Ranger sanctuary

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

As I said before, I support the implemention of sneak/hide being constant until you fail one of the checks. That said, to eliminate those who twink-sneak, apply movement penalties to sneak, in city of in the desert. I think that if you made it cost perhaps 5 movepoints in city and 8 in the wilderness, that would solve any problem you might have. I do not say this should apply in full to shadow, but I would suggest a lesser amount of movepoint penalty even to this.

[X-D]

Sneak already costs more MV in the wilderness 7DV....Though, I do think it should cost some in the city, not alot, 1 or 2 is good.

[Gar]

Once upon a time I had a 20+ day ranger.  He really never used sneak at all BUT... he could survive in the wilderness and escape almost anything.  The key to my survival was more related to things other than sneak though.  

For one, he could quit out anywhere.  This meant to me that I didn't have to go in the direction of civilization to escape.  Also, at night I could just camp out.  And if the weather got really bad I'd wait it out by camping.

Another thing, although more minor, was the ability to find food etc.  This would help you survive to a certain extent.

My greatest asset was my mount.  Being an expert rider, I could escape anything.  The big problem with a warrior (or someone not as adept at riding) is that once attacked you have to get off the mount and fight or run.  Maybe you can flee on the mount, but not with any certainty.  A ranger can mount and flee very quickly, even while in combat.  Try that with a non-expert rider.

So, I guess I didn't see myself as the being able to survive in the wilderness by sneaking around and such as much as using some of the other skills.

[Xygax]

For one, he could quit out anywhere.

Just for the record, this is considered an unacceptable technique (ie. twinkish) for escaping a conflict.

-- X

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

X-D, I meant it should cost even more to sneak and hide at the same time, which was the possible twink-point that was brought up.

[JollyGreenGiant]

X-D, I meant it should cost even more to sneak and hide at the same time, which was the possible twink-point that was brought up.

I don't think it'd be as bad as you might think.  Consider: skills go up on failed checks.  The check for sneaking wouldn't change, so it wouldn't be "twinked" any more or less than it is.  On your very first failure, your hide breaks.  Until you hide again, you're no longer checking against the hide skill, just sneak.  And as long as you're succeeding, you're not improving your skill.  If the "sneak" check fails, you're still out of hiding, but it's an improvement to your sneak skill, not your hide skill.  If your hide skill fails, it's an improvement to hide, not sneak.

So, like I said, I don't think it'd be a big deal at all.

[Xygax]

X-D, I meant it should cost even more to sneak and hide at the same time, which was the possible twink-point that was brought up.

I don't think it'd be as bad as you might think.  Consider: skills go up on failed checks.  The check for sneaking wouldn't change, so it wouldn't be "twinked" any more or less than it is.  On your very first failure, your hide breaks.  Until you hide again, you're no longer checking against the hide skill, just sneak.  And as long as you're succeeding, you're not improving your skill.  If the "sneak" check fails, you're still out of hiding, but it's an improvement to your sneak skill, not your hide skill.  If your hide skill fails, it's an improvement to hide, not sneak.

So, like I said, I don't think it'd be a big deal at all.

This seems like a big deal to me, since, either way, the character who's doing the sneak-hiding, is potentially gaining something.  Either they succeed and continue to remain concealed for no cost, or they get a shot at gaining in their sneak and/or hide skill(s).

-- x

[Delirium]

Isn't there a time-limit between how quickly someone can learn anyway?

Besides, they'd either twink >sneak >hide >e >hide >e, or they'd just >sneak >hide >e >e >e >e ... both are equally abuseable, IMHO.

[X-D]

Just for the record, this is considered an unacceptable technique (ie. twinkish) for escaping a conflict.

-- X

Heh, I take that to mean with pc's myself, I am perfectly willing to quit out to avoid the Armagedden T1000 tracking mobs, And if anything, the T stands for UBER Twink mob. Any plans on limiting that script a little BTW?

[JollyGreenGiant]

Hmm.  Well, first, it's really only the hide skill that stands to gain anything, right?  After all, sneaking is sneaking, whether you're hidden or not.  You wouldn't be changing how often it gets checked.

Hide would be a different case.  As long as you remain hidden, you're checking the skill.  This is no different, from a skill-check standpoint, than someone who alternately sneaks and then hides, sneaks and then hides - until you lose your hide.  Let's assume you don't know it, and look at three cases: alternating hide and sneak, having hide/sneak work together, and hiding once, then sneaking around (with no additional hides).  In each case, we'll look at 4 moves, and assume that half the time, a given skill fails.

Case 1:
4 sneak skill checks, 4 hide skill checks, regardless of the success or failure of any of them.  2 fail, 2 succeed for each, on average.

Case 2:
4 sneak checks.  2 fail, 2 succeed, on average.  Possible hide results - 1 failure, no other checks, .5 chance;  1 success, 1 failure, no other checks, .25 chance;  2 success, 1 failure, no other checks .125 chance;  3 success, 1 failure, .0625 chance;  4 success, 0 failure, .0625 chance.  Weighted total - .9375 failures, 1.625 successes on average.

Case 3:
4 sneak checks.  2 fail, 2 succeed, on average.  1 hide check, average failure - .5.

Obviously, sneak isn't affected at all.  Hide, well.  In either scenario, spamming hide every square will always yield a much higher number of failures.  Case 2 and 3 are really what we're looking at, then.  At low skill levels, they'll be very similar, as your chances of initial failure are higher.  The difference will increase for a while, then begin to decrease, but only at very high skill levels.  The greater the number of moves, also, the more of an advantage Case 2 has over Case 3, but Case 2 is limited to a maximum of a single failure, regardless.

Another thing to note, for those of you worried about the "twinking" of this skills, is that even if you had a 90% success rate, and the skill were solely dependent on hide, you'd still have only a 66% chance of moving 4 times and staying hidden every time.  Not the best odds in the world.  Factor in sneak, say, also at 90%, and you're at 43% chance of getting there still hidden - that's less than half the time.

Now that I've sat around and done the math, I think this would make shadowing virtually useless, if it were applied to that skill.  The change sounds neat, but overall, but I think the implementation would need to take the statistics into consideration.

[Lazloth]

X-D, I meant it should cost even more to sneak and hide at the same time, which was the possible twink-point that was brought up.

And now you'll have an ooc means to determine if you're succeeding the hide/sneak combo, eh?

I still think this is an unnecessary addition; rangers will not be the only ones affected.  It's not an earthshattering change to me, though -- moreover, how hard of a stretch is it to successful sneaking impacting not breaking hide as well, on regular functions?  I mean, what's the difference?

[Xygax]

Just for the record, this is considered an unacceptable technique (ie. twinkish) for escaping a conflict.

-- X

Heh, I take that to mean with pc's myself, I am perfectly willing to quit out to avoid the Armagedden T1000 tracking mobs, And if anything, the T stands for UBER Twink mob. Any plans on limiting that script a little BTW?

No, it's pretty much twinkish in every situation.  If you don't want to be tracked by the T1000s, don't hit them.

-- X

[X-D]

That would be a lot easier if they were not agro now wouldn't it? And it -is- an unrealistic behavior script, not much sillier then watching a raptor hunt 60+ times in a row in the same room, and they do not stop unless killed, had at least 2 so far go through other mobs to get to my char, which was a good thing cause when it made it, it was near death and out of moves, silly.

[Kalden]

That said, to eliminate those who twink-sneak, apply movement penalties to sneak, in city of in the desert. I think that if you made it cost perhaps 5 movepoints in city and 8 in the wilderness, that would solve any problem you might have.

The movement drain in the wilderness is already significant enough. I don't think "twinking" sneak is that big of a deal. If you live in the 'rinth, everyone sneaks, and they're not twinking, just cautious. Doesn't make any sense to me that you'd implement  a movement drain when moving slowly doesn't take any more endurance than walking.

However, now that I think of it, twinking the sneak/hide combo could be a possibility. It might be good to implement just a five or six room lasting, then, just so people are able to sneak past aggro mobs and guards. People would essentially be 'going invisible' by this.

Make it something toggleable, and when it's toggled on, as far you know, make the sneak delay significantly longer to account for the fact that you're sneaking into a hiding place as you enter?

I still think this is an unnecessary addition; rangers will not be the only ones affected. It's not an earthshattering change to me, though -- moreover, how hard of a stretch is it to successful sneaking impacting not breaking hide as well, on regular functions?

I'm not sure what you mean on that last bit... obviously, everyone who sneaks will be affected, and the change would be quite major. Rangers could sneak past gith, which would affect me, and thieves could sneak past guards, which is major for all of them.

I don't understand why you see this as unnecessary. The sneak skill has been and is completely useless against NPCs, because they spam look. Twinkishly spam look, you might say. It's useful against PC guards but useless against NPC guards - isn't there something wrong with that?

[Rindan]

Another alternative would be to differentiate between sneak and a sneak/hide.  A normal old sneak is what you get when you are moving quickly but not exactly unseen.  I would call that 'blending in' in the city, and moving at a fairly quick clip in the wilderness.  You are trying to make time as well as sneak around.  You shadow with this method.

The other type of sneaking is when you are very careful.  You are not just trying to blend in, you are making a very conscious effort to avoid everyone's eyes.  This would be sneak/hide.  This would take a long time.  Imagine if a sneak/hide had the same delay that sneaking then hiding in the room would have, hell make it longer.  So, sneak/hide would be worthless for shadowing someone or for more 'casual' avoidance like in the 'rinth.  This would mean that you are trying your damndest to avoid being seen by anything.  This is what an assassin is using while he is sneaking through the nobles quarters to a noble's bedroom.  He isn't just blending in or what not, he isn't trying to just be quiet.  He is trying to make his way from piece of cover to piece of cover and taking his time to do it.  In the wilderness, it would be the same sort of deal.  One wouldn't be trying to just avoid attracting attention, you are crawling on your belly from rock to rock and covering your tracks.  

So sure, it is checking both skills, but you are making extremely little actual distance for the time you spend.  If you tried to sneak from the Sanctuary to the Tembo's tooth, you had better have some free time on your hands.  If it has no practical traveling application, t hen if people are twinking it, it will be pretty clear.  It would be like someone spamming hunt.  It is one thing to sneak through the entire city, as one could justify that as trying to avoid eyes, but if you sneak/hide through the city, then it is clear you are going above and beyond for some reason.  I think twinking this would be as obvious as someone twinking hunt by spamming it at the ground a dozen times.

[X-D]

Actually, I like that Rindan, but in that case, why not just make it a seperate skill, branched, wilderness and city styles of course, and if possible link the branching to both sneak and hide.

This would at least solve peoples worries about being able to twink both skills at once.

[Kalden]

Actually, I like that Rindan, but in that case, why not just make it a seperate skill, branched, wilderness and city styles of course, and if possible link the branching to both sneak and hide.

Because it isn't a new skill... just someboy sneaking into a hiding spot. No reason to code a new skill that just combines the use of old skills.

[X-D]

First, It would probly be simpler to put in a new skill, second, a new skill would take care of many worries about twinking, making stealthy types too powerful to start, plus one need not worry about the already working skills getting broken in the process.

Plus, I think the shadow ability is perfect where it sits right now.


And I'm really only for the sneak/hide combo because after thinking on the subject, implementing it would likly be FAR easier then trying to fix the uber twink spam looking of npc's.


PLUS, and this is something you might think about, such an ability -should- only be in the realm of a very skilled stealthy type, hence, a branched skill, and in the case of rangers, he would have to be VERY advanced, which makes sense since he is moving and remaining not only unseen and unheard, but unsmelled.

Because it isn't a new skill... just someboy sneaking into a hiding spot. No reason to code a new skill that just combines the use of old skills.

And if your thinking is the case, Then there is no reason to code at all, You can already do what you typed with current code.

[JollyGreenGiant]

I think X-D is right.  The addition of a new skill solves the whole question of "twinking", prevents the old skills from getting broken, and is probably just all around easier to implement.

Skill: creep
Syntax: creep
Effects: Changes your movement style to "creeping", makes an immediate skill check.  If successful, you're hidden in the room you're in, failure means you're not.  Thereafter, moving in a direction checks the creep skill.  Success means you're hidden in the new room, and no movement echo was displayed to your old room or the new one.  Failure means you're visible, and both rooms echo a message.

Downsides: Movement delay, stamina cost.  If there's a stamina cost (for the outdoor version, if it's higher than sneak) then maybe the movement delay doesn't have to be too awful, maybe a bit more than sneak.

[Thanos]

Problem I see with the above commentary is the lack of being able to move mounted through an area without attracting the attention of agressives. Without that ability, travel, unless over extremely short distances will continue as it currently.

Thanos

[Lazloth]

Not quite.  It will shift to favor d.elves and city skulks.

[Stroker]

I don't think quiting for a ranger to avoid conflict, such as a bunch of npcs chasing, them is very bad. First reason is because you really can't quit for a while after fighting. Second, I do believe it has been mentioned that your char survives virtually in the world after quiting (correct me here if I am wrong). Therefore, your char could have just hid in the bushes, waited out the mob's pursuit and departure, and then left. Sounds very reasonable.

[spawnloser]

Problem I see with the above commentary is the lack of being able to move mounted through an area without attracting the attention of agressives. Without that ability, travel, unless over extremely short distances will continue as it currently.

Thanos

And I'm fine with this.  If your mount can't sneak, well, you're SOL as far as mounted movement goes.

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

I'm not completely certian, but I think that mounted folk can sneak. If this is so, then I see no reason that one could not sneak up on prey while mounted. I would, of course, not implement this until one was perhaps at 95 to 98% of peak riding and sneaking skill, and of course, I would only allow rangers to do so. City sneak would not allow this.

[Gar]

For one, he could quit out anywhere.

Just for the record, this is considered an unacceptable technique (ie. twinkish) for escaping a conflict.

-- X

Of course it is if you're using quit to escape something.  Xygax, no offense but you're trying to read into my post something that was not intended.  Allow me to clarify:  Let's say you find yourself cutoff or chased by something in the wilderness.  If you're a non-ranger you need to think very seriously about heading back towards the city.  This gives you a very limited escape path.  If not you could get stuck out there and eventually killed.  A ranger has other options.  He can head in any direction.  It's easy for him to hole up somewhere, rest, camp and quit out when he's good and ready.