Poolsharkkiller wrote:
Okay, this is really [REDACTED] and weird.
You mean as in bad, I assume? Weird can be good. Kind of the difference between the feather and the whole chicken. [REDACTED] could be a matter of taste, I suppose, but isn't really my thing. But each to their own. Odd how language and the convention of sensibilities morph over time, isn't it?
Quote:
So I run again and go oh, I'm not flying so I fly and run some more then sit down to rest. She walks in and kills me. Now normally tracking doesn't work when you're flying and unless this drunk chick can scry she shouldn't of been able to find me.
Were you still in the Circle of Holy? Not that it necessarily matters.
Some aspects of NPC tracking really used to bug me. The sometimes apparent infallibility of it still does, though it's much better now that they give up if you stun them, or recall. Do they still track you if they're blind or dirt-kicked? That really sucks. (...or used to?)
But, as has been pointed out in the past, NPC tracking isn't
necessarily what you, as a PC, would consider to be conventional tracking in terms of the actual tracking skill. It's an (IMHO, poor) AI subsitute for the player's ability to say "Oh, he's fled east! I'll run that way after him!", run east, look frantically around, "Oh look, he's now three rooms away to the north! I'll catch him yet!".
Not once, in the illustration, did the player have to put his nose to the ground or poke around in poo or look for foot-prints, broken blades of grass or the like. If his enemy was flying it would have made no difference. He wasn't tracking, he was
chasing.
Which is, by and large, what a "tracking" NPC is doing. It's just that they're a bit too bloody good at it sometimes
-Tat