Strange things that break hide or don't break hide

[Beethoven]

I know this topic has come up before, but I haven't seen a list of things that break or don't break hide that should be known.

Some of these issues are ICish and probably should be figured out IG, but I know there are some quirks with things that really shouldn't break hide that do, and perhaps some things that don't break hide that should; I think we should bring some of these up so we can play around them accordingly.

For example, does 'change ldesc' break hide? (I'm fairly confident the answer is no, but that's the sort of thing I mean--examples that aren't IC issues.)

Does 'arrange' break hide?

Does 'hit' in a bar break hide? I read once that it didn't, and if it hasn't been fixed yet, that's the sort of thing that should be known so people don't accidentally end up beating someone up as the Invisible Man.

Do 'barter' and 'buy' break hide? They really should, or you shouldn't be able to do them while hidden, but I think they might not based on some iffy anecdotal evidence.


Things like that should be well-known in my opinion so we don't misstep or end up doing something utterly ridiculously unrealistic based on a bizarre code quirk.

[Yam]

examine
eq(uipment)
stand

[Beethoven]

examine
eq(uipment)
stand

You're saying those all break hide?

[Beethoven]

Hide is pretty wonky in my opinion and there are a lot of things that could be changed about it. It works basically in the same way as it did in a super-gamey MUD I played that didn't give a damn about realism. The improvements that could be made to hide are probably worth their own thread, which I might make after this.

[nauta]

I know this topic has come up before, but I haven't seen a list of things that break or don't break hide that should be known.

I agree -- one of my first questions on this forum was related to hide, breaking hide, and the various emote/semote/hemote commands.  It's confusing.  However, at least one staff member has told me before that they would prefer not to answer the question 'what breaks hide' -- we should find a partner in game.

(There's also the question: does hide ever expire?  The sneak help file says (wrongly) that sneak expires, but it doesn't say whether hide expires or not.)

That said, we could perhaps brainstorm up a list of things which people might reasonably ask that question about, and perhaps it'll get in the help file one day?

To add to the list (of items that one might reasonably be curious if they break hide):
o arrange
o change ldesc
o equipment
o examine
o stand (on its own, while already standing)
o barter/offer/etc.
o hit
o pick (as in pick plants)
o following someone who is running
o following someone who is walking
o draw/sheath from a sheath-object (where the echo is something like 'You silently reach in and draw/sheath')

[Beethoven]

Finding a partner in-game is so awkward and gamey. I don't think I'll ever do that.

[valeria]

Finding a partner in-game is so awkward and gamey. I don't think I'll ever do that.

What about:

"Can you see me now?"
"No."
>equ
"How about now?"

... strikes you as awkward and gamey? 

The things that break hide should just be listed in the helpfile.  This is another example of mechanics knowledge you shouldn't have an advantage on just because you've played X character before.

[nauta]

For reference, here's what the Improving The Help Files thread has on the help file 'hide':

HIDE:

o To become visible, type 'visibile'.

o Note: Unfortunately, there's no way to tell if you are still trying to hide.

o Note:
 (i) [If hide is perpetual] Hide will never wear off; however, certain actions will break hide (see above).
 (ii) [If hide is not perpetual] Hide will wear off after a while; certain actions will also break hide (see above).

o Note:
  Some clarification on combining hide with movement and follow.  Does sneaking have a chance of breaking hide?  Does walking?  Does running?  What if you are following someone who is sneaking/walking/running?  What if you are shadowing someone who is sneaking/walking/running?  (NB: I'm not sure we can give answers to these questions on the gdb.)

o Perhaps provide us with an echo if an action breaks hide.

o Perhaps disallow the ability to follow/shadow someone who is hidden from you.

o Examples of RP with semote, hemote, and emote while hidden, e.g.:
  (i) It is often good form to emote before you type 'hide', especially if you are engaged in a conversation with another character.  Otherwise, you will just vanish from their sight as no echo will be sent to their client, which is jarring.
 (ii) Emote: If you emote while hidden, everyone will receive an echo.  However, if you are successfully hidden from someone, your sdesc will be changed to 'someone'.
 (ii) Hemote: If you hemote while hidden, not everyone will receive an echo, only those who are observant enough, as with hemote in general.  If you are successfully hidden from someone who detects the hemote, your sdesc will be changed to 'someone'.
 (iii) Semote: If you semote while hidden, only those who can see you will receive an echo.  Hence, if you are successfully hidden from someone, they will receive no echo whatsoever.
 (iv) When hiding, read the room descriptions carefully, and try to take those into account.  While sometimes the code will prevent you from hiding in certain places (well-lit rooms) -- although you will receive no notification if this is the case -- sometimes it will not, and so it is up to you to roleplay responsibly.

o Note: It is good RP-form to set your ldesc, to give some indication of where you are hiding (see LDESC).  CHANGE LDESC does not break a successful hide.

? Note: Most actions that break hide are obvious.  A few, however, are not: arrange (see ARRANGE), (others?).

o See also: semote, hemote, ldesc

So that answers one or two of them: arrange breaks hide, but change ldesc does not, both of which were said somewhere on the gdb, although I think this should be added to 'help hide' (along with the other items that come up now and then.)

[Yam]

Agreed. I was flummoxed the first time I realized examine broke hide. Nearly died too.

[Armaddict]

eq no longer breaks hide.  That was done away with a long time ago.  (You used to have to use look self)

I only use examine when I'm looking at plants.  Look does not break the hide, so if examine does, that would be odd.

Following does not break hide, regardless of the person you're following's speed.  You should be very careful about following someone who is prone to breaking into a run, though, because of how movement delay will stack for you and not them (you will lag yourself if they have a faster movement speed than you).  This can lead you to being unable to unfollow as they go into a compound or something like that.

Nohide rooms could use an all around examination.  There are some rooms that are nohide with no explanation, and others that seem like they should be nohide that aren't.  While on the topic, I'd rather see rooms that you can hide in, but that you can't follow someone into and remain hidden.  A nosneak room, if you will.

In its current form, Hide doesn't care if you're sneaking or walking.  Once hidden, you can move around at a walking pace and remain hidden.  It's very important that you use 'vis' to become visible instead of relying on your pace to remove you from hide.

Any position change will remove hide, regardless of whether it actually changes anything or not.  (i.e. 'stand' even while standing will remove your hide)

Hide is not perpetual, but it's not exactly understood what ends it.  You can have a successful hide going, not move, not take any action, and sudden become unhidden.  It is preferred by staff that you try to not stay permahidden in populous places anyway, but just keep in mind that if you're in a tavern and hidden, at some point or another, you will naturally become unhidden (again, I'm not sure how this works, only that it happens).

[Yam]

eq no longer breaks hide.  That was done away with a long time ago.  (You used to have to use look self)

I only use examine when I'm looking at plants.  Look does not break the hide, so if examine does, that would be odd.

Examine does break hide. Pretty sure eq does too, but not 100%.

[Armaddict]

Ah, also, you can change pace without coming unhidden.  I.e. You can go back to sneaking, or prepare to run by typing run, without it breaking your sneak.

[nauta]

o I would love it if these would be in the help file, rather than apocrypha from the gdb, so that newbies can benefit and RP sneaking/hiding appropriately.

o I'd also love it if 'hidden' were a status thing, and you could actually find-out-IG whether or not an action breaks hide (in the sense of a total breaking of hide)[1] without having to do the 'gamey' thing with a friend.  This would also help players report bugs on hide, e.g., bug I did 'wish' and it broke hide, but that's a meta command that shouldn't break hide, or bug This room doesn't break hide, but it really should judging by the room description.

[1] Bear in mind there's complicated skills stuff where you might be visible to one PC in a room but still invisible to another PC.  I assume, however, that certain commands, e.g., 'visible', break hide totally.

[Inks]

Eq doesn't. I guess I have never used examine command ever.

[Chettaman]

Your mom breaks hide.

It does make sense for hide to be a status. It could even be a half-status like... sometimes you're right about how hidden you are and sometimes you're not, but master hiders are really good at telling if they are or not.

[Yam]

Maybe roll to see if you successfully hide, then roll separately but on the same skill (or on hide+scan?) to see if you correctly guess that you're hidden?

[Jingo]

The helpfile states that heavy armors will reduce your ability to sneak and hide.

What you didn't know is that increasing the weight of your armor can have the same effect. For example if you had a pocketed pair of greaves and you loaded them up with 5 stones of inventory, you're armor will be calculated at +5 stones and you will have a reduced chance to hide . Even if you encumbrance is at "light" or lower.

[Armaddict]

The helpfile states that heavy armors will reduce your ability to sneak and hide.

What you didn't know is that increasing the weight of your armor can have the same effect. For example if you had a pocketed pair of greaves and you loaded them up with 5 stones of inventory, you're armor will be calculated at +5 stones and you will have a reduced chance to hide . Even if you encumbrance is at "light" or lower.

I did not know this!  If true (I'm not sure how you know), that's a good thing to keep in mind.  Kind of more incentive for what I want with leather armors needing to be tweaked, too...I don't think elves/half-elves need to be stronger, I just think light leather armor shouldn't encumber you so dang much.

[Jihelu]

I don't think most armors should be that heavy, atleast on their own.

Wearing a set of plate? Thats not that bad, you won't be doing olympic sprints though.
Wearing a backpack with it? It should weigh/slow you down more so than if you weren't wearing the armor.

Like.
Say wearing a backpack adds 15 "heavy"ness to you
You start at 0
So you are at 15 now with no armor.
Lets say you wear a set of plate with a heaviness of 10
But instead of getting 25 "heavyness" you get like, 30/40 because armor is hard to fuck around in.

[Large Hero]

Commands that do/don't break hide should be spelled out explicitly in the helpfile so we as players can navigate the purely OOC implementation of hide. It isn't at all an IC thing, as the implementation is unrealistic. It's very much a video game implementation.

That's fine; but we shouldn't have to ICly guess about it. As Beethoven said, finding out ICly with a buddy whether unlatching your backpack, or whispering, or whatever, breaks hide, is gamey and silly.  

[RogueGunslinger]

We should just make everything that isn't skill failure, attack, or movement command not break hide. Add unhide comman.

[Beethoven]

There is an unhide command: "vis[ible]"

I agree with you, mostly, RGS, but I do think that talking/shouting should break hide. I also think that if you're currently attempting to hide and your hide is broken, you should automatically get another chance to hide upon moving to another room with sneak. Currently it's almost as if you forgot you're supposed to be trying to hide if you mess up.

EDIT:

I wonder about 'hold.'

I've tested raise/lower, and hope I'm able to share here whether it breaks hide or not. I don't want to break any rules but it's one of those things that's anyone's guess. Do you guys think it's okay to share?

[Reiloth]

Or what about:

"You begin to move out of hiding..."

at which point you can 'stop'.

I would like it if it were less binary.

It would be neat if you could guess if you were hidden via like 'Hide Vis' or something. It may not be very accurate, but you can take a good stab at whether or not you are hidden, especially at near master or master levels?

[Malifaxis]

Just a heads up guys, mudsex does not break hide.  Use watch tho.  It helps.

Oh... heads up.  LOL.

[Armaddict]

Or what about:

"You begin to move out of hiding..."

at which point you can 'stop'.

I would like it if it were less binary.

It would be neat if you could guess if you were hidden via like 'Hide Vis' or something. It may not be very accurate, but you can take a good stab at whether or not you are hidden, especially at near master or master levels?

Sidenote:  It always bugs me that 'stop' doesn't stop before-delays.

[Jihelu]

I wish stop would stop 'you begin foccusing on whatever'.
Otherwise I just do 'op pack' or something to stop something stupid I may have qued up.

[nauta]

I once tried to stop a 'backstab dude' with the 'sit' command; it didn't work.  Sorry dude!

Wait... this is a thread about hide.  How'd... what just happened?

[Reiloth]

I once tried to stop a 'backstab dude' with the 'sit' command; it didn't work.  Sorry dude!

Wait... this is a thread about hide.  How'd... what just happened?

>backstab thread
You scrape your foot and the thread whirls around!

[Majikal]

Maybe roll to see if you successfully hide, then roll separately but on the same skill (or on hide+scan?) to see if you correctly guess that you're hidden?

This would be pretty neat.

[Jihelu]

Maybe roll to see if you successfully hide, then roll separately but on the same skill (or on hide+scan?) to see if you correctly guess that you're hidden?

This would be pretty neat.

I would suggest at advanced/master ranks it's almost a given you can tell.

[Hauwke]

I suggest it just being an across the board: you are hiding.

To say that you are still in hide status.
Like shove it in a prompt command or something, make it part of the status command.

[Beethoven]

Thanks for the update on 'hide', staff. I didn't know for sure that change ldesc was breaking hide, although I had worried that it might be.

Does anyone know about 'remove' and 'hold'? If they always break hide, could there perhaps be a sleight of hand check for those as well?

[nauta]

Thanks for the update on 'hide', staff. I didn't know for sure that change ldesc was breaking hide, although I had worried that it might be.

Does anyone know about 'remove' and 'hold'? If they always break hide, could there perhaps be a sleight of hand check for those as well?

This is an interesting case.  

As far as I know there's no way to stealthily move something to/from your inventory into a hand.

There's 'stow' and 'ready' which only go to/from the belt object -- roughly parallel to draw/sheath.  (Even though the stow/ready help files say you can 'stow/ready object sheath' you can't actually do this.  See the Improving the Help Files Thread -- it's been reported.)

There's also 'slip' and 'palm' which do allow you to move something equipped in your hand into a container object.

So a work-around would be to: 'slip/palm object bag'.

(I could be wrong on this.)

[Beethoven]

I'm thinking specifically of shields, which do not work with stow/ready.

[nauta]

I'm thinking specifically of shields, which do not work with stow/ready.

Not that I know of.  You can do:

Code Select Expand


slip shield bag

And that would attempt to stealthily remove the shield from your hand and put it in a bag.  But there's no way to equip a shield stealthily, since:

Code Select Expand


palm shield bag

would just put it in your inventory, and there's no way to move it (stealthily) from inventory into your hand.

Also NB that the stealth commands like stow/ready/slip/palm/steal/plant all recognize reasonable weight limits -- you'll get a message like: Derrr, that's way too heavy to attempt to steal.

[Beethoven]

Many shields are worn anyway, whether on the back or the belt. I think there could be a sleight of hand check for remove and hold like they just made for change hands.

[nauta]

Many shields are worn anyway, whether on the back or the belt. I think there could be a sleight of hand check for remove and hold like they just made for change hands.

Agreed.  Here's a proposal:

1. For 'remove/rs/rp': Allow 'slip object' (with no further argument) to move an equipped object into your inventory.  (You can still do 'slip object container' like normal too.)

2. For 'hold/ep/etwo':

(i) Allow 'palm object' (with no further argument) to move an object from inventory into an available hand (ep first, then etwo if ep is occupied);

(ii) Force 'palm object container' to move an object from that container into an available hand (ep first, then etwo if ep is occupied) rather than (as it is now) into the inventory.  After all, this is a stealthy command so your hands (or at least one hand) should be free to palm things.

[WarriorPoet]

Hide and code issues like this are why I have never made an effort at playing a sneaker type PC. I don't know if I would call it 'gamey' like I saw earlier but, yeah. Certainly too awkward for me to care about trying to figure out while walking the IC/OOC line.

[nauta]

Hide and code issues like this are why I have never made an effort at playing a sneaker type PC. I don't know if I would call it 'gamey' like I saw earlier but, yeah. Certainly too awkward for me to care about trying to figure out while walking the IC/OOC line.

Other than the classic 'what breaks hide?' question, the hardest thing about a sneak (for me at least) was navigating semote/hemote/emote in terms of what is presented to someone else -- do they see: a shadow wrinkles her nose?  someone wrinkles her nose?  my sdesc wrinkles her nose?  You notice: my sdesc wrinkles her nose?  You notice: someone wrinkles her nose?

The rules I've used came from the gdb:

1. If the action is one that a stealthy character would do and remain (hopefully) undetected, then use 'semote'.
2. If the action is subtle, use 'hemote'.
3. If the action is not subtle, type 'vis' first then use 'emote'. (NB: You can't stack these since the emote will come first, that is, you can't do: vis; em snickers.  You have to do 'vis', then hit enter, then do 'em snickers'.)

Very very rarely should you use 'emote' while hidden -- except to perhaps set some atmosphere, e.g.,  someone brushes up against you, passing through the busy crowds.

[BadSkeelz]

Many shields are worn anyway, whether on the back or the belt. I think there could be a sleight of hand check for remove and hold like they just made for change hands.

If we had the code to actually "Draw" a shield from your back or belt or shoulder (assuming it's slung) then I imagine we could run the check with something like the existing slight of hand code that checks belts and sheaths. Maybe. I know nothing of code. I do know Warriors would appreciate being able to draw shields for their own reasons.

I also think a lot of shields are big and bulky enough that stealthily bringing one around would be troublesome at best. Could inspire some new crafts to fill the buckler niche.

[Beethoven]

Well, you can't use slight of hand on things that are too big, anyway, so yeah, it'd probably only work for bucklers. And that's fine.

[valeria]

Since "semote" stands for "silent emote" I use it for actions that are silent.  I use "hemote" for actions that are subtle or not silent, even when I'm hiding.

[Yam]

Backstab/sap will break hide even if they don't complete (i.e. because your target leaves the room or because you aren't wielding the right sort of weapon).

[Inks]

Hide breaks hide. So don't spam it.

[Beethoven]

Raise and lower appear to break hide. I wish they didn't because sometimes you're hiding and then you realize that oh shit, your hood is down and you need to be covert.

[SuchDragonWow]

Hide and code issues like this are why I have never made an effort at playing a sneaker type PC. I don't know if I would call it 'gamey' like I saw earlier but, yeah. Certainly too awkward for me to care about trying to figure out while walking the IC/OOC line.

QFT.  Even if my chars had hide, I usually never bothered to use it.  Funny, too, because in pretty much any other fantasy game, my initial attraction is to sneaky types.

[Beethoven]

What do you guys who dislike hide think of my hide ideas on the other thread? Do you think they'd be an improvement or still be too gamey?

[SuchDragonWow]

Literally the only thing I think needs to happen is you get a message when something obviously breaks hide.  "You come out of hiding."  Does it already do that?  I don't think so, but I couldn't say for certain.  I remember thinking it was a little Byzantine in what does or doesn't and figuring that out.

I'll check out your thread when I have more time, I have not read it as of yet.

[nauta]

What do you guys who dislike hide think of my hide ideas on the other thread? Do you think they'd be an improvement or still be too gamey?

While I dislike not knowing what breaks hide/what doesn't break hide, one thing I like about hide here is that there's always this feeling that your character might not be as well hidden as she thinks she is.  I played another MUD where hide was 100% and you knew exactly whether or not you were hidden, and it wasn't as fun.  I like that nerve-wracking feel I as a player get when my character is hiding somewhere where being seen will mean some serious trouble.

I'm not saying that's what your ideas are -- I guess what I'd like is:

1. Current system with what breaks hide spelled out: absolutely breaks hide; possibly breaks hide; never breaks hide.  This is important so that the sneak can RP appropriately, more than anything else.

2. (If this isn't the case) A hide check every tick -- so there's always a chance that you'll fail hide.

[Beethoven]

My idea (which is not written up to be a feasible code change, just to provide an ideal that could inspire smaller changes) is more or less that hide would be a status that you could put in your prompt, but it only means you're attempting to hide, not that you're successful at it. If you do something obvious, then you reveal yourself to anyone who's currently in the room, but not people entering the room later. If you see a hiding person, you can "point" to them and reveal their hiding place to another person or everyone in the room, but that doesn't mean they can't find another hiding place (re-hide). You will never not be attempting to hide and not know it, or attempting to hide and not know it. That doesn't mean you can know whether or not you are successfully hiding from anyone, although sometimes you may be aware that you can't find a good hiding place.

[nauta]

If you see a hiding person, you can "point" to them and reveal their hiding place to another person or everyone in the room, but that doesn't mean they can't find another hiding place (re-hide).

Yeah, I dig that idea.  It more-or-less is the current system with what breaks hide (totally, possibly) spelled out in terms of a prompt, with the addition of a 'point' feature.

One thing -- this is a bit of a side-track but that line reminded me -- that does bother me with hide is how it interacts with 'watch'.  Two things really -- both related and falling under the general head of: 'hiding while in the same room with someone'.

1. I think if you do an overt action (one that totally breaks hide) you should have a longer lag before you can attempt to hide again.  Hence, you can't:

Code Select Expand


say (waggling ^Me arms) Boogity boogity boo!; hide; e


2. Hide and watch are strange (and IMHO it is a bug).  I think if you are watching someone, any attempt to 'hide' from you should be much much much harder, if not impossible.  After all, you can shadow someone even if you can't see them.  But I've noticed that people can hide even while you are watching them -- and it seems relatively easy for them to do so -- even people I'm pretty sure have newbie novice hide can do so on someone with fairly high-level watch.

But how would I escape from people that watch me then?  The same way you escape from someone that shadows from you: flee self.  (See help flee.)  Except here you'd have to flee self, then run somewhere out of view, and reinitiate hide -- this would break the watch -- which is, well, exactly how I'd expect you to escape from someone watching you.

[Beethoven]

Yeah, I dig that idea.  It more-or-less is the current system with what breaks hide (totally, possibly) spelled out in terms of a prompt, with the addition of a 'point' feature.

Not quite. The prompt only tells you if you're attempting to hide, not if you're hiding. So you could be attempting to hide and not have managed it. You WOULD know if you "broke hide" with an overt action, but it wouldn't really break hide, it would just reveal you to people in the room. New people entering the room wouldn't necessarily see you. If you failed a hide check, you wouldn't suddenly just forget to be hiding from then on. You would be hiding poorly, and if you sneaked into another room you might find very well a better hiding place there.

[Riev]

2. Hide and watch are strange (and IMHO it is a bug).  I think if you are watching someone, any attempt to 'hide' from you should be much much much harder, if not impossible.  After all, you can shadow someone even if you can't see them.  But I've noticed that people can hide even while you are watching them -- and it seems relatively easy for them to do so -- even people I'm pretty sure have newbie novice hide can do so on someone with fairly high-level watch.

I've certainly been watching people with my (what sure seems to be) max-level watch and when they try to hide, I notice that they try to hide and it persists like a "watch shadow". I hate to say "git gud" but watch is a very quirky ability. Sure, someone who is a master at hiding will probably know when you blink your eyes, and disappear again, but that's only because there's a ton of +hide gear in the game, and like no +scan or +watch.

Related thought: Someone mastercraft a tracking method for uranium paint.