marbleman on 24/4/2020 at 10:10
One problem with that amendment is that it will invalidate a bunch of reports made with existing rules in mind.
Galaer on 24/4/2020 at 10:21
Quote Posted by marbleman
One problem with that amendment is that it will invalidate a bunch of reports made with existing rules in mind.
But how many supreme ghost reports is there that involve disarming traps? At most - just few. Disarming traps in FMs is quite rare. I think disarming traps should only be excused if it's part of puzzle or it's connected to objective.
Another idea would be making this rule work only on future supreme ghost reports. Pretty much like changes in law don't affect past cases, but only future cases.
Galaer on 19/7/2020 at 12:46
I wanted to ask about AI that freezes when you look at it. It appears in newest FM called Malazar's Inscrutable Tower. If you stand in front of these living statues or make noise and then turn around, they will attack you. Not immediately though, they need around 2-3 seconds of not looking at them. And they are mute, so their alert can only be indicated by their movements.
So I thought about something. What if I will make noise or stand in front of them and then hide in shadow while always looking at them? If you turn immediately, statue will go into search mode. But if you wait around 1 minute, after turning around, statue will not move from place. Can I use this strategy of always looking at this kind of AI for my benefits? Or is it still a ghost bust, because statue would normally attack me if I wasn't watching it?
smithpd on 19/7/2020 at 21:32
My view is that if you are attacked or cause an alert, it is a bust, and if you are not attacked or noticed ostensibly it is not a bust. To me, it seems pointless to interpret the ghost rules based on what might happen "normally" if you can create a situation in which the normal behavior does not happen. In other words, if your waiting tactic avoids a bust, you are good to to. IMO.
Cigam on 20/7/2020 at 14:06
If I have understood the statues' description, then That you can take an action that prevents an AI from moving has no effect on the fact that you have caused its disposition to change from its base state. It is the changing of the disposition that I would have thought was the bust?
marbleman on 23/7/2020 at 18:49
That one is tricky indeed. The rule disallows any indication of AI alerting. Even though it sounds ridiculous, if there is no indication, the player should be good according to the rule. This to me seems like a more extreme case of mute guards who never give first alerts and whose behavior is only possible to judge by their motions. The fact that they never give verbal cues doesn't mean they don't enter first alert state, but since there is no indication, there is no way to measure that.
I have another one. Some areas make Supreme inapplicable due to how loud they are. Think a waterfall or a noisy generator room. Would it be appropriate to lower ambient volume around such areas? And if not, what ambient level is appropriate for this mode? I personally like to play with ambient volume almost maxed out, and I don't change it for my Supreme runs.
Galaer on 5/8/2020 at 10:26
1. I wanted to ask about Chemical rule. I play last mission of Sturmdrang Peak campaign. I get item called Weed of Barathias. It replenish my breath while underwater just like breath potion. It's a plant and chemical rule mentions only potions. I can use it infinite number of times, because it isn't spend. It stays in my inventory. So my question is: Is using it will classify my ghost run as chemical or not?
2. Also in the same mission there are purple barriers that I can destroy with sword. They just vanish after single slash. Behind them is only loot and pages for optional objective. Is destroying these barriers a damage property?
marbleman on 5/8/2020 at 10:57
1. I'd say no since it's a unique quest item. Besides, as you said it's not even a potion but rather a root that Garrett just chews on.
2. Yes. Destroying the barriers obviously means inflicting damage on them.
Cigam on 6/8/2020 at 17:13
Quote Posted by marbleman
1. I'd say no since it's a unique quest item. Besides, as you said it's not even a potion but rather a root that Garrett just chews on.
But it has the effects of assisstance?
I think of the rules as being a codification of some ideas, and it is what crosses those ideas that matters. Not the literal letter of the rules.
So the question I would ask is, IF X was around at the time, would the rule-authors have proscribed it?
Well the whole point of forbidding potions was to forbid the artificial enhancement of player physical abilities. It is not that they were contemptuous of potions in particular, and it was more the colour of the potion bottles that they objected to (well I am assuming, anyway).
So after all that waffling, I would treat the root as I would treat a breath potion. ie it would have come under the same rule, had they been a thing back then. And so not for Ghosts today.
Cigam on 6/8/2020 at 17:37
Just curious about something. I once saw a ghost run of T2 M1, where the player claimed Supreme despite the fact that they left the key that they had pickpocketed near the door of the room and not on the guard within the room's patrol path.
Their justification was that if they went back up the dumb waiter and dropped the key it would alert the patroling guard. And there is no way to sneak up on him via the room's actual door.
I think that is OK since the point of dropping the key on the patrol path is to create less suspicion as it is plausible that the key could have fallen on it's own while the guard was walking. And since this room only has one door, the key could have dropped on his way in.
But then that sets up the precedent of being able to drop the key anywhere where it is logical a guard must have walked, even if away from their current standing spot or patrol path, and people could then skip difficult key-returns.
Wondering what other's think?