A new hemote

[shadeoux]

I'm not entirely sure if this has been brought up, but I am going to Idea this thought, and I wanted to get some feedback.

A new type of emote that allows the "target" see it like an emote, but others may have a chance to see it if it's not directed at them.

Like squeezing someones leg under a table. The persons it is directly affecting will see/feel it, but the others may not.

Thoughts?

[Lizzie]

So basically, a targetted hemote with a guarantee of successful notice by the target.

Love it.

[Yam]

I've wanted this for a while. It's been brought up, but not in its own thread.

snytax:

themote nyr kicks %nyr foot under the table.

you see: You kick Nyr's foot under the table.

target sees: Yam kicks your foot under the table.

others have chance to see: You notice: Yam kicks Nyr's foot under the table.

[shadeoux]

exactly

[Barsook]

I dig it!

[RogueGunslinger]

Been an advocate for this one for a long time now. Yes please.

[Kalai]

Yeah would be cool.

[A Large Bag]

Good idea.

[MeTekillot]

Maybe they could just add a function to where, if you add a + before the emote tags already (%, &, *, !, etc) then it's a targeted hemote.

Example: hemote makes a neck-slicing motion toward +~amos, ticking his head toward ~half.elf.

Amos sees the emote without a problem, perhaps with an appending thing that says it's supposed to be subtle.

Other observers, including the half-elf, have to pass whatever check it is you pass to see a hemote.

[Barsook]

That works better than the plain version.  You have my stamp of approval.

[Yasbusta]

Pretty funny, I was away during the implementation of hemote, came back and started using it thinking if I used another pc in it that they would see it if I was visible to them. Sucked when I found out much later that this was not true. All the wasted hemotes maybe,

Love it!

[RogueGunslinger]

Pretty funny, I was away during the implementation of hemote, came back and started using it thinking if I used another pc in it that they would see it if I was visible to them. Sucked when I found out much later that this was not true. All the wasted hemotes maybe,

Love it!

I actually like this idea the best.

[Feco]

Pretty funny, I was away during the implementation of hemote, came back and started using it thinking if I used another pc in it that they would see it if I was visible to them. Sucked when I found out much later that this was not true. All the wasted hemotes maybe,

Love it!

I actually like this idea the best.

I don't, as you can't be staring/peeking at someone/someone's something without them seeing it every single time.

[Maso]

I've wanted this for a while.

+1

[RogueGunslinger]

Good point.

[Feco]

I forgot to voice my approval for this, however.

As long as there is still a chance for someone else to see it.  Maybe a very small chance the person you targeted won't see it, being a hidden thing and all.

[Barsook]

I've wanted this for a while.

+1

[Maso]

I always figured that semotes were more likely to be seen by someone targeted in them. But I'm not sure why I always thought this...and I could be entirely wrong.

Just thought there had to be a coded difference between hemote and semote...and that would the chance of them being noticed and who by.

[Nyr]

I always figured that semotes were more likely to be seen by someone targeted in them. But I'm not sure why I always thought this...and I could be entirely wrong.

Just thought there had to be a coded difference between hemote and semote...and that would the chance of them being noticed and who by.

Yep, there definitely is a coded difference between hemote and semote.  It is not quite that, though.  See the helpfiles for more details.

[MeTekillot]

Semotes can't be seen by sleeping people or in the dark. Also, if you're hidden and use them, anyone who can't see you can't see them.

[Maso]

I always figured that semotes were more likely to be seen by someone targeted in them. But I'm not sure why I always thought this...and I could be entirely wrong.

Just thought there had to be a coded difference between hemote and semote...and that would the chance of them being noticed and who by.

Yep, there definitely is a coded difference between hemote and semote.  It is not quite that, though.  See the helpfiles for more details.

Yeah...I mean...I did just make that up to satisfy my need for consistent reasoning to remind myself differentiate between them when using them.

[Akaramu]

Maybe this could be done with hemotes as they are, but by targeting another PC / keyword as the first word:

hemote Amos Sliding her hand underneath the table, @ briefly squeezes %Amos leg.

As opposed to:

hemote sighs, looking extremely bored.

[Chettaman]

I love this guy's idea. It makes sense. So much sense.

http://www.zalanthas.org/gdb/index.php/topic,37359.0.html

[Barsook]

That works better than the + idea.

[Bast]

Agreed this is a great idea.

[musashi]

+1

[Yam]

Maybe this could be done with hemotes as they are, but by targeting another PC / keyword as the first word:

hemote Amos Sliding her hand underneath the table, @ briefly squeezes %Amos leg.

As opposed to:

hemote sighs, looking extremely bored.

It would need a new command. Otherwise it would break hemote with mistargets and what not.

[Chettaman]

> hemote () - exclude one
> hemote [] - include one

[Barsook]

+1