Tracking PCs

[Anonymous Bosch]

I might be reading it wrong, but does that mean that a ranger would have to get to a location before and after their target to track them?

[Cruzel]

ScottyB's Suggestion would require you to be in the area previously, BEFORE the PCs/NPCS you wanted to track.

I think Both Howl and ScottyB's suggestions have merit tbh.

Why not add both?

[ScottyB]

Because the transition version would be hell to implement.

I don't see what's wrong with a ranger having to become familiar with the area they want to later track, BTW.

[Cruzel]

Because if they can only track one area at a time, and need to pre-setup the tracking beforehand, it would be too much of a bother to use the system at all unless you KNOW someone is going through that area. It doesn't really count as tracking if solely implemented like this TBH. I  can see the AoE potentially giving more information(?) because the ranger/druid is more familiar with the pre-setup area, but being able to tell who passed through the area as they transit would make sense to me.

I could see a limit for the AoE being set at 1/area, but not 1 per PC, otherwise it is too impractical and doesn't allow for tracking across areas anyways.


The AoE would be a lot harder to implement than the transition, TBH. The transition would require some doing, but I do think that a tracker PC who is entering an area should at least get some input as to who/what had been through recently.

[Ebok]

Okay, I'm a bit confused.

Are we saying, a ranger can walk around through multiple maps, checking for tracks and getting familiar with the areas, then later come back to these locations (even if they've been halfway across the isle) and see what's passed recently?

OR

Are we saying a ranger must enter an area, set up a single tracking AoE, they can come back and see what's changed? (but they can only have one AoE up at any one time?)

I mean, I kinda like both ideas. So long as it doesnt replace the current NPC tracking. The NPC tracking allows you to get an idea about the area, since NPCS dont move--they just randomly appear. Plus it gives you an idea of whats active this time of day/area/etc.

However, I really like both the transition concept, if scriptable. AND ScottyB's depending on how functional we can make it.

____

I wouldnt mind having a AoE permanent in multiple area's to record the information, and the /c track check against the area's datebase for recent information. But I think it would be cool if these werent personal for each ranger, but a standard constant of the map.

[ScottyB]

The AOEs are about the size of a tile and would be located precisely where the ranger "familiarizes" themself. Thus, they cannot be a "constant" of every area. Initializing that would be crazy.

They also would not have database connectivity. These creations are too temporary to be worth that hassle.

This would be very easy to finish if I felt like sitting in NWScript for an hour or two. It's basically like creating a custom spell, "cast" by a voice command (like Detect Evil or the current tracking). The spell (command) does one thing: create an AreaOfEffect object with an enter and an exit script. Enter: report or begin log. Exit: finish log. "Logs" are just a series of numbered local variables stored on the AOE, with delays to degrade the accuracy of the logs.

A limit of 1 per area would actually be simpler to implement than 1 module-wide; in addition to being more useful.

---

Me and Cruzel are proposing two entirely independent and non-interchangable modes of tracking; they could coexist as they would be entirely separate from one another. However, this would give us a total of three tracking systems.

[Cruzel]

One tile is horrendously small, though!  It would be fairly simple to run a location  check every 3 rounds or so  for maybe  30-42 seconds AFTER the PC has started 'familiarizing themselves' with a patch of ground, allowing us to create a rectangular  'path' the the tracker has examined!

Seriously, one tile is far too small to make this worthwhile!

I for one like premise of Scotty's Idea but not all of how he proposes to implement it tbh!

And I don't really think having three separate tracking systems  would not be too much of an issue, because the transition one could probably be more of a small add-on to the current transit setup!

[ScottyB]

One tile is big enough for an intersection.

[Cruzel]

But completely terrible in wide open WILDERNESS areas.

Allowing a path or multiple tiles per area thus -creating- their 'path' would be much more feasable!

[Anonymous Bosch]

A ranger should be able to follow a trail.
If the person they're tracking happens to avoid their tile then they are screwed.