PDA

View Full Version : Ghost poll (Cistern FM): Do bugbeast drownings (kills) bust a ghost?



Vanguard
21st Oct 2002, 16:36
There is already a discussion in http://forums.eidosgames.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=7239 for the Cistern FM as to how players might qualify or disqualify an exemption from a ghost bust when a switch is frobbed by Garrett that floods the cistern. There were 2 living bugbeasts roaming the dry cistern floor before frobbing the switch. There are 2 dead bugbeasts on the flooded cistern floor after frobbing the switch.

I would like to get a concensus from the ghosting community whether they believe this situation represents a ghost bust or not. You must have played the Cistern FM to know the situation in question.

Deadfall
21st Oct 2002, 17:47
There should be a "not sure" option in your poll. I just played "The Cistern" and my opinion on whether flooding the cistern is a ghost bust is undecided. On one hand I believe it to be a bust. On the other hand I think it should be allowed under this circumstance. We could all go on and on about how this is a bust or how it is not. I almost think it should just be allowed. Look at the FM "Old Comrades, Old Debts". You have to set off the fire exposives at the end of the mission to escape. If you blow the explosives up and remain undamaged, you can escape through a crack in the wall. Why wasn't this considered a bust as well? It is property damage, and we don't know if there is actually another way to escape. But in situations like these, I'm not totally sure.

RiCh
21st Oct 2002, 18:23
An interesting situation, for me I’d say it’s a bust. The ghosting rules say you can’t kill AI unless it’s an objective. You kill the AI by pressing the lever so for me you break the ghost. I don’t think you should make an exception for this level. Once you do that, that rule would apply to all other levels. What happens if you come across a future FM that’s full of traps operated be levers, you could just kill all the AI by setting off the traps and the ghost wouldn’t be broken!

Although you may not kill the AI directly, by flipping that switch the AI still dies by your hand! So for me there can only be one answer! BUSTED! :(

Vanguard
21st Oct 2002, 18:40
I didn't include a "not sure" or abstain vote because the question is whether the ghost is busted or not (only 2 states). Conditional or partial ghosts have not been allowed before where a ghost remains intact despite the FM's design. It's busted or it is not, no in between. A conditional success where you absolutely must allow an event or execute an action to complete the mission that might have otherwise been a ghost bust is not an option for status. You may ghost the entire rest of the mission except for one situation but it is still a failed ghost. Undecided means you can't tell me if the ghost is intact or not. You may change your mind later (the poll lasts 15 days) or you may choose not to choose. You can still post a message to this or the other thread to discuss your ambivalence without having to vote (so you can still discuss your viewpoint). If there is 1 vote For and 2 votes Against, the Against votes win even if there were 1000 Abstains; the abstains have elected to not effect the outcome. In this case, you abstain by not voting. Abstains are counted only when you need to ensure that every participant has been offered a chance to vote. There is no roster of the ghosting community or even how we qualify such members (i.e., the population size is unknown, so counting Fors + Againsts + Abstains cannot be checked against PopulationSize).

Deadfall
21st Oct 2002, 20:19
I don't want to make this poll thread into a debate thread. I guess the point I was trying to make is that this is a hard question to answer; ghost or bust. That is why I am in a "not sure" state. I know you want a yes or no answer, Vanguard, so I will have to either play the FM again, or keep reading the debates in the other thread until I can come to a decision.

Gumdrop
21st Oct 2002, 21:48
My apologies to all you ghosters...What have I done?! :o :rolleyes:

RicknMel
21st Oct 2002, 23:14
I voted no. (I feel pretty strongly that it's not a ghost bust)
Well..I stated all my reasonings and opinions in the other thread, so I'll refrain from doing so here. However...We may need to debate whether I'm qualified to vote or not....

I have ghosted a couple missions, one of which was for my spot in the "fuddy duddy reunion tour" of TG last summer. So I guess that qualifies me to be able to vote? :D

Danventry
21st Oct 2002, 23:46
First things first: Describe the entire event to people who haven't played it. From what I can tell you flip a switch, you see a movie, you start again with 2 dead bugbeasts. I voted "No" on this subject. This isn't a bust. For example, in certain games AI are killed/damaged by other AI because of a script (T2 - Courier is a good example, the AI come out and damge the pagan as a script). This is not because of us (maybe a marker triggered by your presents, but it isn't like a froggie or an arrow). The Courier was damaged "by your hand", but it wasn't you meaning to get him hurt, only to follow him. It may be "by your hand" but it isn't your fault, you never really meant for the bugbeasts to die, only to flood the area. Now to another arguement I have. If my assumption of the event is correct, this really wouldn't be called a bust at all. I don't think you can flood a place without teleportation traps (you teleport) or by a new mission that looks like the other one. Water brushes are NOT portable in DromEd. If we could get the creator to describe the way it all works this would be easy. Because if I'm right, the switch only ends a mission/teleports you and you're then in a place with 2 already dead bugbeasts. Not your fault, they were already dead before you got there (AKA dead when started or placed in water by designer). But this theory only works if I have the events right, which I probably don't since I haven't really played this FM.

RicknMel
22nd Oct 2002, 01:03
You have described exactly how the event occurs.....and it's already been discussed in detail in the other thread that Vanguard linked to. Check it out. :)

Peter_Smith
22nd Oct 2002, 01:40
Originally posted by Gumdrop
My apologies to all you ghosters...What have I done?! :o :rolleyes:
Just brought us a little good, clean, fun!:)

Old Man
22nd Oct 2002, 01:58
I hope it was the author's intention that it appear as if the bugbeasts drowned because Garrett pulled the switch and further that he would have shown them being drowned if he could have easily. I suppose they could have been spawned alive in the water though. The shortcomings of Dromed should not come into this discussion. Also that the author did not intend that the player felt he had been teleported to another mission but was in the same spot. Furthermore, only the first time playing do the kills occur in ignorance. Ever future play is bugbeast murder. What's that, buggery? It's still a crime!

Vanguard
22nd Oct 2002, 02:00
Don't worry GumDrop. A lot of us taffers thrive on conflict; otherwise, we'd be playing Myst instead of Thief.

I didn't describe the situation in question in the Cistern FM because describing it will always reflect your interpretation of the event. I tried to present the poll as neutral as possible so even my slant would not be exhibited in the poll and wouldn't bias anyone's response. I did require that you play the FM so that you knew what the question was about:<blockquote>"You must have played the Cistern FM to know the situation in question."</blockquote>If you haven't played this FM yet, don't vote. Voting based on someone else's description which reflects their slant on the event is making your judgement based on hearsay. Those that have played the FM should be the ones making the call on whether there was a ghost bust or not. I want to know YOUR opinion based on YOUR experience, not on how you agree or disagree with someone else's opinion.

Peter_Smith
22nd Oct 2002, 02:28
Haha Old Man:D No matter what arguments can be made in this case, one can think of counter arguments. You are playing the reality card. Well, in reality, Garrett would never repeat a mission. The first time he throws that switch, in innocence, is the last time he throws the switch. He does not say to himself, "Gee, I think I'll go back to the start, hope the Cistern is empty once again and hope the bugbeasts come back to life, only next time I'd better be careful not to harm those poor bugbeasts. They've had enough already.;)

Sneak
22nd Oct 2002, 17:53
If they Build it, we will Argue!

Ambivalence is Bliss!


Gumdrop, Gumdrop, Gumdrop, what hast thou done? Here's an arrow for ya! ;)

Although I must admit that I am a registered voter and am prone to doing my civic duty I must obstain from this vote. Personally I find the intergalactic war and morphed Burricks more stimulating. No insults intended or implied to anyone present or lurking.

If I had an option to vote my mind, I would vote to Table the Motion. One thing leads to another and somewhere a vote on this the way it is could set a legal precident in some minds and would be applied to other missions from the past or down the road. Law can be a nefarious thing as we should all know by now. And if I voted with a majority here some could say a Ruling and new Law has been made by Implied Consent.

I must remind all of you that Ghost/Perfect Thief Mode is NOT a Democracy. It is a Dictatorship. And Benevelent though it is; yes we have managed at times to influence Ghost Rules; The Benevolent One has not set down his glass of Frog Juice, come in here, and dropped the gavel on this one.

Until that happens the motion is effectively tabled anyway. I expect, knowing from past experience in these matters, that it may be some time before he is finished with his un ending stream of FM plays. So don't hold your breath!

Ya'll Have a Nice Day! :)


I say, Kill 'Em All and let Clayman sort 'Em Out! ;)

Vanguard
23rd Oct 2002, 03:37
Since a post is NOT required in order to vote, and since there is no list of the owners of those votes, it is unknown whether or not Clayman or any one else in particular has voted unless they added a post AND indicated which way they voted. Just because Clayman hasn't posted a message doesn't mean he hasn't voted.

Clayman has repeatedly declared that he is NOT the dictator of the rules. If he were and if we ghosters had been forced to strictly obey his unchangeable rules, there would've been no prior situations allowed like LOP, RTC, or Undercover because the rules would've disqualified those busts that the ghosting community chose to allow. If they are only Clayman's rules and only he has the authority to change them, we'll end up with Peter Smith's Ghost mode, Vanguard's Ghost mode, and whatnot because a fixed number of general rules established at the outset won't cover everything that we come across in FMs.

If Sneak wants to think the Ghost rules are dictatorially governed by Clayman, let him. I don't. I'm not the only one that has asked whether a situation qualified a ghost bust or not. When the rules were first established, there were discussions about them and some changes were made. I didn't see a posting or rule for Ghost mode that said any and all changes must be enacted before some date and no changes are allowed thereafter except by the grace of Clayman.

Peter_Smith
23rd Oct 2002, 03:54
I agree with Sneak. Clayman invented ghosting, and Sneak was also one of the founding fathers. These guys have perspective that newer players do not. They have been arbitrating ghosting questions since the beginning and maintaining a solid foundation, not bowing to whims. They also deserve our respect. If it were up to me, I would give Clayman and Sneak five votes each so it would take a lot of other votes to overide them. Or maybe Clayman and Sneak are the Senate, anyone ghosting over two years is in the House of Representatives, and everyone else is just offering an opinion.:) I personally would feel terrible if the general forum populace voted on a choice that Clayman and Sneak disagreed with, not knowing who the voters are. Then we would have a real problem, IMO. For this reason, I am not sure that the poll is even valid. I felt this at the beginning, and I did not express it because, as one of the advocates in the case, I did not think I should start complaining.

TRoosevelt_26
23rd Oct 2002, 13:38
Originally posted by Vanguard
Clayman has repeatedly declared that he is NOT the dictator of the rules. If he were and if we ghosters had been forced to strictly obey his unchangeable rules, there would've been no prior situations allowed like LOL, RTC, or Undercover because the rules would've disqualified those busts that the ghosting community chose to allow.

Is there a reason that Life of the Party keeps getting called LOL?

I noticed this in the other thread, too.

Vanguard
23rd Oct 2002, 15:04
Oops, I was sleepy on my last post and got carried away by Sneak's post. When we, as a ghost community, chose to allow certain events or actions in Life of the Party, RTC, and Undercover and qualified them as not ghost busts, <u>none of the ghost rules got changed</u>. We're diverging from the purpose of this poll - to see if this spot in Cistern is considered a ghost bust, not to change the ghost rules.

Sneak isn't posting a decision here regarding whether or not this situation is ghostable. He is referring the matter back to Clayman. So how can Sneak be considered a cofounding dictator if he makes no decision and dumps it back on Clayman? As I recall from the lengthy banner slashing thread, Clayman didn't want to be dictator. Also, when it comes to someone asking if a situation is ghosted or not, Peter, Old Man, myself, and many others have offered their opinion and not just Clayman and Sneak.

<small>I'll go fix my mispelling of LOL for LOP in my prior posts. Thanks for the notice.</small>

yubetcha
23rd Oct 2002, 16:17
Originally posted by Peter Smith
.....are the Senate....populace voted on a choice that Clayman and Sneak disagreed with


I agree with a lot of what you said previously, but with all due respect, I have to disagree here. Clayman has said repeatedly that he doesn't want to be a dictator. I even remember one post in which he became upset, and understandably so, because he didn't want the responsibility, and yet people kept dumping it on him anyway. And as Vanguard said, he (Vanguard) isn't trying to change the rules anyway....just trying to clarify the rule with regard to the situation about the bugbeasts. And if Clayman isn't deciding, and doesn't want to, then who aside from Sneak, who abstained, should decide? Personally, I feel that one person shouldn't decide. Even the Senate is composed of many individuals. Perhaps a group of ghosters should be elected to be the deciding body :). Makes sense to me. Not many, perhaps 3. If it's an odd number, there would always be a majority.

yubetcha
23rd Oct 2002, 18:43
Hey, Sneak! Where did your post go (the one between this one and the one before it)? Or am I in the Twilight Zone? :D
At any rate, I remember Clayman saying he didn't want the responsibility, but I don't remember the instance(s) after that in which he "pounded his gavel" as you said, and decided on a rule. Could you give an example? He may have, I just don't remember it. :)

Deadfall
23rd Oct 2002, 19:03
Ok, I have played this mission too many times now. But after observing what happens when flipping the switch, I have come to believe it is not a ghost bust. I voted no.

Sneak
23rd Oct 2002, 19:38
A little bit ago I had a sort of long post in place of this one. Tried to add a touch of humor and some chat. After getting offline I decided it was of no point. So now it is gone. If ya read it forgedaboutit. :)

Yeah we have made determinations of stuff in the past that were mostly obvious and a few sticky ones that were not as obvious that required higher powers. If someone has a question that has an easy known solution; that most of us should know; any good Ghoster can respond and explain it. Tis good! Arguement can be good too, sometimes!

But this one is sticky and we can hash it to death. No vote or concensus will settle this one. Gumdrop, if I was you I would sit back and get a kick out of all this. ;)

How often do we run into this anyway. The Teleportation here is an inimgma.

Only one person can really settle it with a Seal of Approval if it even needs to be settled. And no matter what you think or what you have read, if he wants to drop the Gavel one way or the other he can and he has! He does have the right!

I am not for kicking this one back to the Eidos Board Curmudgeon! Don't for a second think I am. Personally I don't care if the One Who Wets His Lips with Frog Juice does or does not make a decision. I don't care if he is even reading any of this. It isn't earthshaking, but it is an odd one worthy of discussion. I am going right on by this one for the moment.

Say what you like about what I have said here and above and elsewhere. Matters not to me!



An Online Ghost Committee or Senate or Government with voting powers? Sounds complicated to me. Why we could get down to Complicatin' the Obvious, Trivializin' the Momentus and what Rationalized Webs we could Weave! Sounds like Real Politics to me. I prefer the Highlander KISS approach for Ghost Mode. "There Can Be Only One!" Purdy Simple!


Now back to what I am up to elsewhere! :)

theBlackman
23rd Oct 2002, 19:55
theBlackman runs frantically trying to catch Sneak..
"Hey.. Sneak!" Pant Pant.
"You forgot your Soapbox." :D :D

All teasing aside. The subject has been debated (and obviously is still being debated) without surcease.

It seems pretty simple to me.
1. If you are seen and cause a search and destroy you are busted.
2. If you kill by any means that require YOU to trigger something, you are busted. (unless it is a requirement of the mission)
3. If an AI in the normal course of his/her/its duties kills themselves, you are home free.
4. If you cause an AI to kill another (by use of any device or strategem) you are busted.

With all the discussion on the subject I think this is the minamal summation of the agreed upon points.

Sneak
23rd Oct 2002, 20:06
Yubetcha,
Yup, my post went away. ;) New one is up. The last time The Benevolent One dropped the Gavel was back when we got off in a heated debate on Doorbashing which went all over the place and covered about everything else. It was pitiful. There was voting and everything else. Even a tally of votes somewhere. Clayman wasn't even saying anything. And I think he was inundated with emails on the topic. I expect his head was reeling over it. The debate got flat arguementative and heated. Looked like a Ghost Hijack attempt from my perspective.

Ultimately he came in and dropped the Gavel and it was Done! Don't think he can't! ;)

I expect from reading other posts that his long FM excursion is more stimulating than this.

After the last few I won't do the heated debate thing anymore.


The guy invented a Great Mode of play which I love and he has my thanks. Thats my ultimate take! :)

Gumdrop
23rd Oct 2002, 20:07
Originally posted by Sneak
...when are we gonna string up that Mischievous, Subversive, Rascal Saboteur Gummy! :D Ahahahahaha!

Can you wait until after November 4th? I just pre-ordered my PAL version of the Twin Peaks DVD boxed set, and I was kinda looking forward to a weekend binge with an old favorite.

No disrespect to Clayman, but why should the word of one sway so many? I enjoy reading the ghosting thread, and one of the best things about it, is the different approaches taken by those who post regularly. Does it matter that we have different views on what is or is not a bust? Ofcourse is does. But I don't think it matters how you chalk up this particular run.

Now someone may decide to quote that last line, and then go on to explain how this might lead to further discussions on different FM's in the future. Good...this is what forums were built for! I am enjoying reading this thread, and if truth be told, I hope it continues to drift way off course and more people feel inclined to jump onboard. Let me explain...

Originally posted moments ago by Gumdrop
No disrespect to Clayman, but why should the word of one sway so many?

That was the one thaught that came to me after reading this thread. That was all I needed to post (apart from pleading to the rebels to stall my stringing up until a more fitting time arrives), but then again I have yet to present my views.

Just for the record I voted "no bust". I only ghost on a full moon - and only then if I happen to be wearing my lucky giant bee T-shirt, so for me the rules are not exactly carved in stone. But, I know what the whole feel of ghosting is about.

I think too much has been made here - and in the past, regarding the engine Thief uses. Even if you have never opened up DromEd, you know how things work in computer games. You know what can be done, and more importantly, you have a good idea on how it can be implimented. Picking apart a scripted event has no place in my rules. I would rather opt for what feels right.

So there's another tid-bit to fling in the stewpot; where does DromEd stop, and common sense begin? :D

And another thing, what good will a poll do? Will the prevailing wind alter the way Mr Blue hangs his undies?

Let the rambling continue! :)

Gumdrop
23rd Oct 2002, 20:17
Oh now look at that... I am quoting from the trashca...BIN!

Geez...What is happening to me? Next thing you know I'll be eating potato chips!

You truely are a sneak, Sneak. In and out with your editing brush before I have even finished replying! :D

RicknMel
23rd Oct 2002, 20:32
Originally posted by Vanguard
Don't worry GumDrop. A lot of us taffers thrive on conflict; otherwise, we'd be playing Myst instead of Thief.



Hey... I thrive on conflict and love Myst! So where do I fit? :D :p
<small> ..btw...I still don't think it's a bust</small> ;)

Gumdrop
23rd Oct 2002, 20:45
Originally posted by RicknMel
Hey... I thrive on conflict and love Myst! So where do I fit?

Second draw down on the left. ;)

yubetcha
23rd Oct 2002, 21:05
Originally posted by Sneak
Yubetcha,
Yup, my post went away. ;) New one is up. The last time The Benevolent One dropped the Gavel was back when we got off in a heated debate on Doorbashing which went all over the place and covered about everything else. It was pitiful. There was voting and everything else. Even a tally of votes somewhere. Clayman wasn't even saying anything. And I think he was inundated with emails on the topic. I expect his head was reeling over it. The debate got flat arguementative and heated. Looked like a Ghost Hijack attempt from my perspective.

Ultimately he came in and dropped the Gavel and it was Done! Don't think he can't! ;)

I expect from reading other posts that his long FM excursion is more stimulating than this.

After the last few I won't do the heated debate thing anymore.


The guy invented a Great Mode of play which I love and he has my thanks. Thats my ultimate take! :)

Oh THAT'S right! NOW I remember. Thanks for the memory jog. BTW, I don't like heated arguments either. My body still hurts from all of the firearrows :). BTW #2, I read that if you make someone angry, it's because they care about your opinion. So angry = compliment, according to that :). I tend to go with the old saying, instead... that he who angers you conquers you. And I know that no one wants to conquer me any more than I want to be conquered LOL! (and vice versa).

Sneak
23rd Oct 2002, 21:13
The Nefarious Gummy Speaks! :D

...when are we gonna string up that Mischievous, Subversive, Rascal Saboteur Gummy! Ahahahahaha!

Gumdrop,
I should have added the above back to my new post cuz the noose is ready! ;) The old post is gone though now I see others had already read it. But it wasn't sitting right with me so I disintigrated it into an unrecoverable mass of 1's and 0's! There was some humor I liked in it but too late now.

I agree that this one is not really something to get all up over. And yeah, discussion has its place and some are entertaining and thoughtful reading.

On your "Why should the word of One Sway So Many" question, it is not Sway! Shoot, most Ghost things can be explained easy when there is a Ghost question, that is if whomever can accept the answer. If there is some ulterior motive whatever it may be or flat disagreement, we are capable on here of taking a simple pile of Dog Stuff that can be quickly scooped away, and Hammering it into a thin world covering crust of dung.

The real answer to your question is this, Respect! Clayman Invented Ghost Mode and when it comes down to something that has no real answer or something someone is just argueing, he has the right to decide or not decide or pound the desk if he wants.

He designed it and Gave it to Thiefdom to play and knows what he intended it to be. Some misconstrue the Gave part of that. You built the Cistern and Gave it to Thiefdom also. Does that mean I then have the right to go in and change it, second guess what you intended in it or whatever and still say it is yours? Nope, the mission is yours, you made it. When it really comes down to it only you can change it and only you know what you intended. The thing belongs to you.

Thats why we are gonna Hang You! ;) Ahahahaa

The above explaination is basic but it should make my point. Ghost Mode is Claymans, and he is the final voice.

This one doesn't need a big determination in my view. If it went either way it would not faze me. I simply don't care as long as no one tried to use the determination to make an issue about some other Ghost thing. We ought to just go on by it.

Sneak
23rd Oct 2002, 21:28
Originally posted by theBlackman
theBlackman runs frantically trying to catch Sneak..
"Hey.. Sneak!" Pant Pant.
"You forgot your Soapbox." :D :D


Don't get me started now! ;) I am trying really hard to be a good little Ghoster! Besides the fact that if I don't get this bid typed and faxed I won't get the work. And that is aside from typing a REAL FREAKING LONG Supreme Ghost Report on Calendras Legacy which had me skipping across the atmosphere!

And something else too but I can't say what it is cuz honestly at the moment I don't know if it is or isn't. If it is you will know, if it isn't I will tell ONLY ONE! HAHAHA :D

Oh well, Back to work!

Vanguard
23rd Oct 2002, 22:27
I noticed that nowhere it shows that this poll closes 15 days after it was opened. I chose a long enough period to ensure ghosters that may not frequent this forum would get a chance to vote. But I didn't want to leave it open ended; otherwise, you could keep waiting for more votes to come in that were favorable to your position.

I'm obviously losing here (that this spot in Cistern is a ghost bust). That's okay since as I mentioned, I think, in the other thread that I would abide by the majority opinion - but I needed some means of measuring what was the majority opinion. Doing a poll was just a better means of getting more taffers involved rather than relying on 1 or 2 ghosters' opinions who happened to be around at the time to help out or argue their point. Besides, it proved a good way to pep up this forum and get some activity here. It was getting too quiet around here.

Gumdrop
23rd Oct 2002, 23:14
Originally posted by Sneak
I am trying really hard to be a good little Ghoster!

Bah...You villainous dog! I know all about your activities with the "Golden Child" in LOP. You kept that poor little kid on his toes for days with your "good little" ghosting antics. For shame...FOR SHAME! :rolleyes: :p

I do see your Clayman point though. I just thaught a lot of people have contributed to the plight of the once ailing ghoster.


Originally posted by Vanguard...it proved a good way to pep up this forum and get some activity here.

Indeed. Like I said, I was hoping for a good bit of Thief banter, and a healthy dose of hen talk. I seem to go through a Thief dry patch once a year, but now I'm back at that most productive/destructive period, and the forums are rather dead.

clayman
24th Oct 2002, 02:46
...takes a bow..... :D

Never in my 3+ years of Thief forum-ing has my name been mentioned, alluded to, cursed, spit on, honored, deified, spurned, nose-thumbed-at, adored or rankled upon like it has been here.......and in such prodigious quantities too. Bless you all for having nothing better to do at the time. ;)

To add a shocking anti-climax to it all : I haven't even played the mission in question yet, so I'm not qualified(per Vanguard's leading post instructions) to respond or vote on this poll. :eek:

Remember, ye of little memory cells; I'm replaying chronologically, and I'm in 4th Quarter 2001 as we speak, and I started this quest before this mission was even released,.........so I haven't gotten there yet. :)

Despite my being disqualified, I do have a general, and brief, opinion. Groans from the crowd; gnashing of teeth from the Vanguard team. ;)

If this activity, this flipping of a switch that drowns countless, poor, underprivleged, helpless bugbeasts, is required to complete the mission and its objectives, then its a NO BUST.

If it is not required, then I think whatever you slumgullions decide will be just fine. And don't wait on me to actually play this mission(at my current FM pace) sometime in 2003 : if you want to change the rules, go ahead and do it. I may not play by them anyway. :p :D :)

Remember my credo and you seldom go wrong : "Were you seen ? Were you heard ?"

Sneak
24th Oct 2002, 03:35
Did I hear a Gavel?




Originally posted by clayman
if you want to change the rules, go ahead and do it. I may not play by them anyway. :p :D :)

If someone saves that line and thinks it gives them Cart Blanche and brings it up as evidence in the future, you will be convicted of idiocy and lack of appreciating humor and I will personally Hang You along side Gummy! I have nothing better to do ;) :D
I am a Scumgullion ya know! :cool:


Gumdrop,
Thanks for the FM The Cistern! :)

theBlackman
24th Oct 2002, 04:19
Originally posted by Sneak
...And something else too but I can't say what it is cuz honestly at the moment I don't know if it is or isn't. If it is you will know, if it isn't I will tell ONLY ONE! HAHAHA :D

Oh well, Back to work!

Oh, Oh! Sounds like he's "preggers", although they say it ain't possible. Arnie did it but that was a movie.:D

<small> Just teasing Sneak,</small>;)

Peter_Smith
24th Oct 2002, 04:32
Ah, Sneak, you may be a scumgullion, but the one with the gavel was referring to slumgullions. An entirely different breed. What is a scumgullion, anyway?:)

OK, we have a ruling and a gavel. I think, or rather I hope, that is the end of it. But I'll bet I am wrong.;)

Peter:It is required to flip the switch to complete the mission. It is not a bust.

Vanguard:Required by whom? I don't see it in writing. It is not an objective, so it is not required. It is a bust.

Peter:I believe that Clayman would say that "required" is equivalent to "necessary" in this case.

Vanguard:There are plenty of missions that can't be completed without alerting an AI. Thus, it is necessary to alert the AI to complete the mission, but it is still a bust.

Peter:Aaarrrghh!

Does that just about capture it? See, Vanguard, I saved you a lot of trouble.:D

Actually, I think the key point, the one I have been trying to make, is that it is a required (necessary) tripping of a script, which is an artifical bust, so it is not a real bust.

Sneak
24th Oct 2002, 05:31
Hmm Peter,
Well C and L are not that close on the keyboard so I can't use that excuse. I could say I meant to type that I was a Slumscullion but that might not fly either. The truth is, I CTS. Ask BA, she knows. :)

To edit or not to edit. HA!

First person to say, this all means we can now slash banners if we have to too move forward in a mission,will be split, fried, and mutilated after being hung beside Gummy and the other person hanging hahaha! ;)

Vanguard
24th Oct 2002, 07:30
Clayman's "is required to complete the mission and its objectives" does not specifically mention "moving forward" in a mission although that would be included if indeed the situation were such that the lack of moving forward prevented the completion of the mission.

<small>Okay, here come the examples:

For Crom's Blade, there was a lengthy discussion to decide if door bashing was allowed. The door bashing was required to complete the mission and to satisfy an objective (to get one of the required gem stones) but the noise always got heard and there was property damage (although that was debated without much resolution as to whether or not a door that opens and remains intact from bashing was actually damaged). You were not "unseen and unheard" but the bashing was "required to complete the mission and the objectives" but there *might've* been property damage. I believe the final argument against door bashing was that it didn't seem "ghostlike".

In Dyer's Eve, you must cut yourself with a blade to draw blood to produce a talisman that is required to continue onward in the mission (past the door opened by the talismans). You get damaged. You were "unseen and unheard" when you cut yourself, it was mandatory to continue the mission, but you incurred damage. You also have to blow up the side of a mountain to remove debris from a collapse. You may have been unseen but you are definitely NOT unheard, it was required to continue the mission, but it is property damage. I thought both were ghost busts but there is a significant difference in severity: one leaves you a wee bit damaged, the other alerts a couple dozen AIs.

In the Tymoteusz FM, the author puts the vase, an objective, inside a crate that you have to smash apart to get the vase. If you don't get the vase, you don't complete the mission because that objective doesn't get checked off. If you smash the vase to satisfy the objective, you've also damaged property (the crate). Did the author imply permission to smash the crate because he/she put the objective inside of it? If so then an author that puts the only passage that permits moving onward in the mission behind a banner or wood planks implies permission to slash or bash it. It appears we don't want to be allowing implied permissions or implied objectives because then we start to permit property damage or other violations of the ghost rules. From what I've seen in past discussions, you're allowed an exemption if there is an explicit objective that exempts you and implicit, implied, or consequential objectives don't count. I figured that although the objective said to get the vase inside the crate that the smashing of the crate still constituted a ghost bust and so the FM was unghostable. I was "unseen and unheard" (by closing the vault door) and the crate smashing "was required to complete the mission and the objectives", so according to these generalities the crate smashing was not a ghost bust. However, based on our history of disallowing ANY property damage under ANY condition when ghosting, I presumed it would be voted by most ghosters to be a ghost bust. But that really is a guess and I didn't ask for opinions or take a poll to enumerate them. On one hand, the violative action is absolutely required and it is required for an objective, but on the other hand it requires property damage. </small>

Sometimes it isn't so clear cut as to whether or not a ghost is busted. That's why I ask for opinions and go with the majority because neither the rules nor the general exemptions seem to apply or it's unknown how to weigh them against each other.

<hr>
<small><i>Also, requiring players to understand dromed or disassemble FMs to understand how an author initiated an event or result goes way beyond what should be required of players. Players are players, with rare few also being FM authors. Even those somewhat familiar with dromed find it difficult to interrogate someone else's FM. Players should not be required to know that an event was triggered by a proximity boundary around an AI versus an AI programmed with super-sensitive attributes for sight and hearing. Or that a fixed boundary was passed. Some pressure plates don't move so how would you know you stepped on one (too huge to jump over) versus hitting a boundary trigger? In many situations, the players won't know that they triggered something in the game that resulted in what looks like a ghost bust to them. Sometimes they do. Players shouldn't have to be concerned about the difference between moving continuously or being teleported into another map of the FM. In Hallucinations, the player gets teleported from the street outside the cemetery to Garret's apartment but this happens when he passes through a dark doorway so the transition is rather smooth. Just because I don't see what happened during the teleporation doesn't mean I'm not responsible for the consequences; otherwise, by extension, I could exempt any event that occurred between frames when playback is really really jerky simply because I didn't see it as it happened. I shouldn't have to know dromed or understand FM design to play it and know how to decipher whether the "game" or me caused the ghost bust. When I buy software, I only care about what it does, not how it works. Arguments on how the FM produced the results in a first person immersive game seem irrelevant. </i></small>

Zaccheus
24th Oct 2002, 08:12
Originally posted by clayman
...takes a bow..... :D
[...]
Remember, ye of little memory cells; I'm replaying chronologically, and I'm in 4th Quarter 2001 as we speak
[...]


LOL ..

RicknMel
24th Oct 2002, 10:54
This topic gets more interesting as it gets longer. I'm to a point now where I could probably be swayed either way. At first I was sure it wasn't a bust, because there was no other option for completing the mission.....
But as Vanguard keeps citing examples of busts from the past, I also think they shouldn't be busts either....

So I guess here's where I'm at....

IF the previous examples are to stay busts (Especially banner slashing & door bashing to proceed), then MAYBE this one should be a bust too.

IF this one is ruled a NO BUST, then I think we need to rethink the previous rulings.

Hows that for taking a long time to say nothing! :D

clayman
24th Oct 2002, 12:11
I posted a general opinion above. But I need to clarify a bit too. The question I asked : "Does it prevent you from finishing/fulfilling the objectives ?" is just a litmus test question that should be asked. The debate is to find a consistent way to apply the answer. Same thing with the "seen/heard?" litmus test question. There are really three Ghosting issues at stake in most of these debates, each with varying levels of importance to me a player personally.

To me, the "not seen/not heard" portion of the rules is the basis for this mode of play. But, we've ruled countless times that if the objectives require you to assassinate a noble in the course of the mission, that's allowed, as long as you aren't seen or heard in the process by anyone else. This Cistern scenario seems very similar. You kill a bunch of AI, but no one else sees or hears(other than the bugbeasts of course). But this seen/heard rule is the bedrock of Ghosting, and should be looked at quite inflexibly when trying to decide if a mission is Ghostable. There should be very few exceptions to this part of the rule, IMO.

Second issue(and lesser in importance than the above) is property damage. I never have agreed that doors could be bashed just to get that last bit of loot, but property put in the way of progressing in the mission is a tough call. The Crom's Blade scenario just feels wrong to me to allow(probably because AI are alerted). The vase in the Polish mission is a good example of a true grey area(can be done without alerting), and I would go with the group on what it decides.

Third issue(and even lesser in importance) is damage to Garrett. We've ruled I think in the past that required drops from height and other things that take a point or two of health away are OK as long as they are reported. The Dyer's Eve scenario(cutting yourself) seems like it falls into this category. The group should decide on this one as well, I'm undecided. I've given Dyer's Eve a run in the last week(didn't finish yet, not my type of FM) and haven't got to that part, if I come to a firm opinion I'll report back.

I'll have more later once I think this through a bit, understanding that I still officially am not allowed to have an opinion. :)

Of course the easy way out of this is to say they all are violations of the rules, so you are all busted in all the examples above. I have no problem with that. Those of you who know me know that part of what I wrote in my previous post was just to intentionally stir the pot a bit....... ;)

Perhaps we should view the rules, and the litmus test questions behind them, as a series of hurdles the FM must clear. Is one or two tipped-over hurdles of 20 allowed, or none at all ? Which are allowed ? Are all the hurdles the same height ? Food for thought.....off to work now.....:)

yubetcha
24th Oct 2002, 12:26
Originally posted by RicknMel

IF the previous examples are to stay busts (Especially banner slashing & door bashing to proceed), then MAYBE this one should be a bust too.

:D

I'm :confused: . The cistern doesn't have these in it :). I see them as separate. And I happen to agree with Clay. You weren't seen or heard, plain and simple. I can still remember when ghosting started...."what if the master came home and found everything gone and..." yadda yadda yadda ad nauseum. The way I see it is in a schematic:

Door bashing?
|
^
< > yes---busted (property damage).
v
|
no
|
|
|
banner slashing?
|
^
< > yes---busted (property damage).
v
|
no
|
|
|
Seen or heard?
|
^
< > yes---busted.
v
|
no
|
|
|
Required to end mission?
|
^
< > no---busted.
v
|
yes
|
|
|
Home free.
Advance to Go.
Collect money

Peter_Smith
24th Oct 2002, 12:37
Vanguard and Rick,

Your thoughts are based on the assumption that you are killing the bugbeasts by throwing the switch. I do not agree with that. I think that the distinction to be made is that you are not killing the bugbeasts. The script is. This is not a disection of dromed. This is an obvious fact -- obvious to me, at least. I know very little about Dromed, and I can see this quite plainly. If you went over to a bugbeast and nudged him into the water (without an alert, of course), you would be killing him even if that kill does not show up in the stats. In this case, however, a Deus Ex Machina is doing the deed, regardless of how the programming is implemented. This, to me, is the clear distinction.

None of the counter examples that have been quoted in these threads apply to this case. When you bash the door in Crom's Blade, you are bashing the door overtly. That's a bust. When you smash the vase in Tymoteusz, you alone are smashing the vase. That's a bust, too. When you draw your own blood in Dryer's eve, you are doing it (I don't think that is a bust either, in the spirit of ghosting, but I won't argue the point). In any case, Vanguard, you have given lots of examples, but none of them refute the point I am making.

Consider this the Deus Ex Machina rule. If you don't know what that means, here is the M-W definition.

Main Entry: de·us ex ma·chi·na
Pronunciation: 'dA-&s-"eks-'mä-ki-n&, -'ma-, -"nä; -m&-'shE-n&
Function: noun
Etymology: New Latin, a god from a machine, translation of Greek theos ek mEchanEs
Date: 1697
1 : a god introduced by means of a crane in ancient Greek and Roman drama to decide the final outcome
2 : a person or thing (as in fiction or drama) that appears or is introduced suddenly and unexpectedly and provides a contrived solution to an apparently insoluble difficulty


I hope that if you look at it in that light you will be able understand the distinction I am making and come to terms with it. You will not find many cases like this. This is not, as you claim, a general subversion of ghosting that requires a retrofit to all past missions. The rulings of all past missions will remain the same, for reasons discussed.

Zaccheus
24th Oct 2002, 12:44
There do seem to be two camps here.
'realistic' camp vs 'olympic' camp.

For the 'realistic' camp, the fact that the poor things drowned is significant, but for the 'olympic' camp it is irrelevant.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the 'realistic' camp seem concerned about what Garrett does, while the 'olympic' camp seem concerned about what the player (who controls Garrett) does.


I still like the conditional ghosting idea.

We already allow torches snuffed, moss all over the floor, and 10,000 'what was that noise' level 1 alearts.

Not exactly 'the owner comes home and no one heard or saw a thing', in the sense of 'no evidence', is it?

But its just a game, so we allow certain things which do not aleart the AI.

So I guess I'm in the 'olympic' camp.
:)

Peter_Smith
24th Oct 2002, 12:45
I like Yubetcha's example, too. The thing that ties Yubetcha's logic to my logic is that the only way to get through his chart in The Cistern is for external action beyond the player's control to occur. That is the deus ex machina I am referring to.:)

Yubetcha's chart is a little more straightforward than my causal arguments. If you accept either one, then we are done.

yubetcha
24th Oct 2002, 14:35
oops! I knew that 'schematic' wasn't the correct word, but I couldn't think of the right one. I wanted 'flowchart'. Now I think of it :rolleyes: . Oh well. You guys knew what I meant. :).
Yeah, I agree with Peter. If you could somehow toss the beasts into the water, that's a bust. But you had no control over whether they lived or not. The only way you could get into that other area and therefore end the mission was by filling this room with water. There was no other way. A)the beasts didn't hear you. B)they didn't see you. C)they drowned. D)There is a chance that you teleported into a room and they were already dead. We don't know that, but there are indications as discussed already. Perhaps Garret did kill the beasts, and perhaps he DIDN'T. In my mind, as long as there is a chance that Garret didn't do it, then we can't say that he did :)

RiCh
24th Oct 2002, 14:40
The danger of all this ‘it’s OK to kill AI by flipping a switch’ And it’s ‘OK because that was part of a script. IS, one day some git (RiCh looks in the mirror to see if he’s having a good hair day?) could come along and make a FM that totally makes a mockery of these so-called ghosting rules. And make an FM that CAN be ghosted following the rules, but wouldn’t leave a single AI alive by the end of it! That doesn’t really sound like a very successful ghost to me? But if I follow these rules, then it would be? Infact I could just put a master “kill switch” at the start of the level to save everyone the trouble of actually trying to ghost past the AI! And the ghost would still be intact, even though you’re now a mass murderer, and that can’t be right?

I’m not bothered either way; I like making them more than playing them! But I do now like to make my FM’s ghostable for that extra challenge. So I’ll be watching this thread closely, to see what kind of level I could be making because of all this!


Well done Gummie, you’ve stirred it up good un proper this time m8 :D

BrokenArts
24th Oct 2002, 14:56
Ya done good Gummsie! Forum WAS getting a bit stale in fact. And much to do over a widdle switch! OK OK Gummsie, on your next update this mission, just go into Dromed, disable the damn switch, that'll shut em up. :D :p There better? HA!

I know, I know, what fun would that be anyway.;)

yubetcha
24th Oct 2002, 15:09
Yeah, disable the switch. Then there will be a long thread about the frustrations of not being able to finish the mission LOL.

RicknMel
24th Oct 2002, 16:04
Hmmm .. If there's two camps.... I guess I'm sitting on the fence that divides them. But keep in mind both feet are dangling over towards the "no bust" side of the fence.

I guess I need to decide for sure. And the only thing that can make up my mind is which side has what to drink.

I know Claymans side has LeapFrog.

I don't know what Vanguard has to offer.

But I'm quite parched right now, and a good 'ol Bud Light is sounding pretty good! :D

But seriously... My only (or should I say "main") reason for my first decision (no bust) is the plain and simple "You Have To Do It To Proceed in the mission". That seems pretty black-n-white to me. A no-brainer.

But then it gets complicated because of Vanguards "property damage" examples where a ghost is busted when you HAD to do damage property or take damage to proceed. Now it becomes grey.

Mu butt is starting to hurt from this fence. Mayhap I'll be jumping off shortly. ;)

Sneak
24th Oct 2002, 16:09
Opps, I was mistaken. It wasn't a Gavel I heard. It was a Ladle stirring the pot. Too Funny. :)


In all seriousness, what have I been saying here, that this could be used to bring up issues from the past, etc. And now they are brought up. Open Your Eyes guys and pay attention!

Ghost Poll (Cistern FM) Do Bugbeast drownings (kills) bust a Ghost?

That is the topic name and question on here.

It has been assumed that in the Cistern you can't move forward anymore in the mission until you flip that teleportation switch. When you do a room full of water appears in place of the old one and the Bug Beasts that were alive in it are now dead. The question is: By flipping that Switch have you broken the NO Kills Rule? Period!

Thats is the question asked. Don't go off on some tangent.

"A note that there are No Alerts from flipping this switch!"

On the CAN'T move forward without flipping the switch, who says it can't be done? There certainly isn't something blocked that can't be opened by Ghost Rules. All we have is a height problem in getting there that the water filled room makes accessible. As we have said in the past, maybe no one has figured another way yet. Yet!

Stick to the question at hand first.

theBlackman
24th Oct 2002, 16:25
Keep it up Gummie!

By the use of a simple device you have brought the skulkers and lurkers out of the woodwork to put the awesome power of their collective intellect to work.

Granted the subject is not the end-all-and-be-all of Thief, (nor are we talking about more than 1 -one- microwatt of total power) :D but it certainly warmed up the forum (this corner anyway.)

Forget BA's "disable the switch" idea.

Let Sneak and other inventive persons attempt to circumvent the "I'm too short" problem some other way. As Sneak said "YET!"

I'm surprised that you haven't been accused of prejudice against short ppl by making the cistern too deep. :D :D :p

BrokenArts
24th Oct 2002, 17:00
Originally posted by theBlackman


Forget BA's "disable the switch" idea.

I'm surprised that you haven't been accused of prejudice against short ppl by making the cistern too deep. :D :D :p

Hey at least I had ANOTHER idea. :p He can do something else with that switch. ;)
And watch it with the short people comments. :p I haven't played it yet, hope I can reach the switch. :mad: ;)

yubetcha
24th Oct 2002, 17:07
Originally posted by Sneak

It has been assumed that in the Cistern you can't move forward anymore in the mission until you flip that teleportation switch. When you do a room full of water appears in place of the old one and the Bug Beasts that were alive in it are now dead. The question is: By flipping that Switch have you broken the NO Kills Rule? Period!

Thats is the question asked. Don't go off on some tangent.

"A note that there are No Alerts from flipping this switch!"

On the CAN'T move forward without flipping the switch, who says it can't be done? There certainly isn't something blocked that can't be opened by Ghost Rules. All we have is a height problem in getting there that the water filled room makes accessible. As we have said in the past, maybe no one has figured another way yet. Yet!

Stick to the question at hand first.

On the can't move forward:
Not part of the question? That IS part of the question. Someone else brought it up....NOT being able to finish the mission without doing something contributes to no bust.
And as far as not finishing because no one has found a way..... Assumed? Sorry, I have tried. I am not assuming. We can't jump up to it. We can't drop down from above. What other way is there???? It may be possible to jump across if we had a speed potion, which we don't, but then we would receive damage, and you know what THAT means. Tell ya what, Sneak. You spend as much time as you want trying to find a way. If you can find a way, then more power to you. I couldn't, and I tried. Not assumed.
I have been wondering about something that might help. I have NOT tried this mission a second time. So it may not help. It's just an idea I have. When I first went into the room to pull the switch, the bugbeasts were far apart from each other. When I flooded the room and went back, they were lying next to each other. When I saw that, I wondered how they got so close to each other in such a short amount of time. You know how slow they walk. What if we reloaded the mission, flooded the room, and went back to see the bugbeasts in exactly the same location? In my mind, that would lend authenticity to the idea that it is a separate room already flooded. As I said, though, perhaps that won't happen. The second time through they may be in different locations, in which case my idea is baloney.....but the question sticks in the front of my mind then.....how did they get so close to each other in the short amount of time it took me to pull the switch, unless they were already in a flooded room, and already dead? Maybe I'm way off here, but I sure would like to know the answer.

Deadfall
24th Oct 2002, 17:26
Whenever I come across a difficult or questionable situation when I am ghosting, I refer to the ghost rules. I don't think these rules can be any simpler and require no self interpretation.

I have to concur with clayman. Even in his ghost rules he says, "2.) No damage taken or received in the final stats. Damage from falls, machinery, lava etc. is allowed but frowned upon, as is the use of potions."

With this in mind, it may be possible to declare Dyers Eve ghostable. A few others come to mind like the T2 FM "Escape!" where you have to drop down a sewer in order to proceed but you take damage upon the fall.

But with this particular issue in "The Cistern", I have come to believe that you do not actually kill the bugbeasts, just as others have said. After playing many times, I kept noticing that after I flip the switch, the patrolling bugbeasts seem to vanish and 2 bugbeast corpses are placed in the corner of the cistern. One of the bugbeasts does not patrol here, and the chance of them meeting up and dying together is too great. This is where Peter Smith has vital points to support the subject. I too believe it is part of the script, because you do not actually hear or see the bugbeasts screaming in pain when drowning. And they have alot of hitpoints so I would definately hear them scream in pain for some duration. Just as the crates, the loot, the skulls, and other doodads are placed in the cistern after flipping the switch, I believe the bugbeast corpses are spawned there as well.

There would have to be a big difference in order to say this was a bust. If the bugbeasts started screaming out in pain and stagger back as they are constantly damaged from the water, this would be a bust. They are alert in this state; they are being damaged by your action; and they would ultimately die. This would have to be a bust.

yubetcha
24th Oct 2002, 17:34
Deadfall, you found your bugbeasts in the corner? So did I. And I bet everyone else did too. Hmmmmm, interesting. As I said, different room. Transported. Bugbeasts already dead. Fini. If it was the same room, they would have been in a different place each time, for each one of us.

RiCh
24th Oct 2002, 18:36
Deadfall and Yubetcha,
As far as I know the Dark engine can’t do raising water? So to get around this Gumdrop uses a teleport trap linked to the switch, when this is pressed it teleports Garrett to an identical room as the first but with the addition of the water and of course the 2 corpses of the Clay beasts. When you flip the switch you’ll notice a jolt as Garret teleports to the new room. It’s a clever trick to give the illusion that the Cistern has just filled up with water.

If you look at this FM from a technical point of view, it’s completely ghostable, full stop! end of story! The two original Claybeasts are still merrily patrolling the Cistern in another part of the map. So I guess there really isn’t any argument about this level? But IF the dark engine was capable of rising water and Gumdrop used the switch to fill up the original cistern. Then you could see the Claybeast’s drowning by your actions of flipping the lever, would this still not count as a bust?

So from that point of view the FM ‘The Cistern’ is fully ghostable, but to me, even though it’s all an elaborate illusion and the actually AI may not die. In theory your actions still kill the AI by drowning them, so breaking the no kill rule. I can’t justify the rule saying that’s it’s OK to kill AI just because there’s no other way to finish the level. The deaths of the 2 Claybeast isn’t a objective! so why should this be allowed? What’s the difference in killing an AI by a sword or by drowning them in water? They still die by your hand one way or another?

The real issue for me is if killing AI by switches and other tricks and traps doesn’t break the ghost then I’m just going to have to take advantage of it. What happens if a fire arrow shoots from a trap triggered by a pressure pad you’ve just stepped on hits a banner and slashes it? Does this count as property damage and break the ghost? It’s the same principle as the above, providing you have to step on that pressure pad to advance in the level? I just have to be clear on these things?

Peter_Smith
24th Oct 2002, 19:14
There are two types of people. Those who divide people into two types, and those who don't.:)

Zaccheus proposed two camps, a "realistic" camp which focuses on what Garrett does and an "olympic" camp, which focuses on what the player does. Realists evidently think it is a kill because the bugbeasts end up dead and Garrett pressed the switch. Olympists think it is not a kill because the game killed them not the player. Frankly, I think that Zaccheus' distinction is not very clear. The player is Garrett, IMO, or at least the player is responsible for all of Garret's actions. But this does not mean that all people must accept the "realistic" philosophy, which I think is too narrow-minded.

I would like to propose another classification of people. There are fundamentalist ghosters and free-thinking ghosters.

Fundamentalist ghosters want every situation to be spelled out explicitly in the ghosting scriptures. If they are not spelled out, they have a real problem accepting the situation, and they agonize until there is some ruling from on-high that explains all principles of the ghosting universe, with no contraditions (because that would not be pure). I think that Vanguard and Rich may be in the fundamentalist category.:)

Free-thinking ghosters, of which I am one, believe that there can be no perfection, that every case stands on its own merit, that judgement is called for, and that in the end you must let only general principles or intuition guide you. We think that there is no set of rules that will cover all cases unless you decide to allow no exceptions whatsoever. And, we also think that the no-exceptions rule (e.g, no alerts or kills can occur while playing the game, regardless of the cause) is too dogmatic and not in the true spirit of ghosting, which has evolved over years to allow some exceptions. Anyone care to join me in this camp?:)

In case you were wondering, I did not commit the sin of dividing people into two classes. There are also people who don't play Thief, people who play Thief but do not ghost, and ghosters who are sitting on the fence and/or don't want to join either camp. Did I miss anybody?:)

RicknMel
24th Oct 2002, 20:19
Just to make something VERY clear....



You CAN NOT get through the cistern without flipping the lever. Even if you found a way to get up on the ledge without flooding the room....it would go nowhere. It is a dead end. (or maybe an easter egg??? gummie???) ...but definatly NOT the way to the end of the mission.

After you "teleport"...into the "already flooded" room...then that upper hallway actually goes somewhere.



As said before....it is one big optical illusion.

:)

Deadfall
24th Oct 2002, 20:50
RiCh - I comprehend. But Ghosting is technical and I don't believe it is any other way really. If it was not technical, nudging and banner transmigration would be considered a bust. I don't think there can be another view. If the story suggests that flooding the cistern kills the bugbeasts, even though they are patrolling at another area after teleportation, how can this even come close to be considered a ghost bust? If this were the case, you could look at the FM "Hammerites Brutality" and watch the hammer kill the pagan and accept that this is a bust. Or you could look at sheriff truart's corpse in T2's "Blackmail" and suspect that your involvment is the cause of his death and thus a ghost bust.

Unless you actually kill the bugbeasts and the story doesn't suggest that you do, only then can it be a ghost bust. But maybe I'm wrong...

Sneak
24th Oct 2002, 22:07
Well I can see we are still having fun here!

Deadfall, I like your attitude. Some good remarks.

Yubetcha, I see you got the answer on what happens when you flip the switch. Yes Gummy made a whole new room and placed those dead bug beasts in it. He also added loot to the floor and crates that were not there before.

Lots of good stuff here. Rich and Peter have me thinking, BA will be Blackjacked in TUT for giving Gumdrop ideas, etc.

BlackMan, not YET! ;)

But RicknMel,
You have stolen the cake my friend. Are you serious, you mean even if anyone could find a way into those openings without tripping the water room ala Teleport switch, that they go NOWHERE? Not Complete, can't get to the next area? You are speaking something here. Sorta makes hitting that switch like taking you to a whole new area of the map. And also it would do me no good to try and get in those high openings there to proceed. Are they finished inside?

Gumdrop,
Please verify what Rick said if you would. I don't doubt what he has said but would like to hear it from you. Cuz now you will be hung twice! ;) HAHAHA Did you do anything else trippy in there?

Technical, Realist, Fundamentalist, Olympic! Sounds like Ghost Political Parties to me. ;)

Hasn't anyone wondered if this is just a Public Relations stunt to make Gumdrop Famous? Why I bet he has an FM in reserve just waiting for the right moment! :)

Still it comes down too, Is the No Kill Rule violated?

Gumdrop
24th Oct 2002, 22:49
Originally posted by theBlackman
I'm surprised that you haven't been accused of prejudice against short ppl by making the cistern too deep.

The way I see it, we all make the same splatting sound when we hit the bottom. :)


Originally posted by Brokenarts
He can do something else with that switch.

I have already culled it from the mission and hung it on the wall. :D


Originally posted by Sneak
...you mean even if anyone could find a way into those openings without tripping the water room ala Teleport switch, that they go NOWHERE? Not Complete, can't get to the next area? You are speaking something here. Sorta makes hitting that switch like taking you to a whole new area of the map. And also it would do me no good to try and get in those high openings there to proceed. Are they finished inside?

The teleport flings the player to a completely seperate part of the map, there is no other way to reach it, and no way to return. The dry room only has fake openings that terminate at dead ends (although there is another contained area, and it's no blue room ;) ), so spending hours stacking up objects would do no good. The switch has to be frobbed to continue.

I've had my fill of publicity stunts after the Bare Back Burrick Buckaroo Bonanza backfired. It pains me to think that my children might someday happen upon those pictures. :o

BrokenArts
24th Oct 2002, 22:56
Originally posted by Sneak
BA will be Blackjacked in TUT for giving Gumdrop ideas, etc.

Technical, Realist, Fundamentalist, Olympic! Sounds like Ghost Political Parties to me. ;)



As you have stated, Technical, Realist, Fundamentalist, Olympic, Well call me the annalist around here, another way to deal with the issue you ghosters have faced. We have such a diverse and intelligent, analytical, group, whats wrong with adding another idea to the pot around here. :p

Your just jealous you didn't think of it first. End of discussion. :p
And no, your wrong, no Black jack for me.

And ahh oh Gummsie, gold plate that switch for all the problems er controversy, forum stirring you have done, and not many have done before. ;) :D

clayman
24th Oct 2002, 23:40
After careful consideration, I now have a definite opinion on this matter. Not a vote mind you, as I haven't played the mission in question. Just an opinion. And not a "gavel" either. :)

I have re-read this thread, the related thread Vanguard links to in his lead post, the Deadfall/Lord Burkhard thread I am quoted from, and finally the Ghost Rules themselves.

The mission is unGhostable. Garrett's willful and specific act of flipping that switch causes AI to die, a violation of Ghosting rules. I am troubled a bit technically by the fact that no damage shows in the stats, but from a practical standpoint, you flip a switch, live AI become apparently dead AI, so its a violation. This is different to me than the proximity trigger in LotP, since that is caused by general, non-alarm-inducing Garrett movement, and only indirectly causes a fight that(BTW) has multiple outcomes. So I'm comfortable divorcing my LotP opinion from my Cistern opinion.

All this talk about dead ends, "nowhere" zones, AI that really are living in another corner of the design map, etc. is just technical underpinning that the player doesn't care about, so I guess I'm agreeing with Vanguard's small print thread on this point.

Although not asked for, I also have a clearer opinion of some of the other examples used.

Dyer's Eve - 1.) The "cut yourself" scenario. As minor damage is frowned upon in the rules, I'm frowning(only a bit). Other than that, not a Ghost bust. 2.) The mountain explosion. Busted. AI alerted.

Crom's Blade - The door with the gem. Busted, AI alerted.

Ty-whatsis - Vase in the crate. Undecided a bit on this one. Will decide once I play it.

My layman's interpretation of the two key points of the Ghost rules :

1.) Were you seen or heard ? Yes. Busted 99.9% of the time. (Undercover is the classic exception, I'm becoming increasingly uncomfortable with that one though.)

2.) Were AI damaged or killed ? Yes. Busted, unless the objective of the mission specifically requires a kill(built into the logic of the gameplay), and no AI alerted in the process.

To sum up and refute a point I put forward(as cannon fodder) earlier : Just because you have to do it to complete the mission, doesn't make it a Ghosting exception without other circumstances to consider.

My opinion is firmly in the "realistic/fundamentalist" camp, which makes for (snicker) Strange Bedfellows. :)

Final point : even if I got the 5 votes someone bestowed on me, I still wouldn't change the overall decision. Best I can see it, its me and Vanguard and one other against the rest of you. So far. :)

Sneak
25th Oct 2002, 02:58
Originally posted by clayman
My opinion is firmly in the "realistic/fundamentalist" camp, which makes for (snicker) Strange Bedfellows. :)

Actually Clayman, it seems to me that you are in the Practicalist Camp which is a one that wasn't really mentioned. ;) Ha! But your above post used the word Practical which struck me and that makes sense too. A thoughtful response.

I can't disagree with you. I can't disagree with a lot of arguments on here pro or con. As I have said, this is a sticky one. Some real thinking in this one. And some fun, some subtle, some outright!

And no Gavel from you, actually I am appreciating that even though I have bantered about it. You do it so well! I actually have had a lot of fun with my stories and all I have said.

OK to everyone,
I still do not think this thing can be acceptably decided by a vote or Poll. It is going to come down to how we think or how we play when we are playing a mission. Even though Gumdrop did what he did, we were not really teleported to some other completely different place. I am assuming, and Gummy nail me if I am wrong, that what was done was done because the Dark Engine does not allow the room to fill up with water before your eyes. Is not possible. Am I correct? So the only option was to make a Teleportation Switch which sent you to another room exactly like the one you were in except the Beasts were dead and the room was filled with water. Yes I know this FM was a play on a part of a Tomb Raider Mission, have played 'em. And that game does let rooms fill up before your eyes!

So how do we play it:

1: As if the mission did allow the room to fill up before your eyes and the Bug Beasts went screaming to their demise? Ala, Garrett pulled the switch and killed them in the process by his action. This does not mean the mission can't be finished. It is only a Ghost Bust in my opinion

A Note: I got tickled at all this on another Topic and wrote the Intergalatic War story and after that I said, "If the room had filled up with water before your very eyes, Busted, find another way! Peter Smith was the only one I think who engaged me on that.

2: That we were catipulted upon flipping that switch to a true new area, mirroring the old room except it was filled with water and the Bug Beasts were already Dead. No Ghost Bust, Garrett is not responsible and killed nothing.

I have been thinking about how I play FM's and Thief in general. I play as if everything has a consequence, and I have the Ghost Rules part of me so I avoid things that have the wrong consequence. I am responsible for everything I do. I judge myself by the Rules which are, lets face it, pretty simple! I play it mostly real, and practical! Not referring to those definitions on here, but whatever.

The question for me here is, Did the room fill up before my very eyes!

Votes, Polls? The only one I think who can settle this is Gummy. Yes Gumdrop! And maybe everyone will buy Gumdrops answers also. And it should work for about any FM that has this condition!

Oh Gummy,
Time once again for a brief moment of Fame. Would you mind taking the stand and answering a few questions for the the Ghost Court. If you don't mind, I will be the Prosecutor! ;)

And forget about all of the arguments here and elsewhere. All we need are your intents with this FM. You have sort of answered some of these already but humor me! Take whatever Oath pleases ya and answer simply.

Question #1 and 1a: It is my understanding that in The Cistern you were making a mission for Thief loosely based on an area from Tomb Raider. If the Dark Engine would have allowed you to fill up the room in question with water before our very eyes like Tomb Raider, is that what you would have done? Or were you only experimenting with Teleportation period?

Question #2: Was your initial reason for using the Teleportation Switch simply because the Dark Engine would not allow you to fill up that room before our very eyes?

Question #3 and 3a: Being that DromEd will not allow you to build rooms occupying the same space, is that the reason you had to put the room we teleported to somewhere else? And is that why the room and adjacent areas were in an unfinished state before flipping the Teleportation Switch? Meaning that there was no reason to go to the trouble of finishing that first room.

Question #4: Honestly now, as far as Plain Practical Gameplay goes in The Cistern, when we flipped that switch weren't we still in the same room?

Question #5: As far as Gameplay goes, did we as Garrett flip the switch for the purpose of flooding the room with water so we could gain access to the openings that were too far off the floor to mantle into and maybe impossible to jump too from above?

Question #6: Why did you not place living Bug Beasts in the water so we could hear them scream and die?

Last Question #7: Are you enjoying all of this? ;)


A note on Croms Blade: Two Ghost Busts at the door with the Gem. 1. AI Alerts 2: Property Damage. You can still go forward with the mission even playing by Ghost Rules. But the mission is a Ghost Bust from the above 2 items. No Crime in that. Didn't Lytha Keyhole that door and win it? I only got halfway through Transmigrating it when I played!

RiCh
25th Oct 2002, 04:40
Who’d of thought an innocence little lever could cause so much trouble! :D



Originally posted by Sneak


Question #6: Why did you not place living Bug Beasts in the water so we could hear them scream and die?



This could easily be done by adding teleports links to the original beasts from the lever. So when Garrett was teleported so are the beasts, then they WOULD drown infront of your eyes, and I’m sure that would make a difference to this debate? Although, Gumdrop shouldn’t make a update of this level just to please the “crazy gang”, sorry I mean ghosters :D

Peter, what you just call me?? :D It is true, that I take a more realistic approach! I want to see realism in the games I play nowadays! Gone are the days of blue hedgehogs and Italian plumbers. I play Thief in a realistic manner but I’m too rigid and unforgiving not to take advantage of design flaws.

But in this case illusionary of not, from a player’s point of view I’ve just killed 2 beasts by my actions in the level, so I’ve broken the no kill rule. It doesn’t matter that I’m now in an entirely different room and the originally beast are still alive. That’s just technical “behind the scenes” stuff that shouldn’t involve or concern the player.

So from a “realistic” point of view I flipped the lever, I kill the bug beast, I busted the ghost and I think we shouldn’t blame the lever for doing the dirty work for us. If you wasn’t there to pull the lever and flood the level. The beast would still be doing what ever beasts get up to when nasty people aren’t’ trying to kill them!

Sneak
25th Oct 2002, 04:56
Rich,
You are working on me there and I could make some good remarks. But I shall wait for Gummy to take the Stand and Testify. HAHA! ;)

Deadfall
25th Oct 2002, 05:49
From a "realistic" point of view, however, we can count my previous example, "Blackmail" as a ghost bust as well. Realistically, Garrett framing Lt Hagen gave Lt Mosley a clear chance to get rid of Truart. So when playing "Blackmail", it was Garrett's actions that caused Truart's murder. Yet, "Blackmail" has remained a perfectly ghostable mission. Can ghosting really be considered from a realistic point of view? Perhaps... from reading Peter Smith's new classifications of the different types of ghosters. But it would be an on-going debate for each of these classes to declare a mission ghostable. The realistic group might think "Cragscleft Prison" a ghost bust. Suppose Garrett passed a cold to Cutty before being captured. Then Cutty passed the cold to a susceptible servant with no immunities, and then the servant just coincidentally happens to die in a jail cell while you are sneaking through the cragscleft mines. Realistically, this is a kill, and it may be your fault for passing a cold. So wouldn't this be a bust? I know this is a wild idea and perhaps a bit unreasonable, but still. That is how thinking may end up in regards to "The Cistern". I may have taken it too far. But it looks like this mission will remain debatable in terms of concluding a failure or success.

theBlackman
25th Oct 2002, 06:03
Realistically: Get in get out leave no trace or link to you, the perpetrator. This is the way a professional works.

In the Game: Mission parameters allow certain actions and REQUIRE certain others to COMPLETE the mission.

By using the allowed (not designed but allowed by the Engine or other quirks) actions to accomplish the mission objectives in a "realistic" -see first sentence- manner.

The "job" Garrett takes in Framed is to plant evidence. Garrett is no more "responsible" for what ensues after he completes the job than he is for the appearance of morning fog or sunlight. One could say that Morally he is a causal factor, but the morals involved are a bit ridiculous to apply to a professional thief.

Yes you are stretching things a little more than a bit.

Example I teach my son how to drive. He drives without incident for some time. I put fuel in the car. He has an accident and the car bursts into flame from spilled fuel.

Am I "responsible" or a "casual" part of the accident and fire. Of course not!

Deadfall
25th Oct 2002, 06:58
Yes. I see what you're saying tBm. But my definition of "realistic" is in response to the issue of whether or not the bugbeasts were actually killed. From gathering information and facts, they are not killed; the design just suggests that they are. I did pose the question "can ghosting really be considered from a realistic point of view", so I can understand your examples. Of course sneaking through city streets wearing a black cloak and wielding a blackjack is practical and true realism. But I meant realistic as the way Peter Smith and RiCh have described.

The whole erratic theory with "Blackmail" can be bogus, but I wanted to put the image of seeing Truarts corpse in "Blackmail" and compare it with "The Cistern". The argument is whether or not you actually kill the bugbeasts. That is why I proposed the scenario with Truart. Realistically, maybe I did kill him. I could have spurred Mosley into finishing the job and getting rid of Truart after my interference with Hagen. Or maybe this is simply fate, has nothing to do with it, and is part of the mission design. Obviously, there are some major differences with "The Cistern" bugbeast case. Truart is not alive at the time of playing, and I am not teleported to his corpse. But it can still be looked at the same way. Realistically, maybe I did kill the bugbeasts because I see their corpses on the cistern floor after flipping the switch. But after reading some other posts and playing this mission myself, the bugbeasts are not actually killed. It is part of the design that we assume the flooding drowned them. I think this comparison is what I was trying to aim for in my previous post.

I don't know where this is headed. I guess my main point is that you cannot look at a mission in the specially defined "realistical" way. It just seems futile to look at it like this because there would be endless speculation about what is ghostable.

theBlackman
25th Oct 2002, 07:20
By the slimmest of margins, an action by you that causes a death is a busted ghost.

But in this unique instance the mechanics of the game design, teleport or not do not give the player the option of NOT finding drowned Bugbeasts.

In these circumstances the defined parameters of GHOST cannot be applied, and no excuses for the reason for the "porting" or other can mitigate this.

So in effect, the player has to have KNOWLEDGE of the possible consequences of his action (throw the switch and the bugs die, don't throw the switch and they live) ignoring the "Can't complete" because you cannot port without throwing the switch.

In this case, the player does not, did not, and will not KNOW that the bugs will be killed by the water (in the game sense, not the mechanics of how) until after the fact.

Like a novel. Passages infer certain actions that are NEVER put into words. Ergo. You switch. You port. You see dead bugs = the water killed the bugs you saw before you ported. The reality of the ENGINE limitations do not count as changing the circumstances of a successful GHOST.

To attempt to distort the basic meaning of a Ghost, to fit the conditions of every game is not a rational, or reasonable thing to attempt.

Ghost requires restraint of action, or inventive action by the player. If the "mission" has no alternative (as in this case) then the mission should just be that. A mission and Ghost not applied to those missions that prevent the player from free choice in those situations.

Man the animal cannot fly without artificial aids. That is the way it is, and any verbal or mental gymnastics will never change that. Man cannot Fly.

Cistern cannot be ghosted. So be it.

yubetcha
25th Oct 2002, 12:17
Originally posted by theBlackman



In these circumstances the defined parameters of GHOST cannot be applied,and no excuses for the reason for the "porting" or other can mitigate this.



(Italics are mine.) I don't think so. IF Garret was MEANT to be teleported, then he didn't kill the bugbeasts. They were obviously already dead. But if he was meant to just stand there flipping the switch while the room filled with water, then he DID kill them. If Gummy would have been able to, would he have the room fill with water before our eyes? That's a good question, Sneak, and the answer just may settle this.

Also, an action or thought that may not be reasonable to one person may still be reasonable to another, tBM. :)

Zaccheus
25th Oct 2002, 12:26
Peter Smith, actually there are 10 kinds of people, those who know binary and those who don't.
:D

I can go along with claymans point of view. Garrett kills the Bugbeasts. That's a bust, according to the rules.
But if some posts a report: 'Ghost failed only because of drowned bugbeasts in flooded room', then I think most of us would still consider it a successfull ghost run.
So, as I said before, I don't think it will actually makes a difference either way. I'm in the 'free floating' camp.
;)

Peter_Smith
25th Oct 2002, 15:12
Clayman,

I am not convinced by your reasoning. I think it is inconsistent with the reasoning behind previously allowed exceptions. I think that the drowing of the bugbeasts is no different in principle than the fight (melee) between archers in Life of the Party, the alert caused by taking the Eye in The Haunted Cathedral, and triggering the alarm in Undercover. These are all game scripts that have been allowed. Garrett's actions cause them all to take place. On initial play the actions are all inadvertent, but on replay you know the actions will take place. The only distinction I see between these three examples and the Cistern is that the Cistern involves killing, albeit inadvertent, by water activated by Garrett. But that is not a rule-based distinction -- it is a moral distinction. Sure, killing is against the rules, but causing a melee (Bank) or an alert (RTC and Undercover) are also against the rules. I see nothing in the ghosting rules that says killing is a more serious transgression in a ghosting sense than melees or alerts. They are all busts in the strict sense.

So, in my opinion, if you disallow one scripted event that "violates the rules," I think that logically you have to disallow them all.

I would be quite happy to adopt the strict approach of allowing no exceptions whatsoever and to invalidate retroactively all previous ghosts that were based on such exceptions. This would put a quick end to arguments of this type and make the rules unambiguous.

If such a no-exception rule were adopted, it would make ghosting less satisfying in some cases because the player would be busted by circumstances beyond his control, that don't reflect on his skill. I think perhaps this is the reason the other exceptions were allowed. But maybe that dissatisfaction is better than having to deal with all the doubt, discussions, and interpretations that go along with the more flexible approach that we have been using until now.

What do you say about that?:)

Peter_Smith
25th Oct 2002, 15:22
Afterthought

Please don't say that flipping a switch is different in principle from taking the eye or the talisman. It is just the shape of the item being frobbed. All three frobs are necessary to complete the mission, and in none of these cases can the result of the frobbing anticipated on first play, and all three frobs cause actions that violate the rules.

Gumdrop
25th Oct 2002, 15:39
*gulp*

I sware to speak the taff, the whole taff, and nothing but a load of taff.

Question #1 and 1a: It is my understanding that in The Cistern you were making a mission for Thief loosely based on an area from Tomb Raider. If the Dark Engine would have allowed you to fill up the room in question with water before our very eyes like Tomb Raider, is that what you would have done? Or were you only experimenting with Teleportation period?

Not to confuse matters further, but my original reason for building this FM was purely to test the teleportation/flooding idea. Having said that, I would have used realtime flooding if it were possible. So yes, and yes.

Question #2: Was your initial reason for using the Teleportation Switch simply because the Dark Engine would not allow you to fill up that room before our very eyes?

Yes.


Question #3 and 3a: Being that DromEd will not allow you to build rooms occupying the same space, is that the reason you had to put the room we teleported to somewhere else? And is that why the room and adjacent areas were in an unfinished state before flipping the Teleportation Switch? Meaning that there was no reason to go to the trouble of finishing that first room.

Yes, and yes.

Question #4: Honestly now, as far as Plain Practical Gameplay goes in The Cistern, when we flipped that switch weren't we still in the same room?

Yes. That was the illusion I was trying to create.

Question #5: As far as Gameplay goes, did we as Garrett flip the switch for the purpose of flooding the room with water so we could gain access to the openings that were too far off the floor to mantle into and maybe impossible to jump too from above?

Yes.

Question #6: Why did you not place living Bug Beasts in the water so we could hear them scream and die?

I had to consider those who don't ghost. What if the Bug Beasts were knocked out or slain? The idea was that the flooding would wash the beasts into the corner, whatever their previous state.

Last Question #7: Are you enjoying all of this?

Immeasurably. :)

This mission was not built with ghosting in mind. I didn't even give you guys a single thaught. :p I voted "no bust" originally, but I was not thinking of the ghosting rules themselves, only my personal style of ghosting. If I have to slash a banner to get at some loot, I will and not get busted (aslong as I don't make a racket doing so). I don't return keys I take, I will use health potions if need be, and I sure as h3ll think nothing of flooding a chamber to further my gain. :)

*steps down and returns to holding pen*

theBlackman
25th Oct 2002, 16:48
Originally posted by yubetcha


...IF Garret was MEANT to be teleported, then he didn't kill the bugbeasts. He was not teleported. See Gummie #4 They were obviously already dead. But if he was meant to just stand there flipping the switch while the room filled with water, then he DID kill them. If Gummy would have been able to, would he have the room fill with water before our eyes?See Gummie post above That's a good question, Sneak, and the answer just may settle this.

Also, an action or thought that may not be reasonable to one person may still be reasonable to another, tBM. :) Agreed

Question #4: Honestly now, as far as Plain Practical Gameplay goes in The Cistern, when we flipped that switch weren't we still in the same room?

Yes. That was the illusion I was trying to create.

Question #5: As far as Gameplay goes, did we as Garrett flip the switch for the purpose of flooding the room with water so we could gain access to the openings that were too far off the floor to mantle into and maybe impossible to jump too from above?

Yes.

yubetcha
25th Oct 2002, 16:52
Originally posted by theBlackman


Question #4: Honestly now, as far as Plain Practical Gameplay goes in The Cistern, when we flipped that switch weren't we still in the same room?

Yes. That was the illusion I was trying to create.

Question #5: As far as Gameplay goes, did we as Garrett flip the switch for the purpose of flooding the room with water so we could gain access to the openings that were too far off the floor to mantle into and maybe impossible to jump too from above?

Yes.

Yeah, I see that now, but when I posted my previous post to you (the one you just quoted above), we didn't know the answers to those questions :). Now we do. So it's settled, as far as I'm concerned. It's a bust. And I say that only because of Gummy's responses to the questions. :)

Sneak
25th Oct 2002, 18:02
Hey Gumdrop,
You may now leave the stand! :)

All Yes answers except for one Immeasurably. Question #6 was tossed in for fluff. Just wanted to know! ;)

And you have nailed it for me! My opinion is the same as it was on Oct. 18, 02 when I posted the Intergalatic War Story on the other Topic.

As far as Gameplay is concerned and in my opinion, we watched the room fill up with water before our eyes.

If everyone can agree on that then the only question is: Is it an acceptable Script thingy or Not.

Think on these:

1: Is that button a welcome zone and is triggering a Welcome Zone a Wilful act of Garrett? A welcome Zone for the most part triggers among other things conversations that sometimes enhance the plot and sometimes don't or some type of for lack of better words Game Decor such as the fight in LotP.

I don't see it as a Welcome Zone because I have a choice to press it or not and it is wilful. Entering a Welcome Zone is not Wilful to me. Even with Foreknowledge.

2. Here it comes Peter, could not resist! ;) Is flipping that switch the same thing as Taking The Eye in RTC or The Talisman in Undercover?

Seems I remember those two items as being Game Objectives. Ghost Mode rules require OBJ's to be completed and they prevail over the Ghost Rules in some ruled circumstances that cover a lot of instances as long as you are Unseen and Unheard doing the deed! I don't see these items comparing at all to the button in Cistern! To me at least they are irrelevant to the case.

3. This is not a question but a humble request. Please don't bring in a whole world of seemly related Ghost Rulings from other missions whether they seem to have set a precident. Decide this one on this mission alone. It is unique. And as I have said, sticky. Is worthy of debating and aswering though.


Gumdrop, does that Switch set off a script? :)

Oh and I hearby and Forthwith Rescind Gummies Double Hangings! There was no deviousness in building The Cistern on Gumdrops part and it is obviously apparent to me that he is an Honorable Citizen in Good Standing in Thiefdom and is not responsible for the Perplexed Minds of others! :cool:

Peter_Smith
25th Oct 2002, 19:44
Sneak,

With all due respect, I think you should not ignore precedents. Precedents matter in law and in Thief so as to ensure consistent application of the rules.

One can argue at length about whether pressing the switch is the same as snatching the talisman and the eye. You point out quite correctly that the talisman and the eye are objectives and the switch itself is not, and I admit that could make a big difference, depending on how you look at it.

But, going back to the actual discussions and rulings, the eye was allowed on the grounds that the haunts were triggered by a silent alarm, and they were alerted only by the silent alarm, not by you. The script did it, not you. Same applies to Undercover. In fact, it was stated at the time that if the haunts saw you take the eye, even though it was an objective, would be a bust. So there is some precedent for the view that if you do something that is necessary to achieve an objective (or complete the mission) and you were not seen and heard and you did not take direct action in violation of the rules, it is not a bust.

Only later did this broader statment, it's OK to achieve an objective, come into the picture. But there are pitfalls with that rule as well. After all, what really is necessary to achieve an objective? Is it only the physical taking of an item? It it getting close enough to take it? Getting into the room? Bashing a door to get into the room? Where do you draw the line and, more importantly, why is the line drawn at that point and not some other?

Clayman has stated that since he thinks the Cistern is a bust, he is now having misgivings about Undercover as well. I agree - they are related in principle. I think the same misgivings shoud apply to the eye and the melee at the bank.

Vanguard, sitting on the opposite side of the fence, once made a strong argument in favor of allowing door bashing to complete Crom's blade. After a longer discussion than this, his request was rejected. He has argued in these threads that the refusal of that request is one reason why this should not be allowed either. Well, if we can argee with that point, then I think we also have to start picking at some of the other liberal precedents that have been established as well. It seems to me, and I guess to Vanguard, that you cannot have it both ways.

That is why I feel that precedents are important. They help focus your thinking on the issues. I think there is some merit to either (a) saying no exceptions are allowed or (b) permitting liberal interpretation of the script principle. I like (b) for reasons stated, but I would also be happy with (a).

One final thing. I don't buy the argument that entering welcome zone is OK and opening a passage needed to get to the end of the mission is not OK. They are both overt acts. One is done with the feet and the other is one with the hand. One starts a melee, and the other causes a drowning. There is no difference to me in terms of ghosting rules.

And one final-final thing. Please don't consider these arguments as implying disrespect in any way. I appreciate and enjoy all views expressed here, and I don't really care what the outcome is. I guess I am just a closet lawyer.:)

yubetcha
25th Oct 2002, 20:24
I agree that we can't have it both ways. It would get to be too confusing. One day one thing is allowed, and the next day it isn't. That's not a wise thing to do. And precedents tend to keep things consistent and unconfusing usually. But then it's been said here that we should take each situation on its own merits. Can't remember who said it offhand. It would be nice to be able to do that, but then the collective situations would be confusing, I think

theBlackman
25th Oct 2002, 20:45
Unless you have precedents like Bush.

:o Sorry. I could not resist the pun. :D

Sneak
25th Oct 2002, 21:39
Well Peter Smith,
Why don't ya just pick up a stick and beat me with it! Wahaha! ;)

I don't consider your rebuttal as Disrespect. We know each other too well.

Was making a Request Only with my comment in #3 above. Everyone can do what they will as usual. With all the independent thinkers we have around here, everyone is going to anyway.

No Namby Pamby Thieves on this board! And all because of a Switch. LOL!

I just really find this one not too be World Shaking. Worthy as it is! And by the nature of it, a Precident will most likely be set. Seems to me it should be judged on it own, but with differing views it may not be possible. At least consider it. :)

This is a debate, so somebody say something already! :D


Gumdrop, I know you have the answer! HA! :)

theBlackman
25th Oct 2002, 21:54
Sneak
I have not seen nor played "Cistern" and, like Clayman may not for some time.

But I am reminded of an "the OLD MAN" tactic. As I gather from the discussion there is an opening that is "to far to jump to" that requires some flooding to allow you to swim.

First a question or two:
Is the opening across from an area you can walk/run on.
If so is it merely to far across the gap for you to jump.
Or is it to "high" above you.

If it is both, then you might take a speed potion (if available) drink it and run like H3LL to the edge of the gap and jump.
The potion will extend your distance, some 1.5 to 2.5 times normal.

Forget it DUUUUUUUUUH!. :o You can't get there without the port.

I shall have to punish myself for committing one of the sins I hate.
READ and understand the post before responding. Or as mother used to say:
"Be certain the brain is engaged before you dump the clutch to your mouth."

Sneak
25th Oct 2002, 23:17
Well TBM,
Before it was Perfectly clear that getting into those openings would do you no good, I was after it. Got close too, but was no point in continuing to nail it down as I found out. :)

Deadfall
25th Oct 2002, 23:43
I don't think anything else can be said, Sneak. Alot of people have stated their opinions on the subject, but everyone still embraces one side or the other. I confess I cannot see the other side that accepts this as a ghost bust.

I still say the bugbeasts were never killed. Gumdrop said that he wanted to create the illusion that they were killed by placing 2 bugbeast corpses in a corner as if they were "washed" there. What RiCh said in his earlier post was right on. "Technically" this mission is ghostable. End of story. Well... ghosting is technical so I believe it isn't a bust because you do not kill the bugbeasts.

Then some say that realistically you do. By flipping the switch and flooding the cistern, the story and design of the mission suggests that they were killed by the flooding. I have given some examples about how looking at a mission like this is a little ridiculous.

I don't think you can compare "The Cistern" to rtc, lotp, or undercover. There are no alerts or deaths in the case of "The Cistern". Unless there is something I don't know, the bugbeasts simply do not die when you flip the switch. Only the story of the mission suggests that they die from it. I'm sure I am repeating myself, but I said earlier that the bugbeasts do not scream in pain as they are drowning in the water. The water isn't even flooding the floor where the bugbeasts were patrolling. The player is teleported to another area with 2 bugbeast corpses in a corner, if I'm not mistaken. So it is not an overt kill. No one is even killed at all.

No matter what I say though, I don't think I can sway anyone from their own belief. I don't think anyone can sway me away from mine either. I acknowledge and respect this, but it makes me wonder: how will this debate be concluded?

Gumdrop
25th Oct 2002, 23:58
Originally posted by Sneak
Gumdrop, does that Switch set off a script?
I'm not quite sure what counts as a script in DromEd. All the technical stuff is a real bore to me, so I only delve when I have to, and not purely for the fun of it. The switch has a link to it, and by flipping it, you are basically telling the engine to teleport you from location X to location Y. I am sure any link can be filed under "scripts", but a DromEd god will have to confirm this.

Does it really matter if it is a script or not? I think from a gameplay point of view, it is irrelevant.


...is not responsible for the Perplexed Minds of others!
Actually, I seem to make a habit of perplexing people, but like the recent frozen pea gag I played on my girlfriend, this doesn't have any long term effects. :D

So where do I stand on this then? Well personally, I go with a "no bust", as my way of ghosting tends to alter according to the setting. But as far as the official blueprint goes, I have been convinced it is a bust.

Peter has already posted a ghosting report on this, and I firmly believe it is valid. I like his take on overt actions, and although it may not be practical when faced with a set of rules written in stone, the spirit of ghosting (pun intended) is much more enjoyable. Hehe, you could say I am a poltergeist. I have no problems with interacting with objects, aslong as the AI keep looking the other way.

Oops...Now my brain is making a strange buzzing noise. If the player can freely take advantage of the game engine by nudging AI's out of the way, and using objects to mess with line of sight, then don't you think a more liberal view of scripts may be taken? Thinking about filling a corridoor full of crates and crunchy deer legs just to avoid a bust seems to applaud the "poltergeist" method. :confused:

Vanguard
25th Oct 2002, 23:58
<i>Please forgive if some points herein have already been discussed. There's been a lot of posts since my last read and I'm still catching up.</i>

Regarding RiCh's comment about someday there be an FM with a [master] switch that kills all the AIs. There is an FM that is already close to that; however, I've played so many FMs that the title escapes me.

In this FM, you get to a small cemetery next to a abandoned church where you spawn a zombie if you take the loot by an open grave. You can get out of the cemetery unseen by roping up to a ledge to escape being trapped by the zombie that blocks the gate opening. Before you get to the church area were 2 haunts roaming around in a crypt area (that you get to via a secret bookshelf door in library). In the church are 2 more haunts roaming around. Behind the altar is a throw switch in the floor that opens a gate to a tower in the church. In a tower in the church is a switch that when flipped kills ALL haunts and zombies everywhere.

Unlike Cistern, you are not teleported to another map of the FM design. Teleporation in Cistern is not used because you entered a portal. It was an easy way of migrating from the cistern being empty to it being filled. How would a (newbie) user even know they were teleported? The teleportation between maps was intended to be as smooth as possible without you knowing that you had been teleported but due to limitations with the game engine the teleport cannot be made absolutely smooth. The player is expected to know that should they rotate immediately after hitting the switch to recognize that the jerk in their movement represented a teleportation? Or that the 1- or 2-inch drop for Garret, if they noticed it, was a teleportation? There's no big text marquee that tells the player they've just been teleported. And I don't see teleportation as a scripted event, either; the whole map changed rather than some event within that map got changed or initiated.

Here you have a very similar situation: the haunts are roaming around, you flip the switch, and by the time you can move from the switch to look down in the church all the haunts are dead and on the floor. No teleporation was used here. It may be that the haunts actually went through the collapse manuever to die but the player won't see it. Who killed the haunts? Yeah, a script triggered by the switch that I flipped killed them but this is a first person immersive game and I shouldn't have to guess that the "game" killed the haunts instead of me.

The only real difference in this FM and Cistern was that there was an objective to turn on that switch. So you probably got exempted from the kills because an objective said to flip the switch. However, I don't recall that the objective was written to be a kill-objective, and that it only said to turn the power back on. My argument is: What if that objective were not specified but you still had to flip that switch to continue the mission? That's not hard to imagine. There would be *no* flip-switch objective (so you are given no explicit exemption from the kills) but hitting the switch was necessary to provide access to the rest of the FM map to complete the mission. I ghosted to the switch so I was unseen and unheard. Flipping the switch was required. No teleportation was used so those arguments get scratched. Haunts and zombies got killed when you flipped the switch. You don't get to see them *as* they die; you only see them when they were alive and then you see them after they are dead. Even if teleportation was used, it was so smooth that you would never notice it. A secondary script could execute after the teleporation which would even randomize where the dead AIs were put.

Sounds like we're trying to blame the bullet for killing the victim rather than the player that pulled the trigger. No one cares about the Deus Ex Machina of the interior workings of the "script" within the gun that has the hammer slam against the pin that impacts the primer that causes an explosion that propels the bullet. No "Deus Ex Machina" agent appears in the game, like some fairy, imp, or more AIs, to carry out the dirty deed; if they did, that would be a melee and I don't have an argument about the FM having triggered scripts where AIs slay AIs. If I hit a boundary trigger that runs a script to kills AIs then that is subtle enough where I can look at myself and feel that it wasn't me that killed them. However, reaching out to a switch and flipping its position is an overt action afterwhich I find the AIs are dead. The game isn't flipping the switch for me. I am. I pulled the trigger. And it is easy to see that I pulled the trigger opposed to maybe I crossed an imaginary boundary somewhere sometime.

Sneak makes the point that we're going off on a tangent but I believe that a decision here could very well effect decisions made later should similar situations arise in other FMs. You can still vote separately on your opinion regarding just this situation in this FM and you can separately discuss your opinion on larger issues encompassing this topic. Teleportation, frobbing a switch, and running a script (which might kill AIs) is totally possible in other FMs. Like he says, just because it is unghostable now because we all think we need that water to get to the other passages doesn't make ghosting impossible, only highly improbable. I have tried toting stuff over to see if I could get high enough to get in without frobbing the switch. I have also tried many leaps from the broken bridge to see if just once I could get in the mid-height passage (but it looks like the edge isn't mantlable so I can't climb in). Rope arrows won't stick anywhere. There are some crates but not enough to stack up to the passages. I don't recall having a speed potion to let me jump farther and possibly make it onto the the ledge for a passage. To me, this is a situation that isn't impossible but it is very highly improbable. However, teleportation might come into play *IF* the rest of the mission past the gate at the bridge doesn't exist until after the teleportation, so even if you managed the highly improbable feat of getting into those passages without frobbing the switch you still might be stuck in the cistern since there is yet no map after the gate. Again, that's a dromed thing and I as a player don't bother dissecting an FM to figure out stuff like that. The biggest problem is recognizing that a mission is highly improbable (and therefore possibly ghostable) rather than unghostable. But because of the design of this FM, we come back to the switch (because that's the only way for the rest of the FM to exist).

Instead of instantly filling the cistern with water and finding 2 dead bugbeasts at the bottom the room, if the room gradually filled with poison gas and we got to watch the bugbeasts writhe in pain as they perished then the latter scenario would've probably been deemed a ghost bust simply because we got to see the action. But neither scenario would occur until you frobbed the switch and these scenarios are similar. Your weapon was the switch rather than a broadhead or sword. Intent does differentiate between manslaughter and murder but in both cases someone is dead, and in both cases you executed an action that resulted in the death.

My worry is that we will make unghostable missions into ghostable missions by blaming someone or something else just so we can complete them (i.e., have fun ghosting the rest of the mission without this one fault blowing away the status that the entire mission was ghostable). Even if the mission where highly improbable to ghost, that doesn't mean a ghost bust doesn't occur and in fact the whole exercise is to prevent them. You are still not allowed to perform a ghost bust just because ghosting is highly improbable. Executing a ghost bust just so you can complete the mission is still a ghost bust.

I think there are strong arguments on both sides and this may never get resolved satisfactorily to both sides. Perhaps we should simply require that questionable ghost busts, non-busts, or near busts be identified in the ghost report. We already require reporting on the use of nudging and potions in the reports. The reader can then decide if they agree or disagree that the ghost was 100% successful or a failure.

<hr>
Deadfall,

In the Blackmail OM, Garrett never did get to blackmail Truart. Garrett never got to commit the action. This falls into a boundary trigger that you as the player cross and then the Dues Ex Machina of the FM design has an external agent kill Truart. Truart wasn't killed because of Garrett's preempted intent to blackmail.

It sounds like you're thinking of the Framed OM where Garrett does take action to frame someone. Although there are consequences of the frame, they do not get exhibited anytime within the play of the FM. You are not responsible for what happens after the end of the mission because that's a infinitely variable story. Your ghost is still successful. You are not responsible for what *might* happen AFTER the mission has ended.

In fact, there are missions where I have successfully ghosted the mission only because it ended before a ghost bust might occur. I don't remember the FM but this scenario has happened. My last objective was to satisfy the loot objective. On grabbing the last bit of required loot, the mission ended. But if the mission continued from that point, I would've been stuck in an unescapable situation where AIs would've alerted to me. But the mission never gets to that point: I made the loot objective, the mission ended, and the situation that might've occured a minute later was never realized. So it is really a projection or guess that the mission would've ended in a bust *IF* it had continued. There are several of these "near bust" FMs where you can ghost them only because they end in the nick of time.

You ghost the mission, not the story line, especially since many FMs don't have a story line.

Gumdrop
26th Oct 2002, 00:30
Just another thaught...

The time will come when FM's are made using a modified UnrealEd, so there is a good chance that the original ghosting rules will have to be rewritten to take into account the extra freedom the sleek new engine with give us. I have already been looking at the editor that came with UT3 (sorry RiCh, but I couldn't resist), and I can see problems.

The original purpose of this thread seems to be resolved as far as I can make out: The Cistern Is not ghostable. But the subject of ghosting is far from closed, so I think it is worth noting that a new set of rules will have to be written some time after T3 arrives.

*stir...stir*

:D

Sneak
26th Oct 2002, 03:14
Deadfall,
You may be right. There is probably not much more that can be said on this issue. I am running dry on comments to support or refute anything. And only recently fully tipped to one side. :)

Vanguard,
Did the World Just Come to an End? Maybe for the first time in history I have ultimately found myself having the same opinion as you. Can't say I agree with all of your arguments but still the bottom line to me is that it's a Bust! :)

Gumdrop,
Actually it was you who swayed me firmly to one side opinion wise. Even Clayman didn't sway me to one side and his succinct case was good. Your answers nailed the coffin shut for me so to speak. And it kicked me right back to my post from the other where I said and quote,

"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!"

It is now obvious to me now that concerning Gameplay, the room did fill up before my eyes.

In General:
I will admit that I personally am not and can not try this case based on any others. I just can't nail any absolutes and my synapses will crossfire trying too. Nothing really points to this for me. I am reaching my opinion by judging this mission alone as it stands. Still it is not so big a thing that I can Rail at it like with Door Bashing or Banner Slashing.

I also can't see any reason myself, however it falls, to say that either Peter Smiths or Vanguards Reports are invalid.
Maybe Vanguard is onto something at the end of his last post where he talks about Reporting Questionable Busts Non Busts. Could call them unknowns. Those types would be exceedingly rare.

You know my opinion, but I have not voted. I said I would not and will stick too my word. I think Gumdrop has answered the question!

Hmm, Maybe we should not have played here and gone right on by this one! HA! ;)

However this one washes out or doesn't wash out, somewhere down the road the next can of worms will get opened and we will be dissecting those worms. Oh it will happen. If you listen to the sound of a line from the Movie The Matrix, "That is the sound of inevitability!" :) :p


Ahh, on Thief 3 and UnrealEd and Ghost: Yeah who knows what tweaks we may have to do. Maybe none maybe some. But I have something from a well placed anonymous higher authority on that matter. This person can't say anything reguarding the game itself. But I brought up Ghost and said that I sure hope it works with Thief 3. The exact remark I got from this person on my query was, "Don't worry, we are making Thief here!" ;)

Peter_Smith
26th Oct 2002, 06:27
Vanguard,

Your statement, "... if they did, that would be a melee and I don't have an argument about the FM having triggered scripts where AIs slay AIs." drops you right into the heart of my argument, made above. To summarize: if you trip a switch or anything else that causes a rule to be apparently broken, and if you take the strict fundamentalist approach that is being adopted by you, Clayman, and Sneak on the Cistern incident, then the switch action must be called a bust. You can't logically single out killing as the only rule that is subject to this switch interpretation. Melees and alerts are also busts. The rules do not distinguish between the severity of busts. They are all busts, and I think you can't logically disallow one without disallowing them all. That's my opinion, at least, and I haven't heard anyone refute it. Sneak still seems to think this ruling can be made in isolation of all other situations. Something is missing. My brain is getting rattled.

RiCh
26th Oct 2002, 08:23
Originally posted by Gumdrop
Just another thaught...

The time will come when FM's are made using a modified UnrealEd, so there is a good chance that the original ghosting rules will have to be rewritten to take into account the extra freedom the sleek new engine with give us. I have already been looking at the editor that came with UT3 (sorry RiCh, but I couldn't resist), and I can see problems.



I forgive you Gumdrop, the pull from the dark side is strong with this one :D I haven’t stopped messing with it since I brought the game, haven’t played the game at all really ;) And you’re right the Unreal Engine opens up so many more new possibilities that there’ll probably be some changes. Realism seems to be the key word with DX2 so T3 shouldn’t be any different. Realistic physics will stop object-stacking of things like potions and other smaller items. In theory with the Havoc engine running the show, banners should really just flop aside and let you pass?

A simple switch in T3 could do almost anything from causing an earthquake, which causes the whole level to collapses around you. Or could do a less complicated job of filling a cistern full of water and drowning AI in realtime!

Back to ‘The Cistern’ wouldn’t the mere fact that the Cistern is now full of water bust the ghost? Because you didn’t find the level like that now did you. So some Cistern maintenance crew would come along later and say “who’s been messing around with the flood control switch then?” And would break down in tears when he sees his beloved pet bug beast all dead in the corner, and swear bloody vengeance on the taffer who did all of this? Just a thought :D

Anyway, as a part time ghoster, I think I’ll retreat back to my ‘ghoster’ proof bunker, and let the “BIG GUNS” continue to fight it out.

Deadfall
26th Oct 2002, 11:47
Hmm. Interesting thought there RiCh. Do you mean to say that flooding the cistern would count as "property damage"? I would be more inclined to see this as a ghost a bust if we were considering the flooding as property damage. Since the bugbeasts do not actually die, this would be a much more feasible reason to believe that the mission is unghostable.

Vanguard
26th Oct 2002, 18:32
Peter,

Per your Deus Ex Machina argument, with melees I can *see* the agent -- which were AIs attacking each other and I, as Garrett, was NOT one of those agents. If the author put in a cut scene that showed Garrett participating in the melee, or dragged Garrett into the melee and showed him fighting in first person perspective, or I run over to participate in the melee, yeah, then it would be a ghost bust because I can see that I was involved in the melee. With boundary triggers, I don't get to see anything regarding the trigger. I don't even know that there was a trigger. If, however, I walk up to the AIs and press a switch, the screen goes blank for a second, and then I see all the AIs are dead versus I don't press the switch and they remain alive, I know it was me that killed them because of some unseen effect caused by *me* pressing that button. With the switch in Cistern, I see *me* flipping the switch. I interpolate between when the cistern was empty with 2 living bugbeasts and afterward when the cistern is full and there are 2 dead bugbeasts. I didn't see the cistern fill up but I interpolate between the two events, especially since there is a sound effect of water falling and splashing that lets you hear of the cistern filling up; I didn't see the in-between scene but I certainly heard it. Yeah, I can see the next argument: Okay, you heard the cistern fill up but you didn't hear the bugbeasts wail as they died. Ever try to scream underwater? Every try to talk to someone while under a waterfall?

If you cannot interpolate in the game, how do you manage in real life? I'm in my hallway, no kids, I walk into my apartment and close the door, I hear the rumble of feet running in the hallway, I open the door, there are kids running in the hallway. How hard is it to interpolate that the rumbling of feet that I heard when the door was closed came from those kids? You make the obvious assumption first. Yeah, maybe the kids that made the rumbling noise ran into another apartment and the kids you saw just came out of a different apartment just as you opened your door to look. Is that the obvious interpolation, though? It is possible that God (or whatever is your religion) made it such that me stepping beyond some point of my doorway and with the door closed then God magically made the rumbling noise outside my door which was totally separate of the rumbling noise from the kids that were found running after I opened my door? Am I going to know that? No. However, if after closing the door I pull a switch that sounds the fire alarm then I can pretty much assume that the rumbling noise when the door was closed was from those kids running after I hit the switch and the same kids that were seen after I open the door right after I hear the first rumbling noise. If I open the door immediately on hearing the rumbling noise, I assume the kids I see running are the ones that caused the rumbling when the door was closed. If, however, I delay opening the door then I might not be sure because some kids might've already made it into the stairwell and are out of sight and these are more kids running out of their apartments - but I am still interpolating based on my delay in opening the door. We all make the obvious interpolation first. We need evidence to the contrary to know that assumption was wrong.

Even if I have enough experience with Thief to recognize a boundary trigger or teleportation to switch scenes, I also see jerkiness in some views, AIs walking through each other and through opened doors, and such. I ignore those. Its a first person immersive game and I play it as a player, not as someone that has used dromed or gained experience to understand the underlying coding and tricks to define the mission.

Take an absolute newbie and run them up to the melee in Life of the Party OM and have them watch the melee. Then ask who killed who. They'll say those archers killed those archers. Take the same newbie and run them up to the mech room after the church in Soulforge FM and have them press the button which activates a press to squash the turret underneath. Then ask the newbie who destroyed the turret. The newbie will answer that they destroyed it. Turn off the monitor and speakers as they pressed the button and turn them back on after a few seconds. The turret was okay before they pressed the switch, the turret is smashed with the press moved down onto it, so what will the newbie think? That someone came in and took the good turret away and replaced it with an already smashed one? No, they will interpolate to bring the separate scenes together. What is the newbie going to say about the 2 bugbeasts that were alive but are found dead after hitting the switch? That the teleportation separated the maps of the FM so the dead AIs are not the same AIs as were the live ones? The newbie doesn't know anything about using teleportation to splice scenes together, or scripts, or custom objects or any of that technical stuff about how the FM was made. If you explain teleportation to them, you think they'll imagine that the teleporation put them into the future, the original AIs died of old age (the reason there are piles of bones in the cistern), they had two children that were born full-sized but died at birth or of hunger and those are the 2 dead AIs that you see? Yeah, right, time for some drug testing. Most ghosters aren't newbies but neither are ghosters required to understand nor even recognize how the game engine or the FM coding produces the scenes that unfold before your eyes. The only senses available in Thief are sight and sound. They are used together. Thief would be very dull without sound, and it would probably be impossible to play without sight. I don't *see* the cistern filling up with water but I certainly hear sounds to backup my interpolation of events.

You are ghosting the mission, not understanding and recognizing the technical details of how the mission was created or how it gets executed. I don't need to know the Win32s API or the CPU instruction set to understand the details of how to minimize a window. I just click on the minimize button in the title bar and notice the effect (that the window disappeared). Do I have to leave window animation enabled so I see the window as it squashes smaller to know that *I* minimized the window? No, the window was there, I click on the minimize button, the window is instantly gone but I know it was me that minimized the window. However, if instead the window minimized in front of my eyes without me doing anything then it wasn't me that minimized the window. It was some Dues Ex Machina of the Windows OS (i.e., a bug), or maybe some other task, or any of lots of other imagined guesses about what minimized the window - but it wasn't me because I performed no discernable action that would've resulted in the effect. Even if I am moving the mouse on the screen but never clicked any buttons and the window minimized unexpectedly, I would think there was a defect in the mouse, its driver, in the operating system, an error occured in the application, or whatever but I wouldn't think that the fault was mine. Me clicking on the minimize button and seeing the after effect of no window makes it my fault.

Deadfall,

The bugbeasts do not die? Sure looks like there are 2 of them at the bottom of the flooded cistern. Did the author provide any other indication that these bugbeasts are not the same 2 bugbeasts that were there before and were alive? Did the author show them getting washed in or some writing that said the other 2 left (although there are no exits for them down there) and these 2 washed in? If we're going to use teleportation as a separation in the FM design between the before AIs and the after AIs, then we get to seperate every other FM that uses teleportation into multiple missions, or even where I might *think* there might've been teleportation (because it would benefit me to think such and I don't have have to prove that the teleporation didn't happen because I am also not required to know dromed). That means I could report that I ghosted parts 1 & 2, failed on part 3, and was successful on parts 4 and on. Instead of ghosting 1 mission, I ghosted 3 or more and 1 failed. No, it's only one mission. When you blink your eyelids while sitting in your chair, are you in a different place afterward then where you were before although 99.99% of everything is the same except your pen that was on the desk in now on the floor? The player is NOT required to even recognize that a teleportation occurred when used in a manner to move from one scene to the next in the same location of an FM. This is teleporation within the design of the FM that you are not supposed to see versus a teleporter object you chose to walk into (which may not even use teleportation but instead just has you walk into the next room). Are we going to rate this type of teleportation *coding* depending on how smooth the author could make it? Is it even possible that this scene splice could've been made smoother? If teleporation could be made absolutely smooth to splice scenes, then how would any player realize that it happened? Every separate frame of the game is a teleportation to the next frame. The ghosting rules are not based on technical limitations of the game engine; otherwise, you couldn't nudge AIs because if the game engine were better then the AIs would feel you pushing against them, we wouldn't allow banner transmigration and you couldn't peek through object by leaning because the game engine would enforce correct physics, and so on.

<i>"No, officer, I didn't kill that person. My car was moving at them, they were in the crosswalk, I blinked, and then they were flat on the ground dead behind my car. I wasn't my fault. That dead person behind my moving car that looks exactly like the living person that was in front of my car is not the same person, and I didn't kill that person because I didn't see what happened in between when they were in front and when a corpse appeared behind me."
"Yeah, tell it to the judge. You're under arrest. Those nice folks in the hospital will explain to you about continuity."</i>

In reality you have to interpolate. You really don't see the person getting ran over. You see them go down in front of your car. You see their corpse appear behind your car. If you saw them *as* they were getting ran over, you are also getting ran over so you could see the other person under the car as they were getting ran over. Oh, that thump in between, gee, that could've been a backfire or a speed bump that magically appeared and disappeared as you hit it. You also have to interpolate in the game. Else, why didn't you open that door when you were fully lit and when you heard a guard's footsteps just on the other side of that door that sounded like they were getting louder and so they were probably approaching and facing that door? Why would you think there was a lock, although unseen, on a door just because you couldn't open before but could open it after using a key on it? Why do you think the crate you tossed and then saw smash into pieces was the same crate before and after the smash? It could've been an absolutely perfect teleporation at the instant the crate you threw hit the ground with one that was smashed by an AI; your unsmashed crate got teleported away from that spot to get instantly replaced by their crate while it was smashing apart.

Sneak
26th Oct 2002, 21:16
Guys,
On my comments above on Thief 3, UnrealEd, I hope it didn't sound like I was being Elitist and knew someone working on the game. I do not have some secret contact that gives me info. I was talking with this person about something unrelated and brought up Ghost and Thief 3. And thats when I got the response. The only other thing offered was that, "You won't believe what is being worked on to throw at the player. If it all works out it will be awesome!" Nothing more than that was said. This was a couple of months ago too.

I certainly would not ask for any inside info, only what is freely offered. We all know that Thief 3 is all closed up right now. No info is coming out that I know of.

Vanguard,
I think you made some really fine arguments in that last post. And yes, by Pure Gameplay the Bug Beasts Died by drowning in the water when we flip that switch! :) I don't need any references from any other missions to know that is a fact!

clayman
26th Oct 2002, 22:06
A really quick(for me) thought to ponder :

Suppose I'm new to Ghosting. I know nothing of DromEd and its dark confusing secrets of boundaries, proximity triggers, welcome areas, dry rooms, etc. I read the rules, and the excellent write-ups in the results threads, then bravely decide to try a couple of missions myself. Based on my meagre experience and what I've read of others' exploits, I encounter the following scenarios.

1.) Life of the Party - After triggering the archery fight, I hastily retreat into a dark corner and wait. When its done, one of two things happen. Either I keep right on playing and consider that just an interesting bit of scenery, not even thinking I've done anything "wrong", or I come to this forums and say, "Surely I'm not busted ? I didn't do anything ! There's no damage in my stats ! How can that be a bust ?!? I just innocently walked into an argument."

2.) The Cistern - After hitting that switch, I say to myself, "Oh, shee!tsky ! I'm busted ! Two dead AI, damn....reload." But wait, there's no damage in my stats there either. Hmmm, better ask the forum. So I come here and say, "I'm busted, right ? I just killed two bugbeasts, no matter what the stats say....right guys ?"

Simple man's verdict : #1, no bust. #2, busted.

Just my (realistic, fundamentalist, practical, pragmatic, blahblah...) $0.02. :)

Sneak - Not a gavel, but close. ;)

Peter_Smith
27th Oct 2002, 00:00
OK, that's the ruling. I accept Clayman's gavel on this issue, even though he didn't pound it.:) By accept, I mean that I will acknowlege the bust and I will stop arguing against it. The discussion is over, so far as I am concerned. You guys win.

But as a parting shot, I do not accept the governing principle because I think there is none. I still think your reasoning is inconsistent. In the four cases I was discussing, including the Cistern, Garrett is causing some rule to be broken indirectly (1 melee, 2 alerts, 1 kill), and he is not breaking the rule himself. No amount of discussion here about kids in the hallway, whether you might have seen the bugbeasts die or heard them scream, etc., will convince me otherwise because I think all those points are irrelevant. Until now, in all my time playing Thief, I have never killed anything except through my own hand. That is the way killing is done in Thief. Playing a movie, running a script, teleportation, or any other type of programming is not the same thing as killing with your own hand, to me at least. When the craymen died in the water, and I will freely admit that this death happened (even though it was an illusion), it never occurred to me, not for a moment, that I had killed them and so this was a bust. It was just some interesting event that happened. Needless to say, I did not come to the forum for a ruling because I thought no ruling was needed. I should mention that 10 of 12 voters here agreed with me, at least initially.

So now, whenever any script or indirect action occurs and the result could possibly interpreted to be a bust, you can rehash all this and explain once again why one type of unavoidable, scripted bust is acceptable and another is not. I'm outta here.:D

On a more positive note, I believe I have perfected Banner Transmigration so I can pass completely through a banner and return at will. I will post the results shortly. I fully expect this technique to be outlawed as soon as it becomes common knowledge.;)

Deadfall
27th Oct 2002, 00:39
Vanguard - Yes. Very good points. Your post made me understand the other "side" of this debate much better.

Ghosting has to be labeled as a technical style. However, one good valid evaluation will change my mind on the subject forever. That valid evaluation, in my opinion, should come from clayman. I have read clayman's opinions on the subject, but I didn't get a sense about what is undeniably allowed or not allowed.

The question I pose: If the story or design of a mission suggests that AI was killed by my actions, even though they were not overtly killed; they were not killed at all infact, does this count as a ghost bust? This is exactly how "The Cistern" should be looked at. The story of the FM makes us suspect and totally confirm to ourselves that the bugbeasts were killed by the flooding. Technically, however, the bugbeasts are still alive and patrolling on the previous cistern floor. The question I asked above will be the key, in my opinion, to accepting this as a bust because I have never come across a situation like this in a mission. If something like this did occur in past FM's, clayman might have put another amendment in his ghost rules that specifically says that this is a ghost bust. But like Vanguard has perfectly made clear before, an FM is either 100% ghostable or unghostable; there is no inbetween.

The above question can be answered by anyone and I will certainly respect their answer, but I believe this should be answered specifically by clayman. Clayman - I just want a confirmed almost official word from you that you strongly know this is a ghost bust. You know shooting a fire arrow into a wall and alerting AI is a ghost bust. You know slashing a banner or destroying a crate is a ghost bust. If I know from you that "The Cistern" case is a ghost bust, then your answer will silence my arguments towards this issue forever.

clayman
27th Oct 2002, 02:50
Deadfall - You give me far too much credit, and responsibility too. I am the Mycroft Holmes of Thief; speculating and deducing without actually doing anything much. Remember, I haven't played The Cistern, so I can't possibly be saddled with the chore of deciding something as important as this. I think Gumdrop, as the designer, has a far bigger role in this than I. After him, then Peter Smith, Vanguard, yourself and all the other full-time dedicated Ghosters whose opinions are of much greater value than mine.

But I'm honored. :)

Remember, this is a poll thread, so the votes matter as much, if not more, than the opinions.

But I still feel in my heart that this situation is against the intent, spirit, and premise of Ghosting. Even if the rules don't quite cover it. You all take from that what you want. I think this thread should respectfully close with an honest difference of opinion, and a dilemma, not a firm decision levied by one voice. Or, close it with a democratic decision, that says that the majority rules, and it's not a bust, despite the dissenting vote of a few, and a questioning opinion of a few more. Either way, we've had a good chat about it. :)

Sneak
27th Oct 2002, 05:35
Originally posted by clayman


Sneak - Not a gavel, but close. ;)

I thought I heard something!

Hmm, Not a Gavel but close huh? I will call it a Minor Rap. But a Minor Rap is still a Bust! HAHA ;)


And while I do appreciate your $0.02 worth above, why spend it here? Put it towards your Motorcycle! Hehe! ;)

theBlackman
27th Oct 2002, 06:00
Due to the limitations of the game Engine, the example of the dead beasties in the cistern as given by Deadfall are invalid.

The engine will not allow the desired action. So just like a movie that cuts away or fades out and comes back to a scene. The "Portation" is a device.

There is supposed to be NO INTERVAL OF TIME, OR DISPLACEMENT OF PLAYER. The action is one continuous cycle. The player approaches the cistern, sees the beasties, pulls the lever, the cistern fills up. That is the GAME reality. In most games, novels, movies, etc. a good part of the plot action is provided by the imagination of the player, observer.

Example. Hot heavy love scene in a movie fades to black BEFORE any sexual activity (other than some heavy petting and necking) occurs. Fade to black, fade back and the couple are shown in bed, or dressed in houserobes having breakfast. The obvious intent and the one ususally applied by the reader/viewer is that they slept together in the carnal sense.

The writer/film-maker plays on the known tendency of the audience to supply the rest of the action. In the case of the Cistern, this is what happened. There was not teleportation, no time/space gap. The action is intended to be accepted as one continuous sequence.

Due to the ramifications of the scenario, the mission is a Ghost bust.

The "portation" NEVER OCCURED IN THE CONTEXT OF THE GAME!

clayman
28th Oct 2002, 03:33
Sneak/all - I was being a bit sarcastic. No gavel at all; maybe a very soft flexible rubber mallet, like in the cartoons. :)

After following this for days, and re-reading all the opinions above(including tBM's rather enervating sexual diatribe...thanks, I'm all worked up now), I'm inclined to want to change the Rules a bit. But I'll stew on it a bit before speaking. If I blare out prematurely, I might cause Peter's hair to go instantly white-headed in terror, Sneak to pass out in protest, or Vanguard to drop over dead from horror at the simplicity of it all. ;)

More to come later......:)

Peter_Smith
28th Oct 2002, 04:01
Clayman,

I can hardly wait.:) No white hairs expected. I can take it so long as the rationale is clear. To be specific, I hope that the pronouncement (or proposal, as you prefer) has some governing principles that reconcile the inconsistencies I have mentioned, i.e., of allowing one form of automated bust but disallowing another.

theBlackman
28th Oct 2002, 04:22
Originally posted by clayman
(including tBM's rather enervating sexual diatribe...thanksMore to come later......:)

Diatribe? I thought I provided a full meal! :D :p

it'a a pun guys and gals. Think about it.

Vanguard
28th Oct 2002, 04:47
The problem I have with arguments regarding teleporation to different maps of the FM and thus the original AIs are still alive versus the *new* AIs that are dead is:<blockquote>Prove to me that there was ever a teleporation.</blockquote>You are not allowed to use dromed to prove it. Players are not required to know dromed. You can't ask the author because you are simply replacing the harder task of using using dromed with perhaps the easier task of asking the author but both having you making decisions on how the FM was coded, not on how you played it. Besides, players don't always have access to authors and many authors of FMs are unreachable.

Was that jerk when I rotated away when I frobbed the switch a teleporation to another map? Lots of FMs are jerky at spots. That doesn't mean those were teleportations. Some might simply be a sound file loading up or a high polygon count at that point. Does a text marquee pop up to notify the player that a teleporation effect was just implemented in the FM? (And I'm talking about teleportation in the FM design, not of teleporters or portals in the game which may not even use teleportation.)

Although both sound and sight are often used together in an FM, they are also often used separately. The door is closed, you hear a guard approach, you are fully lit so you wait until the guard walks away. That the object is a door and is even called a door is based on its similarity with objects you've experienced in reality. That the noises represent footsteps is again your interpretation of an effect in the game based on your experience in reality, and so is the interpretation that as they get louder means they are getting closer. Thief is reality based. The environment you are presented with is one that is recognizable to you based on your experiences in reality, not some spiralling oozy background with unrecognizable images or unknown objects flashing in front of you. That's why my arguments are reality based - because so it Thief. If I'm pondering how to make Garrett do it in the game, I'm thinking how I could do it. If I'm pondering if Garrett made some effect in the game, I look around to see or hear how Garrett might've triggered that effect. I am Garrett. That's why it is a first person immersive game. I am there. I am real but projecting myself into the game. When I flip the switch in Cistern, I *hear* the cistern fill up. I don't have to see it fill up. When I toss a mine around a corner, I don't have to see it blow up. I hear it. Sound and sight can be used together or separately to exhibit the event.

<hr>

When did ghosting get considered as a technical exercise? I've never opened dromed to ghost a mission. I've never read anything regarding how to code an FM to ghost it. I might guess that some event was scripted but I really have no proof of such. I only know of scripting to the extent of what has been discussed in the non-dromed Thief forums, so I really don't know what really qualifies as a script, a function, an attribute, or engine defect. I guess based on my experience as a player, not as an author knowledgeable in dromed. I guessed that teleporation was used in Cistern. There were arguments for non-bust opinions based on my assumption that teleporation was used *before* the author declared that such was the case. Yes, I have gained experience in recognizing some coding effects in the FMs but much has been garnered from imformal discussions with other taffers, not from opening dromed and learning how to code an FM.

Nothing I do when ghosting a mission cannot also be performed when playing in normal mode yet normal mode isn't considered a technical exercise. Where's the line of differentiation between non-technical normal play and technical ghost mode? Ghosting is a subset of actions and effects that restrict what you are already permitted to do in normal mode. I don't need to know the technical aspects of Microsoft Word in order to read a document that was written with it.

No one could ever venture into ghosting nor would be allowed to ghost if it was a technical exercise that required some minimal level of expertise in recognizing how the FM was coded, for which we have no measure of such technical qualification, and such expertise wouldn't exist until playing for a year or two on dozens and dozens of FMs to gain that level of expertise. I hardly believe we want to limit ghosting to only those that have played so many FMs over a long time that they have acquired enough technical knowledge of how the game engine behaves or require that the player know dromed (which would also require that they have actually built an FM to prove they know dromed and how to design FMs). Of those that have fired a pistol or rifle, do ALL of you know how it works, including all the parts within? I doubt most even know the differences in powder compounds and what those differences effect. When you take a test to certify profiency with firearms, nowhere in the test do they require you to diagram the inner workings. You don't need to know how it works to use it.

Ghosting is a *style* of gameplay, not a technical dissection of the mission. Ghosting is only technical to authors that want to consider whether or not to make their FMs ghostable. For players, we just play the game. We don't care how the game engine or FM did it and such technical details are irrelevant to any style of playing the game.

<hr>

Yeah, I know this thread is for a poll and that is still its primary function. But these arguments are fun, too. The poll was to let me know how the community felt regarding a particular situation. I like the arguments, whether I agree with them or not, so I can utilize a wealth of different viewpoints in deciding if a ghost was busted or not.

Vanguard
28th Oct 2002, 04:50
Sneak,

Actually it might've been cool if you had an inside contact at Ion Storm. Maybe then we'd get some juicy tidbits on T3.

Wasn't there a user here before that had designed an FM but was also on the Ion team? Was it maybe Purah (of Calendra Cistern FM fame)?

Peter_Smith
28th Oct 2002, 04:55
I think it was Sledge, who wrote The Inverted Manse. He posted mostly at TTLG. Not Purah, I think. Was there another?

clayman
28th Oct 2002, 12:37
(clayman goes to the library to finish his research, but can't decipher the Dewey Decimal System......goes to the librarian) ;)

Can someone please provide a link to the first Ghost results thread that has the rules at the front of it with all the discussion of how they should be amended ? And is there an archive of the Ghosting results for the OMs, either Gold, T2, or both ? :)

Sneak
28th Oct 2002, 18:25
Pass out in Protest? Hardly! ;) The only thing that makes me pass out these days is standing up.

Whatever you have in mind for Ghost Rules I am sure will be quite fine.

Ghost Thief Mode 2: The Refined Condensed Un-Controversial Never a Can of Worms to Open Sequel from the original Author of the Best Selling Ghost Thief Mode! Available in Toys Stores Soon! :D


But I did nearly pass out from the re entry velocity of a manuever in A Winter's Eve Supreme Ghost. Thats the last part of the Calendras Legacy Series. And I am near to passing out from writing the Report up. Am close!

Ya notice that there haven't been many takers on Supreme!

Chickens! ;)

I challenge you guys to play one. All of you! Pick a mission!

Peter,
I took your Challenge on The Art of Thievery. I still think you owe me Assassins. Or did you do it and I never heard? If not, get in there! Tis easy on Supreme. :)

Might be surprised, when pressed to come up with something, things do come to mind. Just think outside the Box of Ghost Mode!

And Vanguard,
Am challenging you also. How about.....The Cistern! J/K Vanguard! :) Pick one or I can if ya want! And if I am given any T3 tidbits, I will post 'em!

Clayman,
Dear Co Author! Promotion! :cool:

Swinging a Rubber Mallet? Oh but the guy must be mellowing!

Deadfall
28th Oct 2002, 22:43
I'm running out of ground to stand on. I can't offer any more arguments that are scintillating or even close to being intelligent.

tBm - If that be the case, then apparently I was wrong the entire time. I thought I heard from Gumdrop and a few others, however, that teleportation was involved.

Vanguard - I agree Ghosting is a style. And I agree Ghosting itself is not marked as only technical. But the rules of ghosting, in my opinion, involve technicalities. Although I do not have complete understanding of Dromed, and I do not know the internal operations of the Dark Engine, I can still understand the special workings of nudging and banner transmigration. If Ghosting didn't allow some technical methods, then nudging, banner transmigration, keyholing, potion stacking and some others would be prohibited. I was leaning towards the side that accepted "The Cistern" as ghostable because I looked at the bugbeasts' deaths as being part of the FM design. *Technically* they didn't die.

The question I proposed to clayman asked if non-technical deaths are regarded as a bust. A topic like this wasn't in the ghost rules so naturally I thought, in the case of "The Cistern", there was no ghost bust. I do agree with your other points and I can't defend my self against your thesis.

I guess the best thing to do is to leave this controversy as it is. I will say that I'm glad Gumdrop made a mission like "The Cistern". This whole "cistern flooding" thing has brought a revelation to the ghosting community.

Sneak - I will gladly take a Supreme Ghost challenge from you. I've been wanting to try out all T2 FM's Supreme Ghost style, but I actually wanted to finish ghosting them regularly first. I have a few ideas of some epic FM's that could be attempted. The Seventh Crystal, Saturio Returns Home, Cathedral of the Damned, and Hallucinations come to mind. Hidden Agenda, A Smugglers Request, and Inverted Manse are also epic, but trying to Supreme Ghost them could prove beyond difficult...

theBlackman
28th Oct 2002, 23:18
Originally posted by Deadfall
[B]tBm - If that be the case, then apparently I was wrong the entire time. I thought I heard from Gumdrop and a few others, however, that teleportation was involved.

You are correct. Teleportation IS involved. But not in the context of Bonehoard where you retrieve the Heart and are teleported back to another location.

Because the Game Engine does not permit the action desired (the cistern filling as you watch) portation was used as a device to give the IMPRESSION that the cistern filled while you watched.

As a result (to be repetitious) the switch causes the appearance of a cistern filled with water. This is a use of artistic liscense forced by the inability of the engine to "actually" fill the cistern.

Ergo. In the context of the game and the action you do not telport. The fact that teleportation takes place is a stage set scene change indicating on-going action. As in movies where you see the actors get in a car and the surrounding scenery moves. You get the effect of a car traveling when in reality there is a filmstrip being run on back and side screens.

For the purpose of the action and the plot the car does travel a route. In the Cistern this is the same kind of artifice.

Peter_Smith
29th Oct 2002, 02:21
OT

Sneak,

Not only did I take you up on your Supreme Ghost Challenge for Assassins, I did Supreme Perfect Ghost Speed Thief of Assassins in 17 minutes 30 seconds!:D It was all described in the old forum, and the thread has since been lost. I did keep the save game at the end. Without supreme, I Perfected it in about 17 flat.

How quickly we forget.;)

clayman
29th Oct 2002, 02:31
I remember, if no one else does. I believe I was rudely one-uped, in fact, on my home turf of Assassins, no less. My time beaten; then after haughtily improving it, I was beaten yet again. Shown up by Peter Smith ! :D I went home with my tail between my legs that night. Yar ! :D

Yelp ! :D

Peter_Smith
29th Oct 2002, 02:36
Deadfall,

Do not falter in your belief in what is right. Join me to request that exceptions allowed for the artifical, programmed breaking of any rule, be it killing, melees, or alerts, be treated consistently. Let's see where that takes us.:) So far, nobody has offered a counter to that argument.

Sneak
29th Oct 2002, 02:37
Peter,
Well either I forgot or it went right by me! But Belated Congrtas! Ha.

Maybe you need another one to try! ;)

Deadfall,
Yeah try a Supreme Mission. All those you listed would be fun. Maybe not beyond difficult, but no doubt difficult. That mansion in The 7th Crystal would be a doosie. And in case you didn't read it elsewhere, Supreme Ghost was never meant to take over Ghost Mode. Is an addition to it that Ramps up the challenge. It can be painstaking in places but also quite satisfying when done even if only one thing Busted you.

When we were coming up with it I Supremed The Bank and Trust in Thief 2. Was Busted by a Yellow Watcher at the Vault and that was all. But even though the Mission was a Bust, the play itself was worth the whole thing. Had to come up with things and think about it. It may not be one for everytime play as it can task you in places, but no doubt it make for some serious stealth work.

Play a couple in Supreme Ghost and then try one in Ghost Mode. You might be surprised at how well you Ghost after that! :)