RTW Derail: -armed tag on people with weapons

[X-D]

Rage?

snickers

Anyway, I argue that weapons in many cases are not noticable without looking, hell, I wear a big fucking pistol on my side and people don't notice. I was talking to a cop and after 5 minutes he jumped, then laughed because he just noticed my DE.50.

In game, people wear cloaks and such, if I'm holding a big pair of hammers outside my cloak but down at my sides in the folds, should you automagickally notice when you enter a wilderness room a mile square? No, Tavern room crowded with people? No again. So you having to OOCly take action to see if somebody is armed IS realistic not the other way around.

And that is most of my point, I am always against code taking from roleplay, Staff has done a wonderful job already at removing our beloved grey areas (sarcasm) I'd like to keep the few endangered bits we have left.

[Blackisback]

Haha, you really did come off as the kind of person who carries a gun around. Hahaha

[Marauder Moe]

I think I might notice the guy with the hammers.

The gun, however, was clearly sheathed in that situation.

Also... how exactly would this take away from roleplay?  Seems to me it'd solve many more problems where people fail to notice something that they realistically should have because they, as a player sitting at a keyboard, didn't take/have the time to look/assess everyone in the room individually.

[Blackisback]

And the tag wouldn't echo for holstered weapons, obviously. It would show if you are physically armed (ie if you have a weapon in your hand)

[X-D]

If they, the player did not have time then They the PC did not notice.

As to the roleplay, come on now.

draw sword

you draw your sword

em lays his sword on his lap, hand over the guard and flips his cloak across.

em sits at the bar with his back to the door, both hammers between his knees.

But no, when you walk in the door your going to see 2 armed dudes right away, no matter where they are in the room, no matter what they are wearing, no matter how many people are between you and them. No matter what they emote, no matter what ldesc or anything else says.

This is a code straightjacket on RP. as I said, we have enough of that already.

[RogueGunslinger]

I don't think it's terribly omniscient to look around the room briefly and see which people are holding big old swords.  Also, as has been mentioned, there's already several other types of "omniscience" in this game that the vast majority of players are perfectly content with.

And I could easily argue that those things should be worked around or fixed before adding in more instances of the problem. People have argued before that movement echo's should be hidden.

Also, those several types that people are content with are there to circumvent even greater annoyances that would occur if they weren't. Namely having to "Look room" every five seconds to see if someone's entered. Note that drawing weapons gives an echo. You notice a change. If someone is casually holding a sword at their side while they banter at the bar it's a lot less noticeable. Enough so that you'd have to LOOK in order to see.

So does looking at each person, except look echoes to everyone else in the room too.

I'd love for look not to echo, but hey, we've gone over that one before, haven't we? Guess what doesn't echo most of the time? Assess -v.

Also, it's been suggested that a brief mode could turn off the armed tags for people who don't want to see them.

No one would use it, because that would be like codedly gimping yourself. Knowledge like this is power, who wouldn't want to know who is, and is not armed in the world? Those characters who are paranoid enough in such a situation to want to know this have to go through the extra care of looking at each person to get this information. While those of use who want to play inattentive, or spacey characters get to stay uninformed without having to do extra work in forcing ourselves not to notice.

It's also been suggested that small weapons like daggers wouldn't cause someone to appear as armed.

Alright then, we're reaching a consensus of sorts. But where do you draw the line? With half swords? Full swords? When does a weapon become so big it's immediately obvious to everyone? Do you think this is really worth figuring out and coding in with the amount of weapons and weapon types we have?

Actually, yes I would like a naked tag too.

If that means that one PC could generate a block of text about how he's naked, armed, glowing, flying, surrounded by magick fire of doom, and carrying a couch, so be it, because that's something most people would notice immediately.

Yes, and lets just throw in a couple free steaks too. I tend to start ignoring ideas suggested when they start stepping outside of the realm of possible implementation. I know, I know, we're not supposed to care about how hard something is to implement.

Notice I said I thought it was a interesting idea? Sure, there are merits but:

My main issue is that no, I don't believe you should know whether everyone in an area is armed or not, without having to look at each person. That's pretty much it. And this is where it comes down to being an agree to disagree issue. You think your character should have this knowledge immediately, without any sort of work on your part. And I think such a thing requires you to be actively attentive, in the form of the look or assess commands.

[Marauder Moe]

If they, the player did not have time then They the PC did not notice.

Nonsense.  It takes a lot less time to turn my head and look around a room than it does to do:
>look burly
(read result)

>look voluptuous
(read result)

>look scarred
(read result)

And so on.

As to the roleplay, come on now.

draw sword

you draw your sword

em lays his sword on his lap, hand over the guard and flips his cloak across.

em sits at the bar with his back to the door, both hammers between his knees.

But no, when you walk in the door your going to see 2 armed dudes right away, no matter where they are in the room, no matter what they are wearing, no matter how many people are between you and them. No matter what they emote, no matter what ldesc or anything else says.

This is a code straightjacket on RP. as I said, we have enough of that already.

I disagree.  In that example, you should not be wielding that weapon.  It should be in your inventory.

But even so... what's the problem?  What would have been taken away from you?  Your ability to pretend you're an uber-Hollywood-assassin who can quickly surprise your victim with a pair of warhammers?

[Kiara]

X-D: King of anecdotal evidence. =P

[spawnloser]

Fully opposed.  There are things having an 'armed' tag displayed (just by looking in the room) would make obsolete and/or impossible.  This would turn on 'easy mode' for Armageddon and thus I can not support it.

[Marauder Moe]

I don't think it's terribly omniscient to look around the room briefly and see which people are holding big old swords.  Also, as has been mentioned, there's already several other types of "omniscience" in this game that the vast majority of players are perfectly content with.

And I could easily argue that those things should be worked around or fixed before adding in more instances of the problem. People have argued before that movement echo's should be hidden.

Also, those several types that people are content with are there to circumvent even greater annoyances that would occur if they weren't. Namely having to "Look room" every five seconds to see if someone's entered. Note that drawing weapons gives an echo. You notice a change. If someone is casually holding a sword at their side while they banter at the bar it's a lot less noticeable. Enough so that you'd have to LOOK in order to see.

Not so easily argues after all, since you seem to have already provided your own counter-example.

So what if I want to circumvent the greater annoyance of having to spam the room looking at everyone if my character wants to know who might be ready to chop his head off?

So does looking at each person, except look echoes to everyone else in the room too.

I'd love for look not to echo, but hey, we've gone over that one before, haven't we? Guess what doesn't echo most of the time? Assess -v.

It's still more spam to 3rd parties than an armed tag would create.

Also, it's been suggested that a brief mode could turn off the armed tags for people who don't want to see them.

No one would use it, because that would be like codedly gimping yourself. Knowledge like this is power, who wouldn't want to know who is, and is not armed in the world? Those characters who are paranoid enough in such a situation to want to know this have to go through the extra care of looking at each person to get this information. While those of use who want to play inattentive, or spacey characters get to stay uninformed without having to do extra work in forcing ourselves not to notice.

Now hold on here.  We're not talking about the power to know who is and who isn't armed in the world.  As you just pointed out, that can already be done (mostly silently) with assess -v.  The only power we're talking about it obtaining that knowledge without having to type a command for each person in the room and parsing the extra data from the result.  Is that really so significant?  Would you really cry foul if, say, I wrote a client-side script that would automatically assess -v everyone in the room (and people who enter) and compile the results for me?

I find it strange that someone could consider something to be simultaneously annoying and convenient.

It's also been suggested that small weapons like daggers wouldn't cause someone to appear as armed.

Alright then, we're reaching a consensus of sorts. But where do you draw the line? With half swords? Full swords? When does a weapon become so big it's immediately obvious to everyone? Do you think this is really worth figuring out and coding in with the amount of weapons and weapon types we have?

Sure.  You could probably do a rough pass by just having daggers, saps, and throwing weapons/darts being exempt.  Alternatively, you could do it by weight.

Actually, yes I would like a naked tag too.

If that means that one PC could generate a block of text about how he's naked, armed, glowing, flying, surrounded by magick fire of doom, and carrying a couch, so be it, because that's something most people would notice immediately.

Yes, and lets just throw in a couple free steaks too. I tend to start ignoring ideas suggested when they start stepping outside of the realm of possible implementation. I know, I know, we're not supposed to care about how hard something is to implement.

Which of those things are impossible?  Everything but armed and naked are already implemented.  We've discussed armed at length already.  Naked is pretty easy too.  You're naked if you're not wearing anything about your body, on your torso, and on your legs.  If we wanted to be really strict, I suppose we could add other wear locations, but I think those three account for practically naked.

Notice I said I thought it was a interesting idea? Sure, there are merits but:

My main issue is that no, I don't believe you should know whether everyone in an area is armed or not, without having to look at each person. That's pretty much it. And this is where it comes down to being an agree to disagree issue. You think your character should have this knowledge immediately, without any sort of work on your part. And I think such a thing requires you to be actively attentive, in the form of the look or assess commands.

I think that IRL my eyeballs work a hell of a lot faster than my fingers.

[Akaramu]

It is good to have Moe back. He's so wonderfully calm and reasonable. He could teach me a thing or two, as well. 

[Marauder Moe]

 

I'm calm because I don't really care all that much.  While yes, this feature would be nice, I've gotten along just fine all these years without it.

I'm mostly arguing because forum debates are a good way to pass the time waiting for my code to compile.

[Synthesis]

I don't see why some people think instantly knowing who is armed is such a big deal.  I really can't imagine a scenario where it would make much of a difference.

[Xeran Van Houten]

Mudsex ambushing.

[spawnloser]

I'd tell you why I'm opposed except that it would tell anyone that hasn't found a particular thing out IG about something that they should find out IG.  It's possible that you are unaware of this feature of the game, so I won't fault you for championing the cause of having this displayed.  Let's just say that it is possible to be sneaky in ways that this would make obsolete.

[X-D]

Anecdotal...sure, point being is that people are not nearly as perceptive as they all think they are.

Proven hundreds of times over on any eye witness test/experiment.

They do them all the time, Dude runs into room, wearing green shirt, sunglasses, blond hair holding a grey 9mm, shouts at people, grabs a purse, runs out.

After, the people in the room are questioned and asked to describe the person. Not only are they usually missing at least 50% of the info, much of what they do say is wrong. Some see the gun, some do not, some think the gun was a silver .38, some think it was a knife, some think it was a woman, some see blond hair, some see no hair some see a yellow jacket, some see a black shirt.

Many of you tout realism for this type change, I argue that it is more realistic the way it is.

As to it taking less time to turn your head. Give me a break, if you cannot type l dude and scan the spam in 3 seconds, maybe you should not be playing a text game.

If you honestly time yourself in real life on how long it takes you to notice what everybody in a room is holding, you would find it is far longer then you assume right now. Unless they are all lined up in front of you facing you with a fucking spot light on them. A far cry from any city room in the game.

And Why should that sword be in my inventory, I clearly emoted laying it across my lap with my hand on the guard, technicly it is still in my grasp. Course I'm facing away from the door with a big ass cloak on, sitting down. But oh sure, I forgot, your PC has Xray vision.

[Blackisback]

Enough of these hamfisted examples. They're completely arbitrary and do nothing to move your argument forward. If you're going to wave the realism card then perhaps we shouldn't be able to see people entering rooms unless we >watch door, we shouldn't witness emotes unless we >watch person and we shouldn't be able to hear people's words unless we have >listen toggled on. The fact is, you can't have complete realism in games like these. However, you -can- make good design decisions that enable players to have a faster-paced experience and that manage to cut down the total amount of typing necessary to conduct your character. Just because I don't want to have type >look X several times to get an idea of whether or not someone is wielding a deadly weapon (something that you should notice after a cursory glance across a room) doesn't mean I'm lazy. It means I know there are optimizations that can be made.

I understand your reasoning behind "We are not omniscient" but your arguments don't work in this regard. Typing >look tells you exactly what's in the room, crowded or not. You can choose not to notice emotes, speech, and people, but the information is readily available. So, why not add -Armed to that? Since there is a clear distinction between being -Armed and not being -Armed, via the >assess command, why not have that as something readily available? Everyone knows when someone is or isn't wielding a weapon, unless that person is sufficiently crafty and can manage to conceal their actions (which I support). It's not a matter of breaking realism, it's a matter of common sense and optimizing code.

[Kiara]

And Why should that sword be in my inventory, I clearly emoted laying it across my lap with my hand on the guard, technicly it is still in my grasp. Course I'm facing away from the door with a big ass cloak on, sitting down. But oh sure, I forgot, your PC has Xray vision.

You only cite instances that support your stance.

What about a situation where you are facing the door with your front, as opposed to your back? How do explain this away? I don't need x-ray vision to see you clearly are armed or have a big weapon in your inventory without using the code to look at you.

I don't care if this goes in either way I guess. Just a devil's advocate here! =P

[Nyr]

Nyr is here.
-He is wielding a banhammer, intended for people that continue to bait and troll.
-He has a tenuous grasp on a wooden shield called "Patience."

[X-D]

And I do not agree that is the case.

A cursory glance, as you say, in game already shows what you would be likely to see in a "cursory glance".

A room full of people. It even shows who is sitting, where they are sitting, who is standing, maybe where they are standing, if they are laying down. If they are hooded, or not, face covered or not.

If you want to find out that Joe bynner has a mace held behind his back, you have to check. Why, because that is information not readily noticable at a "Cursory glance" of the room.

Does your cursory glance show that elf carrying a couch on his head...um, yes. Why, because it is a Fucking Couch on his head. That dwarf with a scrab corpse over his shoulder. Yup, that too.

[Kiara]

You keep referencing instances where the individual has the weapon behind their back, or hidden from plain view.

What about an instance where one's view of the weapon is not obstructed?

You still haven't answered this question.

[Blackisback]

You keep referencing instances where the individual has the weapon behind their back, or hidden from plain view.

What about an instance where one's view of the weapon is not obstructed?

You still haven't answered this question.

Everyone in Arm plays a knife-wielding assassin now, didn't you get the memo?

[X-D]

Yes I have.

The code has no way of knowing what is or is not in plain view, that is why we have emotes, change ldesc and other things, often refered to as roleplay, or in some cases, "grey area". The points where You, the player get to decide what is happening with your PC.

Besides, what exactly is "plain View"?

If I am holding a machete at my side, is that? Or do I have to be waving it over my head?

If there was tags saying people were armed at a glance you would pretty much have to assume that they are all waving them over their heads for some odd reason instead of comfy realistic positions...WHICH, would maybe not be readily noticable at a cursory glance or in plain view. Specialy not in a group of other people milling about.  

Don't forget, when we are talking city rooms, they are also full of VNPCs often many, quite a few rooms are described as teaming, bustling etc. And in a wilderness room, that is at least a mile square, is that shortsword in plain view a half a mile away?

It is up to the player to decide what is or is not in plain view, not the code.

Again, if you want to know, use look, assess -v, peek.

[RogueGunslinger]

When are you ever not going to look at someone who has such a glaring tag stamped to them as -armed? I vote against it for redundancy.

What about the fellow who's simply forgot to put his weapons away? I'd like to see less of the "Holy shit don't kill me with that sword, bro." mentality. I think this change would only do the opposite.



For the instance where the item is in plain view? Yeah, totally, the game should let you know!

The tall muscular man is here
-he's waving around a steak
-he's balancing a spoon on his nose


Maybe we should add in code that lets you know whenever someone is wielding tools too. I mean, it's pretty obvious when someone is carrying a hack-saw around, right? Or when they're about to sew a bolt of cloth. That's totally obvious.

The tall muscular man is here.
-tooled

[Kiara]

It is up to the player to decide what is or is not in plain view, not the code.

Oh boy.

If that's the case, why even have skills like sneak, hide, or any other skill or magickal spell for that matter?

Why don't we just eliminate the code and convert Armageddon into a MUSH since code isn't important? After all, it's up to the players to decide what's going on.