Araneidae

Unfortunately it's not only touch stim, it's also visual triggers. Had a very interesting example in The Accountant 1, in a room with a seated civilian and a torch illuminating a chest I want to visit (suspect I'll have to quench the torch, which is a supreme bust) -- he saw me, of course, went into alarm state and then ran away in panic. The stealth status was very interesting: first of all I got a level 1 alert, which then went away, all alerts went back to zero! When I went back out, all the guards were also in alert state, he'd obviously alarmed them all. Let me see if I can reproduce this. Edit. Yes, it's completely reproducible: Walk into room so I can be seen, just stand there Score goes through three states: 1 0 0 0 1 then 0 1 0 0 2 then 0 0 0 0 0 NPC runs away in panic That's not what I would expect of a perfect run! By the way, I'm a bit confused by the Score (the fifth number): I thought the first level of stealth failure had no impact on the final score.

I should probably link this here: BUG 5888: AI alerts not always reflected in stealth status.

The problem is, I want the in-game downloader to show me the missions I haven't got ... not all of them. Also, I'd like to check I've got up to date versions of the missions I have, and the conventions for this seem to have changed a lot over the years. Apologies, this is wandering way off topic! @Dragofer, ok, reported as issue 5888.

@Dragofer, I expect you're right. Not sure what to do with my reports then, it's a bit tricky to reproduce. It seems to happen when the alert stimulus is very brief, I either bump up against a guard or am briefly glimpsed; I guess there's then a disconnect between the guard's own alert status and the global alert status. Last time I tested this I checked with `tdm_ai_showalert 1` and indeed the guard was on high alert, and the global status was zero.

By the way, I'm still seeing major alerts not showing up in the display provided by tdm_loot_stealth_stats.pk4. Playing The Accountant 1, spotted by guard, starts searching with sword out -- but my stealth score is still zeros across the board. This is with 2.10-beta4. Think I've already verified that the displayed stealth score is accurate the last time this happened, by playing the game through to get the final score, this was clearly a remote detect by a hostile NPC, and this is a completely different mission from my previous report, so I don't think any of the explanations there apply. So, I think this may be a bug.

I have said several times that downloading all FMs is good only for stressing our mirrors. I'm sure you will not even start most of these missions before you have to download them all again for some reason. This button should not exist Actually, I hadn't noticed the "Select All" button, I was just manually selecting for download. I have a large pool of downloaded missions ... but I can't just drop them into my fms directory because the downloader won't recognises them as already downloaded. I see that I have a "downloaded_version" entry in missions.tdminfo, but to my dismay there's no checksum or anything like that to validate. I'd really rather not re-download 900MB of missions. Is there any way to check which of my missions are correctly up to date and just manually copy them across?

beta 2.10-4 crashed during mission download: I think around 8 missions were successfully downloaded before the crash. Edit: I seem to have confused the system my deleting the tdm directory. I re-ran tdm_installer, it automatically reinstalled 2.09, so I ran it a second time to get 2.10-beta4, will see how it behaves ... and I get the missions I've just downloaded shown as available for update in the Downloadable Missions list. As this was the reason for deleting fms in the first place, think I'll do a fresh install of TDM. Edit: Completely fresh install of 2.10-beta4 (copied tdm_installer to a fresh empty directory, let it do its thing), downloaded half a dozen missions, tried to download a few more ... and bang! again: Have to say, I've never had good experiences with the in-game downloader

Don't see how something like this can be tied to the mission. Also, I very much doubt that The Bakery Job has any tricksy scripting under the hood, it's one of the simplest missions I know (small but perfectly formed, a nice first Supreme Ghost, nearly there...). At the moment my money is on a 2.10 beta bug.

This is definitely a TDM bug, but don't know if it's peculiar to the beta. Basically I got a perfect zero stealth score after a full blown guard alert from bumping into me. Not sure how reproducible it is.

It's definitely worse that this. Playing The Bakery Job, have everything except the cash box, all scores zero so far ... and the guard bumps into me, goes into full alert ... and the stealth score remains zero! So is the bug in TDM or the monitor? Figure all I have to do is walk out the door to end the mission, so I do that, also alerting the maid on the way out ... and I have a perfect zero score on mission complete! Whoops. Something very wrong here: guard in full alert mode, sword out, trying to kill me, plus civilian also in full panic, and I can end the mission with a perfect zero/zero stealth score. This is with beta -03. This is definitely a bug, though a little tricky to reproduce reliably. Will be a shame if this isn't fixable. Edit: It seems to be very reproducible: simply bump into the patrolling guard in the dark, and he goes into full alert status without updating anything in the stealth score.

Hmm. That's pretty odd! She was definitely in a panic about it. Do you know the tracker link? Not sure that's the only issue here though, but I'll have to play a bit to see what else pops up. I was going to report a similar problem, involving a guard at a distance, but I couldn't readily reproduce it: This happened in the first arena of Requiem with beta -02, I was taking the loot from the fixed illuminated window on the ledge over the road, and was careless. The guard on the road had obviously spotted me, because when I looked he was walking in circles at the other end of the road with his sword out ... but my stealth score was all zeros! I briefly tried to reproduce this, maybe I should try again with -03? Think I'll continue testing with The Bakery Job, it's less painful to have to throw everything away each time there's a new beta as it's so small, and I don't get much time to play or make progress.

Certainly putting z_ in front means the numbers show and the addon isn't deleted (have just upgraded to beta -03). However, it looks to me as if the addon isn't working properly. I started up "The Bakery Job" (default settings after .cfg reset after beta upgrade), let the maid in the garden see me ... and she runs off crying ... and all my stealth scores remain firmly at zero. Is there anything else I can do to debug? Presumably there are some console commands I can run to cross-check the values shown by z_tdm_loot_stealth_stats.pk4? It's definitely not working properly for me at the moment!

That's interesting. I'll see what happens if I try starting a new mission instead. Edit: Oh wow, that seems to be enough. Started a new mission without any problem, and loading the saves now works. I've not seen this behaviour before, so thanks for the hint. Edit: Is the installer supposed to delete .pk4 files that aren't part of the standard install? Looks like tdm_loot_stealth_stats.pk4 vanished on the upgrade beta -01 to -02, so I have to put it back again. Don't remember the installer saying anything though...

Not sure if this is a 2.10 beta problem or an issue with the addon, but if I install tdm_loot_stealth_stats.pk4 linked here I am unable to load any missions. What happens is the loading page appears, but nothing happens. Here is my log: I escape by hitting Control-C which returns me to the shell. Apologies, this is beta -1, not -2; if needed, I can retest with beta -2.

Thank you for that thread, very interesting discussion. On a related note, I do think your trick with the paper to avoid using moss arrows ... is a bit of a cheat! Although not strictly forbidden by the rules, to me it looks more like exploiting a glitch. What do you think? Edit: I'm thinking rule #8 here: Offical Ghost Rules (oh, actually rule #11 of the Supreme rules). Edit: Just read more of the linked thread. Lots of language lawyering for fun there! I'm guessing that you wouldn't count the silent fall onto paper as a glitch ... just unexpected behaviour ... so it's ok. Feels a bit cheap to me, but am interested in what you think.

@Klatremus, saw you fighting with the candlestick and the Supreme rules (at around 1:07:00), and it does strike me that it's a bug in the rules if you can relight the candle and leave it lit and still aren't allowed to take the loot. You're not taking advantage of the temporary darkness, and you weren't seen. Fix the rules, surely, and take the loot?

Think I can live with any of the frob outlines, but think I prefer 3 over 2 and 2 over 1; not sure how to answer your questions in this case!

@Klatremus, I had a thought about leaving the note from our fellow thief behind in "Fiasco". It seems to me that it might well have been more in spirit with "you were never there (except all the loot has gone)" to have taken the note away with you: after all, the note is to us and leaving it behind is a kind of evidence against us.

Are you allowed to use tools and did you have broadhead or moss arrows? Wonder if either of those would have helped with the last loot item (knock it off the ledge in true Tears of St Lucia style, or can you moss coat a pipe)? Enjoyed watching that, appreciated your calmness in face of what is a frustrating mission in places: that damned brightly light archway!

I don't understand what is wrong with the frob outline (so long as r_frobIgnoreDepth isn't enabled), and the updated frob highlight is much uglier without it. Why not put it back the way it was and to avoid argument simply hard-wire normal clipping?

Me too, I think there's nothing wrong with it: keep it!

I don't really understand what's wrong with the new frob highlight, just so long as it's allowed to be hidden by occluding objects (r_frobIgnoreDepth = "0"). The frobbable object lights up as I think it always did (maybe I'm only looking in dark places so far), and the outline is ok, even if sometimes not fully visible. What's wrong with it? I think I'm missing the heart of the controversy, somehow.

I vaguely remember this being discussed a while ago, and I have the impression that the save file is a somewhat unstructured binary dump of data structures (clearly can't quite be that ... pointers and all that, you know), and changes to any data structure or the meaning of a field can completely trash the machine state. So yeah, loading an old save file into a newer build is going to be dodgy; might work, might go hideously wrong. To be honest, I'm just grieving (apart from grumbling about the nasty software issues alluded to) about having to restart The Painter's Wife, which I've not been able to play before, haven't finished yet, and is gigantic! Never mind, I'll get to know it very well in the end...

Oh, I know, and I wouldn't go so far as to say "annoyed" ... except it arises from an irritating early (and deeply rooted) design decision to store save games in an essentially unstable format. Now, I'd be vaguely interested in the details of how TDM serialises (and deserialises) the game state, but I imagine that it's utterly not worth looking into. If TDM was a new design I'd be strongly saying "please pay attention to serialisation issues" ... but it isn't. What's the (risky) flag for ignoring version changes?

Think we should argue about this over here: ... but of course the actual implementation has to happen in this thread.