Cigam on 19/5/2022 at 04:57
marbleman, it sounds as if the objective itself simply tells you to kill the crays, whereas you are not explicitly instructed to do so via the elemental summoning? This is a suggested optional possible method of completing said objective? If so, then not sure the indirect busts this method would generate get a pass?
klatremus on 22/5/2022 at 17:47
What is stated in the objective exactly? Anything beyond what is written (or heavily implied) there wouldn't be excused. If it says to carry someone out, it implies knocking them out first. If it says to find a way out of a building and the only way is to blow something up and that instantly checks off the objective, that would be allowed, but not alerting someone else in the process. So I don't think whatever someone is telling you, even if that person is the one who gives you a new objective, would be allowed if it incurs further busts.
marbleman on 22/5/2022 at 18:24
It's stated to kill all enemies. You can do that by summoning fire elementals to do the job for you. So there are a bunch of alerts as the fire elementals and crays are fighting, but they alert to each other, not to you. Still, it's you who causes this mayhem in the first place.
klatremus on 23/5/2022 at 02:13
See if the objective said to summon fire elementals to kill the craymen then I'd be saying that's fine. Even though the craymen gets alerted at that point, it's not to you and you followed the objective. Then it becomes like the Adrius objective in Calendra's Cistern where he goes on a rampage after you trigger him, but doing so is instructed in the objective. Sure, you can choose not to trigger that objective, but that is another story.
klatremus on 23/5/2022 at 23:30
Quote Posted by Galaer
@klatremus: As old timer who understand original intent of this rule you may not realize that this rule may be confusing for new ghosters. So I propose this change:
"You aren't allowed to alert or kill enemies in any other way that allows you to do it without being seen or heard. With exception of rule #12:
A) Example of alerting AI without being seen or heard would be dropping killed or unconscious body in front of them to lure them out.
B) Example of killing enemies without being heard or seen would be nudging AI into water for them to drown.
C) You also aren't allowed to initialize any infighting. For example by opening door for opposite enemies to see each other or by creating AI to fight with other AI. Exception to this rule may be fight started by listening to scripted conversation."
I don't think we need a big rewrite of that rule. To be honest, your suggestion sounds more confusing to me than what's already written. I suggest just separating the two points in the rule from:
"5. Garrett must not cause suicides of AI or melees that intentionally cause AI to attack each other, with the exception of rule 12."
to
"5. Garrett must not cause suicides of AI. Garrett must also not cause melees (enemy infighting) and intentionally cause AI to attack each other, with the exception of rule 12."
Galaer on 24/5/2022 at 06:05
I disagree with your way to keep this rule as short as possible. My proposition contains examples how you can achieve killing and alerting without being seen or heard. Yours doesn't. Also your proposition is also confusing: melees (enemy infighting) and causing AI to attack each other they are thew same things. So why are you separating them? Look, other rules have good clarification what they represent with some examples. This rule has nothing. I don't really get it what confuses you in my proposition as I wanted to explain this rule as I wanted to explain it as clear as possible. So could you be more specific?
Upon reading my and your proposition I would say that "suicide" is probably not a good word as AI never kill themselves. It's probably to call it "accidents" that are caused by player to kill AI like making them drown or crashing their heads with elevator.
klatremus on 24/5/2022 at 18:12
I meant to write "that intentionally cause", not and, as they are obviously connected. I guess a better way to write it would be "Garrett must not intentionally cause melees (enemy infighting) where AI attack each other, with the exception of rule 12."
I guess if you absolutely need examples of this, we can include that in the rule. I just dont see how anyone could mistake what it means to cause a fight or suicide. But ok.
This sentence confused me in your suggestion:
"You aren't allowed to alert or kill enemies in any other way that allows you to do it without being seen or heard." Especially the part in bold.
Galaer on 24/5/2022 at 18:55
By first sentence I meant to say that "You aren't allowed to alert or kill enemies in any other way than mentioned in other rules".
As for examples: put yourself in shoes of new ghoster who doesn't know all specifics of this challenge, so he takes them entirely from the rules. This person may not know what suicide means, because AI don't usually kill themselves. This person may not know what rules means about causing infighting as usually you do that by luring enemies to each other. This can also happen by accident or be scripted. Also there is no specification that triggering fights by listening to conversation is omitted, so new ghoster may interpret this as a bust. That's why these rules should be as clear as possible.
Also I have no idea why you insist with this confusing word "melees". If you check Google it has couple of meanings, which already is confusing. And since it's very similar to word "melee" it can be interpreted as "people who use melee weapons". That's at least how I was interpreted this word for couple of years. Why not just call it "enemy infighting"?
And one more thing - your proposition of this rule omits alerting to the killed/unconscious bodies, which is presented in original rule. 1st half of this rule ("Garrett must not cause suicides of AI or melees") forbids causing suicides and 2nd half ("that intentionally cause AI to attack each other, with the exception of rule 12") put extra reason for avoiding suicides by causing enemy attack each other. Though to be honest I find it weird wording. Enemies very rarely attack each other upon seeing body, usually they just go into search mode. But I guess this is just an oddity of the old rule.
Cigam on 24/5/2022 at 20:10
What exactly are you trying to forbid? Any Player action that would cause or result in an AI alerting, dying, taking damage, or attacking another AI? (with the exceptions of whatever is excused by the script or objective rules?)
I think the problem with using a term like "intentionally", is that it is still a bust even if the player does it by accident, or didn't realise that their action would result in this outcome? I mean, that I didn't realise that there was a guard under the lift I sent down does not absolve me?
And talk of "in-fighting" might not cover the situation where only one AI is actually attacking another. Such as releasing a spider so it will chase the maid away from her position. They are not fighting as such?
klatremus on 24/5/2022 at 23:05
@Galaer:
Quote:
Also there is no specification that triggering fights by listening to conversation is omitted, so new ghoster may interpret this as a bust.
Listening to conversation is a script and this is exactly what rule #12 is discussing. Also, under Commentary and Interpretation of Ghost Rules, step 6. Scripts further explains this.
Quote:
Also I have no idea why you insist with this confusing word "melees". If you check Google it has couple of meanings, which already is confusing. And since it's very similar to word "melee" it can be interpreted as "people who use melee weapons". That's at least how I was interpreted this word for couple of years. Why not just call it "enemy infighting"?
I agree the word melee doesn't bring anything vital to the rule, so this can be changed to enemy infighting or enemies alerting to each other.
Quote:
And one more thing - your proposition of this rule omits alerting to the killed/unconscious bodies, which is presented in original rule. 1st half of this rule ("Garrett must not cause suicides of AI or melees") forbids causing suicides and 2nd half ("that intentionally cause AI to attack each other, with the exception of rule 12") put extra reason for avoiding suicides by causing enemy attack each other. Though to be honest I find it weird wording. Enemies very rarely attack each other upon seeing body, usually they just go into search mode. But I guess this is just an oddity of the old rule.
I'm sorry Galaer, but you have misunderstood the rule. It is not saying that the suicide causes the infighting. There are two separate issues in rule #5. First it is saying you are not allowed to cause suicides (nudging guard into water, putting crates in the way for a patrolling guard so he falls into lava, etc). In the same rule but separately it is also saying you are not allowed to cause enemies to start fighting together (leaving doors open so they see each other, releasing caged spiders so they chase someone, etc). One does not cause the other. This is why I suggested the rewording in post #665 above to separate those into two separate sentences, because I saw that you were confused.
@Cigam:
I agree "intentionally" is misleading and should be removed.
All alerts or fights should be included, not just planned ones. And I also agree it shouldn't just be fighting, but enemies simply alerting (and perhaps running away) to each other too. That follows the rule's spirit.
