Targetted emotes

[Seeker]

Because things are sooo cool lately with the new work on the emote system, I thought I'd throw out one more idea for consideration.

Targetted emotes.  temote.

temote slender with a quick annoyed shift of his eyes, @ taps his boot THREE times against ^slender chairleg under ~table.

This would be detectable to observant others just like a hemote, except the target of the emote would -always- succeed in noticing.

Ideas, comments?


Seeker

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

I don't know. That's new code. I think it would be bad.

Just being sarcastic. I like it.

[Larrath]

I worry that people would go out of line with those emotes and make unnoticeable emotes that should be noticeable.

On the other hand, this could allow people to flash signs and motion at people for their gang members.

I'm torn in the middle on this, I don't want to see people starting to flash overly complex gestures that only one or two PCs in the room could see.

[Seeker]

I thought about that, too.  Undeniably, it could be used inappropriately, but really not moreso than any other type of emote.  

:in his unconscious twitching, @ rolls over on his side, the vial of smelling salts rattling noisily against some other gear in ~pack.

It could be more likely to bring such communication from the Unseen Way into some subtle observeable physical actions.

It still interests me, and hey, it allows PCs to play footsie under the table.


Seeker

[Tamarin]

Part of me likes this, and the other part says that if you want to flash secret signals to one another, to just watch each other.  I don't know.  I'll wait for staff judgement on this one.

[Yokunama]

Because things are sooo cool lately with the new work on the emote system, I thought I'd throw out one more idea for consideration.

Targetted emotes.  temote.

temote slender with a quick annoyed shift of his eyes, @ taps his boot THREE times against ^slender chairleg under ~table.

This would be detectable to observant others just like a hemote, except the target of the emote would -always- succeed in noticing.

Ideas, comments?


Seeker

Eh? Isn't this the same thing as a normal emote?

[Tamarin]

No it's not at all the same as a normal emote.  It's a normal emote to the sender and the target only.  To everyone else, it's a hemote.  It splits the emote into a dual-function echo, if that makes any sense.

[Yokunama]

No it's not at all the same as a normal emote.  It's a normal emote to the sender and the target only.  To everyone else, it's a hemote.  It splits the emote into a dual-function echo, if that makes any sense.

Really, signals are not suppose to be 'hidden gestures'. :wink:

[Tamarin]

Well that's your opinion, but Seeker is saying that they should be.  That's why I'm really on the fence about this idea.

[Marauder Moe]

Idea: if you wish to do hidden gestures, watch eachother and use hemote.

[Lazloth]

Idea: if you wish to do hidden gestures, watch eachother and use hemote.

And what if there are more than two people involved?

[Yokunama]

Well that's your opinion, but Seeker is saying that they should be.  That's why I'm really on the fence about this idea.

concealed: not accessible to view
designed to elude detection
difficult to find
Any element that is not shown in the current rendering of the scene but still exists.

If signals were hidden, they could not be seen by anyone. The only thing I see that should be hidden in signals are the messages they contain.

Just my opinion.

[Marauder Moe]

Idea: if you wish to do hidden gestures, watch eachother and use hemote.

And what if there are more than two people involved?

Then what good would a targeted emote do?

[Seeker]

Actually, I think hand-gestures across the room would -definately- be an inappropriate use of the idea. And I understand the concern that some PCs would cheat and exploit.

Applying a subtle squeeze to someone's shoulder at the right time, once you have publicly emoted setting that hand in place earlier is more what I was thinking about.  Anyone who was watching carefully might be able to catch that squeeze, but the target always should.


Seeker

[Delirium]

Perhaps we could adjust hemote without adding another type of emote:

Anyone targeted with a 'hemote' automatically notices it.


hemote nudges %amos foot under the table.

[Nao]

Perhaps we could adjust hemote without adding another type of emote:

Anyone targeted with a 'hemote' automatically notices it.


hemote nudges %amos foot under the table.

I really like that.

What I don't like abotu the temote idea - what if that certain person isn't ooking your way? They would ALWAYS notice something that you usually wouldn't - I'd like to keep this with the watch command, if there's only two people involved, use it.

[Morgenes]

I like the idea of having hemote show to anyone targetted in it, however not all hemotes involve physically contacting the person.  For example,

hemote flicks his eyes towards %woman chest.

[Larrath]

I thought about what would happen if hemote would show itself to whoever was targetted, but I think it would do more harm than good.
The best thing about hemote is that it allows our hidden and unseen characters emote how they creep and sneak behind their victim.

Code Select Expand


> hemote licks his wind-burnt lips as he drifts soundlessly through the air behind ~noble, carried by ~propellor-cap

> hemote cowers behind the bar, swallowing spit as ^me peeks over its edge to see if ~templar is still there.

> hemote Slipping his long arm through the knot of people in the street, @ makes a grab for %merchant coinbelt.


[Delirium]

Dude, Larrath.. you would use semote for those.

[Morgenes]

Dude, Larrath.. you would use semote for those.

Exactly what Delirium said.  Semote are for silent emotes, hemotes are hidden emotes.  Hemotes should only be used on small motions that wouldn't be immediately noticable, like making a quick glance or furtive gesture.

[Larrath]

Notes:
  Avoid using this command for emotes that would physically interact with
objects or characters.  They will not get a message if they don't notice it.

Not in all situations.  However, this Semote and Hemote is still new to me and perhaps it might be best if I bowed out of this discussion.  Just make sure we can still stalk people in peace, please.

[Morgenes]

Notes:
  Avoid using this command for emotes that would physically interact with
objects or characters.  They will not get a message if they don't notice it.

Not in all situations.  However, this Semote and Hemote is still new to me and perhaps it might be best if I bowed out of this discussion.  Just make sure we can still stalk people in peace, please.

The doc you pointed to is right, you should avoid using hemote/semote to physically interact with people (like hemoting kicking someone under the table).  Unless, we added the targeted hemote ability.

If you're stalking someone, as in your original post:

> hemote licks his wind-burnt lips as he drifts soundlessly through the air behind ~noble, carried by ~propellor-cap

> hemote Slipping his long arm through the knot of people in the street, @ makes a grab for %merchant coinbelt.

I would assume your character has used the 'hide' command.  In these cases, the actions are big enough that 'semote' should be used.

> hemote cowers behind the bar, swallowing spit as ^me peeks over its edge to see if ~templar is still there.

This one should be an hemote.

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

Morg, curiously, why didn't you just add a check in emote to see if the person was hidden or not while emoting?

For emotes that would still be seen by the room regardless, you then might use semote.

Most of the emotes a hidden person would do are normal emotes, and those are covered by sem, when em would be more fluid, more accustomed.

em sneaks along behind ~noble, grinning.
This would be the same prefix whether hidden or not if you just added a check, yet currently, you must remember to use sem if hidden.

sem tosses a fruit at ~noble
With what I've suggested, this would be the command to let the room see an action.

You dig?

[Morgenes]

Morg, curiously, why didn't you just add a check in emote to see if the person was hidden or not while emoting?

For emotes that would still be seen by the room regardless, you then might use semote.

Most of the emotes a hidden person would do are normal emotes, and those are covered by sem, when em would be more fluid, more accustomed.

em sneaks along behind ~noble, grinning.
This would be the same prefix whether hidden or not if you just added a check, yet currently, you must remember to use sem if hidden.

sem tosses a fruit at ~noble
With what I've suggested, this would be the command to let the room see an action.

You dig?

We did not want to change current emote functionality, which echoes to everyone in the room regardless.  Your examples you give above are using exactly the opposite commands they should.  Throwing a fruit at someone (nevermind the fact that it should be done with the throw command), should be visible to everyone in the room, it isn't a silent action and interacts physically with someone (the fruit hitting the noble), so you should use emote.  Sneaking behind someone is a silent action (or at least you're trying to be silent), and so you should use the silent emote command.

Hidden emotes are probably not the best descriptor as everyone apparently assumes it means that they are emotes that are done while you're hiding.  This isn't so, they are furtive emotes describing actions that you have to be paying attention to notice.

As I've posted about before, the different emote commands are differentiated by the content of the message, not your visibility status.

emote - everyone in the room receives the message because it interacts physically with someone, or isn't silent in nature

semote - Only those who can see you receive this message, because it's silent.  So if you're silent, and can't be seen, you don't get the message.

hemote - Only the observant, or those actively watching you see this as it's such a small movement that it wouldn't be seen by people paying attention to you.

You dig?

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

No.

Just playing. Yeh, I dig. And I know that I was using the exact opposite commands, but that was sorta the point. Like, I'm going to be hidden and creeping along and getting deep and I'm going to smack em out, not sem, and I'm gonna flipping curse. Of course, I can explain that as being careless, which makes sense, but still...

I mean, I like it all, don't get it twisted. It's gravy. It's a little confusing until you get used to it, but I dig.

You the shit.