watch hurting sneaky types

[LoD]

Hide underwent some important changes with the watch command, but for the most part they deal with if someone is actively watching you.  From the hide helpfile:

If someone is watching you, it will make it harder to hide.

Does the one person watching you cause your hide to be less successful to use for everyone in a crowded room, or just for the one person watching you?  Cunning Joe might watch me when I try to hide, but that doesn't mean the rest of the tavern is any the wiser, especially if Joe doesn't choose to say anything about it.

Just trying to figure out if the chance for success is personal (i.e. someone watching you might still see you, while someone not watching wouldn't) or if it's a ON or OFF kind of thing where if you fail, everyone sees you, and anyone watching you increases the chance of failure.

I disagree with the sentiment that steal was way overpowered. I've -never- had anything stolen off any of my pcs in all my time playing. I've even left things in places they could be stolen from and -not- locked my pc down 100% to keep from being stolen from.

Does a skill need to be overused to be overpowered?  Having played a pick pocket before the changes, I can attest to the fact that IF something was available to be stolen, it was mine.  I felt almost no fear whatsoever moving in for an attempted theft, even if I was to fail.  No skill should come with that level of confidence, though I am sure that a proficient pick pocket who knows what they are doing (and that has as much to do with the presentation and actions of the character as it does with the code) will still be very successful.

-LoD

[Morgenes]

Does the one person watching you cause your hide to be less successful to use for everyone in a crowded room, or just for the one person watching you?  Cunning Joe might watch me when I try to hide, but that doesn't mean the rest of the tavern is any the wiser, especially if Joe doesn't choose to say anything about it.

Just trying to figure out if the chance for success is personal (i.e. someone watching you might still see you, while someone not watching wouldn't) or if it's a ON or OFF kind of thing where if you fail, everyone sees you, and anyone watching you increases the chance of failure.

I'm afraid I'm going to have to play the 'find out IC' card.  We don't want to give out exactly how all of this works.  The helpfile spells out that having someone watch you affects your chance of success.  I'll say again that hide is one of the places where watch got one of it's most powerful abilities, and leave it at that.

[jmordetsky]

I seriously doubt that players enter the game without knowing how to steal proof themselves as if they need to learn in game or from me making a post.  It's not as though other MUDs don't have a steal code.  I'm also not an advocate of "blaming the victim" either, nor am I an advocate of blaming the thief come to think of it.  I'm an advocate of blaming the code (which has always been in favor of the victim, 10 times moreso now).

I'm not looking for a game where people are constantly losing every single item and the entire MUD becomes one big steal fest.  But when you implement a code which makes yourself 100% invincible, I simply cannot agree with any argument that says steal is overpowered.  If that were the case, please explain to me by the same logic how steal prevention isn't overpowered.  Do that, and you have a plausible argument.

I don't think you are 100 percent invincible. Morg has commented that if you are watching someone and they do steal from you, they are a master theif. So I think this is improbable but not impossible.

Secondly, I stole shit *tons* of cash from the "closed" backpacked people, even when their coins were in the closed backpack. You just have to get them to open it up for a certain period of time. The rest is my personal trick, so I'm not going to reveal it, but suffice to say it was a little unfair because the person had no way to protect themselves accept to *not* deal with me, which is just shit.

Third, you can only watch one person at a time, which makes infers pickpockets just as powerful as they were before if they work in pairs.

All watch does is even things out for the victim where applicable, and force pickpockets to do a little more ground work before they are invincable gear grabbing machines.

Last but not least, for everyone shouting that pickpockets got nerfed, there is someone asking for more nerfing. Ala:

http://www.zalanthas.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=18646

Leading me believe that things are right where they need to be.

All that said, the character I mentioned above whom I loved dearly and who such an adept theif was killed as a result of a failed steal shortly after the watch code was implemented. Still, I think it was a need change.

[Aldiel]

Well, the true question is ... how many characters as of yet shifted their watch from some person you think is a thief to a character of the sex of your preference, just because you enjoyed watching them? If there is atleast one such person, praise be to armageddon to gather such good players. But the odds are not high even for this mud.

Actually, I've had my characters only watch one person because I thought they were trying to steal from me since the code change.  I have watched ladies, though, because they're cute.

[grog]

I leer at the ladies all the time.   The watch skill was put in for something else too? :twisted:

[steps lightly kank]

As I said in the original post and a few times since, the only 'watch' feedback I intended to discuss here was relating to 'hide', and to some extent 'sneak' - not 'steal'.

Morgenes said:

I'll say again that hide is one of the places where watch got one of it's most powerful abilities, and leave it at that.

This is precisely what I am addressing in this thread.  I think the question stated somewhere above, about whether one person watching someone affects the chances of everyone in the room seeing the watched person hide, is a valid one.  If it needs to be asked and answered ICly, so be it.  

The overall tilt of my sentiment remains that a rogue's hide (and sneak) ability might have been hit a bit too hard by this code change.  In many ways it's too soon to tell, and hope the staff will be watching and willing to consider tweaks to get the balance just right if it does pan out that way.

Regarding the other thread this one spawned about a distract or elude watch skill, I am won over by Morgenes's argument that there are enough ways to do this already with the code.

As for watch and its effect on steal, that's a topic for another thread.  Personally, I don't have a problem at all with the penalties now facing that rogue skill.

[LoD]

The only rogues/thieves that are going to be affected by the "watch" command are the ones that approach their profession with a lazy attitude.  When I was playing my pick-pocket, the victims of my thefts were never even aware that I existed, much less that I had been in the room when the opportunity arose for me to strike.  

This came as a result of careful planning, coordination and execution.  I would often steal valuable items from normally closed backpacks of promiment figures in the city and sell them back through miscellaneous gutter rats, all the while keeping my identity secure so that I could continue to frequent the taverns and watch for my next victims.

If you are going to steal, kill or hide from someone, the only thing the "watch" skill will achieve is to keep you honest.  Most rogues proficient at their work won't even feel the effects of the watch skill, because the victim won't ever know they were involved until it's already too late.

-LoD

[Aldiel]

The only rogues/thieves that are going to be affected by the "watch" command are the ones that approach their profession with a lazy attitude.  When I was playing my pick-pocket, the victims of my thefts were never even aware that I existed, much less that I had been in the room when the opportunity arose for me to strike.  

This came as a result of careful planning, coordination and execution.  I would often steal valuable items from normally closed backpacks of promiment figures in the city and sell them back through miscellaneous gutter rats, all the while keeping my identity secure so that I could continue to frequent the taverns and watch for my next victims.

If you are going to steal, kill or hide from someone, the only thing the "watch" skill will achieve is to keep you honest.  Most rogues proficient at their work won't even feel the effects of the watch skill, because the victim won't ever know they were involved until it's already too late.

-LoD

Well stated LoD.  I agree.

[FightClub]

You know -- it seems to me the more crowded a place might be, the more difficult it's going to be to pick a certain person out, and watch them the entire time.  Especially if they're pulling the shifty dance, got the hood up, and know how to meld.  Yeah I agree, it is certainly too easy to fuck over pickpockets.  Even though in the crowd, they should have the advantage, cause shit, you're in some orgy of a mosh pit, bumping and grinding with 60 people all around you, Mr. Pickpocket is gonna walk away with some major cash -- or atleast a major case of Herpes.  HAHA.

[Intrepid]

I second FightClub.

Crowds should be great places for pickpockets and urban stealthmongers.

[jhunter]

Even though in the crowd, they should have the advantage, cause shit, you're in some orgy of a mosh pit, bumping and grinding with 60 people all around you

This sounds like the way it should be to me as well. It should be to the pickpocket's benefit if the room is crowded.

[Morgenes]

This is precisely what I am addressing in this thread.  I think the question stated somewhere above, about whether one person watching someone affects the chances of everyone in the room seeing the watched person hide, is a valid one.  If it needs to be asked and answered ICly, so be it.

On further ponderance I now see the issue you guys point out.  It appears I did indeed get carried away with penalties to hide if you're being watched.  I've now pulled the penalties that would affect your attempt to hide from others in the room.  This'll be going in likely Wednesday.

[Tlaloc]

Even though in the crowd, they should have the advantage, cause shit, you're in some orgy of a mosh pit, bumping and grinding with 60 people all around you

This sounds like the way it should be to me as well. It should be to the pickpocket's benefit if the room is crowded.

As per changes in this post from a few weeks ago, this is already in effect.

[jhunter]

Even though in the crowd, they should have the advantage, cause shit, you're in some orgy of a mosh pit, bumping and grinding with 60 people all around you

This sounds like the way it should be to me as well. It should be to the pickpocket's benefit if the room is crowded.

As per changes in this post from a few weeks ago, this is already in effect.

How is one supposed to tell the difference between "a crowd=good" and "a tight crowd=not"?
I would think that if the crowds are so packed it's a hinderance to you, that you would be able to tell.

[Tlaloc]

How is one supposed to tell the difference between "a crowd=good" and "a tight crowd=not"?
I would think that if the crowds are so packed it's a hinderance to you, that you would be able to tell.

1) Read room descriptions.
2) Use common sense.
3) Find out IC.

[jhunter]

Uhmmm...I don't think you're getting me exactly.

What I mean is...room descriptions don't differentiate between "a tight crowd" and "a crowd". At least none of them I can think of offhand do, they usually refer to it pretty generally as either there's people around or there's not.

Also, if there is a hard-coded difference impacting the way one deals with the world in those situations, I think there should be a hard-coded way to tell.

I think one should be able to "assess room".

>assess room

This area is packed tightly with many humanoids milling about.

>assess room

There are a few others moving through the area here and there.

>assess room

There's noone around that you can see.

*shrug*

Something like that.

[Larrath]

1) Read room descriptions.
2) Use common sense.
3) Find out IC.

1) Room descriptions will tell me if a room is crowded or densely crowded, though the line is very vague in many cases.  Is an Allanaki street crowded or very crowded?  The plaza in front of the Barrel is choke-full of people, but that doesn't tell me if it's coded as X or Y.

2) Common sense tells me that a very tight crowd would make stealing much easier and an extremely thin crowd would make stealing very difficult.

3) I'm not really happy with this instance of 'find out IC', honestly.  The answer should be, realistically, extremely obvious and trivial to answer and yet people are forced to jump through hoops to find out.  I think it's comparable to being told a character asking how high the Dragon Temple in Allanak is to find out IC by getting an NPC white-robed templar animated so he can ask them.


I propose a settlement:
The success of Assess Crowd will be directly tied to the Steal skill of the character.  Better thieves will be more likely to correctly assess whether the tribe will help or interfere with their efforts.

Possible results:
Success - the crowd looks favorable/unfavorable for stealing.
Good failure - you cannot make a good assessment of the crowd.
Bad failure - reverse message from success.
Crit failure - to room: $n looks around shiftily.  Close your packs quick.

[Morgenes]

How is one supposed to tell the difference between "a crowd=good" and "a tight crowd=not"?
I would think that if the crowds are so packed it's a hinderance to you, that you would be able to tell.

There's a slight misconception here, being in a tight crowd is not 'bad', it's just not as good as being in a crowd.  Being in any crowd is generally better than in no crowd at all.  Stop reading so much into this.

[jhunter (2l2l)]

Alrighty, I just wanted clarification on it. I still think an assess <blah> command to tell the approximate population density of city rooms would be cool though.

[bloodfromstone]

I understand that we don't want to make it too easy for people to know where is steal-safe and where isn't, but, really, it should not be hard to know how many people are around. I've seen descs that say things like this:

A Dusty Side Street
This street cuts away from the hustle and bustle of the main road. It is dusty, too. It's pretty quiet, but a few people filter down the road occasionally.
A guy is here, needing to be stolen from.
Another guy is here, also looking pretty nickable.

Now, I, as the player, don't know if the last line refers to the two guys who are standing there or not. It might mean that there is a small, virtual crowd all of the time. It might mean that one or two people wander down the street every 5 minutes. The latter is what I would assume. So let's see it in action...

emote leans against the wall of a building, carefully chipping away some of his small chunk of obsidian.
pemote eyes flicker up and down the street, taken in the quiet, dusty-blown road.
think Looks good. Here's my chance.
emote tucks his obsidian chunk into his pocket, pushing from the wall as ~guy walks past.
tell guy (as he clumsily stumbles into !guy) Oh, Krath, apologies, mate!
steal codpiece guy
Hundreds of passerby turn to stare at you in shock, and they all begin calling the militia on their cellphones, their voices echoing up and down the somewhat crowded streets.
A human soldier arrives from the south.
A human soldier arrives from the south.
A human soldier arrives from the south.
think How the fuck'd I miss them? Uh oh.
A human soldier slashes you on the eyeball, doing horrendous damage.

The point of this longwinded exercise? It is often easy to misinterpret the room descs. The idea of 'a few people', etc. are relative. I'm not necessarily for the idea of people able to assess to know whether a room is steal safe or not, but 'find out IC'? ICly, I should know if a street is empty. ICly, I don't know that my last three thieves got axed in Dusty Side Street, Sandy Side Street, and Gritty Side Street, but I imagine that is how the good pickpockets learned. They OOCly know that Dusty Side Street is not crim-safe, so they emote it properly. Their character knows that there are people there (as they should) because of their prior experience.
Maybe I misinterpretted what the 'Find out IC' was directed at, or maybe I'm overreacting, but I hate seeing that response directed at things that are not, in fact, learned IC, but learned OOCly (again, not saying this is a bad thing), then applied to the IG world.

[Anonymous]

I think that the "tightness" of the crowd should be split.  

The tighter a crowd is, the better chance at making a steal should be.  If you are stuffed shoulder to shoulder, stealing should be much easier, period.  If you have ever been pick pocketed at a concert, you know why.  If people are constantly bumping into you, even the most clumsy pick pocket stands a fair chance.

In the case of escaping, things should change a little.  A very tight crowd means that your ability to run is impared.  This means that if someone looks up you are not going to get away before they see your face.  For escape, a moderate crowd is ideal.  You want enough people that you only need to back off a few feet to blend in, but you don't want to be packed in so tightly that you can't move.

Finally, on an unrelated note, for the love of god, could we please get something other then daggers to steal in Allanak?  Bread, a handful of coins, tools, ANYTHING except daggers.  Being a pick pocket in Allanak makes you never want to look at another dagger ever again.

[Hymwen]

Finally, on an unrelated note, for the love of god, could we please get something other then daggers to steal in Allanak? Bread, a handful of coins, tools, ANYTHING except daggers. Being a pick pocket in Allanak makes you never want to look at another dagger ever again.

Yeah, totally. From my pickpocket days (a month ago or so) I remember how annoying this was. I made a mental list of NPCs with stealable items, and out of about 20 NPCs, 12-15 of them were daggers, knives or shortswords of some kind. I could just imagine the Salarr weapon guy thinking "Krath, here comes the dagger girl again..."

[Delirium]

Bloodfromstone:
Try looking both ways to make sure there aren't any soldiers nearby?

[Agent_137]

Bloodfromstone:
Try looking both ways to make sure there aren't any soldiers nearby?

regardless, I think he was speaking to the fact that he was immediately tagged by the passersby when the room desc said there were few to none.

Of course, I think the level of a crowd just means when you fail you have a higher chance of them noticing. So even if the crowd was small, he was just unlucky.

[slipshod]

This is all based on the assumption that the number of VNPCs in a room does indeed affect sneak, hide, steal, and other such sneaky skills.

Rather than implementing a whole new command for players to check the status of individual rooms, I think the staff should just go through and double-check that the language of the room descs matches their coded status.
Some rooms might have had their descriptions written up long ago, and even the in-game demographics of the area might have changed since.

Either way, it's a lot of busy work for the staff, but just verifying that the rooms have accurate descriptions is a little less work than putting in a command for players to doube-check.