Proposed expansion to 'watch'

[spawnloser]

It seems silly to me that you can not watch more than one person.  Pretend that four people are sitting at a table and you want to watch all of them for some subtle sign they're going to do something... what is the solution?  You 'watch personA' ... pause ... 'watch personB' ... pause ... 'watch personC' ... etc?  Great, so the subtle signals using hemote are single events in time... they are instantaneous, because that is how emotes work.  They don't take time above and beyond typing them out.  That little motion of the hand that someone emoted took more than .01 seconds.  You should have a chance of seeing it... but you were watching the wrong person at that moment quite possibly.

I am not suggesting giving the ability to watch a group of people as closely as you can watch one person.

The complication with expanding the scope of watch is that it currently works like archery.  You pick one target and the arrow that is your sight targets that person.  You start watching someone else, and now you're not watching the first person.

How to allow you to watch a group?  Could it work like "watch personA personB personC" maybe (similarly to how it works when renting the back room in an inn that has one)?  Every target beyond the first could reduce the effectiveness of the the watching and thus your chances of noticing anything.  Perhaps your skill level could limit how many people you can watch at once.  Maybe a little of both?  Maybe someone else has an idea about how this idea could be improved.

Please, discuss.

[mansa]

I don't think that is how watch is designed.  It is keeping your full attention on someone.
Even at a bar, i only really watch the cute bartender, while my friends make blowjob faces beside me.  And i don't see it.  And we're sitting next to each other.

[spawnloser]

I agree that it wasn't designed to be the way I think it should be.  That's why I propose a change.

Watching isn't necessarily zoning out on some person to the exclusion of the world around you, since you can obviously still see any normal emote in the room with your character.  I'm proposing something that takes more skill and allows you to keep track of more people just not as effectively as you could keep track of one.

Oh, and your player obviously didn't type 'watch cutebartender friend1 friend2 friend3'

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

I like the Loser's approach to this - it sounds like it would work just fine, and be fairly realistic, to boot.

[Qzzrbl]

I think we should be able to determine how close people are IG before we go about watching more than one person. Person 1 could be sitting right next to you, Person 2 could be hanging out near the entrance of the bar, Person 3 could be sitting at a table across the room, and the cute bartender could be directly across the bar in front of you.

Now watching a table and everyone sitting at it, or something along those lines.... That I could easily see happening.

[Lizzie]

I disagree with the idea.

I'm having lunch. I am actively, intentionally, watching a specific woman at the table next to me. Also at that table is a man, and a little girl. While I am actively, intentionally watching that specific woman, I am NOT watching her little girl drool spagetti down her shirt. However, I will notice some kind of activity going on with the little girl, and will STOP watching that woman, to notice that the little girl now has red sauce all over her shirt. While my attention is actively, and intentionally on that little girl's shirt, I will not notice the frown on the woman's face, or the mirthful glint in the man's eyes. Because I will be too busy actively, and intentionally watching that little girl to notice ANY amount of subtlety coming from anyone else in the room.

The only benefit I see in having watch extended to more people, is the benefit achieved by abusing it. I can't think of any time when I would have my -very clear and decisive attention- on more than one person at a time, without abuse involved.

[Qzzrbl]

I'm not sure about anyone else.... But I know I can look at people sitting at a table, and spend a little time studying each of their movements, and make a little cycle of "watch this guy, then this guy, then this guy, then this guy, then back to that guy and repeat" in a matter of seconds.

Sure it's not as effective as staring at each one of the individually, but it is possible.

[Yam]

Your watch skill increases and you can actually notice the covert actions of several people at once.

In a way, this already is implemented.

[FuSoYa]

I disagree with the idea.

I'm having lunch. I am actively, intentionally, watching a specific woman at the table next to me. Also at that table is a man, and a little girl. While I am actively, intentionally watching that specific woman, I am NOT watching her little girl drool spagetti down her shirt. However, I will notice some kind of activity going on with the little girl, and will STOP watching that woman, to notice that the little girl now has red sauce all over her shirt. While my attention is actively, and intentionally on that little girl's shirt, I will not notice the frown on the woman's face, or the mirthful glint in the man's eyes. Because I will be too busy actively, and intentionally watching that little girl to notice ANY amount of subtlety coming from anyone else in the room.

The only benefit I see in having watch extended to more people, is the benefit achieved by abusing it. I can't think of any time when I would have my -very clear and decisive attention- on more than one person at a time, without abuse involved.

Was that an example or were you really typing that up from lunch?

Brandon

[AmandaGreathouse]

Perhaps you should be able to watch (for example) a table, then it would give you x% chance of noticing for everyone -at- that table. Could work with like bars and other 'sittable' areas? Like the command to watch north, you could do that?

[Lizzie]

It actually happened today at lunch. I came home and saw the post and had to laugh at the absurdity of being able to actively watch more than one person simutaneously. If you are watching person A, then you are -not- watching person B. You can see both people. You can notice that both people are doing things. Especially if they are sitting next to each other. But your visual focus is not -capable- of watching two different things at the same time. You -will- miss whatever person B is doing, while you are watching person A. You will see the results of it. You might even -notice- that something is going on and shift your attention. But as soon as you do that, you are no longer watching person A. Because you are busy watching whatever is going on with person B.

Try it. Try watching 3 people *at the same time* without taking your attention off any of them, and giving each person the same attention, at the same time, without "not" watching one of them to put your efforts on watching another.

[Qzzrbl]

Try it. Try watching 3 people *at the same time* without taking your attention off any of them, and giving each person the same attention, at the same time, without "not" watching one of them to put your efforts on watching another.

I'm pretty sure someone who's spent a few years just sitting around and watching people at a bar could pull this off.

[mansa]

Try it. Try watching 3 people *at the same time* without taking your attention off any of them, and giving each person the same attention, at the same time, without "not" watching one of them to put your efforts on watching another.

I'm pretty sure someone who's spent a few years just sitting around and watching people at a bar could pull this off.

Which is already coded, when your watch skill gets high.

[FantasyWriter]

When I am bartending, I am keeping up with up to twenty people; if anyone "watches" people for a living, we do.  But if I am actively watching one person, because I don't know them, and they are starting to get trashed, I am not going the person fifteen feet away at the other end of the bar (who happens to have maxed steal) lift a twenty out of my tip jar.  It sucks, but I don't see this as being something that needs changed.  I also agree with Lizzie, that it would be badly abused.  If you want a group of people watched, you should have a group of people watching them.

Code Select Expand

>contact amos

>psi You watch the blonde, I've got the redhead.

>cease

[Kyviantre]

What about a 'stare' command?  You can stare at a table/bar/couch/bed/rug/anything that lots of people can sit at/around.  Its noticable that you're staring (possibly an echo, or something when people look at you, ie, "The lanky-haired woman is staring at the people sitting at a sturdy baobab table/resting on a blue striped rug/around a slumping tavern bar"), similar to being able to see other people watching you (if not even more pronounced).

You wouldn't get fantastic watch-see-everything, but you might see some of the emotes, or some of the code (not sure which I'd prefer...well, -I'd- prefer the emotes, but thats just me).

[spawnloser]

I understand that you can't watch everyone (or even two people) as well as you could watch one.  That's why I suggested limitations... like having skill level limit the number of targets and having a penalty to your chances to see anything reduced for each target after the first.

Lizzie, you said that you were intently watching one person.  Under my proposed system, all your player inputted was 'watch personA' obviously.

Mansa and Yam, yes, I understand that you do passively notice things as you get better at the skill, but that's still not paying more attention to two people than everyone else.  You're not paying sole attention to one person, but to two people.  You are dividing your attention and not noticing as many things as you would notice if you were just paying attention to one of them, but you ARE noticing more than you are noticing about everyone else around you.

Seriously, are you telling me that you can't pay attention to two things at once?  (...just not as effectively as paying attention to only one thing.)

[Shiroi Tsuki]

As long as it decreases your skill relative to watching the rest of the room, and doesn't give you as much chance to notice things about the two people as it would if you were just watching one, it makes sense to me.

[Delstro]

Try it. Try watching 3 people *at the same time* without taking your attention off any of them, and giving each person the same attention, at the same time, without "not" watching one of them to put your efforts on watching another.

I'm pretty sure someone who's spent a few years just sitting around and watching people at a bar could pull this off.

Which is already coded, when your watch skill gets high.

This. It sounds like it is already coded. Looks like it is already coded from what I have seen.

[Shiroi Tsuki]

It's coded to watch all of the people in the room equally.  It's coded to watch a single person at a time.

It is not coded to focus more attention on two or three specific people if there are nine people in a bar.  This is the idea that the OP was trying to get across, as far as I understand it.

[LoD]

Abandoned Building [ S ]
The swarthy, greasy haired man is here, rubbing his hands together.
The hunched, dark skinned man is here, glancing about nervously.
The rugged, heavily muscled man is here, sword in hand.

Gesturing between the swarthy, greasy haired man and the hunched, dark skinned man, the rugged, heavily muscled man says, in sirihish:
   "Private, watch these two until I get back -- I'm going to fetch a templar."

The rugged, heavily muscled man begins to turn, moving southward.

Reaching out to catch hold of the rugged, heavily muscled man's arm, you ask, in sirihish:
   "Which one should I watch?"

His brows furrowing slightly as he regards you, the rugged, heavily muscled man says, in sirihish:
   "Both of them.  Just keep an eye on both of them until I get back."

Looking uncertain, but keeping his voice down, you ask, in sirihish:
   "So...how do I do that?"

Frustration evident in his tone, the rugged, heavily muscled man says, in sirihish:
   "What do you mean "how" do you do that?  You look at them."

Lifting his brows as he bobs his head slowly, you ask, in sirihish:
   "Ah, okay, so don't want me to watch them, just look at them."

Pointing toward the men against the wall, the rugged, heavily muscled man says, in sirihish:
   "No.  I want you to watch them."

You ask, in sirihish:
   "You just said to look at them."

Repeating himself quickly, the rugged, heavily muscled man says, in sirihish:
   "Yes, I want you to look at them and watch them."

Putting up your hands slowly, you say, in sirihish:
   "Well, do you want me to look at them, or watch them?

Sighing briefly before snapping, the rugged, heavily muscled man says, in sirihish:
   "Both!"

Scrunching up your face, you ask, in sirihish:
   "So, you want me to watch one of them, and look at them both."

Thrusting a hand toward the two men, the rugged, heavily muscled man shouts, in sirihish:
   "I want you to watch BOTH of them!!"

Biting your lower lip, you say, in sirihish:
   "I'm not sure what you mean."

Holding up a single digit, spittle flying from his lips, the rugged, heavily muscled man says, in sirihish:
   "Do you see this finger, Private?"

You nod toward the rugged, heavily musculed man.

Lifting a second finger upon his same hand, the rugged, heavily muscled man says, in sirihish:
   "Do you see BOTH fingers now, Private?"

Shrugging his shoulders gently, you say, in sirihish:
   "Of course."

Closing his hand into a fist and thrusting a finger toward the men, the rugged, heavily muscled man says, in sirihish:
   "Great!  Now do THAT with THEM."

Wiggling two of your right-hand fingers, you ask, in sirihish:
   "So...point a finger at each of them?"

Exasperated, the rugged, heavily muscled man shouts, in sirihish:
   "Just make sure they don't LEAVE, Private!"

Features brightening as you bob your head, you say, in sirihish:
   "OH!  Why didn't you say so, that's easy."

You begin guarding the southern exit.

You block the rugged, heavily muscled man as he attempts to move south.

[flurry]

I don't like it, for the simple reason that two people can be in the same room and not be anywhere near each other.  Especially outdoors.

Also, what would happen if you're watching two people, and one walks north and the other walks south?

[Yam]

I don't like it, for the simple reason that two people can be in the same room and not be anywhere near each other.  Especially outdoors.

Also, what would happen if you're watching two people, and one walks north and the other walks south?

You suffer 100 damage as your eyes rip out of their sockets.

[Barzalene]

Abandoned Building [ S ]
The swarthy, greasy haired man is here, rubbing his hands together.
The hunched, dark skinned man is here, glancing about nervously.
The rugged, heavily muscled man is here, sword in hand.

Gesturing between the swarthy, greasy haired man and the hunched, dark skinned man, the rugged, heavily muscled man says, in sirihish:
   "Private, watch these two until I get back -- I'm going to fetch a templar."

The rugged, heavily muscled man begins to turn, moving southward.

Reaching out to catch hold of the rugged, heavily muscled man's arm, you ask, in sirihish:
   "Which one should I watch?"

His brows furrowing slightly as he regards you, the rugged, heavily muscled man says, in sirihish:
   "Both of them.  Just keep an eye on both of them until I get back."

Looking uncertain, but keeping his voice down, you ask, in sirihish:
   "So...how do I do that?"

Frustration evident in his tone, the rugged, heavily muscled man says, in sirihish:
   "What do you mean "how" do you do that?  You look at them."

Lifting his brows as he bobs his head slowly, you ask, in sirihish:
   "Ah, okay, so don't want me to watch them, just look at them."

Pointing toward the men against the wall, the rugged, heavily muscled man says, in sirihish:
   "No.  I want you to watch them."

You ask, in sirihish:
   "You just said to look at them."

Repeating himself quickly, the rugged, heavily muscled man says, in sirihish:
   "Yes, I want you to look at them and watch them."

Putting up your hands slowly, you say, in sirihish:
   "Well, do you want me to look at them, or watch them?

Sighing briefly before snapping, the rugged, heavily muscled man says, in sirihish:
   "Both!"

Scrunching up your face, you ask, in sirihish:
   "So, you want me to watch one of them, and look at them both."

Thrusting a hand toward the two men, the rugged, heavily muscled man shouts, in sirihish:
   "I want you to watch BOTH of them!!"

Biting your lower lip, you say, in sirihish:
   "I'm not sure what you mean."

Holding up a single digit, spittle flying from his lips, the rugged, heavily muscled man says, in sirihish:
   "Do you see this finger, Private?"

You nod toward the rugged, heavily musculed man.

Lifting a second finger upon his same hand, the rugged, heavily muscled man says, in sirihish:
   "Do you see BOTH fingers now, Private?"

Shrugging his shoulders gently, you say, in sirihish:
   "Of course."

Closing his hand into a fist and thrusting a finger toward the men, the rugged, heavily muscled man says, in sirihish:
   "Great!  Now do THAT with THEM."

Wiggling two of your right-hand fingers, you ask, in sirihish:
   "So...point a finger at each of them?"

Exasperated, the rugged, heavily muscled man shouts, in sirihish:
   "Just make sure they don't LEAVE, Private!"

Features brightening as you bob your head, you say, in sirihish:
   "OH!  Why didn't you say so, that's easy."

You begin guarding the southern exit.

You block the rugged, heavily muscled man as he attempts to move south.

As good as Abbot and Costello

[spawnloser]

I don't like it, for the simple reason that two people can be in the same room and not be anywhere near each other.  Especially outdoors.

Also, what would happen if you're watching two people, and one walks north and the other walks south?

Unfortunately, this is the issue I have with my suggestion too, but it is the only one.  Why not support a code suggestion (as I know there have been a couple) that also provides the realism of keeping track of peoples' proximity to each other?  That way, if you try to watch two people that are not near each other, the penalties can rise even further.  Perhaps it could penalize people less for watching two people that are seated at the same table than the penalty someone would receive for watching two other people?