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?

[Brokkr]

This was brought to our notice by player suggestion.  If I can see a mount, and one end of the reins, I can probably figure out where the other end is, which is where you are, by definition, when hitched.

[mansa]

Can we not sneak and hide while riding?

No, the game echos something like:
"That would be difficult while mounted."
and prevents you from doing so.

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?

Sneak, for the most part, allows players to enter the room without it echoing to other players.

NPCs, unfortunately, seem to detect when you enter remain into their room, even if you're sneaking.

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?

You can't hide while riding a mount.  The game code prevents this.

We're discussing it because a change was recently made to prevent you from sneaking and hiding in rooms while also being hitched to your mount.

[Patuk]

Sneaking and hiding while ON your mount is a lot more palatable than sneaking and hiding while it trails behind you. Editing the code to allow the former while still barring the latter seems fine, sure.

[Halaster]

We're discussing it because a change was recently made to prevent you from sneaking and hiding in rooms while also being hitched to your mount.

Technically the change unhitches your mount when you type hide, it doesn't prevent you.  It's semantic but an important distinction.

[Lotion]

It would be very cool if sunback/erdlu could sneakhide alongside their owner.

One big issue with this is that nobody can imagine a mount not being only physically hitched but also perhaps loyal to its owner due to the relationship they share and following them without being forcibly led. Beetles certainly seem disloyal but sunbacks, erdlu, and inix seem to have a much higher capacity for that sort of mutual respect.

It is also entirely reasonable for small groups to hide together. They are all aware of each others' location but outsiders wouldn't be able to trivially spot them. Hiding together with your mount would work just like that.

Making mount stealth based on a combination of your ride skill and stealth skills sounds sensible to me, and gives stalkers the edge they deserve in a situation like this while also allowing raider/scout to have a chance to maybe bring a mount a few rooms for an ambush.

[Agent_137]

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

Behind a rock, who cares? It's a tarantula. I understand an intelligent creature could see a mount and figure out where the owner is, but dumb beasts? That specific example doesn't matter now, I aliased mount to mount name so it doesn't depend on being hitched.

The real problem is non-desert-elves now cannot move stealthily in the wilds for any reasonable distance because they will have to circle back for their mount. This wasn't the goal of the change. It's a side effect. Please fix. I don't really care how. Lots of good suggestions in this thread.

[Armaddict]

I understand an intelligent creature could see a mount and figure out where the owner is, but dumb beasts?

Going along that line of thought requires that you acknowledge what makes dumb beasts adept at hunting, in that case.  Other senses, other clues, other instincts.  I've always thought of wilderness stealth as inherently different from city stealth; you're masking signs of your passing, not just 'blending in'.  It's not just wear a ghillie suit and all is good, when it's being used against beast npc's.  You are knowledgeable and masking scents, breaking silhouettes, staggering steps, even adjusting breathing, if that's what it takes to NOT stick out as a humanoid in a beast environment.

So with that, I think it may be less of a 'look where the reins are!' and more of a 'GIANT ATTENTION GRABBER HERE, CHECK SENSES'.

That and I don't see anything particularly unrealistic about having to leave your mount behind to be stealthy.  That's...how I did it before the change, because it was always weird af typing 'sneak' then seeing a giant beetle following me every room.  I just view it like westerns; tether up the horse, get to what you're doing, come back to the horse.  That way its whinny doesn't give you away.

ETA:  Now all that talk about wilderness hide is different against other humanoids...but I also think that most people didn't try to sneak up on humanoids with a beast in tow in the first place.  Because uh...yeah.

[Filthy_Grey_Rat]

I remember when I was 11 - 15, and we raised Akitas and horses. I used to take the dogs on my ride with my favorite horse literknot. He was a massive quarterhorse, it looked liked someone had ducttaped three footballs to each of his legs and wrapped them in fine leather. Our breeder and an older carriage horse (descendant of Rocketbar). The dogs would follow his lead mostly, too, and he, my lead.

I felt  cool enough to roll down dirt roads I didn't own, and once came across two dudes on four wheelers ith guns, bolted across the field, and me, my horse, and my dogs drove into the brush. It hurt, because there was no path, but literknot listened, and the dogs could get through. I got chased. But repeatedly, I was sneaking, and hiding, effectively, without dropping off my mount.

The cost was literknot's chest, and my legs, were scraped to all hell. The enviroment was green, and thicj with brush. But there in zalanthas there are also swells, and rises in dunes, geographical features like gorges or outcroppings, many of the examples listed before this post, and weather so foul and terrible, it's blinding. Blinding sand could sting your eyes, while mounted on an inix you searched for that breed on an erdlu climbing over or under you on the same winding, multi-layered steppes.

Hiding on a mount seemed real to me, especially since I 'used the foliage in the area for cover'.

[Brokkr]

My experience is quite the opposite.  Cattle may be dumb, but it is quite hard to sneak up on them on a horse.  Once you are line of sight and relatively close, they notice you.  They also act differently, if it is just a horse or if it is a horse with a rider.

Ditto deer, except they are even more observant and skittish.

Have yet to surprise a mountain lion.

[X-D]

I do not have much a problem with the change.

That being said, because of the change...

You (staff) Should put in a method to tie or hobble a mount.

So I can hobble my mount, Yes, I know IRL that is just to slow an animal down so you can catch it again. And Arm mounts do not wander. But it would be something you attach that makes it take longer to take the mount.

As it sits now and for all of arm mount history, It is just as silly that somebody can run in and simply type hitch mount with no delay and be gone.

I think a hobble should be an actual item that takes a set amount of time to put on and the same or even a bit more time to take off.

Also allow a tie command, so you actually tie your mount off to something, if there are things around to tie too. AND that should have a timer on both. So, if I say type "tie inix 20" It takes 20 seconds to do it, it takes the same to undo it. Have a min and a max to that, Say, 30-40 seconds on the max side.

Again, while people might think it is silly that somebody can hide and make a mount unstealable, It is just as silly that somebody can be off with it before I can react from feet away.

[Brytta Léofa]

Rather than hobbling, maybe just add significant delay to stand and rest (for mounts)?

(Yes, this makes your noob scout vs scrab stage harder.)

[Armaddict]

I'm good with all sorts of ideas for mounts and wilderness difficulties.  Hell, I've been nerdy enough on survival youtube channels that I wished there was shelter building in Arm before.

I just don't think the idea of dismounting so that stealth works, despite stealth not working for the giant thing lumbering next to you, should be viewed as some sort of valid action.  I think the prospect of having a mount stolen while you're off that way is reasonable.  I am okay with mitigators to this.  I am okay with stealthy mounts as well.

As with all things stealth, there's all sorts of cool things to be toyed with to make fun with an otherwise shallow but powerful dynamic.

[Lotion]

if there are stealthy mounts then I hope there is at least one very good stealthy mount that can be tamed. creating a useful tool like that and then clan locking it or city locking it sucks

[Filthy_Grey_Rat]

My experience is quite the opposite.  Cattle may be dumb, but it is quite hard to sneak up on them on a horse.  Once you are line of sight and relatively close, they notice you.  They also act differently, if it is just a horse or if it is a horse with a rider.

Ditto deer, except they are even more observant and skittish.

Have yet to surprise a mountain lion.

Man, you sure got a point here. I've cornered animals, and THEY hid, but I've never been able to get close to an animal while mounted. Nigh friggin impossible from Earth animals, so with our jakhals and worms? Lol.

Then again, never rode a beetle. Seems like, if you want a sneaky mount, it needs to alreaey be a sneaky animal, and I can't think of an animal example IG that's also ridable.

Halfling on a cheotan? Not likely to be releant to our discussion.

[Tisiphone]

Man, you sure got a point here. I've cornered animals, and THEY hid, but I've never been able to get close to an animal while mounted. Nigh friggin impossible from Earth animals, so with our jakhals and worms? Lol.

Counterpoint: Slavonic bear cavalry are so sneaky IRL I've still never seen one in action.

[Filthy_Grey_Rat]

Man, you sure got a point here. I've cornered animals, and THEY hid, but I've never been able to get close to an animal while mounted. Nigh friggin impossible from Earth animals, so with our jakhals and worms? Lol.

Counterpoint: Slavonic bear cavalry are so sneaky IRL I've still never seen one in action.

Typically they're found in {Redacted}
-This is FOI'RL' info, plz dont share, Mark.