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.

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

I'm actually leaning now towards saying no to hlook.

I'm down with the look command as it is now.

[spawnloser]

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

Yeah yeah.    I know.  I was having a problem with that one too, but I was trying to follow how the emote system works currently.

( Jerk. )

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

Just to explain why I lean towards the look command remaining visible, I think that the interaction obtained by using the look command compared to the look command not echoing is more important than not seeing echoes. I also think that taking the echo away would hurt raiders a lot.

[Thunkkin]

Just to explain why I lean towards the look command remaining visible, I think that the interaction obtained by using the look command compared to the look command not echoing is more important than not seeing echoes. I also think that taking the echo away would hurt raiders a lot.

If look was treated like an "hlook" ... do you think a victim furtively trying to glance at a raider and a raider potentially noticing that glance creates more RP or less compared to the on/off-echo nature of the current look?

[jhunter]

There is no realistic reason for look to echo if the target cannot be seen or the "looker" cannot be seen for look to echo.

As it stands now, I can be in a room with someone hidden and see that the (unhidden) person is looking at someone (hidden) that I cannot see and see that a hidden person is looking at someone I can see.

That simply makes no logical sense.

[Rhyden]

To solve this problem, I think peek should be more of a mundane skill, with skill boosts for certain classes/subguilds.

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

If look was treated like an "hlook" ... do you think a victim furtively trying to glance at a raider and a raider potentially noticing that glance creates more RP or less compared to the on/off-echo nature of the current look?

Probably less. Yes, so you might get that sneak glance in, but the raider knows you might try and he might miss it and then his career is over. Before, he knew if you looked at him, and he had warned you about it, that he'd see. Now, with the hlook in, OOCly the player says, "Forget the risk. It's hard enough now to be a raider. Sure, letting them go might be in character, but so is killing them, and the risk is too high if I want to keep this character for a few more days." Kill Victim.

There is no realistic reason for look to echo if the target cannot be seen or the "looker" cannot be seen for look to echo.

This, I'll agree with.

[X-D]

I agree on the echo for something you cannot see. That should not happen. I mean really, If I cannot see what you are looking at, how do I know you are looking at anything? You could be just staring into space.

As to the other way around, I've never seen a look echo from somebody that my PC could not see unless they added an emote.

And this is the only thing I think hlook should be used for. Not to see if somebody notices the look but to restrict noticing the look to people that can actually see you.

In other words, hlook joe (peering intently) would echo normaly to anybody that can see you.

(edit)
Also, on the point of raiders and such. I've played raiders that told people to not look, in every case where the PC complied, they lived and lost very little. In every case where they did not comply, they were killed. If I/my PC thought there was an actual risk that they might have missed the look...Well, He is not even going to make the demand, I freely admit that all raiding I would be involved in would result in a death.

[musashi]

(edit)
Also, on the point of raiders and such. I've played raiders that told people to not look, in every case where the PC complied, they lived and lost very little. In every case where they did not comply, they were killed. If I/my PC thought there was an actual risk that they might have missed the look...Well, He is not even going to make the demand, I freely admit that all raiding I would be involved in would result in a death.

And by virtue of that, all people about to be raided would simply haul ass without bothering to RP 100% of the time, because it would be akin to trying to RP with a carru or bahamet.

[Lizzie]

If there was an echo whether or not I wanted there to be, and I typed

l raider (at ^raider feet) [keeping her head down]

and if I was wearing sunslits, and had my hood up, and you killed my character for looking...

then I'd send a log to the staff report you for the PK.

[Majikal]

Also, on the point of raiders and such. I've played raiders that told people to not look, in every case where the PC complied, they lived and lost very little. In every case where they did not comply, they were killed. If I/my PC thought there was an actual risk that they might have missed the look...Well, He is not even going to make the demand, I freely admit that all raiding I would be involved in would result in a death.

I agree 100% with X-D on this. My bad guy pc's would devolve into murderous fucks. Look echoes are needed in certain situation, those situations happen to be fairly crucial to the outcome of certain events. The removal of an echo isn't such a big deal that I think it should be altered and changed so that it effects those certain moments where that echo is highly important.

If I'm shadowing someone or hidden with magick or any of the other wierd things that come about in Zalanthas and someone pauses to look at me, that is a very important factor in what happens next. It should not be up to the other player to decide whether I'll be 'gifted' with them emoting a look at me.

Changing a look without emote so that it's similar to hemote is an iffy compromise. I'd be in support of the 'glance' idea that's been tossed around a few times that allows a look of equipment without an echo.

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

If there was an echo whether or not I wanted there to be, and I typed

l raider (at ^raider feet) [keeping her head down]

and if I was wearing sunslits, and had my hood up, and you killed my character for looking...

then I'd send a log to the staff report you for the PK.

And very likely, they would do nothing about it, because I told you not to look, and you did anyway.

[Thunkkin]

If only facewraps hid faces.

[IAmJacksOpinion]

Quote from: Lizzie on Today at 06:30:34 AM
If there was an echo whether or not I wanted there to be, and I typed

l raider (at ^raider feet) [keeping her head down]

and if I was wearing sunslits, and had my hood up, and you killed my character for looking...

then I'd send a log to the staff report you for the PK.

And very likely, they would do nothing about it, because I told you not to look, and you did anyway.

Yeah, for real. If that were the case you should've just emoted. If you were extremely tenacious, throw in an "OOC Hey, what sorta boots you got on?"  But yeah, I'd dead you too for being a smart-ass. You'd probably do the same in the reverse situation, you just don't know it yet.

That being said, I think approaching someone that PROBABLY saw you coming two miles away, getting within tossing distance of their heavy-ass, stone and water laden pack (500 sid would probably be excruciatingly heavy, but eh that's another thread), would make it unavoidable that they looked at you. Maybe not the color of your hair and eyes, or the "hidden" tattoo by your woo-hoo, but they could tell what EQ you were wearing...


Which brings me back to - glance, ftw! IMO, glance should be combination EQ-list / ass-v. As X-D said, he could tell the races (hispanic) of those people in the store. Gender, der-her-her. Approximate height/weight obviously a must. Fatigue - well, if you're truely fatigued I'd probably see, hear, or smell it in one form or another (sweating, red faced, panting?) And your cloths. Maybe I didn't read what your shirt said (l guy's shirt) but I -DID- notice that it had writing (worn on body - a cocky slogan emblazoned red shirt).

Glance would be sorta like "hemote" in that you might notice it, you might not. Either way, it's just a cursory look.


Oh, and for the record look SHOULD have an echo for every reason stated. Ever. At least in this thread.

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

>eq raider

>assess raider
----
You notice the victim assessing your gear.
You notice the victim glancing at you.

>sigh

>say (muttering darkly at ~victim) You're getting raided. Them boots you see are my boots next. And stop sizing me up! Better be glad you ain't looked at me yet. I'm watching you. I see you.

[the traveller]

I didn't really get what Lizzie was saying before, but I do now. And I tend to agree with her point. I doubt she'll ever find enough support for her interpretation however.

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.

But from another perspective, you didn't bother to glance at them further originally, because none of them really stood out to you. Nothing in their intial appearance triggered any impulse to take a closer look. This impulse is gonna be different for all people/chars, and in different situations.

In Arm, all you get when not specifically looking at someone is:

the tall, muscular man   or   
the tall figure in a dark hooded cloak

An alternate view of our fellow, might be more like:

the tall, muscular man
- he's not wearing a shirt
- he's wearing bright pink trousers
- he's completely covered in mud/grime
- he has a few nasty scars
- he has purple hair

Now, some people who pass by him will notice one/some of these things and think them of note. Whilst others either won't notice, or not consider them of note. If this person does trigger some thought in your mind, you're likely to then take a more thorough look at them.

The most basic examples involve uniforms/clothing.

You're sitting in the cafe, and you notice 2 people step through the doorway.

- two guys in jeans and t-shirts
- one guy, one girl, business attire
- two girls, one in a bikini
- two people, wearing uniforms (police or otherwise)
- two big fellas, wearing army fatigues

Some of these are gonna be noticed/reacted to by people in different ways, before they choose to take a good/further look at anyone.

Arm doesn't allow for some clothing/location descs that might be obvious to many people to be displayed at all, without doing a full look/stare with the echoed look command. The implementation is further skewed by the presence of hoods and/or facewraps:

Three Bynners/Guardsmen/Uniforms step into the tavern. If they have their hoods up, you might be able to classify them at a glance. But if they wear the same uniform and same cloak, but don't have a hood raised, you gotta look at each of them in turn, to notice the same.

The code doesn't support a 'glance foo'.. and I guess, why should it. All the code gives is either a very brief short-desc or 'figure' desc, or, you get everything when you 'stare' at someone. There's no middle ground, or incremental view.

Some people, may choose to use the look command as something other than a 'stare'. They might use it to identify the basics - what their character might notice, and then use a good selection of emotes if they plan to examine the char from head to foot (reading/utilising the full description and equipment listing).

I'm not saying it's the best interpretation. But I do see why Lizzie or others might prefer a similar form of interpretation/usage.

ps. The raiding/identification thing is a separate issue IMO. Maybe they have a better usage for that in Arm2.

[spawnloser]

X-D, if you killed my character for looking, I'd be in the same boat as Lizzie.  I think it is ridiculous that you would make an IC demand because of an OOC mechanic.  You can NOT tell when someone looks at you every time.  Someone doesn't even have to turn their eyes directly at you to get enough information from peripheral vision to see enough to identify you later.  The only reason to kill someone because they used the 'look' command is because you want the player not to see your description because you don't trust your fellow players to use only the information their character should realistically get.  If raiders are going to pull that malarky, I'm not surprised that people also pull the 'stand;e;e;e;e;e;e;e' malarky in response to raiders.

[Majikal]

X-D, if you killed my character for looking, I'd be in the same boat as Lizzie.  I think it is ridiculous that you would make an IC demand because of an OOC mechanic.  You can NOT tell when someone looks at you every time.  Someone doesn't even have to turn their eyes directly at you to get enough information from peripheral vision to see enough to identify you later.  The only reason to kill someone because they used the 'look' command is because you want the player not to see your description because you don't trust your fellow players to use only the information their character should realistically get.  If raiders are going to pull that malarky, I'm not surprised that people also pull the 'stand;e;e;e;e;e;e;e' malarky in response to raiders.

What did you gain from the look that you needed to gain to complete the scene? The tall and thick figure in a hooded robe tells you enough, possibly suggests race, build, height etc. If I told someone in a raiding scene to put their eyes to the floor and their next action was 'l me (eyes on ^me boots)' I'd consider them a smartass and they'd end up beepified.

/derail

[jhunter]

X-D, if you killed my character for looking, I'd be in the same boat as Lizzie.  I think it is ridiculous that you would make an IC demand because of an OOC mechanic.  You can NOT tell when someone looks at you every time.  Someone doesn't even have to turn their eyes directly at you to get enough information from peripheral vision to see enough to identify you later.  The only reason to kill someone because they used the 'look' command is because you want the player not to see your description because you don't trust your fellow players to use only the information their character should realistically get.  If raiders are going to pull that malarky, I'm not surprised that people also pull the 'stand;e;e;e;e;e;e;e' malarky in response to raiders.

What did you gain from the look that you needed to gain to complete the scene? The tall and thick figure in a hooded robe tells you enough, possibly suggests race, build, height etc. If I told someone in a raiding scene to put their eyes to the floor and their next action was 'l me (eyes on ^me boots)' I'd consider them a smartass and they'd end up beepified.

/derail

Yeah, that would be my reaction to that as well.

[jhunter]

X-D, if you killed my character for looking, I'd be in the same boat as Lizzie.  I think it is ridiculous that you would make an IC demand because of an OOC mechanic.  You can NOT tell when someone looks at you every time.  Someone doesn't even have to turn their eyes directly at you to get enough information from peripheral vision to see enough to identify you later.  The only reason to kill someone because they used the 'look' command is because you want the player not to see your description because you don't trust your fellow players to use only the information their character should realistically get.  If raiders are going to pull that malarky, I'm not surprised that people also pull the 'stand;e;e;e;e;e;e;e' malarky in response to raiders.

It's not just an IC demand because of an OOC mechanic. In real life, criminals will tell their victims to keep their eyes down or keep themselves face down on the floor in an attempt to prevent them from being recognized by a description later.

[Lizzie]

Well it's either that, or you end up with this:

>Raider says, "Don't look!"

em the following
>The tressy-tressed woman keeps her eyes down, which just happens to be where the average raider's feet are usually located.
>Raider says, "Gimme all your shit. NOW!"
l raider's boots
He isn't wearing anything like that.
l raider's mocassins
He isn't wearing anything like that.
>Raider says, "I SAID NOW!"
l raider's shoes
He isn't wearing anything like that.

ooc Hey dood. I can't look up, because I'm trying to obey you ICly, but ICly, I would have some fucking idea of what's on your feet. WTF is on your feet, if anything?

Except you'd already be dead because the raider thinks you're stalling when in fact, you're just TRYING to emote out the scene the raider presented you with, and failing that, oocing to let him know the code is failing to give you information that you -would- know, if you had simply typed look OR if he had emoted being shoeless.

[X-D]

Jhunter and majikal already answered. But is not an OOC mechanic, it is an IC action.

And unlike some random bar scene. If I'm raiding you, I'm watching you VERY closely.  

Just like IRL, any twitch could get you dead...Hell, its RL that cops have fucked people up because they MIGHT have been reaching for a weapon. In arm we have that, magick and the ability to suddenly be five miles away with a simple e;e;e;e.

Also, if My PC tells your PC to not look at them, chances are Very good that MY PC is sure yours did not see the approach.

As a matter of fact, I even recently (A few months back now) had a scene where my PC did not even need to tell the mark to keep eyes front and down. They did it automaticly because they knew who had the upper hand, most realistic scene I've been involved with in a long time.

It is already hard enough to give a victim PC the benefit of the doubt when starting and finishing a raiding scene of any type. Greater ability for people to "sneak peeks" Would just reduce that more.

(edit)
I think often people are too afraid to use OOC early on.
If a player is taking the time to raid using other then full coded actions, odds are they are more then willing to help out on the scene. Hell, just the fact your willing to ask for something to be clarified lets them know you are willing to play this out as well. It is a win win situation at that point.

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

X-D is right.

[Aaron Goulet]

I don't play raiders, but I'm siding with the raider-type players on this one... I, personally, don't care if I can't codedly look at the guy that's robbing me, as long as he gives me a chance to RP the situation out and (maybe) let my character live.

[SMuz]

Yeah, I'd agree with X-D, it works realistically as it is. If you have the skill to look without being noticed, then you can do it. I think 'look' command is fine in itself, it's just that some cloaks should hide mdesc, some effects should show in the sdesc, and such.

[musashi]

Another point in relation to Lizzie's "I should know if the guy at the bar is naked with his cock out, but can't unless I look at him" comment.

If your PC is walking around naked, I believe that the onis is on you to make sure other people readily realize that your PC is naked. That should be one of the first things your emote.

I see PC's with say, animals on their shoulders, necks, wrists, ect walking around and always get a little erked when they don't include them in emotes at all, because having a huge hawk or owl on your shoulder should be something people notice right away because it's uncommon.

But ... like I said above, I think it's the other PC's responsibility to emote out things that should be obvious so other PC's can react to it. By and large, this is usually how it happens as well.

[Lizzie]

Musashi, if they did that, I wouldn't have to look. You're right. But they don't. So I do. Staff says it's fine. And unless/until the echo is removed, people will just have to live with it.

[Majikal]

Pro
Removal of spam? 

Con
Hidden folks no longer know when amos notices them and can't Rp accordingly.
Raiding becomes FAR more brutal and codebased, odds are already stacked for the victim in making raiding hard to do.

[Lizzie]

PRO:
Removal of spam
Loss of automatic assumption that target is being *stared* at or otherwise singled out and that "bad things" [tm] are about to happen to them.
More responsibility placed on the players to roleplay out raider scenes and use those nifty look emotes.

CON:
More brutal raiding among people who don't roleplay out scenes, on both sides. Sucks to be someone who doesn't roleplay out scenes I guess.

REMINDER: The camp that wants the echo removed from look, wants it removed only from "look target" with no emotes. People who "look target" (peeking under ^target table) [and snicker] will still create an echo.

[musashi]

Musashi, if they did that, I wouldn't have to look. You're right. But they don't. So I do. Staff says it's fine. And unless/until the echo is removed, people will just have to live with it.

That's the situation under which I might ask the player ooc'ly to remember to emote things like that out and communicate them in their role-play.