A Note for Sneaky Types

[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!