hidden look

[spawnloser]

So I was thinking.  I know we've had discussions in the past about how look shouldn't echo and how you should be able to notice someone's cloak without having to broadcast to everyone that you're getting the full description and full gear list.  The command 'glance' has been suggested to get just the equipment list.  I have another idea based on the additions to the emote command we've had in (somewhat) recent times.  Silent and hidden looks: slook and hlook.

Slook: would work like semote.  The fact that invis/hidden people can not see a look already would be removed.  If you simply 'look', it would echo that 'someone' has looked at someone.  If you are properly invis/hidden, a 'slook' would not echo to those that can not see you and would echo to those that could.  (This isn't the main thrust of this post/idea.  This is debatable.  Having 'look' simply not echo unless you can see the person could still work.)

Hlook: would work like hemote.  Watch could be used to notice people using 'hlook' to look at people, just like it can spot people using 'hemote'.

An extension of this would be to have all 'look' commands duplicate the functionality of 'assess' and 'asses -v' when looking at a (v/n)PC so that one need only use one command instead of two.  'Assess' could then be restricted for use with objects.  The age/size/health/fatigue messages could be all tacked on to the end of the description just as some of that information already is.

[Lizzie]

If there has to be an echo every time someone looks at someone else (whether or not people can -see- the echo), then I'd be all for this idea.

However, I feel there shouldn't -have- to be an echo at all, UNLESS the enactor -wants- people to know they're looking, purposefully.

So for me, I'd prefer that look had -zero- echo, to anyone, whether they're perceptive or not, watching or not, the target or not. BUT..if I, the one looking, WANTS spawnloser to know that I'm looking, then I can always attach an emote to the look.

look spawnloser:

shows me what it shows me now, but no one sees that I did it.

look spawnloser (sparing a cursory glance down the bar)

shows -everyone- that I'm looking at spawnloser, sparing a cursory glance down the bar.

hlook spawnloser would let people who are perceptive, know that I am -purposefully- looking at spawnloser, but hoping that no one notices.

slook spawnloser would let people who are perceptive, know that I am -purposefully- looking at spawnloser, but hoping that no one notices.

[musashi]

Sometimes people do catch you looking at them though even when you tried to make it quick. Women with large ... tracks of land probably know this better than most I would think.

I don't think an slook command is needed because, and I may be wrong, but I don't think invis/hidden people have an echo when they look at someone else as it is.

But a "hlook" type command for when you want to try and just get a quick glance at someone, I think that would be sweet.

[mansa]

With the implementation of an observation skill, (watch), I have no problem shifting every look to be "maybe" viewable depending upon a skill check.

[spawnloser]

Lizzie, that would sorta negate the need for something like this.  Every look would be a slook unless an emote was added.

[Lizzie]

Lizzie, that would sorta negate the need for something like this.  Every look would be a slook unless an emote was added.

No, a "slook" by your definition, provides the opportunity to be seen, by someone.

Slook: would work like semote.  The fact that invis/hidden people can not see a look already would be removed.  If you simply 'look', it would echo that 'someone' has looked at someone.  If you are properly invis/hidden, a 'slook' would not echo to those that can not see you and would echo to those that could.

I am saying that I don't like the fact that look echoes AT ALL. I don't think it should echo, AT ALL. Not to me, not to you, not to people who can see invisible/hidden people, not to invisible/hiidden people, not to rinth-rats, not to psionicist, or to sorcerers. The only people I feel that should be capable of knowing that I typed "look spawnloser" should be an IMM who is shadowing my character.

It isn't my character trying to look at your character. It is me, the player, trying to decide if my character -should- notice your character or not. The only way for me, the player, to know this, is to type "look spawnloser." It is an ooc construct and I HATE that it echoes, and feel it should not echo, unless it is my character intentionally looking at yours.

This is SO old. Your idea doesn't solve, or resolve, or address, the concern that many people have expressed over many threads during the past many years. It just adds another reason why people who hate the look echo, hate the look echo.

[Thunkkin]

It isn't my character trying to look at your character. It is me, the player, trying to decide if my character -should- notice your character or not. The only way for me, the player, to know this, is to type "look spawnloser." It is an ooc construct and I HATE that it echoes, and feel it should not echo, unless it is my character intentionally looking at yours.

I like Spawn's solution, but Lizzie hits it on the head.

Have the imms ever given a response to this beyond "this is the way it is because this is the way it is?"

[musashi]

Slook ... that's funny when you say it out loud. 

[X-D]

I don't really like the idea.

First, if somebody cannot see you, they cannot see you look at them or anybody else for that matter.

Next, the look echo is still the most basic form of interaction in the game and the most newb friendly.

You could look through thread after thread where new players have posted and said that they could not tell the PCs from the NPCs but it did not take long for them to figure out if somebody looked at them they might be a PC.

If I'm in a bar IRL, I notice people looking at me. much of the time. My wife notices when women do all the time. Odds are  all of you do too but simply do not pay much attention to it.

But all other arguements aside, Look echo is a basic interaction and for that reason alone should stay.

[spawnloser]

Lizzie, read my entire post.  The 'slook' addition was kinda half-assed thrown on after I thought of the 'hlook' idea which is the MAIN thrust of this idea.

Unfortunately, apparently, some people WANT look to echo every time you use it and some people DON'T WANT look to echo every time you use it.  I'm offering a compromise because I haven't seen a compromise offered to date that has gotten grudging acceptance from a majority of players.  If the two sides of the issue can't come to a mutually tolerable compromise, I see things staying exactly as it is, which means that you (Lizzie) will remain in the camp wanting change and he (X-D) will remain in the camp that's happy the way things are.

[Krishnamurti]

IRL, you can often feel when someone's looking at you, even if they're behind you.  Check out The Sense of Being Stared At, on amazon: http://www.amazon.com/Sense-Being-Stared-At-Unexplained/dp/1400051290 ... a fair deal of research has gone into that. One of the tests revealed that people can even intuitively sense if they're being looked at through a camera by a person in another room.

The tests on animals are significant as well.

I think that with skills like peek, hide, invis, and whatever else, people have ways of circumventing looks. On the other hand, something deep within me does kind of find looks annoying. Looks at chests, at benches, at tables, at rooms, at items, at equipment, these things don't echo unless you (emote) with them...

It depends on whether hidden looks would give people a code advantage that is unfair. Ie, you can look at someone, sizing them up and getting a good look, without their knowledge, as you decide whether to attack them or not. Even assess -v you have a chance of noticing the glance. Perhaps a chance, similar to assess -v of noticing the look?

Of course, this would get everyone's watch skill up pretty fast I think.

[musashi]

Of course, this would get everyone's watch skill up pretty fast I think.

I think our beloved pooping animals are already doing their part in that regard.

[Lizzie]

I think Spawnloser is starting to get it.

Here it is again in summary:

A compromise won't do any good for the camp that feels the look echo is an ooc derived mechanic and doesn't want to see it at all, -except- when it is an intentional character behavior.

Compromise is for people who are on the fence about something. Compromise isn't about saying "well you say it's red, I say it's blue, let's just call it yellow."

For me, the look echo is red. It -cannot- be yellow. It has no place in the category of yellow. It's red. If you put it into the yellow category, it'll merely be - a red thing, in a yellow category. It will still -not- be yellow.

Look is an ooc contrived mechanic device existing to allow players to know whether or not another character/thing/mob is worth taking further interest in. I look at Jimbob because Jimbob is the tall hooded figure who's standing at the bar, and outside it's a clear sunny day. *I* the player want to know if he just forgot to take his hood down, or if it's up on purpose because his player knows that it hides his sdesc, which would give away the fact that he is the peg-legged man. I wouldn't NEED to use the look command to know that he's peg-legged, if his hood was down. And his hood has NOTHING TO DO WITH HIS LEG. So *I* the player look at him. I see that he -is- the peglegged man, and then I can start RPing a reaction to him. I can't RP any response to his existence until that moment. What gets even worse, is when peg-leg tells the templar it was me who ratted him out to Tuluk as a spy for the templar, simply because *I* the player wanted to know if the guy had a fucking wooden leg, but couldn't tell because his HEAD was covered. My -character- had no interest in this character. My -character- would not have cared enough to invite herself to his table and make introductions. My -character- would not have asked him to lower his hood, because she's just a patron of the bar too and has no authority to do it. My -character- doesn't care enough to get in this guy's business. *I* just want to know if he's the peg-legged guy, because they wear the same cloak and are the same height.

That's why I hate the look echo. That's why a lot of people hate the look echo. We don't want a compromise, a compromise won't solve the problem. Putting bandaids on a missing hand doesn't stop the bleeding. The look echo is a big fat bloody stump that needs to be closed off, not bandaided.

Compromises do not solve anything, when it comes to the opposed sides of this. People who like the look echo will still get the look echo. People who don't like it, will still be stuck with it and not like it. That's not a compromise. It's just adding another aspect of something that a camp of people don't like.

[musashi]

Herm, I get that your opinion is that the look command is an ooc construct, but I think other people disagree with that point and view "looking" at someone/something as a very real and dilierbate action.

In your example ... what if the cloak he was wearing was a great cloak and fell down past his legs, covering him from head to toe? There are always two sides to that circumstancial arguement.

[Kol]

Look is an ooc contrived mechanic device existing to allow players to know whether or not another character/thing/mob is worth taking further interest in. I look at Jimbob because Jimbob is the tall hooded figure who's standing at the bar, and outside it's a clear sunny day. *I* the player want to know if he just forgot to take his hood down, or if it's up on purpose because his player knows that it hides his sdesc, which would give away the fact that he is the peg-legged man. I wouldn't NEED to use the look command to know that he's peg-legged, if his hood was down. And his hood has NOTHING TO DO WITH HIS LEG. So *I* the player look at him

Just wanted to touch on this.

Lizzie, I may be wrong, and correct me if I -am-, but the way you see it is that the fact that the peg-legged man, looks at the one-eyed bandit, shouldn't echo, because you the player want to know if your pc belives thier worthy of your attention?

So, your in a bar, IRL, what do you do? Look at people. you look at everyone you come into contact with, and people you dont.
Those people know your looking at them, they can see you looking at them, sometimes, they can't. but that dosen't negate the fact that you -do- look at them and almost -always- someone -will- notice you looking at them, weather you want them to, or not.
IRL, you'll meet someone new, you'll look at them, you'll decide weather you, the person, wants to have any sort of interaction with them.
I personally, couldn't care less either way, if the look command stopped echoing, it wouldn't change the fact that you still looked at every PC that walked into the same bar your in.
What Spawnlooser is proposing, is a way for your pc to act like you want them to, so, you can HLOOK FIGURE, and if he's obsevant enough, he'll still notice you looking at him, and if he dosent, it allows -you- the player, to decide weather he's worthy of your -pc's- attention. if he does notice it, he might react, and you never know, you might get some good rp out of it.

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

I personally, couldn't care less either way, if the look command stopped echoing, it wouldn't change the fact that you still looked at every PC that walked into the same bar your in.

+1

I don't mind the slook idea.

[spawnloser]

Actually, my idea is 'hlook' (with an 'slook' idea kinda tacked on jury-rig style) which would work like 'hemote' does and like 'assess -v' does, where your 'watch' skill gives you a chance to notice the look.

[Kol]

 
Fixed.

[musashi]

slook is much more fun to say though.

[Lizzie]

Herm, I get that your opinion is that the look command is an ooc construct, but I think other people disagree with that point and view "looking" at someone/something as a very real and dilierbate action.

In your example ... what if the cloak he was wearing was a great cloak and fell down past his legs, covering him from head to toe? There are always two sides to that circumstancial arguement.

I wouldn't know that if I didn't look at him. If his cloak is "open" I wouldn't know that his cloak is -not- covering him head to toe, and that I -can- see very clearly that he's wearing a shirt that only Borsail nobles are allowed to wear. I wouldn't -know- without looking at him, that his cloak is open, and I can see very clearly that he's not only not wearing a shirt, but that he's also not wearing any pants and is in fact waggling his limp penis for everyone to see.

I wouldn't know that I -should- notice that I'm dealing with a penis-waggling pantsless shirtless freak, unless I LOOK at him. But..I shouldn't have to look at him. Because if he's a penis-waggling pantsless shirtless freak, it's gonna be obvious. But the code doesn't allow that to be obvious, and the ONLY way I can know any of this stuff, is to use the look command. THEN - once I know that he is a penis-waggling pantsless shirtless freak, I can direct my character to react to this waggling penis, and the pantsless shirtless freak attached to it. OR - I can direct my character to intentionally avoid noticing. Or I can direct my character to be SO used to seeing penis-waggling shirtless pantsless freaks, that she wouldn't consider it worth reacting to at all.

But - I can't direct my character to react to something, that *I* the player don't know exists. And so, I look. But it isn't my character looking. It's me, the player, looking, to see if there is something significant about whatever shows up on the screen, that my character -would- react to.

And since it isn't my character looking, there's no reason why your character would have any reason to know my character is looking. Because, my character isn't looking. I am.

[Lizzie]

Kol, what I am saying, is no matter what fun little changes people make to the look command..

I will continue to look at people, with or without emotes. If I want the other character to know that it is my character *taking particular note* of them, then I will probably include an emote with the look. If it's just me, the player, wanting to know whether or not my character should be reacting to something important, like..
the tall dark man

(whose main desc points out that he's missing both arms, has flesh rotting on his face, has burn marks on every single part of his body that is exposed, and is completely and utterly naked)...

then I will look. Me, the player. Will look. And THEN I will know whether or not my character has been exposed to something I need for her to react to.

if it's
the tall dark man
and it's just a generic description of the average tall dark man, then my -character- will not have noticed they even exist. Because..it's a world filled with tall dark men. And my character doesn't give a shit about the existence of tall dark men and doesn't notice their existence until and unless they do something worth noticing. Which - they didn't do. So they didn't notice them. They didn't look, because there was nothing worth looking at.

[musashi]

And no one has brought up raiders being looked at to see their mdesc yet  

[X-D]

I really don't agree with your take on look Lizzie...in game or out.

About an hour ago I went to the store. I passed about 30 people on the way in (bill paying machines). Now, I noticed them enough that I got an approx count and could even say that some were female and most were latino. But since I did not look at any of them, I really could not tell you more.

Later I got in line at the cashier and started looking at the people in line with me, two of them I had passed at the bill pay line on the way in (maybe more but these are the only two I can say for sure). One was a rather well built woman showing off the goods who had an interesting tat on the chest where the artist even worked the cleavage into the work. The other was a black man who happened to be wearing nascar gear.

Now, in both cases I'm sure they saw me actually look at them, in both cases they had things that were VERY noticable but I had not noticed in passing just 15 minutes before, even though I had passed within 2-3 feet.

And this is exactly how it plays out IG. You see a sdesc, this means you notice the person but have not as yet actually -looked- at them.

I think that if you are taking the look command as OOC then you are playing it Wrong. YOU, the player should decide if your PC should take closer notice to the other PC THEN use whatever means to do so. NOT the other way around.

Looking is very much an IC action and should be treated as such.
There are already at least 4 methods I can think of to prevent somebody from knowing you are looking at them, that is plenty. If your PC does not have these abilities then your PC is simply not good at hiding the fact that they look at people.

[Shalooonsh]

I would like to thank you for the entertainment, but I'm not providing an answer.

hlook.  Yeah, hidden look, because that's cool.

slook.  Silent look.  Lets just think about this for a moment.  I'm talking about you, Spawnloser.


look spawnloser (loudly, like, really loudly, as if there were a parade going by outside with a full calliope and tuba/drum band)

[Kol]

Heh, X-D hits the nail on the head.