Cigam on 30/7/2021 at 14:35

---

Galaer , such loot-alerts are extremely common in T3. It might not even be possible to complete any mission without them.

I know the focus hasn't been on that game here, but surely the rules should be for all Thief games, rather than different rules for different games.

Plus the rules shouldn't assume that such situations would only occur for AIs that stay close to the loot, or that such alerts will otherwise be easily detectable. Nothing stops the next FM author putting in a loot alerting guard with a very long Kidnap length patrol.

If you disallow all such busts then how can anyone truly know that there were none? All they can say is that they saw no evidence of one.

I understand that the other option of allowing them seems odd. But then nothing stops you making your own judgement. You can judge that the person who skipped a piece of loot did a better ghosting run than either the person who took it without ever discovering that a later guard would alert, or the person who already knew that this would happen, and took it anyway.

In a similar way that I personally wouldn't use a breath-giving root as I would treat any consumable that gives a potion-like buff the same as a potion. But others have accepted this. But that doesn't stop me from thinking that such items should be avoided, even if technically allowed.

klatremus on 30/7/2021 at 23:39

---

I really don't care if I make you sad or disappointed, Galaer. Such a comment will not change my opinion. I too think you are taking this way too personally, if this is truly affecting your attitude towards me. You are also very negative in your commenting. You quoted me saying "let's allow search mode" (which I didn't say by the way), instead of spinning it positively and saying that I want to encourage players to obtain more loot. Allowing this will ultimately make the ghosting experience longer and more complete, but you chose not to focus on that. I feel ghosting is already very restrictive, so when we have the chance, why not loosen it a bit.

The biggest reason I have for allowing loot is the fact that you cannot be sure what loot items trigger alerts and which ones don't. What if you have a table with 6 pieces of loot and one patroller with a route around the whole building but with random pathway. Should you take 1 piece at a time and wait for him in between each time? This would take much more than 3-4 minutes each time. And you'd have to do that for every single piece of loot in a mission, and you'd have to track all the patrol routes to know exactly where they could go. Sure, if I know some pieces trigger alerts then I could skip them, but other players might not know about that and take them. I think the rules should apply equally to everyone. That's part of the fun in comparing reports. Also, what if a loot item is right by the exit but can get spotted by someone. Is it ok to take it and quickly exit, before anyone sees it's gone? You didn't get any alerts while playing the mission, so is that then allowed? What if the item is a bit farther away and you probably got it without alerts, but you can't be sure? If you allow these alert types, then you remove all those issues. And I again go back to the real world case of the loot being detected as gone the next day anyway, so at what point they happen seems a bit artificial to use as argument.

Comparing to detecting door open is not right, because a player can easily close the door immediately to prevent this detection. You cannot replace loot because that isn't a gameplay mechanic, since taking loot is the whole point of the game.

And you've got the Undercover loot alerts wrong, Galaer. The loot item at the start of the mission triggers the alarm because the enemies have seen you, not just from seeing the loot gone. Even though you are disguised as a novice, the enemies still observe your presence, so when you take the loot item, they react to you as an enemy and they know you are there. Other pieces of loot in the mission like the ones in the graveyard you can take without them having seen you, and all they do then is give a verbal alert with no settling remark, just like the ladies alerting to the missing egg in Into the Odd.

Also, for the record, I am not saying we should change the rules to allow this in Thief. I am only saying to allow it in TDM, since we are in the process of establishing those rules. Although they play similarly, they are run using completely different engines, so the rules cannot be compared 100%. Highest difficulty for example forces hardcore both for vision and hearing, which makes it much more difficult than it ever was in Thief. This makes ghosting harder, so why not tweak it to allow missing loot alerts in order to balance it a bit? Getting more loot is after all more enjoyable, isn't it?

@marbleman: With the current rule set in Thief, taking an objective that triggers enemy alerts will still bust Ghost. In Supreme rule #14 for example, it says "as long as it doesn't alert enemies". However, I still think we should loosen this rule for TDM also, and allow objectives being detected gone as ok. I don't mean allowing alerts if enemies see or hear you complete an objective, but only if they later see it is missing. For example Tears of St. Lucia they hear you destroy the statue, that is still a bust.

I summary, I think we should allow missing loot, objectives and pickpockets, but not allow detection of open doors or presence of rope arrows or other tools. Doors and tools the player can easily reset.

klatremus on 31/7/2021 at 16:06

---

That comment I made didn't mean I wanted us to change the rules. I have many things I don't agree with in the original Thief rules, one is alerts to missing loot, another is unnecessary pickups. I think you should be allowed to pick up expensive weapons and potions for Supreme, they are as valuable as loot and then you don't have to go buy them at the store in the future. But the rules have been in use for so long now, only clarifications are needed and those would be major changes that would invalidate previous reports. Previous reports for TDM are for older versions of the engine, where the detection and stealth system was very different. We just recently got into TDM ghosting.

I might be wrong about that piece of loot then Galaer in Undercover, so I apologize. There are other loot items though where they don't raise the alarm.

If missing loot alerts is such a huge point of contention across the board, perhaps we should just let it be up to the player's conscience and not make a hard rule about it. However, most of the commenters in this thread seem to be leaning towards allowing it.

Cigam on 31/7/2021 at 17:02

---

Galaer, the loot-alert thing might not have been an issue in T1 & T2 due to its rarity. Whereas in T3 where it was a common issue, some people did address it, and as mentioned previously, they did allow the search mode responses due to their ubiquity. So it is not a completely new issue, it has been around for years.

I'd liken loot to objectives. Collecting loot and completing objectives are the two primary motivations. You could argue that a ghost wouldn't steal an object that triggers a full-scale alarm, but then ghosting doesn't override the primary motivation of completing objectives.

I guess what I am saying here is, is that I don't think excusing loot-responses needs necessarily be against the spirit of being a ghost. A lot worse gets excused for the sake of completing an objective.

After all, you are not there to spend a few hours sneaking about just for the satisfaction of having been undetected in someone else's mansion. You are there for the objectives and the gold.

One last thing, even in the games where it is rare, that knowledge doesn't help you. You'd still have to worry about whether this piece of loot is such a loot. For every piece of loot you come across.

Cigam on 31/7/2021 at 17:34

---

Plus the point I was making about the breath potions was that we are all free to make our own judgments. I am free to judge that I don't care whether you drink, eat, chew or smoke an item, or whether it is one-use or infinitely usable. If a usable item in your inventory grants the same effect as a forbidden potion, then it should be forbidden also. I am free to judge that it is the buff that is the issue, not the specific delivery method of said buff.

As long as people note such things then we can all say, "sorry, but IMO that was a bust". I know I disagree with several things others have accepted. Another example: grabbing loot through a banner is clearly an engine-exploit. It wasn't a designed, intended mechanic, no matter what real-life logic says about moving banners aside :) But then others disagree and just go ahead and take the loot. As long as people report such things its fine. The reader can just disagree if they want to.