Comments on recent changes to sneak and hide system

[Yang]

I just wanted to point out something, and give my thanks to Morgenes about this most recent change to the hide/sneak system... coming from a person who enjoys playing rogues more than any other class.

The earlier new changes to rogues came as a surprise, and there were new advantages and disadvantages to being able to stay hidden while actually moving, even though each room checked for success. This altered the dynamics for sneaky types, creating a subtle, but very fresh environment which has altered, and will continue to alter, the way the game is played for everyone, rogue or not.

Now these most recent changes ( http://www.zalanthas.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=22098 ) seem to limit certain things that were recently discovered to be out of sorts. We all know that rogue classes tend to sometimes abuse their skills. But in this case, no one had any point of reference really, for what was abuse, or not, as the way the skill worked itself was very new, and precedents had not been set.

Rather than gripe about the change, I would much rather see coded changes to any potentially abused skill, hands down, than immortals pointing their fingers at players and telling them they are horrible twinks and abusers. Naturally, sometimes this is not possible, and a player must learn what is acceptable, and what is not (no matter how new or old that player is to the game).

When it is possible to make adjustments to the code to prevent 'abuse' (which sometimes is just 'use' especially when there is no precendent, documentation or whatever) I am 100% in support, even if it 'disadvantages' my character. Because quite frankly, it will keep me out of trouble, and make things more fair, and balanced, without every player having to watch themselves over it. When players have to police themselves over something, some abuse is caught, and some is not. With code, all abuse is managed, for good.

Morgenes knows how awesome I think he is, and this is no exception. Thank you, and I hope to see more adjustments where necessary, rather than ever hearing anyone cry 'abuse' when some poor rogue is just trying to get a handle on the way their skills work.

[daedroug]

We also fixed a bug that allowed high-speed hiding and moving room to room, sneakers beware, you need to take your time if you want to stay hidden.

out of curiousity does this mean that the longer you stay in the room before moving on the better the chance at succeeding at staying hidden once you do?

[bardbard#4]

I actually disagree with the recent change that was made to hide/sneak.  I think a change needed to be made, but that was the wrong one.

Instead of just reducing the effectiveness of the skills when carrying a large object (such as a body), two modifiers should come into play.  One, add a stamina penalty.  Two, increase the lag in between rooms.

This is a much more natural, neutral penalty that still makes the sneaking difficult, more time consuming, but not impossible.

[Armaddict]

I actually imagine holding a large object, PARTICULARLY something like a body...would likely just make sneaking a helluva lot harder.

Do it at night time and stick to side roads when possible.  Heh.

[Nusku]

There are plenty of coded things you can do that are still poor roleplay. "But the code let me do it!" is not adequate justification for an action that makes no sense. We cannot possibly restrict every potential way that players might find to abuse the code. And really, we'd like to think we can trust players to use common sense and not abuse code. For the most part, it seems like players do use their heads.

I would much rather see coded changes to any potentially abused skill

Even if something comes along that we deem necessary to address in the code, that's certainly not mutually exclusive with us pointing out to players that what they were doing before was bad. Hopefully, players will use that information to their benefit and try to avoid similar things in the future.

[Sanvean]

I don't think anyone on staff believes in "the code let me do it" as a defense of actions, although it is commonly used.  The code lets you do all sorts of things, including emoting having your eyes burst into flame, and yet I would not want to see this in daily practice.

My preferred test for whether or not an action is okay is to figure out whether the action makes sense or not.  If it's something that can be interpreted in multiple ways, it's good to try to indicate your line of thought through emotes, thinks, and feelings.

For example,  the guy a few years back who roleplayed out suiciding by jumping off the Shield Wall.  No problem there.  But in order to accomplish it, he had to do it multiple times.  Okay, maybe he was so determined that he kept dragging his injured form back up the rocks to fall again, but I'd like to see a couple of emotes indicating that.  Maybe even an "Ow." thought or feeling.

[Yang]

I am uncertain where "the code let me do it" quote is coming from, because I'm not sure I see it in this thread. Certainly the code lets you do lots of things, and the code prevents you from doing other things.

I will attempt to sum my point up, so that it is absolutely 100% clear I am not taking the "code let me do it" quotable stance:


In a choice between arbitrary, undocumented, unprecedented, spur of the moment condemnations of someone's use of code that is very new, in terms of Arm's history, I would rather see the proper adjustments to this new code, rather than immediate accusations of abuse over whatever that code might be.

Does the action make sense? To some people, an action makes perfect sense, while from another viewpoint, it can be confusing. What is the code's role in potential situations where disagreement as to what is 'believable' and what is not: to be unconfusing, specific, clear and final.

Therefor, in my personal opinion about the recent change, I applaud it, and believe that it will -prevent- not only deliberate abuse, but innocent and accidental abuse on the part of players trying to roleplay potentially high-blood-pressure causing-scenarios, and unable to think completely straight.

At no point have I tried to take on "the code let me do it" stance and hope that this is not what is percieved from my attempts at communicating clearly. One out of context line is not enough to make this assumption about what I am saying.