A Note for Sneaky Types

[Synthesis]

A long time ago, checking your inventory (typing 'i') while hidden would break your hide status.  Apparently this was a bug, and they've since fixed it.

After running a few tests, I've come to the conclusion that typing 'eq' still breaks your hide status.  (Yes, I bugrepped it in game already.)

This is a big discovery for me, since I'm a fairly paranoid eq checker.

So, all you elite sneaky types out there who keep getting spotted...next time you can't remember if you're wielding your terradin knife or your grishen knife, do a "look self" instead of 'eq' to check.

[mansa]

And..

'Stand' breaks your hide.  Which I like, because I want some command that -does- break your hide.

It also resets your ldesc.

[LauraMars]

"Vis" breaks your hide, but to those who are hiding it says "you are not invisible!" but your hide is still broken so it makes me uncomfortable to type "vis."

I still use it though, what's up with that.

[Ghost]

look does not break the hide, but exa/examine does.

So you may look/look in and stay hidden, but you should not examine

[cyberpatrol_735]

I believe watch also breaks hide status.

[LauraMars]

Typing 'exits' breaks your hide.

[Pantoufle]

Oh yeah, well typing 'moan' breaks hide and it's not even a command!

How d'ya like them apples!

[Agent_137]

why the shit isn't this all documented?

or at least a list of hide approved commands?

this is the "guess the command" mini-game, and doesn't belong in an RPI.

[Rindan]

why the shit isn't this all documented?

or at least a list of hide approved commands?

this is the "guess the command" mini-game, and doesn't belong in an RPI.

The entire hide system is really[/b] poorly documented at the moment.  Not only is there a game of 'guess the commands', but there is also some ambiguity as to  how hide actually works.  Sneak and hide got changed, but as far as I can tell, the help files did not.

So, here is a simple question.  Under the new hide system  you can (from what I understand) hide, then sneak.  The question is, how in the hell does this actually work?  Do you do a hide check in each room as you move?  Does failing a sneak check un-hide you?  If you get un-hidden, do you try and rehide the next time you move?

The reason why this is important is because it determines how you play.  If once you fail a sneak or hide you unhide and stay unhidden, then that means that you should occasionally re-hide... providing that trying to hide again doesn't  un-hide you before re-hiding you.

The mechanics matter a great deal in this case, as if you misunderstand the mechanics you could change from sneaking across the city unseen, or  you could wander out in the city perfectly in the open without knowing it.  

I personally wouldn't mind some clarification as to how in the hell hide and sneak actually work these days.  Playing guess and check to figure out game mechanics with the city guard is less then appealing.

[LauraMars]

Oh, FYI. Watch doesn't break hide now.

[flurry]

I'm all for stuff like this being documented.

I shudder to think of how this kind of thing was discovered.  

OOC: Can you see me now?  

OOC: How about now?

OOC: Now?

:?

[Vessol]

I agree with Rindan, it's confusing.

[Gimfalisette]

So, here is a simple question.  Under the new hide system  you can (from what I understand) hide, then sneak.  The question is, how in the hell does this actually work?  Do you do a hide check in each room as you move?  Does failing a sneak check un-hide you?  If you get un-hidden, do you try and rehide the next time you move?

When you hide, then sneak (or the reverse, doesn't matter as long as you do them in the same room), you do not do a hide check in each room. You do a sneak check, and if your sneak is successful, then you stay hidden. Failing sneak breaks hide. If you break hide, you must re-hide to be hidden again.

For a character with maxed (or near-maxed) sneak/hide, it is very possible to hide and then sneak all the way across a city without breaking now. It's very viable to be crim flagged now and evade jail time this way. There are ways to test in game whether or not you are able to do this, even if you're not crim flagged.

[cyberpatrol_735]

I'm all for stuff like this being documented.

I shudder to think of how this kind of thing was discovered.  

OOC: Can you see me now?  

OOC: How about now?

OOC: Now?

:?

Play hide and seek with some random NPC hunting you.

Sneak in, wait, player looks at you, think bah.. not hidden.

Never used ooc.

[Agent_137]

Also, I assume, if a mugger makes a comment about you, well, he can see you. Good way to check.

[Agent_137]

Also, I assume, if a mugger makes a comment about you, well, he can see you. Good way to check.

[Morgenes]

Staying hidden while moving requires strong stealth abilities.

To me that implies you get a sneak check to stay hidden while moving.  If you fail, you are revealed.  The other comments in this thread offering IC ways to check your hide status are valid options.

[Rindan]

Staying hidden while moving requires strong stealth abilities.

To me that implies you get a sneak check to stay hidden while moving.  If you fail, you are revealed.  The other comments in this thread offering IC ways to check your hide status are valid options.

That is a pretty archaic word to coded interpretation.  This is something that should be spelled out pretty clearly in plain English.  The reason for this is simple.  

Say I am moderately skilled at hiding and sneaking.  I want to sneak from one side of the city to the other.  ICly, I know exactly what I want to do.  I want to move from the Gaj to the 'rinth and be as inconspicuous about it as possible.  There is not a slim chance in hell you are going to figure out how to code wise from the help files.  Common sense thinking using the help files would tell you to type hide once, sneak once, and then walk from the Gaj to the 'rinth.  In reality, what you REALLY want to do is hide, sneak, and stop every few rooms to re-hide because you might have failed a sneak and come un-hidden.  Even with the information on this thread, it is still not entirely clear what to do.  Does typing 'hide' while hidden cause you to come un-hidden?  If it does, you want to be some place 'safe' each time you try to re-hide.

The code works in an archaic fashion.  It should be that you type in one command and your character knows enough to do whatever it takes to stay hidden during his entire trip.  Instead, we have a code that is working in an obscure way that no one is likely to understand without resorting to some OOC trickery and some OOC testing.  It is not clear from the help file that if you try and sneak/hide, you do it for a while until you fail, and then you need to 'refresh' or attempt.

I am sympathetic to the archaic code and the less-then-logical way that sneak/hide work.  I know the system is rigged together with ducttape and pieces of Duki code.  That is exactly why the mechanics should be well documented.  The challenge of sneaking should be an IC one, not an OOC challenge of 'guess the game mechanics it takes to make your character do what you want to do ICly'.  I personally feel sorry for the poor n00b that relies on help files you tries to do some simple things like sneak from point A to point B or check his inventory.  That poor n00b is going to burn through more then one character before getting even an inkling as to how the code works.

[Gimfalisette]

Say I am moderately skilled at hiding and sneaking.  I want to sneak from one side of the city to the other.  ICly, I know exactly what I want to do.  I want to move from the Gaj to the 'rinth and be as inconspicuous about it as possible.  There is not a slim chance in hell you are going to figure out how to code wise from the help files.  Common sense thinking using the help files would tell you to type hide once, sneak once, and then walk from the Gaj to the 'rinth.  In reality, what you REALLY want to do is hide, sneak, and stop every few rooms to re-hide because you might have failed a sneak and come un-hidden.  Even with the information on this thread, it is still not entirely clear what to do.  Does typing 'hide' while hidden cause you to come un-hidden?  If it does, you want to be some place 'safe' each time you try to re-hide.

The code works in an archaic fashion.  It should be that you type in one command and your character knows enough to do whatever it takes to stay hidden during his entire trip.  Instead, we have a code that is working in an obscure way that no one is likely to understand without resorting to some OOC trickery and some OOC testing.  It is not clear from the help file that if you try and sneak/hide, you do it for a while until you fail, and then you need to 'refresh' or attempt.

I am sympathetic to the archaic code and the less-then-logical way that sneak/hide work.  I know the system is rigged together with ducttape and pieces of Duki code.  That is exactly why the mechanics should be well documented.  The challenge of sneaking should be an IC one, not an OOC challenge of 'guess the game mechanics it takes to make your character do what you want to do ICly'.  I personally feel sorry for the poor n00b that relies on help files you tries to do some simple things like sneak from point A to point B or check his inventory.  That poor n00b is going to burn through more then one character before getting even an inkling as to how the code works.

While I agree that the help files are not actually very helpful on this issue and could be a lot clearer, I was able to figure out how the code works by reading the posts from when the changes were made last year. So it's not impossible for someone new to sneaky stuff to figure this out, it's just challenging.

When I have taught noobs about sneaky stuff in game, I always teach them about sneak and hide and admonish them "Don't commit any crimes until you know you can get all the way across the city without being seen!" Then I hide/sneak and drag them along to me to the kind of location you can't get into without successfully sneak/hiding, by way of demonstration. IMO, noobs shouldn't be trying to get into sneaky stuff without buddying up to someone who can help them. And really, there's plenty of people around who can and will help. Heck, if you're playing a noob sneaky in Tuluk, just go ask a Lirathan to pal you up with someone.

If your character is good enough at sneaking and hiding, then it really IS a matter of just typing those commands in once and being able to roam at will without detection. But it also makes sense to me that if you're not good enough, you'll become unhidden, which is the way it works now.

The quick test while you're on the street for knowing if you're still hidden? "Look" at an NPC. Notice that there is a different message to you when you're hidden versus unhidden.

If you are hidden, typing "hide" will not make you unhidden, but it will re-hide you...so if you fail at your re-hide, then you're not hidden anymore.

[a strange shadow]

I think the 'look' thing is a bug, and I've bugged it at least once.

You should not be able to tell if you're hidden unless an N/PC reacts to you.

[Jherlen]

I agree with the shadow, and I have been hoping someone would fix that before it got posted on the GDB...

.... too late.

[Morgenes]

The code works in an archaic fashion.  It should be that you type in one command and your character knows enough to do whatever it takes to stay hidden during his entire trip.  Instead, we have a code that is working in an obscure way that no one is likely to understand without resorting to some OOC trickery and some OOC testing.  It is not clear from the help file that if you try and sneak/hide, you do it for a while until you fail, and then you need to 'refresh' or attempt.

If you were walking around on the streets, trying not to be noticed, how would you know if you weren't noticed?   How do you know you need to work harder at hiding, or blending in with the crowd?  Might it be that someone somehow reacts to your presence?  Or do you 'just know' and subconsciously hide yourself again without realizing you were detected?

Hide and sneak, as currently implemented in Armageddon are pretty far from Diku or antiquated.  They work as they are intended to.  Not an easy skill to master, but when you are good enough and if you are smart enough, they are very powerful skills when used in combination.

Also, while sneak and hide are OFTEN used in conjuction, you don't HAVE to use them together.  If you move quickly enough, sneaking without hiding is almost as good as being invisible.  [Edited to add against PCs mainly]

Thanks for the heads up on that bug, it'll be fixed next reboot.

Edited again to add that help files that are ambiguous or only give hints at the way things work are intentional.  Part of the mystery of Armageddon is learning how everything truly works.  If we spelled everything out to you, where would the challenge be in that?

[Rindan]

If you were walking around on the streets, trying not to be noticed, how would you know if you weren't noticed?   How do you know you need to work harder at hiding, or blending in with the crowd?  Might it be that someone somehow reacts to your presence?  Or do you 'just know' and subconsciously hide yourself again without realizing you were detected?

Consider the obvious scenario.  I just committed a crime.  I need to sneak/hide my way to the 'rinth.  Along the way there are a handful of militia and normal civilians.  I start sneak/hiding my way.  I pass one soldier without incident because I blended in well.  As I am moving down the street, I suddenly fail a sneak.  A civilian NPC sees me, but doesn't care.  I continue on.

Under the current system, for the entire trip after I have failed, I am now visible.  Having failed one sneak, my hide is lost for the entire trip.  The longer your trip, the more likely you are to drop your hide for the entire trip.  In fact, once you are past the guards (assuming you didn't run into any, as you are actually visible at this point), you would still be merrily wandering through the 'rinth without hide on.  This doesn't make any IC sense what-so-ever.  Failing to conceal yourself once should result in you being visible for that one failure, not for the rest of your 50 room journey.  

It kinda-sorta makes sense that if you are shadowing someone, being spotted once means that they see you for now on, but it makes no sense that being spotted once on one side of the city means that you are always spotted on the other side.

Clearly, the wise thing to do if you are less then perfect in hiding/sneaking is to stop every few rooms and re-hide.  If you are making a true effort to remain stealthy, then just because for one section of one street you looked conspicuous doesn't mean that you look conspicuous as you make your way through the rest of the city.

Personally, I think that the code should spell out that one sneak failure results in un-hiding you, or the code should be altered such that hide is a toggle.  If hiding is 'on', you roll a skill check in each room and remain hidden if you succeed.  If you fail the hide check, no warning is given, but everyone can see you.  When you move to another room, you roll the skill check again.  

Under the current system (from my understanding), a less-then-perfect sneak/hider moves a few rooms, fails a sneak, and from that point on is visible.  Under the proposed system, someone who is a poor sneak/hider would appear and disappear as they fail or don't fail their hide/sneak checks moving from room to room.  Personally, I find this more realistic then having on failed sneak check result in being visible if you wander over to the other side of the city.

Edited again to add that help files that are ambiguous or only give hints at the way things work are intentional. Part of the mystery of Armageddon is learning how everything truly works. If we spelled everything out to you, where would the challenge be in that?

Uh, the "challenge" would be role playing IC actions in the world.  The challenge should not be puzzling out which damn mystery buttons you need to OOCly push to get your character to take a very simple IC action.  Trying to sneaking down a street in a manner that soldiers will not notice you is a simple IC goal.  The poorly documented OOC complexities behind it don't add mystery in any good sense of the word.  Not use hyperbole, but if you really want to inject 'mystery' in the game by this logic, we should take out the detailed help files on emoting or how to interact with NPC merchants.  That too would add mystery to the game in that people could not get there character to ICly do what they want them to do.  Personally, I don't consider that to be a good thing.

Let's save mystery for the IC game world, not for deciphering which OOC commands you have to pump into the game to get your character to do IC things.

[Pantoufle]

How do I know if I'm hidden when I try to hide?  Uhm, shouldn't it be obvious?

All other skills operate on the idea that in order to get better at something you must fail at it - and therefore, you must KNOW you're failing at it.  By this logic, no one's sneak/hide skills should ever advance since we don't really know if we're failing or not.  For this reason, I never understood why stealth types were prevented from knowing when their skills work.  It seems pretty obvious to me.  If I slip behind a thicket of shrubs in the real world, I think I'm going to at least have SOME idea how much cover I have.  Okay, yeah.  Sure, sure. Maybe I won't be 100% certain I am completely camouflaged, but for all the reasons stated above, I'd say that a code where you are 100% sure when the skill works or not is more realistic than the current code (where 100% of the time you don't have the foggiest idea if it's working).

I'm very interested to hear the rationale behind how exactly we're not supposed to know if we're hidden successfully or not and how (if at all) this is meant to be realistic.

[Agent_137]

I agree with Rindan, though I'd be happy to have the improved coded socked away for arma 2.

[Folker]

How do I know if I'm hidden when I try to hide?  Uhm, shouldn't it be obvious?

All other skills operate on the idea that in order to get better at something you must fail at it - and therefore, you must KNOW you're failing at it.  By this logic, no one's sneak/hide skills should ever advance since we don't really know if we're failing or not.  For this reason, I never understood why stealth types were prevented from knowing when their skills work.  It seems pretty obvious to me.

You hide behind the couch, but your feet are sticking out. Your vision is obscured mostly due to your own cover, but the vision of others in the room arent obscured. They look at your dangling feet and giggle inwardly, pretending they didnt notice you. Question ... do you know if you're hidden or not?

[Pantoufle]

You hide behind the couch, but your feet are sticking out. Your vision is obscured mostly due to your own cover, but the vision of others in the room arent obscured. They look at your dangling feet and giggle inwardly, pretending they didnt notice you. Question ... do you know if you're hidden or not?

I'm fairly certain that, in the real world, were I to seek out a place to hide I could do so with 90% certainty that I am out of sight.  I could do this and more or less KNOW that I am successfully hidden.  And I don't even have the hide skill in real life!  Yet all the while people in ArmageddonMUD with honed stealth skills can never be certain if they are successfully tucked away, unseen.  In your example with the couch, anyone with half a brain is going to take a moment to make sure that no appendages are noticably sticking out.

But the real flaw in this discussion is this.  If the code is meant to reflect the fact that people learn from their mistakes, then by what logic can anyone increase their sneak/hide skill?  After all, they don't know for certain if they are hidden or sneaking successfully.  So how then can they actually "learn from their mistakes"?  There is no counter-argument to this statement except smoke and mirrors.

[Agent_137]

[Morgenes]

But the real flaw in this discussion is this.  If the code is meant to reflect the fact that people learn from their mistakes, then by what logic can anyone increase their sneak/hide skill?  After all, they don't know for certain if they are hidden or sneaking successfully.  So how then can they actually "learn from their mistakes"?  There is no counter-argument to this statement except smoke and mirrors.

You know when you've failed your sneak/hide when someone notices you.  Therefore you can learn.  Ignore the smoke and mirrors I put up that explain why you don't get a failure message when you fail a sneak check or hide check, but somehow your inner conscious does know and you learn.

[Folker]

At the same time, what you say is not exactly how the code works though. Or atleast how I understood it. It's been mentioned here already.

Say there is a long street through which you're sneaking through.  Now if you'll compare the code in Armageddon and ... a code of reality (what an odd notion), there'll be some significant difference.

In reality, your sneaking would be succesful in 'all' of those rooms, providing you chose the succsesful method of hiding and sneaking in the beginning of the street and stuck to it. So when you sneak along the corridor, it will not be 'you' making rolls per each section of the street, it will be all others who you're sneaking by who will perform a roll on whether or not they see you. If they see you, they have the option of reacting to you, or ignoring you completely which is very likely. But only because you've been seen does not mean you failed your sneak/hide, it just means that the person who saw you succeeded in his own perception roll. So even if you're seen by dozens of people and none of them chose to uncover you, point at you, cut you to ribbons, letting you just sneak by, it does not mean that the next ten people will see you unless they too made a successfull perception roll.  Even though the act of hiding and sneaking was singular in the beginning of the street.

While in Armageddon, as you sneak along the street and are noticed by a singular character and he failed to react to you, suddenly you become visible by all, even though your method of movement, sneaking, and hiding did not alter (afterall, you didnt know you were noticed since the character ignored you).

Personally, it would be better in my opinion for hide/sneak to be 100% successfull all the time. Leaving the success rolls to characters who the person is sneaking/hiding by. The skill increases can be given per each person who succeeds their perception roll.

Though perhaps sneaking should have a secondary roll of critical failure, the bad result of which would make the person visible in a manner obvious to the one hiding. Like tripping, making an obvious audible noise, etc. Something that would be so obvious that the cover's blown, their movement state turns from (sneaking) to (walking) in their prompt.

[Synthesis]

If you are hidden, and you type "hide" again, you will temporarily unhide while you're looking for a new spot.  This is contrary to what someone else posted, earlier.

This is somewhat intuitive, but of course it has some implications for sneak/hide strategies.  (If my old post on the topic--from when the change was first implemented--is still around, take a look at it and you'll see what I mean.)

[spawnloser]

But the real flaw in this discussion is this.  If the code is meant to reflect the fact that people learn from their mistakes, then by what logic can anyone increase their sneak/hide skill?  After all, they don't know for certain if they are hidden or sneaking successfully.  So how then can they actually "learn from their mistakes"?  There is no counter-argument to this statement except smoke and mirrors.

You know when you've failed your sneak/hide when someone notices you.  Therefore you can learn.  Ignore the smoke and mirrors I put up that explain why you don't get a failure message when you fail a sneak check or hide check, but somehow your inner conscious does know and you learn.

Actually, Morgenes, you'll know when you've failed when a _PC_ uses a command that targets you _and_ that command has an echo that you can see.

Two problems with this.  First, the PC only issue.  Second, the 'you gotta be a target' issue.

To address the first, NPCs don't look at other characters like PCs do, but they should.  They may as well be statues most of the time for the lack of realistic things they should do, most of the time.  We are expected to keep in mind the game world at all times, but the game world ignores us for most of our playtime.

On to the second, we don't always look at people, target them in emotes or whatever else may echo.  We see someone we have seen before walk in and we don't care if they've changed, so we don't use the 'look' command...but you know what?  We the players still saw that person enter.  We know that person is there and there is no way for the sneaky person to know.

Honestly, we get an unrealistically small amount of feedback on how well our characters are doing when they are using sneak and hide.  I have to agree with Pantoufle on this one.

[Pantoufle]

You know when you've failed your sneak/hide when someone notices you. Therefore you can learn. Ignore the smoke and mirrors I put up that explain why you don't get a failure message when you fail a sneak check or hide check, but somehow your inner conscious does know and you learn.

Arguably speaking then one could only increase their skill on the occasions when their sneak/hide is given away by any (conveniently PC only) onlookers.  On all other occasions, since you don't know if it's working or not, technically you're not "learning" -- that is, if we are to adopt the philosophy that one learns from their mistakes.

But, fair enough, there has to be a line drawn somewhere and no code can be implemented without its unrealistic quirks showing up somewhere along the line.  Since there would be no way (that I know of) to code a situation where your skill advances only when a PC reveals that your hide attempt has failed, well, what can ya do?  Accept the situation as it is, I suppose.  It still seemed like an observation worth mentioning.

However, I still think that it is feasible to know if you are successfully hiding or not.  If my arm is sticking out amongst the bushes I'm ducking behind then, unless I'm just not very bright, I think I'll be conscious of my poor state of camouflage.  How do I know if the basket I've crafted is successful or not?  I look at it.  How do I know if I'm hidden well or not?  I simply have a look round -- anyone versed in the art of stealth should be knowledged enough to gauge their position in comparison with the surrounding area.

[Desertman]

Yeah, I have to agree with the masses on this one.

When I play Oblivion, I dont sit quietly and wait to see if the NPC notices me, I am not stupid, I am smart enough to move around that column, or that rock, between the two of us to keep myself out of sight. I dont need for someone to see me, to know that if I dont continue to check where he is in relation to where I am that I am not hidden.

The way it works now, and based on suggestions above, basically you are playing the worst game of hide and seek ever.....

The blue-eyed man sits on top of a rock, blatantly visible to everyone.

The blue-eyed man thinks: I wonder if I am hidden...I R A TARD.

Everyone sees the blue-eyed man and laughs.

The blue-eyed man inches over twice on the rock, still obviously visible to everyone, obvious to everyone but himself of course.

The blue-eyed man thinks: I wonder if I am hidden now, lets see if those people right there who are looking straight at me can see me...I R A TARD.


Everyone laughs yet again.


The blue-eyed man gains .0000001% of a skill increase....sadly, he is now off to jail for having been caught by everyone, but, mostly because he is acting like a complete fucktard.



That is basically how it currently works, I definantly see the error.

[Morfeus]

Last I was LARPing, I was trying to hide in a dark corner of a coridor. I seriously thought it's a good hiding spot, even when my clothes weren't perfect for hiding. Someone passed around without looking at me and I thought Oh! Cool! I'll sit here until I catch my breath... until The Worst Enemy ran in and captured me there - without slightest trouble to find me.

So, I have no problem with "only PC would point out you failed hiding". People don't pay attention to people who are trying to hide - unless the hiding one is very obvious or unless they seek for them.

And about learning - I'd take it as "learning from practice" here, not strictly "learning from mistakes". Yeah, if you know you failed - you learn. But half of times you are not sure if you failed or not, you are just getting better in finding good hiding spots - at least irl it works like that.

Just IMHO, of course.

[Pantoufle]

It sounds to me like you were successfully hiding, Morf, but your pursuer was using 'scan'.  

In the real world, anyone and everyone can hide and know they are hidden succesfully to the naked eye.  People who are scanning don't count since they are actively looking for you.  To all others, you really are invisible.

[joyofdiscord]

To everyone thinking it's easy to know if you're hidden in real life: are you a shifty bastard in real life?  I am.  Have you tried to blend into the crowd at a bar so someone you know wouldn't notice you're there?  It's hard!  That person may simply choose not to tip you off that they notice you, even though they do.

Even in such a seemingly foolproof situation as, say, hiding under someone's bed, you don't know what clues you may inadvertantly be leaving.  What if you scuffed up the carpet in some noticeable fashion while you slid under the bed?  What if your breathing is more conspicuous than you thought?  Plus, hey, realistically, a single "scan" in an apartment room or similar location should reveal all hidden persons with no skill check, since there's only so many places they can hide.

I'm all for sneakies being powerful, but letting them know if they're successfully hidden is far, far too powerful.  That sort of ability would have to be balanced by having failed hides echo to the room (an idea I detest).  And it would still be too powerful because you could still spam hide in rooms where you were "alone".

[Agent_137]

if you gave sneakies a fool proof way to know if they've hidden at any given time, you'd have to give everyone scan to compensate.

Otherwise, they could, as joy mentioned, just spam it until they're hidden and then half the pbase can't find them, no matter their skill level.

[spawnloser]

Actually, I propose a NOT foolproof way.  Give them a skill-check to find out.  Make it difficult.  Make it a sliding difficulty, actually.

On a critical fail, they think they're hiding but aren't.
On a normal fail, they are told they don't know.
On a normal success, they are told they are not hiding if not, but if hiding they are told that they don't know.
On a critical success, they are told they are hiding if they are and not hiding if they're not.

...and like I said, don't make it easy.  And the beauty is, just because they know they're hiding doesn't mean they know whether that dude over there with scan can see them until that dude with scan gives a sign.

[Yang]

Actually, I propose a NOT foolproof way.  Give them a skill-check to find out.  Make it difficult.  Make it a sliding difficulty, actually.

On a critical fail, they think they're hiding but aren't.
On a normal fail, they are told they don't know.
On a normal success, they are told they are not hiding if not, but if hiding they are told that they don't know.
On a critical success, they are told they are hiding if they are and not hiding if they're not.

Probably the most intelligent thing I've ever heard you say, spawnloser. You has a flavor!