Semote idea

[Marc]

Silent emote.  It has been discussed before, but a silent emote would be GREAT:

Give everyone in the room a chance (Wis based maybe?) to see it, with a very significant bonus for scan.

Have it targetable so you can do the following:

semote (fancypants) nudges ~fancypants then dips a nod towards ~templar.

you would see:

the man nudges lord fancypants then dips a nod towards the scary templar.

Fancy pants would see:

The man nudges you then dips a nod towards the scary templar.

People who successfully scanned or passed the wisdom check would see:

the man nudges lord fancypants then dips a nod towards the scary templar.

Everyone else would see nothing.

If untargetted only the emotee and the successful scanners/wisdomers would see it.

Feedback?

I like the idea of it being targetable too. But unfortunately it gets a little sketchy there. Maybe give bonuses for Sleight of hand, or sneak?

[Marc]

I like the idea of it being targetable too. But unfortunately it gets a little sketchy there. Maybe give bonuses for Sleight of hand, or sneak?

Sure, add some skill checks in there, or even a simple agility check (have that as the target for others to notice.  A very slick sneaky elf would be less likely to be seen then the drunk, staggering dwarf).  But targetting would be so great.  That way you could include others in it.  Sure, its abusable, but so is emote (emote The huge black dragon enters from the north, spewing flame and fire which consumes me, ~elf, ~dwarf, and ~mul) and most people are pretty good about not abusing that.

[EvilRoeSlade]

What is the point?  I'm having trouble figuring out how it adds to the game.

[Anonymous]

What is the point?  I'm having trouble figuring out how it adds to the game.

Three people in a room.  One with a high scan, the other two without.

In sneaks an elf who hides.

The elf's player now gleefully semotes what he is doing, with only the player with a high scan noticing.

Frankly when I've been hidden/invis I've wanted to emote my head off to set the scene.

---
semote Moving along the dimly-lit wall, @ slinks towards ~bed.

semote After a quiet pause me silently lifts ~dagger overhead, moving towards ~man.

backstab man
---

Now, if the PC targetted with the man keyword has a high enough scan, he might turn the tables on the sneaking PC.

---
semote Moving along the dimly-lit wall, @ slinks towards ~bed.

semote After a quiet pause me silently lifts ~dagger overhead, moving towards ~man.

The tall, blonde man rises and stands, whipping out an obsidian longsword.

The tall, blonde man draws an obsidian longsword.
---

I'd love to see it, personally.

[krelin]

I see the point, and I like the idea.    The syntax is a little goofy, but that can be repaired.  

[Eternal]

For me, I feel that it adds enjoyablilty to a scene when hidden people emote, even if (and most likely) my pc doesn't see it, the hidden assassin (Someone) licking his blade before driving it into the ribs of another person in the room is much better than me just seeing "X falls over, dead!"

Lots of people complain that people don't emote enough, with this system, people would emote the same amount, but others would -see- less.  A haughty rebuke to this idea is "well, if everyone can be so trusted, why not make think visible to all"... I hope no one would say that, but there are some out there...  The obvious reason is that everyone can't be trusted, but I'd rather give the players the benefit of the doubt... and if Someone emotes, and everyone jumps up and spams scan, as far as I'm concerned that's code abuse, and I would not be above logging it and emailing it for the imms to deal with.   :twisted: I'm evil like that.

I feel that this would be forcing people to roleplay in a particular vein, instead of them being able to decide what to do with what comes across their screen... i.e. kinda like if you sat at a table, and the chair was coded with its back to the door, so you never got an 'enters from the north' message... it's codable, it's good rp, it hampers creativity and forces the player to do things that might not exactly be ic.

Lord Templar Hard Nose says, in sirihish:
"Welcome to Armageddon!  Where the role-playas play!"

[EvilRoeSlade]

Now that I've figured out what this idea would actually do, I'd say that I like it.

If I were given the choice of how to impliment it, I'd make it so that if you can see the person through scan then you can see their hidden emotes too, no skill check involved.  This would make it so that you wouldn't be taking any extra-coded risk for emoting more, and some Byn Sergeant that doesn't even have the scan skill doesn't get lucky and know that you are present.

In fact, it would probably be even better if your emotes automatically became hidden upon a succesful hide, without having to use a special command.

[Delirium]

The only problem I have with your post is the very last sentance, Evil - IMHO, it would actually hamper RP a little. For example, if you're shadowing someone and you want to make them a little paranoid, or clue them in... A little twig snapping, a little bush rustling (if you're in the North, anyway).  Or if you're invisible, and want to have fun with shadows and objects and voices floating about the clearing.. etc, etc. Then the hidden emote could come in handy for detailing just how you're darting about the clearing, trying to confuse them as to your exact location.

I'm rambling.

I do like the idea for a seperate emote.. and I like Evil's suggestion on implimenting it.

[Anonymous]

I like it, from every angle, played the stealthy types before and would have loved having it, also with the non stealthy, I see no drawback, if a player uses it great, and if not, no worse then current, but Myself, I would.

[X-D]

aarrgghh, darn, posted without logging in, oh well, the above guest is me, sigh

[HaiWolfe]

I like this idea and would probably use it a lot, even though my current character isn't one of those stealthy types.  I've been in a few situations where it's not that I don't want other people in the room to see what I'm doing, but they just wouldn't be able to see my actions at all (e.g. if I've gone behind a curtain or something).

[Eternal]

Exactly, you would use it a lot even though you're not a stealthy type.  Less emotes for all to see, more for the imms, less for the playerbase as a whole.  *sigh*  I'm against the idea, as I stated above, because it's just another example of code forcing players how to play.

I know if I was robbed of seeing 'Someone licks his dagger, carefully sliding into position behind you.' (which is something I would -never- react to) and just got *beep* Mantis... I would feel that I had just joined yet another pkmud, and would quickly leave to find some well-roleplayed scenarios.

I'd much rather see the assassin who has the trust in his fellows to emote, than the one who hides behind the code in -yet another- fashion to ensure that his twinkiness is rationalized.  Making the game better for players is my first priority.

[Marc]

Exactly, you would use it a lot even though you're not a stealthy type.  Less emotes for all to see, more for the imms, less for the playerbase as a whole.  *sigh*  I'm against the idea, as I stated above, because it's just another example of code forcing players how to play.

I know if I was robbed of seeing 'Someone licks his dagger, carefully sliding into position behind you.' (which is something I would -never- react to) and just got *beep* Mantis... I would feel that I had just joined yet another pkmud, and would quickly leave to find some well-roleplayed scenarios.

I'd much rather see the assassin who has the trust in his fellows to emote, than the one who hides behind the code in -yet another- fashion to ensure that his twinkiness is rationalized.  Making the game better for players is my first priority.

Yes, damn that 'think' command.  It just takes away from the game because only the imms can see it  :?

[Eternal]

Hmm, well, that was punditry.  The think command -added- something to the game that was not there before.  Your command will modify an existing command, and thus take away from the emotes that are now being used.

I will see -nothing- before I am killed, and thus be forced to assume that I was twink-killed and move on to a rp-enforced mud, instead of a twink-hiding-behind-the-code one.

[Ender]

That's not what he meant at all Marc.  Eternal's main point is semote is one of those ideas that takes trust out of the players and back into the code.

Instead of wanting to hide our emotes to prevent twinky people from seeing emotes we as responsible players should decide what emotes we see and do not see.

Good playing starts with the player.  If everyone started giving their fellow players more benefit of the doubt I bet RP will dramatically improve.  I bet a lot of the twinkishness I've seen in the game were people fearing that they might be twinked out on first.

An semote sounds interesting sure, but it seems like one of those things that is ultimately unnecessary for the amount of work needed to put it in.  Right now we can silently emote through trust of your fellow player.

[Marc]

Hmm, well, that was punditry.  The think command -added- something to the game that was not there before.  Your command will modify an existing command, and thus take away from the emotes that are now being used.

I will see -nothing- before I am killed, and thus be forced to assume that I was twink-killed and move on to a rp-enforced mud, instead of a twink-hiding-behind-the-code one.

You will see something if you spot the person.

The fact is, you are looking at it from a worst case scenerio standpoint, Eternal.  Right now you can be killed with no emotes just as easily as you can with.  Someone JUST posted an example where no one emoted when they killed them.  Does that mean it was bad rp?  Not necessarily.

Oh, and I don't think it will take anything away from the game.  People will emote things they never would before for fear of everyone seeing.  Is that such a bad thing or should we instead continue to watch what we emotes and/or hope no one abuses knowledge gleaned from one?

[Anonymous]

I'm surprised at your response to this Eternal.  Do we have the same idea of how this skill would work?

Anyone in the room who could see the person or see 'a strange shadow' or whatever, would see the emotes and would be within their rights to act on them if it made sense for them to see.

People who had failed their sneak/hide and used 'semote' would echo to the room as normal.


Imagine if this skill was implemented along with the ability to append text to the kill, backstab, and other offensive skills.

The would-be killer would be able to emote where he was moving without the worry of the victim being overcome with the sudden urge to look under their bed for a pair of shoes.

If the target could see the killer, they would see the emotes.

[Typo]

Just throwing my feces into the cesspool that has become this discussion:

From my point of view, ARM tries to strike a balance between player-led RP and code-enforced RP and it does that pretty well as it is. Every few days, someone has a good idea--this case, it is the smote. The problem arises that will this code upset the balance the imms have instituted?

The answer is resoundingly "Yes!" A good RPer who was playing an assassin would emote sneaking up behind his target, putting his faith in the willingness of the other PC to possibly sacrifice his character for a chance to greatly enchance the enviorn of the MUD. If the other character decides that his character's life is more important than contributing to the MUD, then he either needs to change his style of play or find a new MUD.

I have always felt a problem arises when everyone wants to be the hero in the story, everyone wants to foil the assassination attempt, or catch the theif, or spit in the eye of oppression and tyranny. That kind of gaming is stupid. Many of the players on ARM choose this MUD because they can find enjoyment from being the faceless grunt who gets speared by the elf raider, or the bar wino who does nothing but beg for booze. To me, that is the spirit of the game, that is where this MUD truly shines. I can be a nobody, and just by doing that, I will have enhanced the flavor of the game 100%.

But alas, I have gotten off-topic, forgive me my rant and leave this post with this idea....

Code-based RP will never be superior to Player-led RP.

[Anonymous]

Code-based RP will never be superior to Player-led RP.

There is no such thing as code-based RP.

This is a mud.  I do not play mush's because I like the boundaries the code provides.

The simple fact to me is that a "Someone slinks up behind you" emote leaves a bitter taste in someone's mouth more often than not.

The sort of player I am, I will let the other player kill me rather than risk being lame or being perceived as lame.  What if I *actually was going to be looking under the bed*?

What if I was going to go sit in that chair that the assassin is hiding behind.

If I emote doing that it appears to the lurking evil-doer that I'm cheesy.

This is the perfect example of what the code is good for.

Why should I as the victim be left to decide whether or not I hear something?  Can I also decide whether or not your dagger sinks into my back?

Let the code set the boundaries for our RP, not the whim of players.  Seeing a "Someone does such and such" emote is a catch-22 when you know you are the victim.

What good does seeing a "Someone" emote do for anyone?

If you as the victim can't see the person then so be it, you can't see them and you don't see their emotes, just like the regular victim wouldn't.

I'll happily deliver a 'before the moment of the strike' type emote, but I'd also like to be able to take 5 minutes, if it fits the scene, and emote how I'm preparing to kill you.  Without leaving the other player to feel tempted to not have their PC leave and go get some bread from the kitchen or feel like they CAN'T do what they intended without appearing lame.

Putting in an semote that is visible if you can see the PC leaves the situation cut and dried.  The code is telling YOU you see me or nothing at all.  If your PC leaves to go to the kitchen now I don't know if you 'saw' me and ran out of if you just really wanted some bread.

"Someone" emotes have always been a catch-22 for me.

[Typo]

Sorry, what I meant to say was code-enforced RP, which I believe there is.

I don't play MUSHs either, because ARM has struck that nirvana between the two extremes.

I would suggest that you not be caught up in what you had planned, but move with the flow. There is something fun about playing into the hands of an assassin, for everyone involved. With the Semote, you've just taken one of the important players out of the equation...the victim. Now, I'm just a mob waiting for someone to take my head off. I hate meaningless deaths where I don't get my "Death Scene", it makes me feel cheated.

Normally, I wouldn't prescribe to the belief that everyone is a really good RPer, so let them do what they want and no one say anything, but this is one of the situations that I feel that belief can be applied.

What you have is a hired assassin, who must be a little good at what he does or else he wouldn't get hired.
                                                  +
Someone who has been around long enough to make enemies, and powerful enough not to be killed in the open.
                                                  =
Two people who I would trust to RP the situation.

I'm not saying that every PC should just lay down, if your character would have IC knowledge that someone might be out to get him, then go ahead and foil the attempt. Make the assassin work for his kill.

Semote just takes away too much of the game for me I would be comfortable with. Maybe, instead of laying down code, some people could get together and start writing the Victim's Bible, like some other guys were saying.

[Lazloth]

What about a pickpocket, then?

My little urchin just skulks into a room of mercenaries, and I'd like to not
think Hrm, maybe if I walk over there, I'll find something.. but to actually semote kneeling, @ inches closer to ~twinkletoes.

I know if I lay down a straight emote, a trio will stand & scan while another guards the exit.  

*shrug* again, I think it's a fantastic suggestion.

[Marc]

Like Eternal, you are looking at worst case scenerio's Typo.  I've been around for a very long time, and it is a RARE assassin who emotes before they strike, unless they group their commands together such as:

emote slinks up behind ~victim;backstab victim

If you think every player can be trusted at all times to never let an emote their character wouldn't see effect their rp, then you are right, it isn't needed.  But the fact remains, armag is not that perfect of a place.

Semote could be used before and after backstab, could be used before and after a steal.  Could be used during a game of cards to signal your partner.  It could be used anytime you don't want a gesture or action to be seen by everyone.  If I hold a finger up behind my back to signal my partners in crime away, why should the templar in front of me see it, unless indeed his character is capable of spotting it?

The code dictates what we can and cannot do/see in so many situations, and it works (I don't see too many people complaining about the inbalance to listen and scan because they can't make a choice whether their chars hear/see something).  Why is emote the golden calf that you two (typo and eternal + any silent partners) don't want to see touched with "ugly" code?

[Typo]

In response to:

Why is emote the golden calf that you two (typo and eternal + any silent partners) don't want to see touched with "ugly" code?

I can't speak for anyone else on this matter. To me, the use of emote is what makes ARM an RP MUD. There is numerous documentation everywhere on the importance of emote and the necessity of becoming skilled in its use. When I hear about something like semote, I immediately sound a call to arms. Here's my thought process (Hold on tight, this could get a little crazy):

Emote is code, it works fine. In fact, the emote is nearly perfect and limited only by the user's imagination and integrity.

If Emote is a divine tool , then it is the players who are screwing up.

If players are the ones screwing it up, then is the answer more code?

No. Because then the players will just find a way to screw that up. People will complain some more, and more code added, which will lead to more screwups, more complaints, and more code, until the computer is the one playing the game.

Well then, what is the answer?

Don't fix the code, fix the players. Alter their understanding of the game so that it will enhance the experience for everyone.

(End of posting-induced mental state)

I know my thought process sounds idealist/extremist/anarchistic, but that's how I see it.

I hope that answered the question, I hope some of the other fellas could chime in...and I apologize for my lack of eloquence, but I'm cranking out a lot of writing today, and my synapses are baking like an albino in Death Valley.[/u]

[Lazloth]

To me, the use of emote is what makes ARM an RP MUD.

Do you feel the think command detracts from the roleplay on Arm?  I doubt it.  I don't understand the reluctance to embrace this concept as a "public think" of sorts;  I wouldn't expect this to be used only by sneaky folks.

semote kicks ~friend under the table.
At your table, your silly friend says in sirihish:
  "No, Lady Templar.  He's right.  That's how we found it."

[Typo]

Do you feel the think command detracts from the roleplay on Arm?

No.

I don't remember bringing up the think command, though maybe I'm wrong.

[scrolling through the previous posts]

Nope, I'm right.

[Avril]

Coded interaction does well to provide a coded environment for players to RP in, but sometimes, when it comes to player-player interactions of any sort, emoting can always lead to far more interesting and realistic situations than the code can provide. As a member of Typo+Eternal's silent partners, I'll give a few examples that show just how much damage the code can cause to good RP.

You're standing in the middle of the desert, facing the sun (so that your shadow remains at your back). A speck of black appears on the horizon, possibly a raider... You bring your hand over your eyes and scan. Meanwhile, there's another character behind you, the one that's been semoting about crawling up to you with a dagger in between his teeth. Scanning will cause you to spot him immediately, so...
Possibility one: "Hey, it's that raider on the horizon! I'll just draw my sword and wave at him."
Possibility two: "Hey, it's that twink who snuck into the room and hid, no emotes, no nothing. I'll just counter-twink and strike at him right now."
Possibility three: "Hey, there's someone in the room... I wonder where he is. Too bad the hide code doesn't tell me anything... I'll just OOCly ask him to tell me where he is, so I can decide what's more realistic."
If there's a fourth possibility that proves a way to successfully deal with the code, I'd be more than willing to learn of it.

Then, there's the example of an assassin waiting for you in your bedroom. Normally, I don't solo RP. Not a single bit. Unless there's someone to entertain or inform through my emotes, I switch to coded activities/idleness and load up a notepad document to keep me busy in a meaningful way. Thus, if someone were to hide in my PC's bedroom, waiting for him to fall asleep... Unless that someone were to inform me of his presence, I would gracefully execute a n; open nightstnand; look in nightstand; get berry nightstand; close nightstand; eat berry; quit and enjoy my character's virtual sleep. The assassin would likely become very annoyed at my impatience. On the other hand, if the assassin's player gave an emote, even the often-quoted "snicker from the shadows", I would halt and RP as usual.

Now, let's suppose that I was a passionate solo RP-er... I could have my character enter the room, close the door behind him, describe a few of his mundane actions, then have him go back to the door... Outside of my knowledge, there's a shadowy figure that had slipped from a corner and posted itself right in front of the door. While my character is still heading for the door, the figure suddenly does a backstab on him. What would my character believe? What would I believe? It might be realistic for the assassin to jump at me and dive his dagger into my PC's torso, but it might be just as realistic for him to do an actual backstab. Naturally, my PC would open the door and call for guards, even if the way to the door happened to be blocked (RP-wise, not code-wise) by the assassin himself.

When it comes to actually putting the semote into the code, you have to decide a few things... Is it really a "silent-emote", or a "still-emote"? In other words, should people find it hard to see the actions being performed, hear them, or both? These are things that would need to be judged by the code itself.

What good does seeing a "Someone" emote do for anyone?

First, it notifies everyone about what's happening in the room, and gives them a chance to role-play accordingly. Should theft be comitted, and gravely failed, some people might want to role-play through the error. Let's say someone under the table tries to slip my character's knife from his boot-sheath... Instead of standing up and shouting "thief!", I might RP giving the cuprit a swift kick to the head (and wish up for an immortal to moderate the flow of bloodthirsty militia). Second, it lets people judge between real role-players and scanning twinks. I know that, when I'll be playing my first thief character, I'll keep a blacklist of characters who abuse the scan command, and will in turn never give any of them a second chance to abuse it. Third, there are instances when the mystery of seeing a "someone" on-screen can have a wonderful effect on the overall atmosphere - if used properly. I know of at least one player who once snuck up to mine and gave a "someone puts a hand on your shoulder" emote, which was, given the context, perfectly plausable. My character's position made it impossible to see him, which is why the "someone" emote worked flawlessly. However, had my character been facing away from a certain object, it would have made it impossible for him to even come close to my character without making him notice. Silent emoting on the other player's part would have, in this case, only put eyes behind my back and made me unaware of things I should have been able to see.

[creeper386]

Avril makes a good point.

But from what my understanding is, they are suggesting a WHOLE NEW COMMAND, when sneaking and hiding you could STILL use emote and get the someone does something, but you could also use the semote or whatever.

See more often then not, seeing that "someone does something" WILL change how I'm playing, Like say I'm getting ready to leave and someone does the "Someone is standing behind you getting ready to pounce" or something like that, and then I leave, that'd look bad, but I'm getting ready to leave anyways. Now since I wouldn't be able to see it most likely, I was sitting down, wasn't paying attention behind me no scan or anything, blah blah blah, I shouldn't know anyones behind me, but I wouldn't want to just leave because it'd wouldn't look good. If i didn't see that emote and left, then it'd be something I was planning on doing.

In a way, this does take away trust from players, but in my opinion it redistributes the trust EVENING instead of leaving all the cards in the non-sneaky character's hands. It'd take some of their trust and in away, unneeded duties, and gives it into the hands of the people's characters that are more often on the line because of people that are on the line of abusing code and just going about what their character normally does.

I'm in support of this sort of thing, I think giving more trust to the sneaky character would be in place. They could still emote like they do know and acctually emote the things that wouldn't normally be seen.

Creeper

[Eternal]

Here's a bone for the pickers...

What constitutes a semote?  I mean, if you're in a crowded bar, is it okay to use semote for just about every emote you would normally make, since not many people can see it?  Would "sticks his tongue out at ~templar" be a semote?  Hmm... is there anything, at all, that wouldn't possibly work for this command.

The good thing is, staff has seen this thread 100+ times on both this and the old gdb, and we've yet to see the command, or even hear any real discussion on it... so I feel silly continuing to play devil's advocate.  The bad thing is that people like Marc who (taking from -numerous- threads along this line) appear to value code over roleplay will take these discussions personally, because they're horribly stuck in a 'win or lose' mentality.

Lord Templar Hard Nose says, in tatlum:
"Go Play Monopoly."

[Typo]

Good post, Eternal. I'd have to agree that I think all facets of this discussion have been exhausted into tedium. (Can always tell when you start seeing the same arguments popping up, just from different people).

And so, like Eternal, I will depart into the good night to find other causes to champion.

[Rindan]

I am not sure if I have much of an opinion, but I do completely understand Eternal's point.  I don't think the semote would be a bad idea if players were always playing for an audience.  

For instance, the decision for an assassin to make an emote or an semote before attacking his target is something that can change the feel of the game.  True, the PC that is to be your victim has no right to any sort of description of what you are doing if he doesn't see you.  That said, if the assassin in question realizes that he is playing for an audience he will go ahead and emote out his attack.  Now, he might not emote slinking into the tavern, lining up, and getting ready for the strike.  In fact, the set up is where semote's would be nice.  However, he might make an emote right before the strike to set the scene and make the insuring battle more then a boring coded roll of the dice.  An emote can makes a world of difference in terms of changing the feel of the game.  

A sudden cry of warning rings out as a tavern patron is violently shoved aside by someone as a flash of obsidian steaks towards your neck!
Someone has stabbed you in the back! (or whatever the message is, it has been a while since I saw it).
*beep*

Stuff like that makes everyone's day.  True the victim in question would have seen nothing as the attack came from behind, but the victim's player suddenly feels that it wasn't just some twink that whacked his character.  If one were to have semotes, I imagine that the temptation to not put on a show (at least not a show for anyone without scan) would be very strong.

I understand the counter argument that it would allow for more detailed fleshing out of other instances.  I know that I would certainly make use of such a command in some instances.  As I am stealing Lord Inbreed's keys, I don't really want to emote out slipping my hand into his pocket, but I might want to semote it.  

I personally think that role playing and acting are two different things.  Role playing is playing your role.  Acting is putting on a show for everyone to enjoy.  Personally, I think that the role players who I enjoyed the most were great actors.  They not only played their role, but they made a show of it for everyone around them, even if at times it betrayed perhaps more information then people absolutely needed.  I appreciate the extra effort these people put into not only playing the role, but entertaining the players behind characters.  Semote probably would help people role play better, much in the same way think does.  However, unlike think, I can see how there would be concern that semote might in the same motion harm acting by discouraging people from showing too much.

[Eternal]

Hmm, I didn't think I was going to post to this thread again, but Rindan did clarify a lot of what I was trying to get across.  As for being an actor... hadn't really thought of it that way, but that is almost -exactly- what I was thinking.  I tend to be an actor... it's how I make my living, irl, anyway.  :wink:

[HaiWolfe]

I personally think that role playing and acting are two different things.  Role playing is playing your role.  Acting is putting on a show for everyone to enjoy.  Personally, I think that the role players who I enjoyed the most were great actors.  They not only played their role, but they made a show of it for everyone around them, even if at times it betrayed perhaps more information then people absolutely needed.  I appreciate the extra effort these people put into not only playing the role, but entertaining the players behind characters.  Semote probably would help people role play better, much in the same way think does.  However, unlike think, I can see how there would be concern that semote might in the same motion harm acting by discouraging people from showing too much.

The way I see it, the actors would continue to use emote and put on a show for the entertainment of others whether or not semote existed.  

Not to overgeneralize, but the sneaky types who feel most comfortable using semote probably wouldn't have used emote in the first place.  Without semote, they likely would've stayed quiet the whole time or used only the think command.  In this case, there would be no harm in implementing semote because it would actually encourage the less bold players to act out a scene instead of hide;sneak;backstab ~man.

[Lazloth]

I think some of the appeal of this concept, which everyone seems to be overlooking, is that there remains a 'focused' possibility.  Disregard the fact that the oh-so-worrisome sneaky chars may use it, and envision this as a whispered emote for a moment.

There have been many circumstances where I would have liked the ability to emote to one (or two .. or three .. but not all) persons in a given area.  How is this semantically different, in terms of roleplay, than a whisper?  By your logic, you would happy to do away with the latter and just use something akin to tell whoever (in hushed tones) whatever, and assume the rest of the community will disregard the message.

I personally think that think and whisper have added to the roleplay possibilities of the world, not detracted.

I'll let this topic drop, as there seems no need to rehash arguments, but, again, wish to state that I feel the nay-sayers are wrong.

[psionic fungus]

i know none of you cerebrally hampered hominids care. . . but none the less, the fungus believes it is imperative that there be a hemote, the hidden emote.  i hope this will quell any dissension over the 'silent' aspect of the improvement being discussed.  whatever the syntax used, this addition is one i have desired for some time.

being inclined towards the thiefly types i have, in my career, seen a number of injustices (on both sides of the fence).   i have come to the belief that the truly successful criminals are those who are not known criminals.  in many situations this makes it impossible to 'safely' emote while commiting crimes.  this tends to make surveillance utterly boring, and i've never failed to feel just a tad twinkish when i know i cannot describe how i am shadowing someone (and magicking through their gates).  in such situations it is easy to act out (slipping over a wall/through a window), but in many cases it is not comfortable (or intelligent) to do so.

some people, perhaps, would like to pretend that we can always choose our marks, but there are some who are hired, or who perhaps work in organizations where they're assigned targets.  it's also nonsensical to assert that you can always give people the benefit of the doubt.  one player 'abusing' a 'someone' emote could ruin a character that took months to develop.  putting the burden on the players only makes determining what is known vague and arbitrary.

i fail to see the reason for insisting to be able to see things that your character cannot see.  this is limiting, but it is limiting in a realistic and ultimately beneficial way.  i'm not saying that all that has been proposed is flawless, but i am certain that the syntax, checks, skills, and attributes involved can be arranged in a way that is vastly superior to the current option of sticking your neck out or being a passive observer.

another point that people seem to continually miss is that EMOTE would (or should) remain unchanged.  yes, there are many instances when emoting hidden is completely appropriate.  i love sending a 'There is a noise in the crowd as someone roughly shoves a ragged commoner into the obese, silver-haired templar.'  as much as the next guy.  that said, there are many more instances in which i want the actions i am describing to be private.  you cannot overhear all conversations and determine which your character should hear, i see no reason why people assume that you should see all actions, and then determine which your character would see.

so humans, i may not have added much unique, but perhaps the combination in which i layed out this information will penetrate your feeble, trembling minds and stimulate some sort of revelation.

love,
the psionic fungus

:twisted:

[Marc]

so humans, i may not have added much unique, but perhaps the combination in which i layed out this information will penetrate your feeble, trembling minds and stimulate some sort of revelation.

love,
the psionic fungus

:twisted:

Between you and Lazloth, the defense rests its case.  :roll:

[ShaLeah]

I am completely against this idea.

It is utterly ludicrous to believe a person can be completely invisible. If someone is being stealthy, blending in to their surroundings so as to not stand out, movement will be noticed, someone will notice it, maybe the really perceptive but depending on the placement of your body, anyone can see you.  In my most humble of opinions, only those who can be invisible should be able to have an option such as this one suggested.  I don't give a crap how good of an assassin you are, how good a thief you are, you are still made of flesh and blood and most of you are armored to the hilt. Please, let's have some realism. You don't want your hidden character to be seen? Don't emote.


ShaLeah
-who will patiently wait for the flames.

[creeper386]

The emotes wouldn't be COMPLETELY hidden, people could still see them. And the fact about hiding and sneaking, isn't so NOONE sees you, it's so noone pays attention to you. It's quite easy to hide right out in plain sight.

The emotes wouldn't be absolutely hidden, I don't know how it should be checked, but I don't think just anyone should have a chance to catch it, unless they are actively looking for out of the norm things, like scan.

And for some reason, I think it's a good idea, there is alot of SMALL things that get emoted in taverns and everything, and even in the Taverns that have less rowdy patrons and probably aren't as pact... Your characters wouldn't know of every guy giving a signal to his partner or what not, even if that character isn't hidden.

Reason why I'm SURE people knowing more going on around them then they do, they emote that they are sitting at a bar eatting or something, crowded place, lots of noise, people just WALK in and everyone at the bar turns about and looks, no biggy most the time, but when you dont' even know they are there, let alone something similar to that, a templar walks in and people stand up and bow... Do people sitting and facing the bar, are they FACING the doorway? Don't think I know any that do... And I've seen people, even great RPers, I do it myself, catch emotes that they should have never catched, and most the time is just added spam that noone should know except for those certain people...

I think it'd be a great addition, and just for the fact it'd cut down spam, and for the fact, it'd be a BIG benefit for sneaky type characters, because right now, it's either get caught and get killed, or don't emote at all, which tends to make people think twinky things happen. It seems more often then not, if someone hidden emotes getting ready to kill someones character it's not that big of a deal but if it comes to stealing, automagickally their character knows EXACTLY whats going on. I think if people are just lounging back in a tavern and chit chatting like MOST people do, or just strolling along the rode, or what not, they shouldn't know EVERYTHING that goes on around them like is happening now.

I'd say implement it and put the only way you can see them unless your targeted or something is scan, maybe even putting in some sort of watch command, you are watching the person, you have a chance to see the hidden emotes he does and has directed at him, and probably make it harder for that person to sneak/hide against you.

Creeper

[krelin]

The problem now is that it seems like if someone wants to twink they can do that by just -not- emoting.  This at least gives someone a *chance* of executing an un-noticed emote...   I very much like the idea,  I also like the idea of being able to interact with someone specifically in a tavern without everyone in the world seeing my activities (unless they want to).  I was thinking a command like this might have a "stare" counterpart, where I could stare at people to see all their semotes....   or even something "listen"-like where I could have a chance to see all semotes in the room

[crymerci]

I have to say, I can see both sides of this issue. While I've never played a character that stood around others in a state of hiding, I can only imagine how incredibly boring that must be, basically sitting still and doing nothing. Yes, that is often what hiding is about: sitting very still and hoping no one notices you. But I can imagine the desire to perform any small action (yawning, scratching your ass, etc.) is strong, if for no other reason than to prove to yourself that you really are alive and playing an active character. I think there's room for some actions that wouldn't give away your position or presence, unless someone was actively peering into all the shadows.

On the other hand, I see great opportunity for this to be misused, or for the boundaries of the mechanism to become so blurred that no one's really sure what it's appropriate to hide. Do you use it just to reduce spam, or only when you are specifically concealing your actions? Can it be used by those out in the open, or only those hidden/invisible? There's so many gradations of possible use. Further, I can see people who would otherwise openly emote, use the hidden emote instead, and therefore remove roleplay from sight, that would otherwise be there. So then you have victims complaining that "there were no emotes" and killers saying "well, I hidden-emoted, they just didn't see".

Frankly, I would rather see the problem solved by greater mutual trust between players that people will play things realistically. And sometimes realistically means that your character will do the wrong thing, take the wrong interpretation, or maybe even die. I'll try not to get too IC with the following example: With two different characters, I as a player have suspected they were being monitored by a mindbender. One of the characters shared my suspicion, the other one didn't. With the second example, the character was just more trusting, and only had the suspicious thing happen once, so she just shrugged it off. The other one, the one that guessed, was paranoid and had repeated good reason to suspect. I could have raised a panic with the clueless character, and had her automagickally know that what she experienced was the result of unnatural psionic powers. But I decided that although I knew, she wouldn't.

So, getting back to the point: I think a hidden emote could be a powerful tool in some hands, and a dangerous weapon in others, and that some people don't need to be playing with dangerous weapons.

[Carnage]

From what I've seen, there's a lot of debate on this, so let me give my proposition. I haven't read over the whole thread, so if I'm reitterating the idea or whatever, than just take it as reinforcement and my support. Put in semote, where people who can see you can see the emote. For example, you're unhidden. It shows up to everyone, since everyone can see you.

You're hidden, and everyone with scan on can see you. Only the people with scan can see the emote, since they can see you.

You're hidden, and only two people with scan on out of six can see you. Only those two people can see your emotes.

What's wrong with this? I don't trust a lot of other players at ALL. In fact, if you've demonstrated to me that you're going to flee the moment combat rears his head, even though your character shouldn't show it, you're marked for life if I know you as a player. I won't emote while hidden anymore and give you the opportunity to cheat. I won't emote running into the room and swinging. I'll initiate combat, then emote. This code would at least let me play things out and make the scene more enjoyable to others.

What, you don't like the code dictating what your character can and cannot see? Tough shit, that's how the game is. Should've picked a class with scan or a subguild with it and gotten it pretty high, because as far as everyone is concerned, you're character can only see as much as the code allows.

Furthermore, I don't think someone invisible's looks should be showing up, unless you can see them. Even then. Since when are you going to notice where that guy hiding between the curtain's eyes are going? You won't.

Use some common sense when thinking about this kind of thing, huh? There's no way your city-dwelling merchant is going to notice my outdoorsy ranger's sweeping gaze when I'm hidden away from everyone's sight in the bushes.

[creeper386]

Okay, it still strikes me as all sorts of funny. People are in support of having whisper, yes. I doubt there are any that want to see whisper taking out, this is the same damn thing. With whisper, or even talking at a table, if you don't have the skill to listen to them you don't know what they are doing. Why should it be any different, if you don't have the skill to see someone, you shouldn't see what they are doing. Sure some people can keep the information without letting it pass to their character, but from what I've seen MOST don't, and even if they DO it puts weight on them to double think themselves.

EXAMPLE:

Your sitting at the bar, getting ready to leave. Someone is hiding in the crowds, emotes sneaks up near you, and all that good stuff. Now you know it, everyone knows you know it, but you planned on leaving anyways, and it can be in question rather or not you used OOC information in the game or not.

Now there is a reason why this board your not supposed to post IC sensetive material, because theres the chance someone could use it in the game, abusing knowledge they shouldn't have. WHY SHOULD IT BE ANY DIFFERENT IN THE GAME? There is no difference of learning of a secrete oasis on this board, and then running off with your current character to live there, and learning of someone trying to steal from you because they emoted and you react by standing up and scanning the room. Why should the code pass IC sensitive information when it's a BIG policy for that type of stuff not to be passed around?


Creeper

[Anonymous]

Now that I've seen this I like the idea.
You don't really emote things others don't see unless it's for yourself anyway and realisticly if you see them, you see them and if you don't, you don't.
IC you can't see them so why should you be able to OOC either?
I don't necessarily think it's a bad thing as a player not to see what happened, for me it would add to the mystery of my char's death in that type of situation.
Also makes it interesting for those that can see...maybe they'll warn the victim...maybe not.