Beleg Cúthalion on 13/12/2009 at 09:10
Well, I wouldn't be so sure about wording ownership... to me "ghosting" was always a way of playing a mission without alerting someone or being noticed in another way, but I never took it so seriously to care about little spiders in a cave. You probably have the right to be proud of the Great History Of Sneaking Styles or something. But not allowing others to use the term if they refer to something similar seems ridiculous to me, especially in a forum about computer games.
Just imagine I invented a highly-complex set of scripts in T3Ed to make AIs change patrols after being alerted, to call for reinforcements, to notice moss patches etc. and called them "Intelligent Guards". Wouldn't it be stupid to enforce that in the future only AI with my scripts or based on my scripts could be called intelligent guards...?
smithpd on 13/12/2009 at 09:28
Quote Posted by ffox
The rest of us could then use "ghosting " the way most of us do already - avoiding detection and not harming people or objects unnecessarily.
You apparently have no understanding of what it means to codify a rule. "unnecessarily" can mean anything, including "do what you think is necessary", which could mean "I BJ'ed every AI in the place, because I got tired of sneaking and I couldn't find the loot." Or, "I wasn't feeling very clever that day, so I decided to slash the banner." If you delete the word unnecessarily, then you are back to an abbreviated statement of the official rules, which you are complaining about. But then, what does it mean to avoid detection? Do you have to return keys to the belts of the AI after you use them? We have been careful to define the terms and conditions, and for that we are being labeled as Taliban.
smithpd on 13/12/2009 at 09:42
Quote Posted by Beleg Cúthalion
to me "ghosting" was always a way of playing a mission without alerting someone or being noticed in another way, but I never took it so seriously to care about little spiders in a cave....
Unless you have spent a lot of time solving problems with spiders and other similar problems, such as how to avoid slashing a banner, you have not really experienced what ghosting means. That is OK. I don't mind. What is not OK, I think, is everybody at TTLG claiming they have ghosted a mission, when the statement has no meaning.
Of course, nobody can own a word. The ownership in this case comes from expertise and history. It means something if you have lived and breathed it for many years, and someone else comes along with no experience and declares it to be rubbish.
Consider a league of pole vaulters, proud of their work. A young pup comes along and says, "You don't need that pole. All you have to do is set a ladder up and jump over. That is vaulting, isn't it?"
ffox on 13/12/2009 at 10:06
We are never going to agree!
Don't get me wrong, I have great respect for the skills demonstrated by yourself, Dafydd, goldsla, Klatremus etc. However, I'm not so keen on your "My opinion is the only valid one" attitude.
Could I suggest that you apply your strict rules in the Eidos forum, where you can also rant about people who use walkthroughs and do other things you don't agree with. Please allow the users of this forum to exercise some tolerance for other persons' points of view and stop lecturing us as though we are infants when we do.
PotatoGuy on 13/12/2009 at 10:17
Quote Posted by smithpd
This is wrong. Please don't try to re-write history.
I'm not 'trying to re-write history'. I just thought that was the case, and apparently I was wrong. No need for accusations.
Quote Posted by smithpd
Seriously, folks. It is OK with me if you do not like ghosting or think it is too rigid for your taste. It is definitely not OK to take someone else's work, claim it as your own, and adopt their terminology with revised definitions. It is not OK to make up rules that please you and to call them "ghosting". That term has already been taken. Just call it something else, like "TTLG-sneaksie" mode. While you are about it, you might try to write down the rules of your mode of play mode rather than let it be a free-for-all that nobody understands. You may find that task is not so easy.
Problem is here so many people already say they have ghosted missions while they broke one of the original rules. The term 'ghosting' already made changes here, and you can't that easily change terms.
I could name some more things, but I think ffox and Beleg covered all of them.
Hexameron on 13/12/2009 at 12:08
Quote Posted by ffox
"Ghosting" is a generic term. Please don't insist that it can only apply to your rigid and occasionally illogical rules.
Ghosting has
become a generic term, but it still refers to a very specific mode of playing, just as the Lytha way can't be malleable to include blackjacking. I have to wonder if clayman et al. had decided on a different name like "wraithing" or "shadow mode," would we be saying "Yea, I wraithed that mission" or "I had trouble shadowing the guard"?
Quote Posted by Beleg Cúthalion
But not allowing others to use the term if they refer to something similar seems ridiculous to me, especially in a forum about computer games.
In a way, I suppose you're right. What's done is done. The Thief community here just like any other online community has adopted "ghosting" as slang. There was always someone who first coined phat lewts, l33t, epic, FTW, fail, "all your bases are belong to us" and other gaming/MMORPG lingo; I guess "ghosting" is just another micro example.
Despite my join date, I have had another TTLG account back in 2001 and I can remember when ghosting was barely even heard of here. I only discovered it after reading posts by Sneak. Inspired by his enthusiasm, I tried ghosting and loved it, although I was first "ghosting" on Normal difficulty because I didn't know about the official rules :o. Once I found them over at the Eidos forums, I changed my ways to playing on expert as it should be. And adhering to a set of rules didn't take away from any of the fun; quite the contrary.
Just out of curiosity, why do some of you think the ghost rules are rigid or hard to apply? Is it the "no property damage" aspect that irks you or not being able to kill a green spider blocking your path? To me, the ghost rules are not that difficult to follow. One of you mentioned Klatremus and he thought ghosting was too easy. Supreme ghosting on the other hand is tough (no first alerts or use of expendable equipment, return everything to its original position i.e. keys and closed doors).
I think it's obvious that the majority of Thief players seem to enjoy blackjacking AI, so I'm at least happy that some people here are willing to ghost or play in a style reminiscent of ghosting. I just wish more players recognized that ghosting is appealing and enduring
because of its fixed rules, the etched-in-stone laws, the "ten commandments" so to speak of the official ghost rules. To me, it's challenging to have a set of guidelines when playing a mission. There's no real sense of danger or striving for achievement if I can ghost a mission up until things get difficult or disregard rules whenever I wish.
(
http://forums.eidosgames.com/showpost.php?p=309639&postcount=32) Vanguard, a veteran ghoster from Eidos had this to say about ghosting: "
You either succeed or you fail when ghosting. There's no in between gray levels to some of it being ghosted and some not. This is like having the Olympics and in each event there is only one winner and all other contestants are all losers. It is an extreme measure of your ghosting ability but nobody wanted to get into how to measure or weight the type of busts. So "coming this close" means you failed, and blundering all over the place means you failed. There's only one measure of failure: you failed."
It's also worth noting that many fascinating and unconventional solutions have been discovered after hitting certain obstacles while ghosting: nudging, banner transmigration, keyholing, stacking inventory, and awareness of spiders' true line of sight.
Quote Posted by massimilianogoi
With all that rules, neither in Eavesdropping or Sabotage @ Soulforge would be possible to ghost, since you have to make a wax stamp of the key, or you have to use the machines to create the device to use the Guiding Beacon.
How does creating the wax key conflict with any of the rules? That's not property damage. Eavesdropping is ghostable and I believe a perfect thief is possible too. Similarly, I don't remember any problems with Soulforge, but it's been a while since I played it. Using machines and crafting inventory items doesn't go against any ghost rule.
jtr7 on 13/12/2009 at 13:08
The rigidity perception comes from nudging and using other bug exploits to get through areas that are obviously not designed with any ghosting in mind. Not interacting with life (bj, gas, killing, etc.) is fine, not making a mess or damaging anything is fine, but there are thresholds for patience that make ghosting appear too tedious, and hearing ghosters get intense about the rules between themselves has put me off, and I have to make that distinction that what you are talking about is a sport, and not everyone is into the sport of Ghosting. The arguments I've seen over the decade make many ghosters sound like fanatics in the bad sense. If it was merely about ONLY frobbing loot, locks, entrances, and mission items, and never using equipment that isn't a lockpick, except where it is necessary to complete an objective (even THAT one's debated), then there would be no list of ghosting rules. There would be no argument, no squabbling among ghosters, and no amendments to the lists of rules. When some ghosters are grieving FM-makers for not making ghostable missions, and other ghosters aren't telling them to back off, it makes Ghosting itself look stuffy. It's also annoying to hear people gripe from the opposite side against forced ghosting (half the time it's not even true, and they are unskilled or misread the objectives). When the passion and enthusiasm push the limits of skill and make for impressive achievements, that's the stuff I like, but the rules are strict and narrow for so many players that really only a few can truly ghost and think it's fun. I do love that Thief generally can be ghosted as it's the ultimate non-violence, and that's a plus. It is a strict set of rules. It is. Those who claim to have ghosted a mission and have been told they have not, for breaking a rule, are going to have a perception that it is strict. It's a rare person that can enjoy the tedium of ghosting those certain areas that were made before fans invented and distilled the style. It's a put-off to hear the snobbery of the arguments among ghosters over things like having to use a fire arrow to complete the mission. Yes, it's not ghosting, but it cannot be avoided, etc. This debate will not end, and the old questions cannot be asked over and over again as though THIS time it will lead to a final solution. It will not. Stop questioning negative perceptions when all the ingredients to fuel them exist, in fact, and the ghosters themselves put those things there that are being perceived negatively. And don't prove the others right. If you want resolution of this decade-old argument, you must not repeat what anyone has ever said before, AND keep it objectively, emotionlessly factual. Can ya do it? My bet is against it, but I do not think it impossible.:)
Hexameron on 13/12/2009 at 15:46
Quote Posted by jtr7
The rigidity perception comes from nudging and using other bug exploits to get through areas that are obviously not designed with any ghosting in mind.
How is that rigid? Nudging and other exploits are a means to avoid doing something the author intended, like KOing a guard blocking a doorway. Nudging expands your options for stealth, even if it's a ridiculous game exploit.
Quote:
When some ghosters are grieving FM-makers for not making ghostable missions, and other ghosters aren't telling them to back off, it makes Ghosting itself look stuffy.
I'm not in this camp. I'd have no compunction in telling a ghoster to "back off" because I don't want missions designed to be ghosted; it reduces the challenge and excitement. On the other hand, I don't care for forced confrontations either: having to progress through a brightly-lit room with a non-pivoting guard facing the only direction I can approach from turns Thief into Quake. I always hope an FM author will give the player a sporting chance at stealth, even if it's extremely difficult.
Quote:
only a few can truly ghost and think it's fun.
I guess I'm one of the lonely few :(
Quote:
It's a put-off to hear the snobbery of the arguments among ghosters over things like having to use a fire arrow to complete the mission. Yes, it's not ghosting, but it cannot be avoided, etc.
In what way were some of these ghosters being snobbish? I might complain that I don't like having to use a fire arrow, but I hope I'd never sound snobbish or like I'm demonizing the author for designing the mission that way.
smithpd on 13/12/2009 at 17:02
Quote Posted by jtr7
The rigidity perception comes from nudging and using other bug exploits to get through areas that are obviously not designed with any ghosting in mind.
As you pointed out later, this comes about because Ghosting at Eidos has been considered a challenge, almost a sport. People have taken up the challenge. Some people have gone to extreme lengths to meet the challenge. The invention of many techniques and exploits has been fun -- simple as that. I do not see why this should be objectionable at TTLG.
The rules were developed to level the playing field. If one person succeeds and another fails, you can know that the one who succeeded did something "better," if you call it that. That's the way it came about, and that's the way it is.
If a group of people choose to ignore the ghosting standard and play like they want, that's fine. But it does create confusion when someone at TTLG says they ghosted a mission. My working assumption is that they didn't, really.
Quote:
When some ghosters are grieving FM-makers for not making ghostable missions, and other ghosters aren't telling them to back off, it makes Ghosting itself look stuffy.
I have always said that it is not necesary or preferred for designers to make a mission ghostable. Whey they do, the result is usually that it becomes too easy. And, believe it or not, I enjoy playing in lots of styles, I don't mind killing, etc. I don't think I have ever "grieved" a FM-maker into making a mission ghostable. If I make a comment that something is not ghostable, I usually preface it with a question: "Do you want it to be ghostable?" Sometimes I will point out that a particular aspect of a mission cannot be ghosted because it may be the only aspect of the mission, and it seems a shame to have a single technical hang-up at that point. But again designing a mission to be ghostabe is not necessary. If the designer want that (and many do), he or she needs to be clever to insert some significant challenge, so it is not too easy.
Namdrol on 13/12/2009 at 17:11
Quote Posted by smithpd
But it does create confusion when someone at TTLG says they ghosted a mission. My working assumption is that they didn't, really.
This won't help stop the Taliban accusations...
Anyway, maybe it should be "Ghosting" and "ghosting".
