hidden look

[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.