peek and look

[jmordetsky]

How come peek doesn't give you an Mdesc? I mean, it feels like I can scrutinize someone's gear but not get a look at them.

[Moofassa]

I just assumed it was because when you peek, you're using the command (usually) to assess their gear etc etc.

Should be able to peek and see their mdesc too, though. Good point.

[mansa]

I don't care what people's faces look like when I'm looking at their boobs, joe.  You should know that.

[Xygax]

I actually have often wondered this, myself.  Being able to look at someone without knowing you're taking them in seems as useful in many ways as getting a rundown on their loot.  Anyone else think it'd be worth adding main desc output to peek?  Would anyone really object?

-- X

[LauraMars]

Hell yeah.  That would be kickass.  More spy potential!

[Tamarin]

I wouldn't necessarily want to always see the main desc.  Maybe put a modifier on it?

peek <target> = traditional
peek <target> -d = you see the desc as well.

:?:

[Medena]

I'm surprised that peek doesn't give a look at main desc. I guess it's been a long time since I've had a character with that skill.

So, yeah, let's add it to peek!

[Xygax]

Tamarin:  I'd hate to add weird syntax to it, we already have enough commands in the game that seem more like unix command-line utilities than game activities....

-- X

[Tamarin]

Fair enough.

[Moofassa]

That would be cool. So when a suspicious character looks at someone.. they don't get spam looked..


Do it!

[Northlander]

Good idea. Note that as a side-effect, it'd make "looks you over carefully" give less of a jolt.

If you put this suggestion against the 'glance' command, which'd be skill-less and echo an mdesc and partial equpiment list, I feel I could go either way - but it'd be good to have one of them. And this is the simpler to implement.
[Edit - this paragraph misrepresents the 'glance' command idea, combining it with the thought of echoless look. 'Glance' should not give an mdesc. Thanks Delirium.]

[jhunter]

I think this would be alright.

[EvilRoeSlade]

I am or was recently playing a rampant peek-monkey.  Yes I would like this.

[Cale_Knight]

I know it's been done to death, but I think it would make more sense to just get rid of the look echo.

Seriously, go to any crowded place and look at people long enough to get a basic overview of what they look like. Clothing, body features, etc. See how many of them notice you.

The answer will be none.

[Xygax]

Cale_Knight:  My interest isn't in removing the look-echo.  I think it has a purpose and provides useful information to the lookee and the people around them, and I think the information is necessary from a playability perspective in many situations.  You may be able to convince other coders otherwise, and I invite you to try, but for the purposes of this discussion, my interest is in adding the main-description display to peek, which I will code if enough people are in-favor and no one presents compelling arguments against.

-- X

[Cale_Knight]

Well, I have absolutely no arguments against this idea. It makes perfect sense.

[Larrath]

I can only think of one reason why adding Mdesc to peek could be bad - and that is because it could be spammy if someone needed to use Peek a couple of times in a row.  Then again, maybe people don't do this.

Removing the Look echo seems like a bad idea to me, so meh on that.

I would prefer if we had the Glance command instead of additional Peek functionality - glance command showing the notable locations and mdesc without a look echo: hands, fingers, head, neck, about body, body and legs, and do so without an echo.  This would help with people that should be instantly identifiable.  This would also help me personally when I want to review people's mdescs without scrolling back.

Having a hood, mask or facewrap up might make it impossible to Glance, just to make indoors hoods even more annoying.

[Delirium]

No mdesc for the glance command, that destroys the purpose of it.

The look command lets you know when someone is taking a GOOD look at you.  The peek command you are taking a GOOD look at someone while trying to remain unnoticed, and that's why it's a skill.  I have no problem with adding the mdesc to the peek command, and in fact I like the idea.

The glance command is for seeing readily visible eq WITHOUT the mdesc, just so that you can see whether or not they're naked or holding a greatsword of flaming death, without having to "look" at them and get the mdesc and everything else when all you wanted was a quick - glance.  

Glance would not show anything beyond what 'look' does, while removing the mdesc from the output so that if you wanted a good look, you'd have to look at them.

[Larrath]

No mdesc for the glance command, that destroys the purpose of it.

Killjoy.  Fine.

Back to the topic, again, I really don't see a reason why the mdesc shouldn't be included in Peek.

[Lazloth]

I actually have often wondered this, myself.  Being able to look at someone without knowing you're taking them in seems as useful in many ways as getting a rundown on their loot.  Anyone else think it'd be worth adding main desc output to peek?  Would anyone really object?

While I don't have a critical objection, I'm not a fan of this proposal.  What makes a thief the only class with the ability to circumvent the look echo?  [granted, peek conveys more information]

Personally, I'd prefer peek remained unchanged and some other mechanisms were introduced (eg., the glance idea from some time back).

[EvilRoeSlade]

While I don't have a critical objection, I'm not a fan of this proposal.  What makes a thief the only class with the ability to circumvent the look echo?  [granted, peek conveys more information]

Because thieves are sneaky.

[bloodfromstone]

I like the idea of peek showing the mdesc. It makes the skill more versatile, giving it a use for a variety of stations, rather than just down-right thieves.

Alternately, a seperate skill to sneakily obtain the mdesc, if it seems like an issue. Personally, I don't see anything against the idea.

[Lazloth]

Because thieves are sneaky.

But that thief is not being sneaky, which is handled in the code already by utilizing one of the stealth skills in conjunction with look.

In my mind, this doesn't add anything and breaks away from the main functionality of the skill.

[EvilRoeSlade]

But that thief is not being sneaky, which is handled in the code already by utilizing one of the stealth skills in conjunction with look.

I really don't follow that logic.  It may be handled, but that doesn't mean it's handled in an optimal manner.  There really isn't any reason why a thief can find every dagger you have hidden on your person without you noticing anything is amiss but be unable to notice what color your hair is.

[Lazloth]

I really don't follow that logic.

Where are you having a problem connecting the dots?  
You claim a thief peeking is 'being sneaky'.  
I said if the thief isn't hiding, he's not being especially sneaky; if he is hiding, he can use look.

Again, what makes a thief so special that he can examine me without my noticing when a bruiser can't?  Both archetypes can "cover their eyes" or whatever argument you're justifying in getting an unechoed look.

And yes, I'm intentionally ignoring the additional scrutiny that peek carries with it.