New Idea: Brief attention.

[musashi]

You don't see emotes or talks from any table other than your own.

[Delirium]

Dear ginka YES PLEASE.

You still see room stuff, but nothing from other tables/bars/pillows/whatever.

Brilliance.

[ShaLeah]

You want to ignore other's roleplay? You'll miss out on a lot.

You can use gag for that, it doesn't have to be a mud change.

Might I also suggest a loner?  Not hanging out in a tavern?

Not crazy about this idea.

[Delirium]

one word: superlargerptswhereit'simpossibletoseewhat'sgoingon

[ShaLeah]

one word: superlargerptswhereit'simpossibletoseewhat'sgoingon

one word: GAG
(the only downside being if that gagged PC attacks your ass) lol

[RogueGunslinger]

Mind explaining what GAG is?

[MeTekillot]

Messing with your mud client settings on the fly to ignore stuff that is not pertinent to you, I think.

[ShaLeah]

Messing with your mud client settings on the fly to ignore stuff that is not pertinent to you, I think.

It's an ignore feature (some/mine) mud clients have. It blocks whatever you tell it to.
Let's say you wanna play an anorexic. You can gag "You are hungry" (and subsequent messages) up until Your health worsens blah blah blah.
Maybe your person is deaf. You can set the client to show you nothing but a message you personalize when someone tells you something "You notice <whoever> is trying to tell you something". You get the picture.

[musashi]

Yes. When I am in a room full of 12+ people, and I'm being spammed with a barraige of "so and so nods while they speak at their table" talk emotes ... I want to ignore other people's RP.

I also don't want to accidentally not notice I got attacked because I was using the gag feature of my client on the fly.

But I do want to focus on the RP going on at the table with the people I'm actually interacting with.

Staff can monitor the whole game world right? Catch every single emote/think/say/tell/recite/sing/whisper/ect every single PC does ... if you can understand why they might want that feature to be set on a toggle rather than just on full blast all the time ... then I think you can understand why players in a crowded room might want something similiar on a smaller scale.

It's not really about ignoring people, it's about being able to pay attention to the people you're interacting with.

[Rhyden]

This is a great idea. It's kind of unrealistic to see what everyone is doing when there's 12+ people around at various tables. Also not all clients have a gag option.

+1

[X-D]

Actually...I like this idea too.

Partly because it is a way to be rid of spam..

But mostly because I often play chars that really don't care that joe bynner is flirting with that rinthi breed at some other table.

[Uberskaapie]

If you were in a bar that was the same size as many in game and it was filled to near capacity with drunks, wouldn't you have a hard time hearing things? I kinda think room spam provides some accidental realism in these cases.

[musashi]

Even if I were to grant the notion that visual screen spam = background noise in a taven (which I don't grant, for the record) ...

I'm gonna go with the old playability > realism position on this one.

[Lizzie]

Also, just fyi to Shaleah - you're assuming that everyone in the bar has the listen skill. That's the only way you -can- "miss out" on conversations, by gagging the table talking. If you don't have the listen skill, you can't hear what they're saying anyway. So why would it matter in *most* cases, that they're talking to each other? The only thing you're missing out on is this:

Snickering softly, the green-eyed woman says something to the blue-haired man at a large round table.
Nodding agreeingly to the green-eyed woman, hand fluttering to brush a lock of glistening golden hair away from his round ear with a perfectly manicured finger, the blue-haired mand says something at a large round table.

I think most of us would benefit from a toggle that allows us to ignore that.

[musashi]

Basically, I just want a brief toggle that will make

Code Select Expand

> talk (emote) Blah blah blah.

Every bit as unnoticable to those not using their listen skill as

Code Select Expand

> talk Blah blah blah.

already is.

I think this would make RPT's a lot more bearable.

[greasygemo]

I hate to admit RPT's are fun, but they wear me the hell out. I'm all excited.. but it goes something like this after I get there.

1. Get there, all excited.
2. Locate some people.
3. Try to say hello, wait until they finish talking to whoever they are talking to.
4. Watch the screen jump 200 lines.
5. Repeat myself, unsure if they heard.
6. Suddenly screen scrolls another 100 lines, and I think I saw the grand-RPT-Pobah's name in there.
7. scrollllllling back like, "did they just announce something? No okay.. where was I?"
8. Scroll back down through the 100 lines, and then 100 more that appeared while I was checking.
9. Someone ways me all of a sudden, I scroll back through the spam to find it.
10. I find it, reply.
11. Make it back down through 400 lines and so-and-so I was talking said something and left.
12. Repeat from stage 2.

Stage #6 sometimes involves me noticing my name, or someone saying something insane that might be related to me. But it's the same idea.

This goes double for if I'm involved in aforementioned RPT and not a spectator.
me: "Is it my turn? Do I do that now? Who's Here? What did that guy say? What's their name? Where am I going? Answer me dammit! Psi: Stop wayying me so and so I'm lost and confused.."

I'm not sure how this can be appropriately dealt with. But I'd love a solution or suggestion.

And yes, I turn listen off at these things. I can't possibly imagine having it on.

[RogueGunslinger]

Highlight the word "you".
Highlight your name.

[greasygemo]

God, I need to man up and learn to use a MUDclient...
I play on hard mode. (AKA using flash client exclusively)

[ShaLeah]

Highlight the word "you".
Highlight your name.

Exactly.

You can gag talks at any other table and hence their emotes is my point, not just for the listeners. If you can gag anything, why do we need a toggle. I understand the allure, I'd even use it, I just don't see a need to code it.

[musashi]

If you can gag anything, why do we need a toggle.

Let me answer that for you.

I understand the allure, I'd even use it,

I don't get this "Because we can imperfectly gag things client side ... let's never build the function into the game" position.

You can make aliases client side, yet aliases are coded into the game as well.
You can gag all your miss messages in combat, yet brief combat is coded into the game as well.
You can macro "get arrow quiver; ep arrow" to a single command key, yet "pull quiver" is a function coded into the game as well.
You can color code damage messages in combat client side, yet this feature is coded into the game as well.

They're there, because they're nice functions that people use. That's the reason.  

[greasygemo]

You can color code damage messages in combat client side, yet this feature is coded into the game as well.

[musashi]

Code Select Expand

> help ansi

Color                                                         (Miscellaneous)

  Armageddon automatically detects your client's settings to use some basic
color settings, such as highlighting damage messages when you are hit.  

  If you would like a richer color experience, the Armageddon General
Discussion Board has had several threads where players have posted what clients
they use and their client configurations for color settings.  We suggest
you check there.


Delay:
  after

[Lizzie]

Reasoning:

It would be more convenient to more people to have one command game-side to toggle off or on...
than it would be to not have a command, and all the people who are inconvenienced by -not- having the command, having to each individually create a client-side script to do it for them.

Not that I'm saying the staff needs to work on it and implement it - but just explaining the reason why people think it's a good idea...

You can have a couple of coders (or Morgenes the Wonder-Boy) write a procedure, which allows 200 players to toggle -on- when it shows up, defaulted to -off- - by simply typing "talk squelch on" or "talk brief on" or "roombrief RPT mode on" or whatever else..

Or you can make 200 players each write out their own script on their own client, several of whom aren't all that good at writing scripts and end up being disappointed because they can't make it work, or spend countless hours trying to read the help files, or asking their buddies how to do it, or maybe 100 of those 200 just not bothering and dealing with the inconvenience of not being able to do it, which doesn't "hurt" them exactly, but makes playing during RPTs less fun than it would be if they were able to do such a thing.

200 people typing "toggle on"

vs.

200 people each writing a script in their client.

That's why it'd be a neat addition, if a couple of coders (or Morgenes the Wonder-Boy) were inspired to consider it.

[lordcooper]

table-mote: the talk of emotes

tmote nods noddily at ~2.nodder

[Sephiroto]

Being able to consciously ignore everything that happens in a tavern (tells, emotes, enter/exit messages) except for combat, magic, shouts, and conversation/emotes at one's own table would be nice.

[Wolfsong]

I would like a 'brief emote' that I can toggle so I no longer have to look at the emotes of other people in the same room as me.

[musashi]

Well, make your own thread for that 

[Dalmeth]

I can ignore all irrelevant conversation by being an asshole.  It's pretty simple, really.

And there will never be a way to effectively communicate in a crowd of a twenty people.  Just move to a different room.

[Harmless]

Eh, it's not that hard ya'll. Stop whining for morgenes to do everything for you, whip out your coder hats, and get crackin', if you care so much.

#substitute {At your table, %0 "%1"} {At your table, %0 "<(color code of your choice)>%1<(default color code)>"}

That'd probably work in tin.tin. I'm not going to test it right at this moment, maybe later.

I have clever ideas for how to get emotes color coded based on a system where you "look tables" and populate variables for every sdesc sitting at YOUR table. Then, when one of your "tablemate" variables is found, it'll highlight the line for their emotes.

These variables will be cleared whenever the client detects "You stand up from %0" where %0 is the table you were sitting at. It'll detect which table you're sitting at with the same kind of line "You sit at %0" and temporarily store that as well. It'll be fantabulous.

But that's more work. In the meantime, one line as above will literally highlight every talk at your table for you, no fuss.

[maxid]

A bunch of junk

Except this doesn't work for people who don't know how to set up triggers and stuff, and it doesn't work for people who use the flash client.  Try to keep up with the conversation.

[Harmless]

 I'm trying to be helpful. Asking the imms for more commands isn't going to help you, getting a better mud client and learning how to set up substitutions (not triggers) is going to help you. A lot quicker, too.

edit: I made this more polite. Sorry. Also, it surprises me anyone still uses the flash client and posts on the GDB. I guess the thought of that didn't register.

[Agent_137]

Hey, I think Harmless is trying to say that If you can figure out Armageddon then you are smart enough to learn how to setup triggers for your client.

Same goes to setting up one of the free clients. I recommend mushclient if on windows.

You could spend 20-30 solving the problem and walk away with a new useful skill IRL. Or wait and hope indefinitely for this to be implemented by someone else. Your call.

p.s.
Hi to my old friends in this thread.

[Delirium]

Setting up triggers is pretty easy. Brief attention would still be cool. It was possible to wade through mass combat before 'brief combat' with the right amount of practice and color triggers. I still like the addition of brief combat. Think of brief attention as the socialite's equivalent.

Hi Agent!

[flurry]

I don't have a major problem with this, but I don't see it as something I'd want to use often, if at all. Unlike brief combat, this would be filtering out emotes and dialogue of other players. Granted, we all actively "filter" much of that out already, but with the likelihood of being aware of something noteworthy going on nearby, amid the more humdrum tavern noise.

[musashi]

The code also already filters out the dialouge you're referring to. Keep that in mind.

If you don't have listen on, and someone at a table other than yours uses just the talk command with no embedded emote, you won't see a thing.

However most people like to use the embedded emotes, in which case the whole room gets the "says something at their table" echo. Using the embedded emotes is cool and all, I'm all for it. But in a room of 12+ PC's who are all using it every time they "talk" at their table it generates a lot of spam that wouldn't even be there if they were just using talk without an emote attached.

[Harmless]

The code also already filters out the dialouge you're referring to. Keep that in mind.

If you don't have listen on, and someone at a table other than yours uses just the talk command with no embedded emote, you won't see a thing.

However most people like to use the embedded emotes, in which case the whole room gets the "says something at their table" echo. Using the embedded emotes is cool and all, I'm all for it. But in a room of 12+ PC's who are all using it every time they "talk" at their table it generates a lot of spam that wouldn't even be there if they were just using talk without an emote attached.

How interesting, I didn't know about that! Cool.

[Lizzie]

I don't have a major problem with this, but I don't see it as something I'd want to use often, if at all. Unlike brief combat, this would be filtering out emotes and dialogue of other players. Granted, we all actively "filter" much of that out already, but with the likelihood of being aware of something noteworthy going on nearby, amid the more humdrum tavern noise.

Seems to me this thread has side-railed, and people are now responding to the side-rail, believing that it's the topic. Here's the topic, summarized:

Concern:

a) There are events where multiple people are gathered, sitting at different tables, having their own conversations.
b) Many people don't have the listen skill, or have it turned off intentionally, or unintentionally, in an effort to reduce screen scroll and be able to pay attention to what's going on at their own table (or on stage, for instance).
c) When people at tables use "talk" in conjunction with emoting, the people who are *not* sitting at those tables, who do *not* have listen running, still have to see the "So and so does all kinds of things at her table, and says" stuff, in addition to the usual screen scroll of people they *can* hear (because they're either not at a table, or at the same table as the listener).

This happens to EVERYONE who either has listen turned off, or lacks the listen skill, in a room with multiple tables all occupied by people having "table-talk" conversations.

Since these people can't hear those conversations ANYWAY...

it would be nice to have a toggle to eliminate the emotes that come with those "table-talks."

Presently, talking, without emotes, already is filtered out. If I typed:
talk Hello Sue.

Then everyone who does NOT have listen running, or is NOT at my table, will not see me say anything, will not see any emote, that line will simply not exist for them.

Many of us think it'd be a great idea if this:

talk (smiling at ~sue) Hello Sue.

would be filtered out as well, under the same circumstances.

There seems to be no one "against" the idea, many people "for" the idea. As ideas go, it's a damned nice one. No one "needs" to ride a mount, we *could* be forced to walk everywhere. But the staff thought it'd be a neat idea to include, so voila - we have mounts. No one "needs" ansi color. But the staff thought it'd be a good idea to include it, so voila - we have ansi color. No one "needs" a mudclient to access the game, and *could* be forced to use Internet Explorer exclusively. But the staff thought it'd be a neat idea to make the game more easily accessable, and so voila - it is.

This is another one of those ideas that we don't "need," but would be nice.

[Delusion]

talk (lifting her hand to make some sort of obscene gesture at a noble) Worthless pampered good-for-nothing.

I don't really see erasing others' emotes as being a good thing at all.

[AmandaGreathouse]

I'm against it.

Much like the look situation where if someone is carrying a flaming longsword around, if you aren't seeing anything that anyone else at the other tables is doing, they could be sticking someone up with a weapon or any number of other things and you could potentially miss it.

I'm in favor of a situational option for this during RPTs. That's literally all.

Just because no one posts they aren't in favor doesn't mean everyone likes it, so I'll go ahead and post that I don't.

[Is Friday]

A built-in command to gag just talk emotes would be great, yeah.

[musashi]

I think much like the look debate, if you are naked, carrying a flaming sword, holding up people in a crowded tavern overtly (rather than Han Solo crossbow under the table style) or whatever else ... the onus is on you to emote that. And in the hypothetical case of this command, since only table talk emotes would be muted, it wouldn't effect your standard emote about being naked, or your draw weapon command to hold someone up. All of that would still echo as normal.

So I don't see that as a concern. I find it highly unlikely that someone with a flaming sword is gonna come into a tavern, sit down, only table talk emote about it ... and then on top of that have the people at his table also only table talk emote their reactions. I'm pretty sure this would be a non-issue.

[flurry]

Well, if someone includes a crucial detail in a talk emote, I don't see why they should also have to include it in another emote, for the benefit of anyone who may have talk emotes muted.

[musashi]

My point is that if you are naked, have a flaming sword, or anything else the whole room should notice right away ... then you should probably emote about it when you first walk in the room. Rather than take the "Well you didn't look at me so its your fault." Or in this case the "Well I emoted about it once I was sitting down quietly at a table." approach.

And even if someone did that, seems unlikely the party at the table who did catch the emote about the fiery aura of magick death (or just the people who happened to have this command turned off) would likewise only keep their reactions exclusively to table talk emotes. The whole thing sounds like hyperbole.

And on top of all THAT ... I imagine most people would only turn the brief on when things were crowded and starting to get spammy like at an RPT. Much like how most people brief combat only in big group situations.

[Rhyden]

I think much like the look debate, if you are naked, carrying a flaming sword, holding up people in a crowded tavern overtly (rather than Han Solo crossbow under the table style) or whatever else ... the onus is on you to emote that. And in the hypothetical case of this command, since only table talk emotes would be muted, it wouldn't effect your standard emote about being naked, or your draw weapon command to hold someone up. All of that would still echo as normal.

So I don't see that as a concern. I find it highly unlikely that someone with a flaming sword is gonna come into a tavern, sit down, only table talk emote about it ... and then on top of that have the people at his table also only table talk emote their reactions. I'm pretty sure this would be a non-issue.

Agreed. Can't see this idea promoting bad RP. Besides, it's being proposed as 'brief' code so you could always toggle it off if you have to see every talk/emote.

Personally, I would use the crap out of this idea. Less is more, and my characters are in general blissfully ignorant.

[flurry]

My point is that if you are naked, have a flaming sword, or anything else the whole room should notice right away ... then you should probably emote about it when you first walk in the room. Rather than take the "Well you didn't look at me so its your fault." Or in this case the "Well I emoted about it once I was sitting down quietly at a table." approach.

And even if someone did that, seems unlikely the party at the table who did catch the emote about the fiery aura of magick death (or just the people who happened to have this command turned off) would likewise only keep their reactions exclusively to table talk emotes. The whole thing sounds like hyperbole.

And on top of all THAT ... I imagine most people would only turn the brief on when things were crowded and starting to get spammy like at an RPT. Much like how most people brief combat only in big group situations.

I'm not that concerned about the extreme examples you mention here. Instead I'm thinking of more ordinary situations, like someone gesturing toward you, or glaring at you, etc., while conversing at another table. I bring that up not because I'm vehemently opposed to this idea, but to stress that it would be fundamentally different than brief combat.

[musashi]

I disagree that it would be though.

In practice I belive that practically all people who table talk emote are emoting for the benefit of the other people at their table to begin with because the emote is tied to the speech they are currently using which is ... again ... clearly for the benefit of the people at their table.

I've never seen something akin to:

Lifting a hand to signal a the fellow who isn't at the table with you currently,
the tall muscular man says in sirihish, at your table,
 "Hey Malik! Long time no see!"

If someone wants to get Malik's attention, they use the tell command targeting Malik and embed an emote into that. Or they might use just a standard emote if they only want to wave, dip a nod, etc, but have nothing verbal to add.

That's the norm that we already live in, and I dare say that if we had a brief table-talk-emote kind of feature ... people would be even more mindful to use tell and standard emote when trying to capture the attention of someone not at their table than they already presently are, making it even less of an issue.

But ... let's grant for the moment that it might happen ... and envision how it might play out.

The tall muscular man arrives from the south.

Lifting a hand in greeting to the tall muscular man while keeping
his focus on the tressy tressed woman, you say in sirihish, at your
table,
  "Hey look there's Amos."

The tall muscular man sits at a small table. Not yours.

You think: Hey! He didn't say hello back the arse!

You tell the tall muscular man in sirihish,
  "Amos you ass I waved hello!"

Glancing over, the tall muscular man tells you in sirihish,
  "Oh. Hey how are you?"

... ... And the scene goes on. I'm having a hard time envisioning a "crutial detail in a talk emote" as you put it that if missed would detract from the scene or from the general RP ... without conjuring up some very far fetched hyperbole.

Ok ... so you glare at someone or you gesture at them, and they don't notice ... what do you do ... next? The scene rolls on without missing a beat.

[Harmless]

brief combat for miss messages: miss messages are a binary type of data, 1's and 0's. 1=hit, 0=miss. No continuum of values for possible misinterpretation. 0's can always be safely ignored. Talk emotes aren't binary data, and though it may be a 0.1 you're screening out, that 0.1 might be a 1 to someone else and you may regret missing it.

Rather than add a command that's useful to a select group of people (If you want to argue it's a majority, you're still only sampling GDB users), 90-99% of the time, where 1-10% of the time they may end up really regretting it, or may be inadvertently causing a nuisance to those around them, I prefer that people who feel as strongly about this as they do just figure out the (very easy) ways to make dealing with screen scroll easier.

For example, DID YOU KNOW that there are mud clients out there (including mushclient) that support multi-window play, and that it is quite easy to filter out certain kinds of messages to alternate windows? That's right, you can easily have it so that messages at your table are copied to a different window that you can stare at happily, while other windows just go crazy with screenscroll. This is how, for instance, Dragonrealms ran, which was a very popular mud with literally 100 players in a room on regular occasions. Nobody in that game ever thought of blotting out lines of text because automatically their most important text was in select sub-windows.

A "brief attention" command is clumsy. It hits this issue with a sledgehammer, whereas this "problem" is an opportunity for players to expand their mudding skills with better clients and better "triggers" (I hate the term trigger, it's a shitty mushclient term).

[Sephiroto]

I'm not that concerned about the extreme examples you mention here. Instead I'm thinking of more ordinary situations, like someone gesturing toward you, or glaring at you, etc., while conversing at another table.

If you're sitting at a table in a restaurant, chatting with your buds and someone at another table gestures or glares toward you while talking at their table there's no certainty that you will notice.  In fact, in most cases you will not notice because people generally try not to attract the attention of others while talking about them indirectly.

At any rate, my support of this idea stands because it would serve as a quick and easy way for players to make playing the game more manageable under certain circumstances.

[Marauder Moe]

I'm not sure where I stand on this one.

Though, I'd probably be more in favor of it if it was possible to exempt talks/emotes that target you, your table, or your tablemates from being ignored.

I also kinda think it should be reset if you stand up from your table, thus it's a conscious effort on your part and you're that much less likely to forget it's on.

[musashi]

stuff

Yes with work you can create the same effect client side. It's just more convenient for a number of reasons if its a feature within the game itself. Here's one reason:

Not everyone has the luxery of playing the game exclusively from their personal computer. For example, I make frequent business trips. When I do I'm on my iPad and the clients available for it lack that functionality.

In college I often had large breaks inbetween classes and would often play the game in the computer lab, where I couldn't download a client and set up gags, triggers, filters, etc.

I bet other players have similiar situations.

As for the "It's fundamentally different from brief combat" line that's surfaced I can only say, so what if it is? Brief room shuts down the entire room description of the areas you move through (put in to cut spam out of large travel RPT's most likely). That certainly isn't blocking "binary information only", it's blocking entire paragraphs of potentionally "crutial" details about the game world and ... yet ... it's enriched the game as a feature and people enjoy making use of it to cut down on spam in certain situations.

I understand that you, personally, wouldn't use it. I don't understand how you think that translates into a reason why it shouldn't be an optional feature for other people. It's just a non-sequitur.

I'd probably be more in favor of it if it was possible to exempt talks/emotes that target you, your table, or your tablemates from being ignored.

Sure. I personally don't think it's that big a deal if you miss someone's odd table talk nod or glare in your direction once in awhile, and I don't think it would actually happen that often anyway for reasons I already got into when replying to flurry. But I'm not opposed to the idea of pushing through emotes that target you as a keyword, either.

[Lizzie]

I think it makes a lot more sense to NOT notice when people at some OTHER table glare at me, than to notice every time anyone does anything that targets me, without any consideration at all to the proximity to me, the crowd seperating us, the event going on (if any), what direction that event is occuring (if any), and what *my character* happens to be paying attention to at the moment.

If I'm at the bar having an in-depth conversation about making serious sids off an order from a potential, rich customer, you can be assured, my character will *probably* not be noticing Rinthi McRinthshit squinting at me while sitting at the back table talking to his pal, Gemmer #5.. Unless of course she's expecting Rinthi McRinthshit, in which case, she will be paying attention to her surroundings. And that is exactly where this toggle will be used - on, when she's paying attention to her surroundings - listen, and all related emotes, will be noticed, based on skill level. Off, and she wont' be noticing, and therefore won't - well - notice.

[Narf]

I think it makes a lot more sense to NOT notice when people at some OTHER table glare at me, than to notice every time anyone does anything that targets me, without any consideration at all to the proximity to me, the crowd seperating us, the event going on (if any), what direction that event is occuring (if any), and what *my character* happens to be paying attention to at the moment.

I'd say this is doubly true if you've specifically set a toggle to have your character ignore what's going on around them.

[MeTekillot]

em completely oblivious to %drama.queen glare through a crowd and bustle of at least a few hundred, @ continues to speak with those at his table.

[flurry]

I'm kind of having the feeling that some people have 'brief gdb' turned on. For the record, I don't think characters should notice every glare in the room. I'm pretty sure that players have the discretion to decide what their characters notice or not.

[Lizzie]

em completely oblivious to %drama.queen glare through a crowd and bustle of at least a few hundred, @ continues to speak with those at his table.

Yes, that's all well and good, but I really don't want to have to emote every time my character doesn't do/notice something. Nor should I be expected to.

* Lizzie ignores ~queen at ^queen table.

* Lizzie now ignores ~met at ^met table.

* Lizzie continues ignoring ~queen, while deftly ignoring ~met, and adds ignoring ~mushy into the mix.

* Lizzie is ignoring all the people at ^queen table now, and begins to ignore ~talia at ^talia table as well.

* Lizzie ignores the entirety of ^queen table, ~talia, and has just started ignoring ^talia buddy seated beside #talia.

I'm thinking - no. I haven't ever done that in the past, I'd rather not have to do that now, thanks. Just a simple toggle on/off will be fine.

Wow I had no idea that typing a backslash followed by the word me, would result in an asterisk followed by my handle, with the line highlighted in red.

Well that's okay - y'all can just ignore that it did that, and pretend that you are just seeing the backslash, the me, and the line. Ignore that it's red too. Or just change your browser to make it look however you want it to look, it's easy, just a script and trigger

[ShaLeah]

For the record, I don't think characters should notice every glare in the room. I'm pretty sure that players have the discretion to decide what their characters notice or not.

Paranoid characters would.

[Morgenes]

I like the premise, but dislike the idea that it'd be something you'd have complete control over.  I'd like it to be something that even if you don't have it on you have a chance of not seeing emotes at other tables if you're at a table.   Honestly rather than using 'brief' which would really be a gag like command, I'd rather it be something you could use 'watch' to watch some other table.

[musashi]

I like the premise, but dislike the idea that it'd be something you'd have complete control over.  I'd like it to be something that even if you don't have it on you have a chance of not seeing emotes at other tables if you're at a table.   Honestly rather than using 'brief' which would really be a gag like command, I'd rather it be something you could use 'watch' to watch some other table.

Having your ability to catch table talk emotes be based on your watch or scan skill ... would be awesome.
I'd prefer scan just so I could turn it off if I wanted, like listen. FWIW.  :-/

Or do you mean like, you have to "watch" a table to see the emotes going on there?

[Narf]

I like the premise, but dislike the idea that it'd be something you'd have complete control over.  I'd like it to be something that even if you don't have it on you have a chance of not seeing emotes at other tables if you're at a table.   Honestly rather than using 'brief' which would really be a gag like command, I'd rather it be something you could use 'watch' to watch some other table.

This might be something a bit different. I think the whole reason this topic came up when it did, was because of RPT spam. Some people, myself included, have /physiological/ issues with screen scroll. My eyes water, and start to hurt after a while. What you're suggesting is more of an IC game feature. What a lot of us are looking for is an OOC one.

That said, this could potentially solve both problems in one swing if it were implemented with both goals in mind.

[X-D]

I like Morgs suggestion as well...but it is an IC suggestion...and so..not really fitting to the OP. (still approve though)

Somebody else got me thinking about the last Luirsfest my PC attended and I could not help thinking...Man, Brief attention would have made the pit fights 100 times more enjoyable. I actually had my PC leave way early simply because I, the player could not take it anymore.

And since the OP and other posters since have stated this idea is more for RPTs.

How about this...have the function only able to be toggled if there is more then a certain number of people in the room? Say Eight or Ten.

[AmandaGreathouse]

I like Morgs suggestion as well...but it is an IC suggestion...and so..not really fitting to the OP. (still approve though)

Somebody else got me thinking about the last Luirsfest my PC attended and I could not help thinking...Man, Brief attention would have made the pit fights 100 times more enjoyable. I actually had my PC leave way early simply because I, the player could not take it anymore.

And since the OP and other posters since have stated this idea is more for RPTs.

How about this...have the function only able to be toggled if there is more then a certain number of people in the room? Say Eight or Ten.

I like the idea of it not being able to be toggled on when there's less than 8 or 10 in a room.

[Quell]

I like Morgs suggestion as well...but it is an IC suggestion...and so..not really fitting to the OP. (still approve though)

Somebody else got me thinking about the last Luirsfest my PC attended and I could not help thinking...Man, Brief attention would have made the pit fights 100 times more enjoyable. I actually had my PC leave way early simply because I, the player could not take it anymore.

And since the OP and other posters since have stated this idea is more for RPTs.

How about this...have the function only able to be toggled if there is more then a certain number of people in the room? Say Eight or Ten.

I like the idea of it not being able to be toggled on when there's less than 8 or 10 in a room.

I think it would be better to leave it up to player discretion. If a player (not character) feels they're having trouble with table spam from only 7 people there's not a lot of harm in letting them turn it off. I just don't think you gain enough from setting up these kinds of limits. Actually, I don't think you gain anything at all from setting these kinds of limits.

Also trying to estimate how much spam reduction people might want is difficult. I for one don't have very good eyesight anymore. My font size is set kinda on the high end, so screen scroll hits me a bit harder than people with better eyesight. If someone with good eyesight is setting the limit, it's probably not going to be ideal for someone like me.

That said, this would still solve the RPT issue, which I think is by far my biggest concern.

[Lizzie]

The "watch" skill addition might be great. It'd definitely give people more of a reason to use it; they could watch an entire table, rather than one individual person, or a broad direction (such as - south).

And if they turn watch OFF...then they would miss everything said *and done* at tables, if those actions were included in "talk" conversations.

It still won't limit the spam of people who are standing up, or just using the regular emote command, but it would greatly reduce the spam created by people talking at tables when you aren't even trying to listen to them, let alone watch them.

Only thing Morgenes - if I am successfully listening, but UNsuccessfully watching - the end result would need to be something like this:

talk (smiling at ~sue) Hey Sue, glad you could join us!

successful listen/UNsuccessful watch would be:

At a green-topped table, Amos says, in sirihish, "Hey Sue, glad you could join us!"

while a successful listen/successful watch would be:

At a green-topped table, Amos says, in sirihish, waving at Sue, "Hey Sue, glad you could join us!"

and an UNsuccessful listen/UNsuccessful watch would be:

...

(nothing)

[ShaLeah]

I like the premise, but dislike the idea that it'd be something you'd have complete control over.  I'd like it to be something that even if you don't have it on you have a chance of not seeing emotes at other tables if you're at a table.   Honestly rather than using 'brief' which would really be a gag like command, I'd rather it be something you could use 'watch' to watch some other table.

I've always thought we should be able to watch tables/bars and have idea'd such in game.

What if when you are watching someone/some direction (which you SHOULD still be able to do while sitting) you -don't- catch everything else around you because you're so intently focused on the objects of your obsession?

[AmandaGreathouse]

What if when you are watching someone/some direction (which you SHOULD still be able to do while sitting) you -don't- catch everything else around you because you're so intently focused on the objects of your obsession?

The main reason I dislike this is that I am nearly always 'watching' the person on whom my pc's attention is most focused, and I don't think that if I'm talking and interacting with two people at once, it should exclude the other person, even by chance. Actually, I really wish you could watch two people at once, so I could see hemoted body language cues and so forth from both people I'm talking to, if I'm talking to two people at once.

[Harmless]

What if when you are watching some direction (which you SHOULD still be able to do while sitting)

Your character must be standing in order to watch things in the distance.

I always thought it made sense that you had to be standing to watch directions in busy tavern-like rooms, especially with all the tall, muscular men hanging around.

But, I feel like you should be able to watch a direction while sitting if the place isn't crowded with vnpcs, like when sitting on a road and watching one direction. Should be possible.

Edited to remove "non-sequiturs." 

[maxid]

Some people, myself included, have /physiological/ issues with screen scroll. My eyes water, and start to hurt after a while.

Not to mention people using screen readers due to poor/nonexistent eyesight.

[musashi]

What if when you are watching someone/some direction (which you SHOULD still be able to do while sitting) you -don't- catch everything else around you because you're so intently focused on the objects of your obsession?

I wouldn't mind this setup either because it means that by watching my own table, I could in effect cut out all the screen spam from everyone else's table talks. Like a make-shift "watch off" command  

How about this...have the function only able to be toggled if there is more then a certain number of people in the room? Say Eight or Ten.

This I'm not crazy about. Let's leave it to player discresion please. Trust me, people know their RL situation, and their characters and what they should be focused on and concerned with better than you do (general people in support of this idea 'you').

It's complicated. This is why everyone whose only complaint is "I can't see shit in RPTs" is much better off figuring out their own solutions.

Again man, complete non sequitur. Also, on top of that, staff has said in the past "When suggesting/discussing new possible code additions, please don't worry yourselves with how complicated it may or may not be to code. We'll make that call." So let's leave the call of how complicated it may or may not be to implement in Morgenes' court where it belongs and stick to just discussing possible pros and cons if implemented as envisioned.

[X-D]

Besides, It is my bet that it is less complicated for Morg to code then it is for me to write a script for my client...or gag triggers...whatever.

Speaking of which..Because such things require keywords or keyword strings...they tend to do some rather odd things at times.

For instance, before there was brief combat, I did have gags in place for dodges...it is amazing how often other things got gagged...parts of room descriptions, things people say, etc. Even after a bunch of work to where I had negated 90%, the other 10% was still annoying.

At least if it is game side, I know Morg did it right and there will be no surprises.

[BleakOne]

I like this idea.

[Harmless]

#highlight {^At your table, %0:$} {bold white}

There you go. It's fail-safe, owing to the ^ and $ characters.

Compatible only with TinTin++, the only mud client worth using. Change bold white to whatever you want, and enjoy having all your table's talk lines highlighted for you. It won't fuck up anything. It can be mimicked by players but they would look fucking stupid doing it. One line of "triggers" to help you see shit, which was, I thought, the point of this thread.

[Nyr]

I also already highlight things said "at your table," "at your seat," etc in certain formatting.  Things whispered are in different formatting.  Things wayed come through in different formatting.  Hemotes and Semotes are something I've considered making a bit more difficult to see (lighter coloration) to remind me that my character may not necessarily notice something even if they codedly do.  I even highlight "you notice" from the beginning of a sentence, because staffers are wont to use that to spoof hemote in private echoes to PCs (usually to enhance the immersion of an animation by providing specific details to specific individuals that--due to their training, station, or position--actually should notice something before others do). 

That's not to say that a coded solution isn't possible or shouldn't be reviewed, but there are certainly ways you can make the spam of large events easier to manage, and that's even with crappy clients, too.

[musashi]

I also make use of highlights, filters, triggers, etc with my PC's client program. They're very useful.

It's just that, to answer Harmless, no. Coming up with trigger ideas to help see shit was not the point of this thread. The point was/is to discuss a possible coded solution. The merits and demerits thereof. So on. So forth.

Not that offering tips on trigger setup isn't a cool thing. It's just we have a different thread for that, I believe. It's a bit of a derail here.

I have some thoughts/questions about the idea Morgenes proposed but I'll wait till I'm home from work to post about them.

[Harmless]

it's all good musashi. For some reason we seem to strongly disagree about the relatedness of my posts to this thread, and for that we'll agree to disagree. In terms of my thoughts about the idea itself, they've all been variously written in here already by others, and I have nothing productive to add. Anyway,  I thought my tips were productive,  and I'm done making them.

[musashi]

Yep, it's all good Harmless.

Home at last.

I like the premise, but dislike the idea that it'd be something you'd have complete control over.  I'd like it to be something that even if you don't have it on you have a chance of not seeing emotes at other tables if you're at a table.   Honestly rather than using 'brief' which would really be a gag like command, I'd rather it be something you could use 'watch' to watch some other table.

I was curious to know a little bit more about what you were thinking Morgenes.

If catching table emotes is based on the watch skill, would that make them something that you have a chance to notice passively like one can with hemotes now, and a sure fire chance of noticing them if you actively target a table with the watch command?

Or would it be a case where you normally don't see table emotes at all, and actively targeting a table with the watch command gives you a chance to see emotes coming from that table? -- Like how you don't normally see table talks at all without your listen skill on.

[Morrolan]

My impression (and vision) on this is that passive watch would let you see the occasional emote at other tables, and active watch would let you see most all of it (and still passively pick up occasional hemotes).

[Maso]

I'm not reading through the whole thread. But I'm all for something like this. Maybe the odd thing could slip through anyway, you overhear something or notice something every so often, but otherwise...a bit of peace when you want/need to concentrate in a busy room. If you don't like it and love the scroll...don't use it?