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.

[Xygax]

If a thief is peeking at someone, they ARE being sneaky.  Yes?

[Lazloth]

If a thief is peeking at someone, they ARE being sneaky.  Yes?

Are they?  Should there be a prerequisite to hide to adequately reflect that?  (Different discussion, I understand.)

On topic, this is a very minor tweak, but if there exists a hard line in the sand regarding the look echo ("[which] has a purpose and provides useful information to the lookee and the people around them, and .. the information is necessary from a playability perspective in many situations"), you're effectively breaking it for a small subset of the playerbase.  If you would broaden the scope to, for example, allow anyone to attempt to peek (eg., look at someone without the look echo, though I have no idea what criteria you'd incorporate to do detection checks) .. and append the additional information that currently is echoed to a thief (only for thieves), I'd be more on board .. though even then, I don't think that functionality belongs in this skill.

Anyway, I've said my piece

[Fragmented]

I think this is a great idea, adding mdesc to peek.

Also, in regards to the argument that adding that to peek gives a small percentage of the playerbase an advantage by not having to use "look" then I say it's balanced by the fact that if said thief screws it up, he gets a special message delivered saying that he's scoping out that Templar or whoever. That's the balance to adding mdesc to peek.

[spawnloser]

Basically, I agree with Delirium.

Responding to what has been said against the idea, however...

Peek is a sneaky look at someone.  I think that the way the skill works already has sufficient checks for sneakiness.

As to only having it for a subset of the population, well...peek is already only for a subset of the population.  If you want to look at people and get mdesc and equipment, including some not normally visible, play a character that gets the skill.

This is NOT a way around the look echo, per se.  It would be a change to include information that should available, in my eyes.  I mean, if someone is looking at someone sneaky enough to know that they are wearing two swords on their belt and no shirt under that billowing cloak, I'm sure they'd have seen the same things that anyone that DIDN'T see those swords would get.

[Tlaloc]

I personally don't think I like the idea of returning mdesc on 'peek'.

1) I believe this will encourage 99% of all thieves to simply alias 'look' to 'peek'. This isn't so much a bad thing, but, honestly, 'look' has an echo for lots of good reasons, imho.

2) In my personal opinion, there are differences in 'looking' at someone and 'peeking' at someone. With look, you're taking a gander at how they look. With 'peek', you're actively looking at someone's belongings for specific things. Think of it like focusing on the details, rather than the big picture. When you peek at someone, your PC looks at equipment with such focus that they they may miss the general description of someone.

As an example, I know guys do this all the time. "Damn, that's a nice shirt on that lady with the big boobs...what color were her eyes again?"

Anyway, those are my thoughts on it (but not nessecarially the thoughts of anyone else on Staff).

[Seeker]

I rather imagined peek as lifting the flap of someone's pack discretely as you moved by, or slyly brushing past them to identify the bulges beneath their cloak.  

Not studying the person in the faintest.  I can change my conception, but I don't see the mdesc needing to fit in there right now.


Seeker

[spawnloser]

You can do it sitting down, Seeker.  That would lead me to believe that you can do it strictly with your eyes.

[Xygax]

Tlaloc's comments are the most interesting so far.  So, Tlaloc:  let's argue.  

I think that any reading of a character's main desc currently creates the "nice boobs but what color were the eyes?" effect, regardless.  I always skim for interesting parts, then occasionally backtrack to take in details more closely.  This is the case with look, just as it would be with peek.  It would be hard to take in the details of someone's clothing and gear without getting at least a fuzzy idea of what they look like, and scanning over a main desc then their equipment all spilling onto the screen at once would offer something very much like that.

Also, there is a cost to aliasing "look" to "peek", which is that you might end up sending out a lot of weird vibes when your peek skill-check fails (peek DOES have a skill check -- some people replying here seem to think it does not).  With respect to this point, also, we have a number of potentially abusable skills and commands which could be more easily over-used and abused through the use of the alias command -- that hasn't caused us to remove or limit those skills and commands, and I don't think it should.  If someone is abusing something like this, it's easy to catch and correct, and the rest of the game's UI shouldn't suffer as a result.

I think stealthy characters are stealthy because they spend a lot of time working on skills just like this.  Taking in information without being noticed doing so is, in fact, the entire scope of what it means to be a spy.  The main description could be delivered only on ANOTHER skill-success check, perhaps?

-- X

[mansa]

I think stealthy characters are stealthy because they spend a lot of time working on skills just like this.  Taking in information without being noticed doing so is, in fact, the entire scope of what it means to be a spy.  The main description could be delivered only on ANOTHER skill-success check, perhaps?

-- X

Or, you could look at them while hidden.

[spawnloser]

There are two ways to be sneaky and look at someone.  Granted, if you're hidden, sure...but you can also look at something or someone without being noticed doing so and while standing in full view.  You just have to look at the right times, look like you're not looking and not react to what you do see.

[Cegar]

As long as ANYONE can peek at someone who is unconcious/sleeping, I am cool with it. I hate when people "hide" stuff in their inventory. Like, say, huge backpacks or stacks of coins.

[Rindan]

Personally, I would like peek to give a mdesc.  I don't know about others, but when I was a thief I used peek all the time as a substitute for look.  I considered my thief a very subtly alert guy.  He was always looking for hidden weapons and dangerous people.  The peek allowed me to pretty effectively do this.  Peek would find any unusual equipment, but it would also alert me to who the person was.  If a guy in a hooded cloak snuck in, instead of letting him know that I saw him, I would use peek.  Based off of the equipment list, I could usually figure out who it was if I knew them.  I simply learned how to identify people based upon their equipment.

I think of peek as being keenly observant.  I mean hell, you get a full equipment list!  If you are observing someone closely enough to see that they have two daggers under their cloak and know what kind of shirt they have on under their cloak, you damn well should be able to describe what they look like.

Personally, I don't think it should be so damn hard to figure out what someone looks like without alerting them that you are looking at them, especially for a thief.  It is pretty trivial enough as it is to peek at someone in real life without them noticing, I don't see why you need to be hidden in the rafters of the bar do it in Armageddon.  A keenly observant thief who can spot a dagger under your cloak damn well should be able to also take in your features without you noticing.

I am all for this change and wish that it had been in last time I was playing a character with peek.

[Xygax]

As long as ANYONE can peek at someone who is unconcious/sleeping, I am cool with it. I hate when people "hide" stuff in their inventory. Like, say, huge backpacks or stacks of coins.

This isn't what's being discussed here (though it is something I tend to agree with, it's not as easy to code as what IS being discussed)

-- X