downwinder on 16/12/2017 at 00:30
rule #1 of true ghosting if you fail at any point restart mission from scratch,lets be honest we all know about save and reload=we all use it often no matter what style we play,but if some want to claim to be able to do the so called hardest experience on thief shouldn't the rule #1 come into effect
imaging playing a mission from scratch and getting to finish with out having to reload,now that is impressive,considering random opening of doors and hoping the guard is not to close to hear it
that is why i feel if this should be done ,why not just make a true mission when if you caught save file is erased,i would love to try something like that
here is a example in simple terms "you open a door in mission guard hears,ok reload,now wait 5 seconds open door guard still a bit to close,reload,now wait 10 seconds open door ok coast is clear.
^does that seems like that took anyskill?
in stead of trying to make rules that ever change,just make a mission that has such strict rules while playing you just have to survive mission and stats can show results in end if the person can complete it in the first place
^^^^^^^^alot to absorb but i want to make sure people know what true skill is over reload/save/reload/save/etc
i posted all this as i wish there was a true ghost map i can do i need a challenge,but don't like the idea of having to reload if i mess up,i want to start over,so a.i. paths would have to have a way to know with out alerting them to give player a chance at not alerting them,like a tiny window/etc
so many things would have to don't step by step to make rules work i know,but the experience in end would be a truly hard experience with no saves/reloads but for sure a way to do map if smart
Grandmauden on 16/12/2017 at 03:25
Quote Posted by downwinder
rule #1 of true ghosting if you fail at any point restart mission from scratch
Quote:
imaging playing a mission from scratch and getting to finish with out having to reload,now that is impressive
That's called the Iron Man playstyle, which is very different from ghosting. Both are impressive feats, for sure, but they also require different strategies.
Quote:
that is why i feel if this should be done ,why not just make a true mission when if you caught save file is erased,i would love to try something like that
Quote:
i posted all this as i wish there was a true ghost map i can do i need a challenge,but don't like the idea of having to reload if i mess up,i want to start over
You don't need someone to create a mission like this. Just play any OM or FM, but if you fail, simply click "New Game" instead of "Load." Iron Man is a self-imposed challenge, after all, and people have been doing this playstyle for a long time.
Quote:
just make a mission that has such strict rules while playing you just have to survive mission and stats can show results in end if the person can complete it in the first place
While it's technically possible to play both Iron Man and Ghost / Supreme Ghost at the same time, there's a reason people only play one or the other: ghosting has absolutely no margin for error. Any given mission could have a number of scenarios where the player must maneuver with extreme precision to avoid busting the ghost (e.g. jumping a gap at a certain angle, creep-crawling at the very edge of a guard's visual range, or dropping an item at a certain spot so you can land on it silently). Not to mention that sometimes, you need pure luck (e.g. waiting for a guard to pivot in a certain direction before a patrol comes around the corner and catches you), and there's always the possibility of a glitch screwing you over (e.g. the infamous rope arrow bug).
Ultimately, having to restart the entire mission and do everything over again just because you ran into some bad luck or made a misstep near the exit ends up being extremely frustrating, rather than a difficult but fun challenge.
Quote:
but i want to make sure people know what true skill is over reload/save/reload/save/etc
The skill in ghosting a mission doesn't come from saving and reloading over and over until you find that one gap in a guard's patrol. The true skill of ghosting comes from encountering an obstacle, observing and experimenting with said obstacle, and finding or inventing a solution to get around that obstacle, whether it be an alternate route or using objects in a clever way, all within a self-imposed list of restrictions.
In short, ghosting is about puzzle-solving, especially in situations that the author didn't intend to be puzzles. To get a better idea of what I mean, go read some of klatremus's ghost reports on his website, or watch his ghosting videos on Youtube.
While Ghosting and Iron Manning are both fun challenges for veteran players who've mastered the gameplay and know the mission down to the last detail, these two playstyles require different skillsets and levels of patience, so it's probably best to keep them separate.
smithpd on 16/12/2017 at 05:21
Following are my comments on a few suggestions above.
Quote Posted by ultravioletu
But it must be further refined like this (changes in blue):
Those balloons you used do not appear in a Reply With Quote, unless I am missing something. Am I?
EDIT: Nested quotes used to work for me, but I can't make them work now. Again, am I missing something?
Copy / pasting, you said:
6d. It is allowed to remove light sources to obtain loot (e.g. lighted candlesticks) or to complete puzzle elements, as long as the player does not use the additional darkness for concealing purposes. It is also allowed to remove light sources created by the player, for instance torches lit for completing puzzle elements.
I have some problems with this
a) "as long as the player does not use the additional darkness". Additional darkness cannot be prevented initially. What should the player do, run to a light area? My personal preference would be for snuffable gold candlesticks to be unobtainable under Supreme rules because they are analogous to putting out torches. That keeps it simple.
b) I think that removing light sources created by the player is inconsistent with Supreme philosophy. Why is this necessary? Klatremus should state his opinion.
c) "to complete puzzle elements" is fine in 6c, but I do not see the need of repeating it in 6d.
In short, I don't think 6d is necessary.
Quote Posted by Cigam
And this would be the best place to host official rules.
.
I agree that TTLG is the best place. I think the rules themselves should be in a closed thread and discussion should be elsewhere.
Quote Posted by Cigam
For example Titanium Man ....
I don't know what that is, but I don't think other play modes should have any effect on or interaction with the ghost rules. For example, we used to play speed runs as well as Speed Ghost and Speed Supreme Ghost. There were no specific requirements. Only posted records. No changes were necessary to the Ghost aspects.
Quote Posted by Cigam
Anyway, "The use of moss, water, and other arrows is allowed for other purposes..." the problem with rules like that is that unless you stipulate ALL exceptions, there is nothing to stop a player inventing a made up purpose. For example, my purpose in using the moss arrow is decoration. I like the way their green pattern contrasts with the floor. And if that coincidentally means that section of florr becomes quieter, well so be it.
That is a good point. I agree with whitelisting a couple of well-known cases, but I would hate to see this become a chore or a constant stream of requests to make ghosting easier. BTW, I have found that water arrows can turn off light switches. Is this universal? If so, I would not be opposed to making moss illegal except to the minimum extent needed to solve puzzles. A hidden entrance to a temple in the Black Frog comes to mind. The key distinction is that the use of moss for light switches is not necessary for game play. It could simply be called a Supreme Ghost bust if you could not ghost it with the light on or turn the light off manually. This would be a departure from what has been accepted.
Quote Posted by downwinder
rule #1 of true ghosting if you fail at any point restart mission from scratch.
I have never seen this term "true ghosting". It seems like a misnomer. It is not the true / original way. We used to call it "ironman." "Ironman" is just another of those superposition adjectives like "speed" and Perfect Thief that, in my opinion does not need to be an integral part the rules. It could be a footnote:
Perfect Thief = Ghost success with all the loot and secrets.
Speed Ghost = Ghost success as fast as you can (good for competitions).
Ironman Ghost = Ghost success without any reloads.
Quote Posted by downwinder
here is a example in simple terms "you open a door in mission guard hears,ok reload,now wait 5 seconds open door guard still a bit to close,reload,now wait 10 seconds open door ok coast is clear.
^does that seems like that took anyskill?
Maybe, maybe not. Timing can be difficult, especially with multiple guards involved. Reloads are a necessary part of traditional ghosting. Ironman is traditionally optional, as it should be. Ironman Ghosting can be very tedious.
smithpd on 16/12/2017 at 05:23
Quote Posted by Grandmauden
While Ghosting and Iron Manning are both fun challenges for veteran players who've mastered the gameplay and know the mission down to the last detail, these two playstyles require different skillsets and levels of patience, so it's probably best to keep them separate.
I agree with everything you said in your post.
ultravioletu on 16/12/2017 at 09:37
Quote Posted by smithpd
I have some problems with this
a) "as long as the player does not use the additional darkness". Additional darkness cannot be prevented initially. What should the player do, run to a light area? My personal preference would be for snuffable gold candlesticks to be unobtainable under Supreme rules because they are analogous to putting out torches. That keeps it simple.
b) I think that removing light sources created by the player is inconsistent with Supreme philosophy. Why is this necessary? Klatremus should state his opinion.
c) "to complete puzzle elements" is fine in 6c, but I do not see the need of repeating it in 6d.
In short, I don't think 6d is necessary.
• a: what I meant was: if the player can completely traverse an area with the candlestick on, then the lack of candlestick light does not offer him any "competitive advantages", so it'd be okay to snuff it. If that sounds a little too complicated and subject to subjective interpretation, fine with me to reject it, but at least allow for candlesticks in unpatrolled rooms (like Ramirez' bathroom in the TFix'd Assassins, or artist's bedroom in Murder Most Foul).
• b: example: the torch that must be light by player in Calendra's Legacy mission 1 (A Meeting with Basso) to access a loot area, action allowed by Supreme #6c. Although not explicitly stated by Supreme #7, the "restore initial state" intention behind it would require the torch to be put out again.
• c: indeed, removing light via water arrows is implicitly allowed by #6c ("other arrows), but does not cover turning off lights via switch, or picking up a mushroom. If these actions must be done to complete a puzzle element (and not to obtain "stealth") they should be treated equally.
I'm coming back to CL situation. Currently, it is possible to Supreme that cave via a technicality. As putting out lit torches is not explicitly required by rule #7, leaving the torch burning is okay according to the rules, but it contradicts what I interpret to be the spirit of the Supreme mode, as described in "Premise". My intention with this discussion is not to "make Supreme easier", but to slightly adapt the rules to reward the playing style that stays true to the spirit of supreme ghosting.
Sure, one alternative is indeed "here's the rules, deal with them, fail is okay", and I will comply with a majority decision. But my feeling is that it breaks a bit the immersion.
ultravioletu on 16/12/2017 at 09:40
Quote Posted by Cigam
Anyway, "The use of moss, water, and other arrows is allowed for other purposes..." the problem with rules like that is that unless you stipulate ALL exceptions, there is nothing to stop a player inventing a made up purpose. For example, my purpose in using the moss arrow is decoration. I like the way their green pattern contrasts with the floor. And if that coincidentally means that section of florr becomes quieter, well so be it.
Quote Posted by smithpd
That is a good point. I agree with whitelisting a couple of well-known cases, but
I would hate to see this become a chore or a constant stream of requests to make ghosting easier. BTW, I have found that water arrows can turn off light switches. Is this universal? If so, I would not be opposed to making moss illegal except to the minimum extent needed to solve puzzles. A hidden entrance to a temple in the Black Frog comes to mind. The key distinction is that the use of moss for light switches is not necessary for game play. It could simply be called a Supreme Ghost bust if you could not ghost it with the light on or turn the light off manually. This would be a departure from what has been accepted.
Re: “constant stream...”: but that's exactly what makes a good ruleset: the constant grooming. Including relaxing the restrictions for situations which do not contradict the spirit, and in the same time ensuring that "creative" exploitations as per above are evaluated and if necessarily explicitly forbidden. In real life, there is a reason why we still have Legislative bodies and why decades- or even century-old Constitutions have amendments...
Peter, I guess I know where your reservations come from - the "Undercover" exception that triggered requests for similar treatment. I completely agree with your opinion - stated elsewhere - that this particular exception should not have been granted in the first place (rendering the OM unghostable, which is truthful, judging by the spirit and intentions of ghosting, regardless of how offhand and liberally one may interpret them).
But you can't compare the situations. :)
klatremus on 16/12/2017 at 21:40
Hey everyone,
Sorry I've been busy this last week. UV finally gave me a nudge by pointing out this thread. First, I am very impressed and encouraged by the enthusiasm still present around the Ghost/Supreme rules this many years later. It seems Ghosting has had a bit of a resurgence lately. If my reports and videos have played a small part in that, I am happy. :D
I think Peter Smith and I agree on one vital point:
Quote Posted by smithpd
It is perfectly OK to fail ghosting. Or if a mission cannot be ghosted that is fine, too. There is no shame in that. [...] It is common practice nowadays to design missions so they can be ghosted. That largely eliminates one of of the fun aspects of ghosting, which is to find extraordinary means to solve an otherwise intractable problem. To me, design for ghosting makes often it too easy.
In a similar vein, I think that adding rules simply to make ghosting easier or to cover situations in one mission is not a good idea. I firmly agree with his last statement, which is why I am a little leery about making more amendments. I have actually over the years noticed how I enjoy ghosting missions that never was made with that mode in mind more than recent ones that take it into account (sometimes too heavily). The ghosting of individual situations within missions have become more enjoyable to me than claiming the overall mission success. The adding or amending of rules could thus help dilute the rules more than solidify them, regardless of what was the original intent. "Since we amended there, then why not over here also" is the thinking I'm afraid of.
That being said, I do agree with the two suggestions so far, although I don't think I necessarily agree with UV's wording on the removing of light sources rule. It seems very difficult to interpret "using additional darkness for concealing purposes". Previously mentioned was the candlestick at the artist's studio in Murder Most Foul. My thought is that there is a chance someone outside could see the light go out, and call for help because they suspect foul play. A Supreme Thief wouldn't even take that chance, and that to me encompasses the spirit of that mode. I therefore agree with Peters thought on leaving lit candlesticks where they are. For my Thief Gold let's play I accepted taking the candlesticks because they never emitted light in the original release. I am however agreeing with somehow accepting the removal of light sources for puzzles, though I also understand the difficulty of this rule's implementation.
Quote Posted by Grandmauden
I don't think holy water vials necessarily fit in that category. They only affect Garrett's water arrows rather than Garrett himself, and it's debatable whether they even count as potions (Garrett doesn't drink them, he just dips his water arrows in them). At the very least, I think the use of holy water vials should be permissible if you need a holy water arrow to complete a puzzle element, like ultravioletu mentioned above.
This I 100% agree with. I even thought the same as Grandmauden recently, even looking up the difference between 'vials' and 'potions'. Potions are chemical concoctions aiming to introduce or enhance some natural ability. You could argue a Supreme thief wouldn't even take the risk of altering his body to such an intoxicated state for fear of potential unpredictable outcomes or side effects. Holy Water vials are just modifying regular water arrows, which are allowed even under the Supreme rules, as long as they are not used to remove light sources. Plus, when holy water
fonts are allowed for such a purpose, then the vials should be as well. But I also think this is possible to interpret from the current rules, so no amendment is needed. Perhaps holy water vials could be explicitly stated as not being considered a potion. Come to think of it, I have never even heard the term 'holy water potion'.
My two cents, anyway...
klatremus on 16/12/2017 at 21:48
Quote Posted by ultravioletu
Including relaxing the restrictions for situations which do not contradict the spirit, and in the same time ensuring that "creative" exploitations as per above are evaluated and if necessarily explicitly forbidden.
This is a good point ultravioletu. I don't think the rules we are trying to clarify, Peter, have the aim of making the overall mode easier. If someone by chance would find a loophole that clearly violates the spirit of the mode without necessarily going against any of the rules, then I think the community would voice it's opinion and forbid it. The same applies here with the thought of clarifying possible in-game puzzle elements in lieu of the rules that describe the removal of lights and the use of holy water.
klatremus on 16/12/2017 at 21:57
I forgot to say that I totally agree that the official ghost rule thread over at Square Enix should be copied and stickied here, while keeping a discussion thread separate. Perhaps this one can be modified to fill such a need.
smithpd on 17/12/2017 at 01:43
Thanks, klatremus. Please tell us, in view of your comments, how you would handle the proposed amendment 6d, or do you agree with me that it is unnecessary? My opinion on 6d was that the light removal options are not wanted apart from the statement about puzzles, which is already covered in 6c.