and that is the only route to continue or required objects are too far behind the banner to frob them through the banner. It was declared that ANY banner slashing even if required to continue was a ghost bust. So it would seem, too, that the required action to flood the cistern which kills the bugbeasts is also a ghost bust. You aren't allowed to setup traps or situations where it is known that AIs will get killed; i.e., you cannot perform an action that will kill AIs. Actions like piling up crates so AIs waddle off cliffs to fall to their death or fall into pools to drown are not allowed. Stepping on a trap floor pressure plate at the right moment to fire off a fire arrow that kills an AI is not allow. You aren't allowed to fire a broadhead at a switch that activates a press that crunches and destroys a turret below it.

Although there is an immediate change in the FM at the point when you flood the cistern (i.e., you switch to the scene AFTER the cistern is flooded and the bugbeasts are already dead), they would've never died if you never hit that switch. To me, it seems this FM will always be unghostable due to its design. There are many FMs that are like that. FMs are never required to be ghostable but some require an action that blatantly violates our existing ghost rules.

If some kills are allowed without a ghost bust, you run into problems like, "Well, there is no way to get past those spiders so I killed them with a broadhead." I see no difference in you killing a spider with a broadhead and you killing bugbeasts by drowning them just because you used a switch instead of a weapon. There are many situations in FMs where you can kill AIs using the design and behavior of the FM rather than weapons.

Zaccheus
16th Oct 2002, 17:06
I agree, it is a bust.

Now, if the objectives had said: "kill the bug beats by drowning them", then it would not be a bust (i.e. RTC), but as killing the bug beasts is only a side effect of trying to complete other objectives, it is IMO certainly a bust.

Some FMs are just not ghostable.
:(

RicknMel
16th Oct 2002, 22:17
My opinion doesn't count since I don't ghost.......
.........but yur gonna git it anyhows ;)

I don't think it's a bust. You HAVE to press the switch to continue. There is absolutely NO other way to get around it. Even if you found some clever way to get up on that ledge without filling the cistern (like tossing a crate up into the ledge and shooting a rope arrow into it and climbing up or something), I bet you wouldn't be able to proceed anyways, because of the "teleportation" that has to occur to get to the other part of the map. Actually....now that I think about it...you didn't actually kill the bugbeasts at all...the original bugbeasts are still alive. You just got teleported to a room where there was already dead bugbeasts...that were dead before you ever loaded up the mission in the first place! :D


I also think mandatory banner slashing shouldn't be a bust. I feel it falls into the same catagory as the above.

However....
I don't feel your comparison to killing spiders with broadheads relates to "the matter at hand" at all. You would be killing the spiders to obtain the "ghost", NOT to complete the mission.

Anyways...that's it from me. :)

Gumdrop
16th Oct 2002, 22:54
Originally posted by RicknMel
...you didn't actually kill the bugbeasts at all...the original bugbeasts are still alive.

So there you have it. LOL Rick...Chalk one up for the non-ghosters! :D

RicknMel
17th Oct 2002, 00:17
:D

Peter_Smith
17th Oct 2002, 02:56
Well, I am of the liberal camp, and I think that killing the bugbeasts by flipping the switch is OK. It is required action that triggers a script. You are not doing it overtly. The banner slashing is different. You are doing it overtly. As a counter example to the banner shashing, you might ask, is there another way in? the answer is yes -- Lytha invented it, and she called it keyholing. Unfortunately, I think her posts did not survive the forum changeover. In the case of the drowned bugbeasts, there is no alternative, the script did it, and it was not an action that could possibly have been avoided. I see this as no different than tiggering a script that causes a fight between AI, such has been ruled acceptable for First Bank and Trust. You can't accept The Bank and not accept this.

My post to Deadfall's question is based on the same principle.

Yes, I posted the ghost report for Cistern, so you might say I am biased. I would express the same opinion if you or Deadfall had posted it.

Vanguard
17th Oct 2002, 20:42
Keyholing? What's that? If it has to do with passing through banners then I suspect it is like transmigration which doesn't always work and only might work if you can use a rope arrow so the rope passes by the banner, or you can manage to lean through or partway into the banner, and probably depends on the distancing between the banner and the wall and maybe the thickness of the banner. That would seem something you find as a fluke in design or in how the game engine handles that particular design at that spot; if it works, you're lucky, if it doesn't your choice is to abort the mission or slash.

I'd also like to better understand what is meant by crate-nudging. I had heard the term used on how to nudge along spiders but I'm not sure that I'm doing it the right or best way.

Scripts that trigger based on your position are really out of your control and can be quite fakey. Usually it is just a way of delaying the script from running and so it doesn't execute in your absence. Garrett opening a door or stepping on a pressure plate or crossing an electric eye does have Garrett affect something in the game that he could possibly avoid. Even if he can't avoid it to continue the mission, it was something on which he had an affect upon. It's not like the cistern filled up because you simply got into the room. It filled up because he pressed a button - so he DID perform an action, he did affect an object, and that resulted in a kill of the bugbeasts.

In a similar situation, you take an elevator platform down. Underneath is an AI of which you were unaware. Squish, a dead AI. Just because it wasn't an overt action to kill the AI, it still happened. If the AI doesn't move so it always gets killed by taking the elevator down, you have to find another way to get down. If there is no other way to get down, you'll end up with a ghost bust (by killing the AI or maybe dropping to take damage assuming you survive the fall). There is no difference between you pressing the button and watching yourself lower on the elevator platform than of you pushing the button and being instantly repositioned at the bottom of travel with a dead AI under the platform. The "teleport" method used for the transistion doesn't change the fact that you squished an AI dead flat.

If we get into allowing Garrett to affect an object, like flipping a switch in this case (or slashing a banner in others), just because it is required, it seems we open a can of worms again as to when the catastrophic event is allowed. For example, in the Tymoteusz FM, you have to smash the large crate in the big vault to get at the huge vase inside that you are required to frob as an objective. Unlike a safe, a glass window or cabinet, shelves, or desks in which sometimes you can frob through them to get the goodies inside, you can't frob through this big crate to get the vase. If you don't smash the crate to get the vase, the objective doesn't check off and you don't complete the mission. If you smash the crate, it's a ghost bust. You do it, you blew it. You don't, you also fail. There is no way to win a 100% ghost. And, so far, we haven't allowed conditional ghosts that less than 100% and are rated according to the number of ghost busts due to a required action to contine or complete the mission. It's either a 100% ghost or a failure.

I don't believe there is a ghost rule that says you are allowed to break the other rules if that's the only way to complete the mission.

Deadfall
17th Oct 2002, 22:23
Vanguard - Check this page (http://www.lytha.com/games/thief/knowledge/Doors/index.html) for an example and explanation of Keyholing by Lytha.

Peter_Smith
18th Oct 2002, 06:06
I'm sorry, Vanguard, I think your examples do not support your position.

Look at the stats. The bugbeast deaths are not counted as damage. You did not do it. The cistern-filling script did it. The fact that you enabled the scrpit by flipping the switch is irrelevant, in my opinion. That script is part of the game, and it must be enabled. Examples of similar scripted events that have been allowed in the past include the fight between archers in Life of the Party, the alert caused by taking the Eye in The Haunted Cathedral, and triggering the alarm in Undercover. And, I think it makes no difference whatsoever if the script is caused by your proximity or by your frobbing something.

On the other hand, killing a spider or bashing a crate because they are in the way are totally different. They are overt killing and property destruction, in direct violation of the rules. It doesn't matter if you think you "have" to violate the rules to complete the game. Those are a bust - the mission cannot be ghosted. If, in the case of the Cistern, I had had to go down and kill or alert a bugbeast to reach the switch, that would have been a bust, too, no question about it.

But flipping the cistern switch, by itself, is clearly not a bust. And, the indirect action caused by a script playing out is something altogether different from overt spider killing and crate bashing, in my opinion. The fact that it is indirect action beyond your control, and a necessary part of the mission design is why LOTP, RTH, and Undercover have been allowed, and that is why this should be allowed, too. I do not see how the cistern filling could be disallowed without also disallowing my three examples, which are historical precedents. There is no precedent for your examples of spider killing or crate bashing.

Unless you are convinced by my argument, we may have to wait for clayman and/or Sneak to settle this.

One other point. I don't care if my ghost is disallowed. I am arguing this point only as a matter of principle. I would make this same agument regardless of who had ghosted it.

Zaccheus
18th Oct 2002, 16:19
It is true that even if you could somehow get the bugbeasts to leave the room before flicking the switch, they would still be floating dead in the water after your teleport.
So perhaps it isn't a ghost bust.

But I still think that there is an argument which says that some FMs are not ghostable, because you MUST do something which is not permitted by the rules.

Vanguard
18th Oct 2002, 19:43
The arguments about whether or not a scripted action is allowed and does not bust a ghost may not apply here. When you hit the switch to flood the cistern, is a script actually triggered to run? It looks more like you have been teleported into another similarly designed room but one which is filled. Is the action to teleport you to another location in the design also considered a "script"? Or is the teleportation itself a script? The reason I suspect you are teleported is: your position after hitting the switch is an inch or two above the floor and you'll see a slight drop of Garrett, and the switch changes from frobbable to unfrobbable.

There have been other situations in which I wasn't sure if an executed script caused a ghost bust or not:

1. In the Sisterhood of Azura (SOA) FM, getting past the bar at the Tippled Burrick causes AIs to spawn. This is a boundary trigger; once you pass a certain boundary past the bar (to get the loot on the shelf behind the bar), the bluecoats get spawned. This results in a melee between the spawned bluecoats and the current AIs that were already in the bar. You could down an inviso potion just before setting off the trigger and escape out the back window (but that's already a ghost bust since you had to bash it open, but that is irrelevant to the question at hand). In Life of the Party (LOP) OM, as you approached, a melee was scripted to occur and AIs got killed. Here you approach a position, too, and a melee ensues. In both cases, it is possible for you to not be seen. In the past, it against the ghost rules to actually and deliberately create melees, but LOP was allowed. It seems by extension of the same reasoning that the melee in SOA must be allowed (as long as you don't get spotted).

2. I don't remember the FM's title but you start out in a garden with a corpse near you. An objective says you are to kill some guy and deposit that guy's corpse and this one in the vault. You kill the other guy but it turns out to be a dupe (but does not violate the no-kill objective so obviously an author can decide what AIs get counted and which do not, so an AI that is killed by you but does not get counted in the kill stat is NOT a means of disqualifying the kill from a ghost bust). You find a secret passage from this other guy's bedroom and go down some stairs to his vault. When you open the door and after you step inside, the AIs that have been waiting there are scripted to play a voice message and then go on full alert to chase you. This isn't a cutscene; the AIs are already there waiting, the script plays a voiceover, and then the AIs are triggered to go on full alert. You don't need to enter the room all the way into the view of the AIs. You can just take a step past the door towards the other half of the room around the corner, the script triggers, and you can run back out and hide under the dark cover of the stairs. The AIs never saw you. But then they never really "see" you when the script starts executing and during the voiceover; only when the script sets them on full alert could they see you (and by then I have left). The AIs never saw me (I was still around the corner and hidden from their view although, as mentioned, this is unimportant). The script is what put them on full alert. This script putting the AIs on full alert would have to be disqualified from a ghost bust just like it was disqualified in the Undercover FM where the AIs were put on full alert by the alarm or the remaining AIs were on full alert during and after the melee in the LOP FM.

Are we to assume then that a ghost attempt is never busted if a <b><u>script</u></b> killed the AIs or alerted them, and that you activating a script which results in kills or alerts is not a ghost bust? You're not allowed to kill AIs even through the use of traps (that the AIs wouldn't themselves set off), yet some traps are scripted - so it is alright to setup a kill or alert by deliberately executing the script to spring the trap that kills the AI under the argument "the script killed the AI, not me"? Some scripts are subtle in their effect so it may not always be identifiable to players that a script was the culprit instead of your presence or something you affected. Or do we only disqualify scripts that are unavoidable? And then by extension, we would have to allow banner slashing that was unavoidable. Will we also include teleports (to switch the design, not to go to another room) which seems to be the case in the Cistern FM?

Understand that I am not against letting AIs get killed or alerted by scripts but I would like a better handle on when they're allowed and when not rather than rely on a concensus. Rules aren't rules if they're made up on-the-fly. Most times, a script is something the author did deliberately to make the FM more enjoyable. But if we're going to blame scripts as the culprit for the kills and alerts, I'm wondering if some qualifications can't be decided in advance to provide general guidance in when scripted kills and alerts are allowed and when they aren't rather than get a concensus on a case-by-case basis. Part if the reason for asking is based on my ignorance in designing an FM. To me, it seems almost any change has to be "scripted". Dousing a torch executes a script (or function) that changes the torch from lit to unlit. A script can be just 1 line to call a function. Or is it that an attribute of the object (the torch) that gets changed automatically [by the game engine] upon an event (of getting hit by the water arrow)?

When AI kills or alerts are scripted, it's not always easy to determine if your ghost is busted or not. You would always tend to decide in favor of yourself.

Peter_Smith
19th Oct 2002, 00:40
Vanguard,

I think you are making far too much out of a simple thing. See Clayman's post in Deadfall's ghosting question (http://forums.eidosgames.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=7273). The same principle applies here. Whether you are transported or it is a script, whether you hit a proximity trigger or you are forced to hit a switch -- none of this matters. As Clayman says, the fundamental question is, were you heard or seen. I imagine Clayman was scared away from this thread because he didn't want to be involved in an impossible to resolve, nit-picking argument (as he stated). Sneak also agrees with my position on Cistern for another reason (see this thread (http://forums.eidosgames.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=6979)).


Zaccheus,

We all accept the fact that some missions are not ghostable. IMO, this isn't one of them for reasons already stated, notwithstanding Vanguard's obfuscation.:D It is not an overt act, you were not seen or heard doing it, and it is a programmed part of the game. That principle has been ruled on before, and it is not a bust.

Sneak
19th Oct 2002, 00:54
Latest Breaking News:
Nefarious Gummy made a teleportation button and when pressed you warped out of reality into an oblivion of nothingness where time stood still. You had no conscious thoughts while there as you were in stasis. Meanwhile Gummy was distracted for a an eon of years by a revolt in parsec 5 of the Andromeda Galaxy. Seems the Tripseon race was teed off at the Esusians because they morphed a Burrick into a Fire Breathing Dragon and dropped it on their edible Woodsie plants. A full scale interplanetary war ensued. Meanwhile the Bug Beasts had evolved Supreme to Rule our Galaxy. However in their madness and megalomania for power, glory, and diamonds; they built the Tri-gravitational Flame Extractor to harness the power of the sun to burn their intergalatic enemies into carbon dust which they deposited on Pressure Hull planet in the far reaches of space. Pressure Hull Planet is the densest planet known and has an atmospheric PSI 4 million times that of earth and the temperature is so hot it can not be measured by any known race. And of couse the temperature and pressure quickly turned the carbon dust of the defeated Bug Beasts enemies into absolutely Flawless Diamonds. But the more Diamonds they got the more diamonds they lusted after. So the Tri-gravitational Flame Extractor was used too often and more enemies were fried into carbon dust. Ultimately the sun rebelled, it shrunk into a Red Dwarf, expanded into a Red Giant, and then ultimately collapsed into a ravenous Black Hole sucking in matter, light, and gravity. If it continued gobbling up the universe all would be over including the edible Woodsie Plants and the Morphed Burrick.

About this time Gummy showed up where the earth used to be and was devastated at what the Bug Beasts had done. Profuse Anger was rising like acrid smoke from the top of the Gummy Ones head. All was almost lost. But then, remembering the Teleportation button, and idea occured to save the universe before it died. Whipping out DromED Gummy erased the previous program and made a scene very similar to what you had been teleported from. Then just as a reminder to never let the Bug Beast Race be in control of anything, some Never Living Always Dead Bug Beasts were placed in the flooded room which previously had not been. Then you were Teleported back into the scene from Oblivion with only a bit of a time gap noticable to your senses. The Teleportation buttun Gummy disabled so it could never be used again. And it is hoped your Race will ultimately not make the mistakes of the Bug Beasts or you too will be relegated to Never Living Always Dead status.

Now that the truth has been revealed, who killed the Bug Beasts? ;)

Now of course if you had hit the button and the room slowly filled up with water before your eyes and you heard them Beasties scream out their demise and die......well..............Reload a save and find another way! ;)

Had to have fun with this one. Am off out of town to an obscure Bar B Que place. I may post more later on this.

Also if anyone is interested I just did a Supreme Ghost run of Calendras Legacy. Not saying the outcome but it is gonna take about 6 weeks to write it up, ha! ;)

Peter_Smith
19th Oct 2002, 01:38
Wow! Thanks for the explanation of how things work, Sneak.:D Nice scenario, there.

Although I think you are onto something with your theory (the teleportation is technically correct), I submit that even if you saw the bugbeasts drown, it is no different in principle than seeing the archers fight in the Bank, seeing alerted guards in Undercover, or seeing alerted haunts in RTC, when you take the eye. All of these have been ruled acceptable. The key point is than in none of these instances were you seen or heard directly, and the commotion is caused entirely by author's programming the game based on some event that has nothing to do with your being seen or heard. I think the nature of the programming and what activates it is irrelevant to the argument I am making.

I will be eagerly awaiting your report on Calendra's Legacy. I will probably be inspired to play it again, whatever the outcome. I have never played the final version. I will say that I ghosted most of the Beta version while testing. I don't really remember if there were any busts or not. I think not, assuming you rule out the forced scripted events, like the results of visiting Mercedes room cannot be called an alert, although in practice it is one of the biggest alerts ever.:) That is another case that is exactly like we have been debating here. Supreme is another matter altogether. Sounds like a big job.

Sneak
19th Oct 2002, 17:56
Peter,
Am mostly ambivalent about if the button was pressed and you saw the Cistern fill up before your eye and then heard and saw the Bug Beasts die before your very eyes. The reason for my ambivalence is that in this case you did press the button and drowned the Buggies. But then again you were unseen and unheard.

But being that this is all hypothetical anyway, as it has not happened, meaning there is no ruling needed,there isn't much point in hashing it. HA! ;)

So I am extricating myself carefully from the "What If" senario! ;)

And personally I hope it never happens. And if Gummy does it on purpose to get us all involved in a tangle of Verbage, I shall load the FM into DromEd and delete it! LMAO! And furthermore make my own Teleportation button which will render Gummy to Never Living Always Dead status Forever! HAHAHA! HAHAHA!


Just kidding Gummy, Just Kidding! :cool:

Vanguard
20th Oct 2002, 05:17
Overt kills are bad but ignorant kills are okay? It is irrelevant whether a kill was overt or not. It's still a kill. You won't know the effect of stepping on a pressure plate, pressing a switch, opening a door, or affecting any object in the mission until you do it, so any AI kill as a result would always be a non-overt kill, but you did kill so you'll have to reload and see if you can do something else to avoid the kill. Unless you are using your inventory (i.e., weapons), all incidental kills in a mission by you affecting an object are non-overt kills - because you won't know until you do it.

Nit-picking? Gee, anytime any of us ghosters (that are not in the cadre of the few decision-making ghosters) ask for an opinion then we're *****ing or it's irrelevant? Wrong. "But being that this is all hypothetical anyway, as it has not happened, meaning there is no ruling needed,there isn't much point in hashing it." Huh? If you play the FM, the bugbeast kills do happen so it is not hypothetical.

Unseen and unheard are the only qualifications? In that case, I can kill lots of AIs without ever being seen or heard. And I can claim most of these were not overt kills because, after all, I'm not going to know about the kill until afterward. I don't know about the bugbeasts getting drowned until after I flip the switch. "Unseen and unheard" will never restrict kills. Having a rules that says "no kills" with the other rule that says "unless an objective requires kills" sure makes it look like I killed the bugbeasts without an objective to excuse the kills.

It wasn't that the script brought enemy AIs together to shoot each other up, like in melees. Melees can even be timed (for the release of the AIs) rather than scripted, like in Insurrection. Having enemies fight each other never requires Garrett to do anything himself (you really don't get to have any fun in the FMs in setting up the melee, only in triggering it; i.e., Garrett doesn't do "this" and there is no melee but if he does "that" then there is a melee), so I've been comfortable with kills resulting from melees - because Garrett didn't do the kills.

Undercover and RTC get used as examples but again they don't address the issue of killing AIs, only about whether we're allowing alerts of those AIs. In Undercover where the AIs are alerted when you grab the talisman, they are only *alerted*, not killed! In RTC when you take the eye, the haunts and ghosts are alerted, not killed! Killing AIs is a lot more drastic than just alerting them yet many of the arguments have equated killing and alerting. You think there'd be much of a reward for Garrett if he went around surprising the townfolk by yelling "BOO!" into their face rather than him killing them? There is huge difference between these actions. We've allowed 1st alerts but not 2nd alerts, but kills are only as bad as a 2nd alert?

The reason the alerts (NOT kills) were allowed in the other missions is that it was agreed by concensus - because we don't really have a good idea when they are allowed or not. The concensus here appears that the bugbeast kills are allowed. I'm wondering how many other unghostable FMs might now be ghostable if such kills are allowed. Undercover and RTC have been used to disqualify alerts as ghost busts in many FMs. Life of the Party is used to disqualify kills due to melees as ghost busts. It looks like Cistern will now the be means to disqualify kills by Garrett as ghost busts.

Peter_Smith
20th Oct 2002, 06:49
I am sorry you cannot appreciate the distinctions I am trying to make. I think they are fairly obvious. You say, "It looks like Cistern will now the be means to disqualify kills by Garrett as ghost busts." IMO, that is rubbish. Generalizations like that do not work. There are differences in circumstances, and each case stands on its own merit. Some exceptions have been made in the past for good reason, at least some of us old-fogey ghosters think so. They hinge on whether the event was unavoidable programming and part of the game. I think that most ghosters understand the spirit of the ghosting rules, and they know when they are killing or alerting an AI. We will not see the collapse of the ghosting world that you predict.

I remember well the endless discussion about property damage and door bashing. I am not going to participate in another discussion like that. You may report the bugbeasts and similar events as failures if you like. I will report that particular ghost as a success with a clear conscience. End of story, for me at least.:)

Zaccheus
20th Oct 2002, 15:32
Originally posted by Peter Smith
It is not an overt act, you were not seen or heard doing it, and it is a programmed part of the game. That principle has been ruled on before, and it is not a bust.

Aaahh .. yes I think I see what you are saying now:
Ghosting is all about the skill of the player, and that skill has no impact on the AIs behaviour in this situation.

Not a bust then.
:)

Peter_Smith
21st Oct 2002, 00:18
Yes, Zaccheus, what you say is true, and it provides some motivation for granting the exceptions, but the skill factor is not the real distinction here. There are plenty of ghosts busts that occur no matter how skillful you are. Like a sensitive AI facing you. You cannot get past him no matter what. The author intended it to be a fight. It's a bust.

The distinction here is that for the few exceptions that have been made, and I think Cistern should be one of them, the player is not directly causing the event - it is programmed into the game, as opposed to normal game behavior. The event is usually a script activated by a proximity switch (the fight at the Bank) or frobbing something (RTC eye or Undercover talisman). In the case of Cistern, the player frobs a switch and the scene changes magically. Vanguard says I killed the bugbeasts by flipping the switch. I say no, it is a script or program (in this case a teleportation) that can't be avoided, just like the other exceptions I quoted. It's a subtle point. One might argue that sensitive AI are also programmed into the game, but that is not the type of programming we are talking about. We are talking about unusual events that can't be interpreted as normal game play.

Did I lose you?:)

It might have been simpler to frame the rules in absolute terms. No AI gets killed by anyone for any reason, no AI gets alerted for any reason, and no property damage is allowed for any reason. But that is not the way it was done, and I see no reason to rewrite our history.

Vanguard
21st Oct 2002, 16:18
"I think that most ghosters understand the spirit of the ghosting rules, and they know when they are killing or alerting an AI."
If it was clear cut, I wouldn't have asked the question. Your interpretation went one way, mine is leaning the other way. It's a judgement call so it depends on the person making the judgement call. That's why I was trying to see what the concensus was here amongst all ghosters. As with the banner slashing discussion, I agreed to go with the concensus but it sometimes got difficult to determine from the posts which way a person was voting. After opening this post, I thought it would be better to make it a poll, but you can't do that after inserting the first post. I'll open a separate post where ghosters can simply vote yes or no on whether they believe the FM got busted or not for a ghost attempt.

If you read the ghost reports, and not just mine, you will see that ghosters do use Undercover, RTC, and LOP as examples of why their ghost was not busted by a *similar* situtation in the current mission they are attempting to ghost. I think the "Framed" OM was first used to disqualify rats as alerted AIs based on the discussion for that mission; they will run away when alerted but they won't alert any other AIs nor do they attack you. If an author put in another AI with the same behavior then by similarity with rats those AIs' alerts would be disqualified as ghost busts. Notable exceptions do get used as standards. For "Crom's Blade", there was a discussion regarding if door bashing was allowed or not when there was no other way to accomplish the objectives. It was decided the door bashing was not allowed, it became a standard by which the "no property damage" ghost rule got measured, and it was decided by the group rather than one person's interpretation of the spirit of ghosting.

At this point, there seems to be an impasse of differing opinions (not rules) on whether this situation in Cistern busts a ghost attempt or not. So I'll put it to a vote in another thread.

Zaccheus
21st Oct 2002, 16:59
Could we add a section in the ghost report which describes built-in ghosting hazards.

Something like:
Exceptional circumstances:
Frobbing flood switch kills BugBeasts.

Personally, I'm not too bothered whether I can say 'success' or not. Perhaps the words 'success' and 'fail' should be removed all together, I don't know.

To me ghosting is a very fluent thing. I like to get as close as I can to 'pure ghosting', as close as possible.
If all that is at stake here is whether I can write 'success' or 'failure' at the end, if it in no way affects how anyone plays the game, does it really matter?
Just a question.

Vanguard
21st Oct 2002, 17:41
When I hit a ghost bust, I try to recover as quickly as possible back into ghost mode and then ghost the rest of the mission. I still have to call it a failure but that's why I list the causes of failure so there a quick way to determine just how badly I failed without having to wade through the comments.

I tried awhile back to argue for "conditional ghosts" where the ghost failed due to the design of the FM, and Cistern would fall into that type (depending on whether the bugbeast drownings are a ghost bust or not), but that didn't meet with any acceptance. I also thought we might come up with a rating scheme for ghosting where alerts and kills could be deducted from a perfect score but again that went nowhere quick. So success and fail are the only currently available status for a ghost attempt of a completed mission. I've been t-h-a-a-a-t close to a successful ghost but had to smash a crate to get the required objective inside, or smash a glass window to get enough loot to meet the loot objective, so the ghost was very nearly successful but it still failed. Anything less than 100% success is 100%failure. I know it is extreme but that is the way is has been so far. I know we've lost some potential ghosters because there is no 2nd or 3rd place when ghosting (i.e., no ego boost that would draw them to ghost some more).

I've never done an Iron Man mode for ghosting (except unintentionally). I don't like to scrounge for pennies so it is rare I make Perfect Thief mode. And hats off to those players that have the patience and tenacity to go for Supreme Ghost mode.

"Close only counts in horseshoes and grenades".
(Don't recall the author.)

RiCh
21st Oct 2002, 18:55
WOW, I don’t believe how deep these ghosting debates can go! And in the red corner we have Peter “The Shadow” Smith and in the blue we have Vanguard “The Ultimate Ghoster”. Now I want a clean fight, and no blackjacking below the belt :D I’m going to be up half the night reading all of this :D Oh yeah, it’s a BUST! Is this a tag team game? :)

Sneak
25th Oct 2002, 03:17
Pushing this up for BA!

BrokenArts
25th Oct 2002, 03:40
Now I've read everything.....:p :D