klatremus on 17/12/2017 at 02:45
Let me think about it. I'll get back to you in a day or two.
Quick question though, Peter: Do the current rules 6a and 6c allow for dousing of torches to solve a puzzle?
smithpd on 17/12/2017 at 06:19
Quote Posted by klatremus
Quick question though, Peter: Do the current rules 6a and 6c allow for dousing of torches to solve a puzzle?
I don't think so. Rule 6a explicitly says no dousing of torches. 6c says you can use water arrows to solve puzzles, but does not mention dousing torches (removal of lights). As it stands, if you doused a torch to solve a puzzle, that would violate 6a.
I agree with ultravioletu that it should be clarified. I have a bit of a problem with the wording of the ultravioletu's proposed 6d, "as long as the player does not use the additional darkness for concealing purposes." How can one be sure of that? Then you may have to qualify it further with "no AI's can ever be capable of seeing the player in that room, either from inside or outside the room." it seems forced to me. That is the crux of the issue, as it was with the snuffable candlesticks. To me, it is easier to say no removal of any light source for any purpose. And, if that situation arises, and it is necessary to douse the torch, call it a Supreme bust.
How often does it, in fact, arise?
Please think about it. Perhaps you can suggest improved wording.
Yandros on 17/12/2017 at 17:57
I am certainly no expert, but it seems to me as if 6d's purpose is mostly to make it possible to Supreme missions which have loot candlesticks which must be doused to take. That seems like it could become a slippery slope of creating rules for the purpose of making Supreme or ghosting in general possible in certain missions. As was said earlier, there is no shame in failing to ghost a mission, the fun is in the play and the reporting; whether or not Ghost or Supreme was achieved is just a matter of consequence more than a trophy to be hoisted.
klatremus on 19/12/2017 at 01:07
Ok, so here's my take on it. It seems like this discussion is dealing with 4 somewhat separate possible rule amendments. 3 of them are dealing with light and 1 regards potions.
A. Removing light sources to complete puzzles.
After careful consideration, I think rule 6a is ultimately so clear that allowing exceptions to it would be treading into a territory that would, by principle, go against the spirit of the Supreme rules. There are situations where you have a puzzle, for example in a tomb, completely devoid of enemies, where putting out a torch in order to proceed through the mission isn't done to avoid getting spotted. Instead you are forced to do so due to the gameplay mechanics chosen by the mission author. Nobody would ever know and there is no chance that it would ever cause an alert to be avoided. I easily understand the argument there. The situations that become troublesome are where you have a room that is occasionally patrolled, or adjacent to a room being patrolled, or where there are windows out to an area that is patrolled or viewed by enemies. What do you do then? Should it be up to the player to decide, or should the rules specify each such possible scenario? Again, since the rule previously worded a principled "no removal of light sources", introducing exceptions would start to break that principle.
I vote to keep the puzzle rule as is and stick to the no removal of light sources. If you have to remove a light source, then so be it. Call it a bust and deal with it. Again, there is no shame in failing. It's not as if you didn't manage to Supreme it properly and your abilities limited your level of success.
B. Removing light sources when emitted from a loot item.
My argument here is essentially the same as in A. A counterpoint might be that taking loot is such a principled part of the game that no thief would forego the taking of loot simply because it was also emitting light. After all, to reduce suspicion you would argue you should stop taking loot once the objective has been met, but that is not required following the Supreme mode. Additionally, this issue is arising now because only in recent years have we seen fan missions with light emitting loot. Those didn't exist in the original missions, nor in early fan missions, around the time the Supreme rules were made.
I vote, though more doubtful than in A, to disallow the taking of light emitting loot for Supreme. However, if there is an overwhelming sense o votes the opposite direction, I would accept it.
C. Removing light sources that have been turned on by the player, for example to complete a puzzle.
This I strongly think should be allowed for Supreme. First, I have always interpreted the rules that way in the past. Second, it follows the mode's spirit, see rule 9. Third, the idea in rule 6a is not to remove light sources that were there when you started the mission. I'd almost recommend removing such light sources should be required, again following rule 9.
If we want to clarify rule 6a to reflect this, perhaps:
6a. No dousing of torches. Turning off electric lights, snuffing candles, or removing any light source including Mushrooms is also Not Allowed. Removing light sources directly created by the player, for example in order to complete a puzzle, is allowed.
D. Allowing the use of holy water vials.
I think this should be allowed. Holy water vials are not potions, though they could easily be confused as such (as I myself have done in the past). The rule is referring to chemicals (or drugs) that enhance Garrett's bodily functions. Holy water is simply a weapon altering liquid, not ingested by Garrett or influencing him in any way.
I suggest:
5. Inventory and Weapons: You can not purchase weapons and inventory items from the store at loadout. This thief doesn’t even go to the store to chance being seen and identified purchasing said items. Use nothing that would leave a trace or remnant of evidence. No Potions can be used at all. Rope Arrows and Scouting Orbs can be used but they must be retrieved. Holy water vials are not considered potions and are allowed.
------------------------------------------
Lastly, remember that any player is always free to interpret the rules in good faith, report a success/failure and discuss the reasons behind it in the text. As long as reports are done honestly and openly, nobody should frown upon the player, unless something has been blatantly and purposely overlooked.
Let me know what you guys think. These are just my suggestions and shouldn't be taken as more than such. Again, I love seeing the interest in and enthusiasm around the Supreme ghost mode. :D
Starker on 19/12/2017 at 01:44
You know, if Supreme Ghost gets too easy, I was playing around with loot restrictions a long time ago when I tried ghosting. I don't really know what to call it... maybe Scavenger Ghost? Basically, the idea is that you are only allowed to take loot that nobody would miss or where there could be a plausible reason for the item missing other than it having been stolen. So you can take things from uninhabited areas, things that have fallen on the ground outside, wines (someone could have drunk it), things that seem to have rolled under the bed, etc.
downwinder on 19/12/2017 at 02:42
its time someone makes a mission harder then any mission that has been made before for the elite ghoster's/ironman/etc to see who is really skilled
we need gauntlet part 3 "the river of styx" aka journey to hell,you have to travel from the surface of earth into the earth to the center where hell is located,then do some tasks along way and when you get there then have to escape back to surface,but end up taking a new path on exit and end up heaven if you win :P at the perily gates
also you run into past people you delt with in other missions like a really pissed off Ramirez,a undead cutty who was last scene dying in cragscleft,it could be all garretts past enemy's along the way :P poor benny would be there too
i would keep going but i feel the flak might be more then can handle :P
all of this is just a random idea
smithpd on 19/12/2017 at 06:21
I agree with Klatremus' philosopy of Supreme, his suggestions, and his wording.
Cigam on 19/12/2017 at 18:37
Sorry to be off topic but I was hoping to start a similar discussion on Iron Man and Titanium Man rules, but have hit the snag of being unable to find the official rules for these challenges. The "official" thread they were listed on ( (
http://forums.eidosgames.com/old-ubb/Thief_Modes_of_Play_Final_rules.htm) ) seems to be MIA.
Does anyone know if either this thread or the rules are archived anywhere? Hope so. Would be a shame if all the correct details of not just IM/TM, but Cushy Trumpet and a host of other playstyles, were lost.
Grandmauden on 19/12/2017 at 21:25
I also agree with klatremus. While I, too, am on the fence about loot items that act as light sources, I think for now it's best to leave them unavailable for Supreme in order to avoid creating any slippery slopes.
On a side note, any thoughts about drinkable potions that are required for the storyline and/or don't actually affect Garrett's in-game abilities (as I mentioned in an earlier post)? Or is this simply too rare of a scenario to worry about?