Are you topless or not?

[bardlyone]

If you want to see what someone is (or isn't) wearing, you have to LOOK at them. Just like RL.

When you enter a room, you don't have to take time to explicitly stare in turn at each person or object present to notice unusual conditions. You immediately and pretty much automatically notice that naked person, or the one covered in blood, or the one waving a gun around.

But if you hate it that much, an option could always be provided to switch off the tags so you personally don't see them.

You're right. You don't have to stare at anything. All you have to do is LOOK. Funny how that's what I said, explicitly.  A look is, by definition, not a long attentive stare. That's a stare. Like watching someone as opposed to looking at them. Just by looking at them, you can tell something's off. Again, that just seems to be working in a way that is intuitive and in line with RL.

And your toggle idea does nothing to allay the actual concern I have over this being implemented. Which is that people would treat a simple LOOK like it was a STARE. But I must be talking to the wrong person, because you did literally that exact thing to what I said was a simple look, in your response.

[hyzhenhok]

I am quite amused by the suggestion for mandatory "scars" on the torso location to make it very obvious when you're topless. Makes sense, right? Allanak's cultural dress is supposed to be conservative, it's something we should be able to notice immediately.

But if it makes sense to be able to easily, codedly recognize toplessness like that, it should be the same for full nudity. So we probably need another set of scars and a new "between legs" locdesc.

[Marauder Moe]

Come to think of it, I believe I've actually seen more female characters going around topless than I have male ones... and people reacted more to the male one.   (Granted, most of that was probably because of who he was.  You know who.)

[Eyeball]

If you want to see what someone is (or isn't) wearing, you have to LOOK at them. Just like RL.

When you enter a room, you don't have to take time to explicitly stare in turn at each person or object present to notice unusual conditions. You immediately and pretty much automatically notice that naked person, or the one covered in blood, or the one waving a gun around.

But if you hate it that much, an option could always be provided to switch off the tags so you personally don't see them.

You're right. You don't have to stare at anything. All you have to do is LOOK. Funny how that's what I said, explicitly.  A look is, by definition, not a long attentive stare. That's a stare. Like watching someone as opposed to looking at them. Just by looking at them, you can tell something's off. Again, that just seems to be working in a way that is intuitive and in line with RL.

And your toggle idea does nothing to allay the actual concern I have over this being implemented. Which is that people would treat a simple LOOK like it was a STARE. But I must be talking to the wrong person, because you did literally that exact thing to what I said was a simple look, in your response.

The game is set up so that you look at the room when you walk in, dude.

Answer this simple question. When you enter a room with a naked person among a crowd of several people, do you notice immediately? Or do you have to make a conscious effort (look at <person>) to notice?

You shouldn't have to go through everyone in the room, typing 'look at <person>', to finally notice that one guy waving a massive sword. It should be instantly obvious.

The way things are structured now, you get the ludicrous situations people already described in this thread, such as someone walking about for days without wearing pants and no one noticing. All because it currently requires deliberate scrutiny to notice the most obvious things.

If you haven't realized it, the game already tags people who are injured. Do you hate that? Do you demand that it be changed so you have to deliberately look at that person to see it too?

Also, the look command is much more than a glance: (1) the person being looked at always notices you looking at him, and (2) you note every single last detail of what that person looks like (even if he has a mask or facewrap on) as well as what he is wearing. If you're upset about people treating it as a very deliberate gaze, then ask for some sort of glance that can include elements of the desc, or a silent look skill.

[Alesan]

If you want to see what someone is (or isn't) wearing, you have to LOOK at them. Just like RL.

When you enter a room, you don't have to take time to explicitly stare in turn at each person or object present to notice unusual conditions. You immediately and pretty much automatically notice that naked person, or the one covered in blood, or the one waving a gun around.

But if you hate it that much, an option could always be provided to switch off the tags so you personally don't see them.

You're right. You don't have to stare at anything. All you have to do is LOOK. Funny how that's what I said, explicitly.  A look is, by definition, not a long attentive stare. That's a stare. Like watching someone as opposed to looking at them. Just by looking at them, you can tell something's off. Again, that just seems to be working in a way that is intuitive and in line with RL.

And your toggle idea does nothing to allay the actual concern I have over this being implemented. Which is that people would treat a simple LOOK like it was a STARE. But I must be talking to the wrong person, because you did literally that exact thing to what I said was a simple look, in your response.

Under your logic, you'd have to LOOK at someone to notice their sdesc, too. So where do you draw the line?

[John]

the onus is on the player to be a good rper and set their pose.

I don't like the suggestion that failing to set your change ldesc makes you a bad RPer.

Change ldesc is a real pain to use, especially if you're not remaining absolutely still and/or doing any crafting. Second you stand up, there's no more custom ldesc. Want to unpeel that bit of fruit? You've just lost your ldesc. Stand up to bow to a templar and sit back down? Better reset that damn custom ldesc.

I agree it might be nice if the code was smart enough to change your default ldesc for you under the right circumstances, kinda like how it does if you're injured.

The blond, toned man is standing here, sword in hand.
The blue-eyed, shapely woman is standing here, holding a flickering torch aloft.
The raven-haired, doe-eyed woman is sitting at the bar here, torso bare of clothing.
The towering, tuber-nosed half-giant is standing at the bar here, bleeding profusely. (the code takes care of this one for us, albeit in not-always-realistic ways)

I definitely like this, although do worry that it could get a bit excessive. So long as it's determined that the worst case scenario isn't excessively long then I'd be good with it. The longest I can imagine is:The raven-haired, doe-eyed woman is sitting at the bar here while topless, pantsless, armed, holding a burning torch and looking near death.

Dresses would need to be changed to make sure everyone wearing a dress doesn't suddenly get the pantsless tag though.

[bardlyone]

If you want to see what someone is (or isn't) wearing, you have to LOOK at them. Just like RL.

When you enter a room, you don't have to take time to explicitly stare in turn at each person or object present to notice unusual conditions. You immediately and pretty much automatically notice that naked person, or the one covered in blood, or the one waving a gun around.

But if you hate it that much, an option could always be provided to switch off the tags so you personally don't see them.

You're right. You don't have to stare at anything. All you have to do is LOOK. Funny how that's what I said, explicitly.  A look is, by definition, not a long attentive stare. That's a stare. Like watching someone as opposed to looking at them. Just by looking at them, you can tell something's off. Again, that just seems to be working in a way that is intuitive and in line with RL.

And your toggle idea does nothing to allay the actual concern I have over this being implemented. Which is that people would treat a simple LOOK like it was a STARE. But I must be talking to the wrong person, because you did literally that exact thing to what I said was a simple look, in your response.

Under your logic, you'd have to LOOK at someone to notice their sdesc, too. So where do you draw the line?

I don't see how. I can walk into an area and have a very general idea of what the people in my immediate vicinity look like without LOOKing at them (you know, like their most prominent feature or two, like an sdesc) - anyone can do so with peripheral vision. This is also already how it is.

Please don't try and superimpose something I did not say and suggest that it's my logic. You are wrong. It is not.

[bardlyone]

If you're upset about people treating it as a very deliberate gaze, then ask for some sort of glance that can include elements of the desc, or a silent look skill.

I'm not upset. I disagree. There's really no need for you to superimpose emotions on me.

And I'm certainly not the only person who has held the position that look should be silent.

In fact, it's been asked for many times. And received no change or response. Repeating that in the hopes that the results would be different is the definition of insanity.

I can disagree with the suggestion of a new addition without requesting that something existing be changed, as well.

[whitt]

And I'm certainly not the only person who has held the position that look should be silent.

In fact, it's been asked for many times. And received no change or response. Repeating that in the hopes that the results would be different is the definition of insanity.

Nope, just keep swimming. 

If we could look at everyone in a room we walked into without worrying about spamming the dozen folks in the Gaj that would make it so much less of a bother.

There are many times I don't, for instance, look at NPCs to see what their descriptions are simply because I don't want to spawn the half-dozen looks in addition to the two to three PCs I want to look at too.

I think the better question really is why isn't look a hemote?  Is it that complicated a code change?

[Alesan]

I don't see how. I can walk into an area and have a very general idea of what the people in my immediate vicinity look like without LOOKing at them (you know, like their most prominent feature or two, like an sdesc) - anyone can do so with peripheral vision. This is also already how it is.

Please don't try and superimpose something I did not say and suggest that it's my logic. You are wrong. It is not.

I can walk in an area and get a very general idea of whether someone is armed, or bleeding to death, or shirtless. Are you saying eye color is much easier to see at a glance than a gaping, blood-gushing wound in someone's chest? Or a massive bastard sword in their hand? A lit torch?

Your logic simply doesn't make sense to me. And I have a feeling this argument will go nowhere, so I'm going to step out of it at this point.

[Marauder Moe]

I doubt it's a complicated code change.  Probably it's not a hemote because the majority of staff/producers don't want it to be.

I'm not sure the majority of players do either.  I personally find myself on the fence about it.

That said...

In fact, it's been asked for many times. And received no change or response. Repeating that in the hopes that the results would be different is the definition of insanity.

Staff change.  Players change.  Staff opinions change.  Player opinions change.  Armageddon codebase technology changes.  A lot of ideas are worth bringing up again every now and then.  Sometimes they are then enacted.

[RogueGunslinger]

I don't see how. I can walk into an area and have a very general idea of what the people in my immediate vicinity look like without LOOKing at them (you know, like their most prominent feature or two, like an sdesc) - anyone can do so with peripheral vision. This is also already how it is.

Please don't try and superimpose something I did not say and suggest that it's my logic. You are wrong. It is not.

I can walk in an area and get a very general idea of whether someone is armed, or bleeding to death, or shirtless. Are you saying eye color is much easier to see at a glance than a gaping, blood-gushing wound in someone's chest? Or a massive bastard sword in their hand? A lit torch?

Your logic simply doesn't make sense to me. And I have a feeling this argument will go nowhere, so I'm going to step out of it at this point.

You do realize you're both agreeing, right?

[Alesan]

I don't see how. I can walk into an area and have a very general idea of what the people in my immediate vicinity look like without LOOKing at them (you know, like their most prominent feature or two, like an sdesc) - anyone can do so with peripheral vision. This is also already how it is.

Please don't try and superimpose something I did not say and suggest that it's my logic. You are wrong. It is not.

I can walk in an area and get a very general idea of whether someone is armed, or bleeding to death, or shirtless. Are you saying eye color is much easier to see at a glance than a gaping, blood-gushing wound in someone's chest? Or a massive bastard sword in their hand? A lit torch?

Your logic simply doesn't make sense to me. And I have a feeling this argument will go nowhere, so I'm going to step out of it at this point.

You do realize you're both agreeing, right?

That'd probably explain why it doesn't make sense to me.

[nauta]

no

Thanks!  It sounds like the cases where this is a 'problem' are pretty rare.  It also sounds like two plausible solutions would be:

a) implement <nothing> in locdescs that have nothing in them

b) prepend the adjective 'open/closed' to cloaks.

(And I think the 'look' discussion is valuable, but maybe could be another thread.)

[bardlyone]

I like b. Nauta. a seems like it would be spammier. B seems like it would work out well, and be sort of in line with turning multiples into 'a couple/few/several/many' in ldescs.

@Alesan: We're not entirely in disagreement, but the example you chose (eye color) can be very captivating and attention drawing if it's unusual, and I don't see how anyone would notice that someone's not wearing a shirt before they can see the person's hair/skin/general coloration and build. re: the topless thing: look at all the topless male slaves around, and keep in mind that 50% of allanak's people (almost) were slaves according to the "official response" on it a while back. so I would think it would actually be a fairly common sight - though you'd have to pay more attention (actually looking) at them to see if they were a slave or not (despite it being mostly slaves that go shirtless). the weapon would entirely depend on size, but can already be seen if you're armed or not via assess. As to the torch example... it's just as easy to be the one carrying it and not notice you are as the one in the room who doesn't see it. If people looked at the people they were talking to, I'd imagine it'd be fairly obvious, and if it's some rando you're not paying attention to, what would be so remarkable about a torch as to draw your notice?

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

Look needs to retain a default echo until a combination of face wear and cloaking hides the ldesc of assaulties. Until both change in unison, changing look breaks raiders and muggers worse than it is already broken.

[nauta]

Look needs to retain a default echo until a combination of face wear and cloaking hides the ldesc of assaulties. Until both change in unison, changing look breaks raiders and muggers worse than it is already broken.

Wait, can you explain this a bit?  I don't understand how look-without-echo would break a raider or mugger?

(I mean I get that sneaky types get screwed when you look at them, which is why my next sneak I'm definitely going to append in the tdesc in all caps: 'Yes, she is absolutely so covered up in that mask and that cloak and that facewrap that you absolutely should not have anything more than a vague size, tops, to take away from looking at her.  Probably not even the sex.')

ETA, since I'm thinking about look, I forget what the arguments were on the side of keeping the echo...

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

Well, if that these gets taken into account, then you won't get screwed. I think code should ensure you don't get screwed.

[hyzhenhok]

Look needs to retain a default echo until a combination of face wear and cloaking hides the ldesc of assaulties. Until both change in unison, changing look breaks raiders and muggers worse than it is already broken.

Wait, can you explain this a bit?  I don't understand how look-without-echo would break a raider or mugger?

(I mean I get that sneaky types get screwed when you look at them, which is why my next sneak I'm definitely going to append in the tdesc in all caps: 'Yes, she is absolutely so covered up in that mask and that cloak and that facewrap that you absolutely should not have anything more than a vague size, tops, to take away from looking at her.  Probably not even the sex.')

If you are trying to keep your character's identity a secret in an encounter, the look echo is useful because it tells you when you've been compromised. Supposedly, PC raiders might be inclined to kill targets they otherwise would have let live if their target looks at them or contacts them. Keeping your identity secret isn't really necessary to play a raider or mugger, but if you don't, you're stuck between choosing between a short lifespan or a highly isolated role.

Personally I don't think it should be easy to live a double life as a social character who is sekritly a raider, but there are other circumstances where it makes sense and would be nice if you could realistically hide your character's identity.

[The Silence of the Erdlus]

Nevermind, is a bit baity.

[FantasyWriter]

I would encourage someone to use a tdesc if they're going around bare chested. Since that would be noticeable and not the norm for either gender.

I once walked around without pants for 3 RL days before I realized.

God, so wish I still had the log where my noble lost his pants and assaulted a Kadian merchant because they didn't have any pants in stock.
I think the staffer that was playing along with me told me that I had junked them while changing wardrobe.

[CodeMaster]

I would encourage someone to use a tdesc if they're going around bare chested. Since that would be noticeable and not the norm for either gender.

I once walked around without pants for 3 RL days before I realized.

God, so wish I still had the log where my noble lost his pants and assaulted a Kadian merchant because they didn't have any pants in stock.
I think the staffer that was playing along with me told me that I had junked them while changing wardrobe.

I think I just heard the best reason to play a noble.

Code Select Expand


A pair of silk pants whispers from the corner, "Don't forget meeeee..."


I think it would be good if when you

Code Select Expand


look man's cloak


alongside the smelly, sweaty, etc. flags it also told you whether it was open or closed.

[John]

I think it would be good if when you

Code Select Expand


look man's cloak


alongside the smelly, sweaty, etc. flags it also told you whether it was open or closed.

I think this would be a great alternative to the above suggestions. It's not as comprehensive obviously. But it's something.

[Taven]

Knowing if someone is topless is important. So is knowing if they're bottomless.

If somebody has a cloak closed you can't tell if they're wearing a dress or if they're just nude down there.

[The Silence of the Erdlus]

That's pretty much why I don't close my cloaks if i'm wearing a dress or a loincloth about the waist.