Desert Hide with Mounts

[mansa]

Discussion:


There was a recent change here:
- now when you hide you will unhitch your mounts

This has two effects in the game, or two scenarios that I can come up with.


Scenario 1:
You are hitched to a mount.
You are hidden in a room.
You are waiting as bait for someone to enter.

Another player enters the room.
Another player cannot unhitch the mount.
Another player cannot ride the mount, since it's hitched to someone.
Another player cannot follow the reins to find out who is hitched to the mount.
Another player cannot interact with the hidden person.


With the recent code change, the mount becomes unhitched, meaning that the other player can now hitch themselves to the mount, mount it, and ride off.  The other player doesn't know that there is a hidden person in the room, by looking at the mount.

Scenario 2:
You are riding your mount.  You see a scary beast ahead.
You dismount.
You sneak.
You hide.

Both you and your mount sneak by the scary beast.   (Because the mount is hitched to you)

Once you are out of scary range, you mount and ride off.

With the recent code change, the mount will not follow you, meaning that desert travel has become more dangerous.  You need to either find another way around or turn back and stop exploring.



Question at large:
Is there an alternative so you can continue to sneak/hide with a mount past scary beasts, while also not allowing scenario 1 to happen?

[Agent_137]

i'll quote this from the release notes thread:

- now when you hide you will unhitch your mounts

So I got two thoughts here:

(1) Yay, thank you, this is how it always should have been. And IMO we should get rid of any remaining cases where hitch allows the rider/leader to be not in the same room with the animal. (Can you still enter a tent while keeping your mount unbreakably hitched? Not sure.)

(2) It's a big nerf to human stalkers. (I'm assuming that hitch will break hide, so there's no longer any reasonable way to lead a mount while hidden.) I say "stalkers" because they're much less able to fight their way past hostile amimals than the heavier combat classes. Sneak-with-mount opened up a lot of territory that you couldn't fight through, with the mount giving your weak-ass Willowy, Mage-Haired Human some carrying capacity and an emergency stamina pool. Again, the change is probably as it should be--but it's a big capability change.

And three tangentially-related ideas:

(A) Why would you sneak+hide with a hitched mount? So you can sneak past monsters. But why don't monsters want to eat your mount? ...Yeah, most of them probably should. (Probably some should prefer you and some should prefer your mount, but for game reasons nearly all of them should be aggro to a mount apparently wandering around by itself.) (This matters today even with the change to hitch, 'cause invisibility.)

(B) Unhitched mounts should wander. Fully-rested, unhitched mounts should stand up (so they can wander).

(C) Be nice if we could, like, hitch mounts to an object to prevent wandering and make theft a little more interactive.
- hitch inix tree - You tie up your northie-ass mount at a northie-ass agafari tree.
- hitch beetle deposit - Kid, there's no way to tie your beetle to a piece of rock. Does this look like Tuluk?
- hitch beetle tent - You tie a war beetle's reins to a tent pole. (Unhitching "shakes" the tent, awesome.)

[Agent_137]

What's important to me is being able to explore stealthily. I assume it's important to others based on the large numbers of stalkers and scouts being chosen. And I assume it's an important gameplay feature/goal the admins want to support given how much of the world there is to explore that's both dangerous, well written and interesting.

This change, as Brytta said, is "a big capability change" and seemingly accidentally.

I suggest fixing scenario 1 by having hitch be breakable in scenarios such as that, which would leave scenario 2 intact. But I'd be happy with any approach that keeps stealthy exploration as an option in this game.

[Riev]

I would argue that if you see a beast in the distance, and you want to avoid them... go around them if possible. Trying to 'hide and sneak' by an aggressive creature by using the broad-side of an inix doesn't seem like it would have a positive outcome.

Hiding in the desert, to me, means making sure 'nothing in the area can discern you'. Which would mean your own mount. You're hiding from all detection, not hanging off the side of your mount so anything "looking from the north" sees nothing.

Change makes sense to me, and both scenarios are fine. You can still hide in the desert, from all creatures, but the risk is having to stake down your mount, lest it wander away.

[Agent_137]

another idea:

leave this change but let us "order mount follow" so they can follow us, but be able to be stolen away by someone coming and hitching them.

this would also let us move into buildings without having to constantly rehitch lest we lose the mount entirely.

[Agent_137]

I would argue that if you see a beast in the distance, and you want to avoid them... go around them if possible. Trying to 'hide and sneak' by an aggressive creature by using the broad-side of an inix doesn't seem like it would have a positive outcome.

Hiding in the desert, to me, means making sure 'nothing in the area can discern you'. Which would mean your own mount. You're hiding from all detection, not hanging off the side of your mount so anything "looking from the north" sees nothing.

Change makes sense to me, and both scenarios are fine. You can still hide in the desert, from all creatures, but the risk is having to stake down your mount, lest it wander away.

Yes going around them is ideal, but sometimes they walk into your room. Being able to hide quickly before they attack is crucial. Sometimes there is only one route forward. In either case, having to then leave the mount behind makes stealthy exploration exceedingly more difficult than it already is. This seems like an unintended result of this change. You seem to want desert exploration to be harder than it is. I acknowledge that. It is a point of opinion I can simply agree to disagree about.

p.s.
This isn't just about hiding from big nasties... this is also useful when a player don't want to fight beasts they can take when trying to get from point A to point B.  Stalkers and Scouts with appropriate skill levels should be able to avoid fights when they travel.

p.s.s.
If we could see northeast I wouldn't need to hide when a raptor moves in suddenly from an angle I couldn't see because of coded limitations. The IC justification is that there's some sand dune in the way, so the IC justification for hitting the dirt and hiding from the raptor is the same - I hide behind a dune, break line of sight, and move away while motioning for my mount to follow. Raptors don't eat inix. Raptors are dumb. Raptors ignore the inix, never get sight of the juicy humanoid. Entirely reasonable ICly, realistically, and important to enjoyable gameplay.

[Troicha]

Another spitball idea.

Certain mounts can be stealthy. Let's say it's a sunback, or an ox, or a new mount type.

These ones remain hitched when you hide, and hide and sneak with you.

[SpyGuy]

I just want to chime in that more hostile critters (not all) should be able to attack mounts.  I imagine a mekillot views your inix as a tasty snack as much as it views your human as such.  Afaik code for the most part doesn't work like this.

I agree that some mounts should be able to sneak.  Others shouldn't.

[mansa]

I would like to hide on a mount, and move while hidden, on a mount.

[SpyGuy]

I would like to hide on a mount, and move while hidden, on a mount.

I would love this.  For specific mounts.  Not inix or war beetles.

[Armaddict]

Individual specialties of mounts like that would be neat, I've often asked for the same sort in exchange for lower endurance/speed that many mounts have.  Just some sort of boon that makes them useful in some sort of role, explaining their...well. Existence as mounts.

However, I do not see that scenario 2 needs fixing, and I wasn't even aware people were still doing that kind of thing.  I've always rested my mount when I had to sneak to past something, or I've ridden the mount into combat.  Exploration continues, but that doesn't mean there aren't logistical challenges to it.

[Agent_137]

However, I do not see that scenario 2 needs fixing, and I wasn't even aware people were still doing that kind of thing.  I've always rested my mount when I had to sneak to past something, or I've ridden the mount into combat.  Exploration continues, but that doesn't mean there aren't logistical challenges to it.

You seriously never go "uhg a scrab moved in from the north, I'm too lazy to to slaughter it.  I just want to get to New Menos"? What do you do? Run west west west instead of dismount hide sneak west west? Am I just being dumb?

Or oh shit I can't handle this kryl, mount flee flee flee dismount hide sneak east east east east?

that said, yeah, specialty mounts would be awesome!

[Inks]

Finally. Sick of hide while hitched master hide people. Great change increasing realism and also fairness. Very cool.

[Armaddict]

You seriously never go "uhg a scrab moved in from the north, I'm too lazy to to slaughter it.  I just want to get to New Menos"? What do you do? Run west west west instead of dismount hide sneak west west? Am I just being dumb?

Or oh shit I can't handle this kryl, mount flee flee flee dismount hide sneak east east east east?

While I can't think of any specific examples, I can't say I've -never- done it.  But I can say definitively that first priority is either avoid entirely, go around, run past, or fight.  No way I'd try to sneak my mount past some sort of big baddy, completely in the open because I felt safe hidden.

I'm pretty sure if we compared that to stealth scenarios in the city people would be flipping out.

[Patuk]

Yeah, this change seems entirely sensible. Sneaking along with a genuine-ass dinosaur following you around is silly.

[Jihelu]

I've only ever used sneaking and hiding in the desert on two separate occasions.
1: I was a city elf and the gods that be won't let me ride, so I'd just sneak/hide everywhere outdoors and sprint around at mach 5 while doing so. Round ears get fucked.

2: I'm actively trying to kill someone.

Both of these generally don't need me to be riding a mount.
If anything I'd like the change because it means elves couldn't be invisible armies while leading mounts for #1.
For #2 leave your sunback somewhere safe before you try killing.

I would like it if we had mounts that could climb/sneak though. Whether magical or not.

[mansa]

Pondering:

What if 'unhitch' checked to see if the mount could visibly see the hitcher.
So if Person B attempted to unhitch the mount, and Person A was 'not visible' to the mount, it would succeed?

I believe this check already happens if Person A isn't in the same room.. (like if Person A goes into a tent, while the mount is outside hitched to the person)

[lostinspace]

Cool change, always found it weird when I'd ride up to a mount in the wild and couldn't hitch it because a ghost had the reins.

Might encourage sneak types to hire some muscle for their exploratory trips.

[Fredd]

Yeah, this change seems entirely sensible. Sneaking along with a genuine-ass dinosaur following you around is silly.

I agree. But I would very VERY much support 1-2 mounts being given the ability to hide. Like a smaller lizard, and Erdlu's. Giving the playerbase more reasons to own differnt mounts.

Cause I can see an erdlu/chocobo/ostritch being stealthy.

The trade off is they are lower stam mounts (maybe they get a stam reduction for sneaking though, to make them extra useful? or to much?)

[Agent_137]

you know what else sucks about this?

flee w
s
w
s

dismount
You attempt to hide yourself.
You release a kank's reins.

Four spider legs equipped with viciously hooked barbs erupt from the ground and latch into someone!

mount
You don't have a hitched animal to ride.

Can't the admins just punish people using hide unfairly and we not put the screws to desert characters trying to deal with NPCs?

[Hauwke]

you know what else sucks about this?

flee w
s
w
s

dismount
You attempt to hide yourself.
You release a kank's reins.

Four spider legs equipped with viciously hooked barbs erupt from the ground and latch into someone!

mount
You don't have a hitched animal to ride.

Can't the admins just punish people using hide unfairly and we not put the screws to desert characters trying to deal with NPCs?

This one seems fair to me. You survived but your mount took the fall.

[Riev]

In this scenario... where are you hiding exactly where you can mount so quickly?

[Alesan]

In this scenario... where are you hiding exactly where you can mount so quickly?

They're not hiding. They're activating a mysterious state of you-can't-see-me while standing next to their mount, holding the reins.

[Fredd]

In this scenario... where are you hiding exactly where you can mount so quickly?

This is why I still like the idea of having a few mounts that can hide. It would save the dude who needs to deal with spiders in a sneaky way. While rounding out mount profiles for the game.

[armandhammer]

Can we not sneak and hide while riding? Are there not (viable) in-game mounts that can sneak better than an inix? Would these not be smaller mounts, preventing big heavy armored PCs from being able to sneak around while riding?

Does an interaction of ride skill, hide skill, sneak skill, and mounted creature's sneakability not determine whether we can sneak/hide past something while riding? Why not? Why are we not discussing this?