Helmets.

[A Large Bag]

It's no big deal but I was thinking that helmets that cover more than half of someone's face should change their sdesc like facewraps and the like.

1) I think it just plain makes sense considering the way other items that cover your face work.

2) It would encourage people to remove those full face helmets when off duty and sitting around in a tavern and whatnot.

It obviously isn't very important but this is something that I had thought of a few times.
Also, what about adding a "muffled" descriptor to people's voices when they are wearing something that covers their mouth area and speaking? Like full-faced helmets and facewraps? I mean, I know you can do it yourself but it would be nice for it to automatically be added if you were wearing such items.



The figure in a demon-visaged helmet is standing here, looking armored up.

[Kalai]

>kill gortok

[Riya OniSenshi]

You've not collected enough helmets, friend...

[A Large Bag]

You've not collected enough helmets, friend...

Not some. ALL. There are tons that by description cover up your face or most of your face that do not change your sdesc to reflect it. More than do for certain. I'm talking about consistency here.

[BadSkeelz]

Playing my Judge Dredd Templar would be easier if his helm could be incorporated into his sdesc. I do like that idea, and your voice being changed based on your head gear isn't bad as well. But since we can already do the latter with emotes, I wouldn't hold your breath for us getting a code implement for it.

Though the thought of a bar full of people talking to each other, their voices booming and echoing around in their helms, is pretty funny to me.

[Barsook]

I dig this idea, but it's more an item issue than a code issue?

[Synthesis]

I think it would be pretty annoying to have to remove your headgear for people to be able to easily access your sdesc keywords.  As it stands, the Sarge can yell at everyone to lower their hoods and nobody really complains, because there isn't (much) of a coded detriment (usually) to doing so.  Taking your brain bucket off is kind of a big fucking deal, though.

[RogueGunslinger]

I think it would be pretty annoying to have to remove your headgear for people to be able to easily access your sdesc keywords.  As it stands, the Sarge can yell at everyone to lower their hoods and nobody really complains, because there isn't (much) of a coded detriment (usually) to doing so.  Taking your brain bucket off is kind of a big fucking deal, though.

Yeah fuck that.

[A Large Bag]

If you don't like the drawbacks that come with it don't wear face-covering head gear? I know there are some drawbacks that would come with it but personally, I don't mind these in this situation. I can't see, it being very realistic to ask your minions to take off their helmets the same as lowering hoods either because of the realistic drawbacks of making them do so either. Asking them to take off their helmets that protect their vitals isn't the same as asking them to drop their hoods.

[BleakOne]

Hmm... it would be realistic, but in the end I'd have to say no on this one.

If face-covering helmets changed sdesc, they'd become a hinderance to anyone working with others. People would simply buy open face helmets, and wear them all day.

I can see maybe having the option to open and close face-covering helmets, but that would require a lot of coding, and most people would just open their helmets all the time anyway.

Seems it would be a lot of work for staff to make something a lot of people would simply avoid, and the rest eventually be actively ordered to avoid (since group combat is a mess with seven different "figure wearing a gurth-shell helm" in it).

[Gunnerblaster]

As much as I may like the idea, I'd have to say no since, in the end - Realism < Playability. It's been mentioned already but it's tough enough having people in the same clan wearing hoods - It'd be even more annoying to have hordes of masked pc's walking around.

[SpyGuy]

NPCs is a good point, it'd look cool but detract from unique Sdescs if a lot of martial NPCs all had (largely the same) helmet Sdesc.

I do like when people make a point to remove their helmets in bars but don't myself.  The spam would be ridiculous if every time someone entered a bar they entered, lowered their hood, took of their helmet, emoted doing such and then emoted going to the bar.  Then the reverse when they leave.

This is also a big reason why I don't remove armor for most of my combat PCs (if I had a warrior/bar it might be different).  I'm lazy and don't like spamming commands I'll only have to undo later.

[ponycorns]

I like the statement about realism vs. playability. Walking through Red Storm Village would be an example of the issue. Even the varied descriptions would in the end turn into a blur of this or that ... helmeted figure I think. Idea though is sound Bag.

[Lizzie]

>kill gortok

That right there is the #1 reason why turning helmets into sdesc-changers is a bad idea. You'd have to

1) remove your helmet when you're in a group trying to kill whatever animal your helmet is made out of, which defeats the purpose of wearing a helmet at all
2) never hunt that particular type of critter and hope no one in your group gets attacked by one on your way somewhere else
3) wait for staff to change the sdescs of all those gurth-shell helmets and gortok-carved helmets and silt-horror helms and gaj-chitin helms and whatever else before ever wearing them again
4) bring one of each with you, so that if there's one type up ahead that your group wants to kill, you can do a switcheroo before you get there (thus loading down your pack and/or mount's carrying capacity significantly).

Just like wearing the tregil-carved mask is a stupid thing to do when you're in tregil-country with a group. Except, the tregil-carved mask is decorative, so it's no big deal to take it off when you're hunting. A full-face tregil-skin hunting helm with +5 head protection could mean the difference between life or death, if your Byn unit all types "kill tregil" when you finally manage to bring the fucker to a standstill.

[A Large Bag]

I just want to point out that animals have more than one keyword. "Kill mangy" anyone?
We already deal with hoods up, facewraps, and masks anyway so I don't feel that it would be anymore difficult. If people don't pay attention to what keywords are in their party, they already don't and will fuck it up no matter what anyway. We also already get around people with animal keywords in their descriptions, btw. There are several ways to deal with these things we already do in game without making people take their hoods down, masks off, and facewraps off.
We also have the disengage command for those times someone fucks up with keywords.
Someone said people would avoid this. Instead of avoiding these sorts of things, I've just learned to deal with them. I still sometimes make characters with animal keywords in their descriptions, not once has one been killed over a keyword.


I would like to see some other good reason not to do it other than: "But that would make me have to think a little. I just want to mindlessly punch in commands."

No offense.


Edit: I do see the point about npcs with helmets that would changing them making them appear much the same. Maybe don't put full-faced ones on npcs or add the ability to open and close some types and equip them with those types defaulted to open.

[Lizzie]

You're assuming that everyone out there is a veteran player who knows about keywords, about .key, about the practicalities of hunting, about the order of things that come in and out of the room at any given moment, AND that no one is going to panic when a silt horror shows up, and just start typing KILL HORROR.

Even veteran players panic.

What you're suggesting, is a neat idea *except* for the fact that this is a permadeath game, and there's no "do-overs" if you mistakenly kill horror and end up killing a templar wearing a silt-horror helm during an invasion.

Not to mention an inix-shell helm vs. an inix doesn't solve the problem, *especially* when you're hunting animals that pop into their shells when they're overwhelmed, while your mount, an inix (nondescript) is in the same room.

[A Large Bag]

I simply don't believe that if this were to happen suddenly The Known is going to be covered with dead pcs because of it. I have yet to have a character killed or kill a character because of a keyword mistake. I've never even witnessed it happen because the times someone has accidently done it they just disengage. (before it was added people just fled) I've had a lot of characters, probably too many.


And as I said before: disengage

Anyway, it was just an idea. I would like it, none of the reasons given would be a big problem to me. I'm going to bow out now.

[Lancer]

Avoiding the back and forth of whether it's necessary or not:
Maybe have a flag for helmets with faceplates, similar (but opposite syntax)to cloaks with hoods?

wear <helmet>
- By default, faceplate would be up, and no sdesc covering would occur.

lower faceplate
- Helmet's sdesc active

raise faceplate
- Helmet's sdesc inactive

Retroactively outfitting it on current helms may be impractical, but just figured I'd toss this in the pile.

[Feco]

I may be confused, but I remember there being hood items which are worn on the head that can be raised and lowered.

[Riya OniSenshi]

I may be confused, but I remember there being hood items which are worn on the head that can be raised and lowered.

Cowls.

[Barsook]

Avoiding the back and forth of whether it's necessary or not:
Maybe have a flag for helmets with faceplates, similar (but opposite syntax)to cloaks with hoods?

wear <helmet>
- By default, faceplate would be up, and no sdesc covering would occur.

lower faceplate
- Helmet's sdesc active

raise faceplate
- Helmet's sdesc inactive

Retroactively outfitting it on current helms may be impractical, but just figured I'd toss this in the pile.

I dig this idea.

[A Large Bag]

Avoiding the back and forth of whether it's necessary or not:
Maybe have a flag for helmets with faceplates, similar (but opposite syntax)to cloaks with hoods?

wear <helmet>
- By default, faceplate would be up, and no sdesc covering would occur.

lower faceplate
- Helmet's sdesc active

raise faceplate
- Helmet's sdesc inactive

Retroactively outfitting it on current helms may be impractical, but just figured I'd toss this in the pile.

I dig this idea.

+1

[Rhyden]

Interesting idea, but I wouldn't want the sdesc of the helmet to replace your sdesc.

Long ago you could wear 2 items to both cover your sdesc such as:

Code Select Expand

The figure wearing a deep brown sandcloth longcloak and a thin, grey sandcloth facewrap stands here.

I never fully liked the change, but understood since some people had such long sdescs with longer combos. However, I always thought there could be subtle change made for this that would also help with this helmet situation:

Code Select Expand

Helm - the helmed figure in a hooded, sandcloth cloak
Mask - the masked figure in a hooded, sandcloth cloak
Veil - the veiled figure in a hooded, sandcloth cloak
Facewrap – the face-wrapped figure in a hooded, sandcloth cloak

Still very short, but gives more information about the character's overall physical status.

Just an idea.

[Barsook]

I dig that more than the other one, much cleaner.

[musashi]

I simply don't believe that if this were to happen suddenly The Known is going to be covered with dead pcs because of it. I have yet to have a character killed or kill a character because of a keyword mistake. I've never even witnessed it happen because the times someone has accidently done it they just disengage. (before it was added people just fled) I've had a lot of characters, probably too many.


And as I said before: disengage

Anyway, it was just an idea. I would like it, none of the reasons given would be a big problem to me. I'm going to bow out now.

I have very nearly killed other PC's who put inix in their list of keywords then attacked an inix on a hunt. The disengage option is nice ... assuming you don't kill them before your command delay from using "kill" wears off.

In the case I'm recalling the PC got hit once by mine and taken down to "does not look well". They managed to flee before getting hit again but now with the new adjustments to the flee code .... eh. I think you should give a little more credence to the "whoops" factor. Especially if you've got dwarves, muls, or half-giants with you.