Semote?

[Bogre]

Semote, standing for silent emote. I was just thinking on how people don't like to emote while they are hidden, invis, etc. Now, if you had a command that wouldn't echo your emotes to the room, thieves and magickers could emote while they are hidden. But then again it could all be abused, and we can all say that no one needs to spam stand;scan when they see a hidden emote in the first place. But the idea of semote would be an emote that you think some people couldn't see, and emote when someone possibly might notice it.

Problems: I've already thought up of some, but maybe ya'll can find more and how to fix them.

A) Abuse: Thieves could all just semote and not do regular emotes despite the numerous people who might be able to notice you taking their hat from there head even if you semoted it.
- But semote could be given a percentage to be seen by all, just like people can RP seeing an emote if they think their character would.

B) Coding time. Self explanatory.

[Trenidor]

how about have semote have atributes connected to ones sneak skill (or perhaps hide or steal or other dark arts.)

For example

If you have no sneak skill, it comes out as a normal emote

if you have high sneak skill, then only people that have high scan can see it.

It'd work tied in with a skill so that the program checks to see if that skill works, and if so, then only someone with opposite skill at a high enough level to counter your sneak would be able to see it.

[Larrath]

If you want to make an emote nobody will be able to see, do this.

think *creeps along the shadows as he makes his way closer to the buxom young lass*.

Semotes -can- be useful, however, if they are made to be visible only to people who can see your character.  This can also be done with ldesc, but it is silly to assume that people will be checking 'look' every two minutes.

[Bestatte]

I hate using "think" to enact hidden movement. I'm not -thinking- about moving, I really AM moving. But I'm invisible, see, so no one should be capable of seeing me walk from one end of the room to the other. Except someone who is able to see invisible people. Or if I'm hiding and want to emote turning my head to peek at someone walking in - if I'm successfully hidden, the only people who -should- be able to see me, are people who are able to see hidden people.

Think doesn't address the problem at all, and totally pulls me from the RP so I just won't use it. I also don't use actions with the Way, for the same reason. I'm projecting messages, not visuals. You won't ever see me "smile" in a psi message - though due to the code limitations you might notice *amusement* or *annoyance* or some such instead.

For these reasons, I like the idea of semotes.

[JollyGreenGiant]

I'd like to see something along the lines of emotes that are only visible to people who can see you.  If it requires a new command, so be it, but I wouldn't exactly cry if regular emotes suddenly started working that way and there were no more 'someone' emotes, although there's no reason they couldn't co-exist.

Example:
Person A and B have scan, A's is very good, B's is not so good.
Person C does not have scan.
Person D is hidden and emotes something.

Results:
A sees D emote.  B sees a 'someone' emote.  C sees nothing at all.

[SailorMars]

I'd rather not see "someone" do anything if I can't see them. In otherwords, those blurry someones could emote all day, but only those with the ability to see such people would notice.

I've never understood why the average joe can see "someone" emote anything.

Edit: JGG beat me to it.

[Mr.Camel]

Sometimes, someone would throw rotten fruit at you from the crowds, for example.

[Bogre]

Yeah, the skill check with people being able to see you would clear up a lot of the problems. Except if you have hidden person A walking along, semoting chopping off no-scan person B's head.

I -highly- doubt that or anything like that would be done by arm players, though. Assuming that everyone uses discipline when using an semote for say would be very nice and can improve thief RP.

[Trenidor]

Thieves are already hard to RP properly, This would make it easier, but I think several people have their guilds banned because of impropper use.

[Anonymous]

I like it better as 'hemote' and, just like JGG said, the idea is that your emotes only echo to those who could 'look' at you.

So, you could happily do a:

hemote Creeping silently through the dark chamber, @ sneaks up behind ~noble, brandishing his dark-coated blades.

And not have to worry about putting the other player in a position to wonder what they should be doing now.  If they can't see it, they're screwed.  If they can then they should feel free to react to it.

Moreover the staff and other people watching could see it too.  It'd be great for a pair of thieves working together.

[Werd]

I like the idea a lot. It would solve the issue of people being reluctant to add some flavor to their sneakiness because of the concern that people who are involved would use their OOC knowledge of what is happening to react ICly. If only people who can actually see the sneaky types actions because of their IC abilities, then I for one would definitely feel better about emoting things out in detail while performing such acts. Though I wouldn't complain if someone used the OOC knowledge of my character doing something even when their character ICly can't see them, it would leave me sour on the whole situation. This would also cut down on the  posts along the lines of "OMG I WAS HIDING AND YOU DIDNT SEE ME BUT THEN I EMOTED SOMETHING AND SUDDENLY YOU FLED SELF A BILLION TIMES AND LOGGED OUT! TWINK! TWINK!". Yes that is an exaggerated example, but I think I remember seeing one or several posts along those lines in the past.

[jhunter]

Again, I want to see something like this added.

[Carnage]

We've had this discussion hundreds of times.

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

I've thought about it.

I beleive that the addition of several lines of code in the emote command would fix this.

Code Select Expand

if ((get_emoter's_hideskill -= get_target's_scanskill) && (emoter_is_hidden))
SEENOTHING:

if ((get_emoter's_hideskill == get_target's_scanskill) || (get_emoter's_hideskill += get_target's_scanskill)) && (emoter_is_hidden))
SEND_ECHO.

Not positive about this, but I think that is all that is needed, for the most basic form of this.

[Meatwad]

So if we all want it, why don't we have it?  It improves role play, improves the code, let's people show their actions more...that sounds like the kind of code that should be added rather quickly.

Seriously, what's stopping this from being added?

[Angela Christine]

So if we all want it, why don't we have it?  It improves role play, improves the code, let's people show their actions more...that sounds like the kind of code that should be added rather quickly.

First, I doubt it is "all".  Here are a few previous threads on the same topic, the middle one in particular has some good objections to the idea:

http://www.zalanthas.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1090&highlight=hidden+emote
http://www.zalanthas.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1692&highlight=hidden+emote
http://www.zalanthas.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=6236&highlight=hidden+emote

Even if it was on the list, is this more important than fixing Herbalism, fixing Pull Reins, or coding in the ruins of Steinal in preperation for the Steinal HRPT?  It depends who you ask.


And that may be the key.   Ask the right people, like the staff.  Posting in "Ask the Staff" is much more likely to get a staff response.  Perhaps something like:
"Hey staff, if we all want hidden emoting, why hasn't this been done yet???"

Yeah, that should do it.

[Meatwad]

Well I was asking the players that, not the staff, for it is the players who will be playing with this code.  I don't credit this as being more important that fixing herbalism, pull reins, or coding the ruins of a place I have never heard of before.  I read through the post you mentioned, and it seems that the biggest problems to be had were lack of trust with other people, rather than hating code.  With this code, it would reduce the twink stand and scan, and if someone does notice the hidden emote, it is because they were perceptive enough to see it, so they should be free to act on it if they wish.  It won't stop people from standing and hiding, it's simply a way for people to emote more while being sneaky, which will enhance the experience.  It would also provide logs to disprove any claims of twinkhood by the victim.  It is work, and more code, true, but worth it I think.  If, Angela, you have objections besides the fact that it isn't the only thing to be worked on currently, and besides objections you did not come up with, I'd be happy to hear them from you, a player.

[Angela Christine]

I do not object to the idea.  I have no strong feelings about the idea either way.  Sure, it would be helpful for a few players and moderately cool, but I'm just not that excited about it.  I don't play many sneaky characters myself, and I've never felt the need to stand and scan when I notice sneaky things happening.


I was specifically responding to "So if we all want it, why don't we have it?"

I doubt we _all_ want any thing, we're too fractious for that.    As for why we don't have it yet, for that you would need to ask the staff.  Other players don't know why we don't have it.


AC

[the traveller]

Sure, it would be helpful for a few players and moderately cool, but I'm just not that excited about it.

As someone mentioned in one of those previous threads you linked to, emotes while hidden are more of an acting tool than an realistic RP device. As in, while it may be more realistic RP to emote/not emote whilst hidden dependent on the circumstances, a true actor may choose to sacrifice the realism of the scene, in order to increase the audiences appreciation of it.

Adding a new hidden emote skill and retaining the current emote (whilst hidden) functionality, would only add to the options available to those true actors, and allow them to further wow us with their magic.

Place your trust with the players. Let the true actors choose how they can most accurately add to the scene. Those who would abuse the new functionality by not using normal emotes whilst hidden, probably already don't. If it's just a small code addition then I believe it would be a very neat option for those hidden/unseen players to help illustrate their scene. If it's a larger change, then maybe there are more important things to work on.

Remember, adding a new form of emote isn't a new limitation; it's a new feature.


walking man

[Quirk]

Even if it was on the list, is this more important than fixing Herbalism, fixing Pull Reins, or coding in the ruins of Steinal in preperation for the Steinal HRPT?  It depends who you ask.

Consider for a moment the examples you're giving. Pull reins? While that might concern the occasional hunter, there are a fairly small number of hunters who dare fight from the backs of their mounts; compared to the number of sneaky characters we have, it would be a much lower-impact fix. "Coding in the ruins of Steinal" is a builder task, not a coder one. It requires a different skillset and is unlikely to be hurt by things on the coder priority list. Herbalism is the only one of these which is potentially as relevant; however, there are three different "sneaky" non-karma classes which could be affected by this, as well as the ranger class and some magicker classes. True, it's not an urgent bug-fix to make something playable. However, given the number of people who flat-out dislike seeing "someone" emotes and will post as much on the GDB, and those who dislike being killed by someone emotelessly jumping them from hiding, it's an obvious solution to a sticky area of RP.

If you believe you're hidden, emoting exactly what you're doing rather defeats the point of being hidden. If in fact you're not hidden, your actual interaction with others is likely to be an embarrassment, as it's based on a misunderstanding. A hidden emote ability would allow you to continue your RP as normal while hidden and expose what you're doing to those capable of seeing you. Interactions with sneaky characters would be vastly improved - if you notice they're there at all, you get to see what they're up to, too, in terms more interesting than seeing a string of coded commands. There are no sound arguments against it; it's merely the case that there are many things on the coders' priority lists of which some genuinely will be more important.

Quirk

[Meatwad]

Quirk and the traveller have it right.  As much as HRPTs are good, I'd rather have a permanent upgrade to role play for the dozens of people playing and intereacting with sneaky types than a short time in the world where tons of people get slaughtered.  I'd rather use semote and perhaps be seen from the corner of the eye of the person I'm stalking than log on my character to be herded and slaughtered.

Although if anyone does have some more reasons why this isn't good it would be nice to hear them.

[Dresan]

I play the sneaky type and can't see this being that benificial since if your doing it right no one should notice you.  If in real life someone sees something blury in the shadows they will investigate...or call attention to it.  There is only two real reason the code would useful:

1. To give the PC playing the sneaky character a better image in his head of what he is doing and how.
2. To have some record of what your doing and what your mindset was so the IMM won't consider sending a Vncp to report your actions.

IMO using think and basically thinking before i do and how i'm going to do works to solve both reasons.  To me the thing with sneaky types is that it falls under solo Rp even though there are PC around you...basically in my head it's exactly like Thief: The Metal Age except with better graphics and detailed maneuvers since it's in my head.

With the exception to pickpocketing someone though...then i might do something like walk up to them and ask them something and emote walking slowly past them or something to that effect...if they were paying attention they might put one and one together...even then it's for my personal amusement since they have no proof and can't do anything about it.

[Meatwad]

How odd for a person to think things like "I am doing such a good job of sneaking up on this dwarf as my padded shoes make no sound on the floor." and "I am reaching out from my hiding place towards the noble's coin purse with lightning reflexes, damn I'm awesome."  It'd be so much easier, and realistic, to have a hidden emote.  Plus, it could be deteced by other players if you foul up and if they are perceptive enough to notice it.  And, it would add to non-twink evidence.  Plus, think isn't IMMs eyes only anyways.  It just makes more sense to have someone not paying any attention to things not notice the thief, than to have someone asleep notice them, or not have them be noticed at all no matter how perceptive you are and how inexperienced they may be.

Obviously with perfect players (an oxymoron) we wouldn't need this code, and could simply use emote and they would respond realistically.  However this adds the most realism while combatting potential twinks.  After all, right now a thief might not emote at all while stealing, but with semote they could have done plenty of sneaky things, but you didn't notice.

[Quirk]

I play the sneaky type and can't see this being that benificial since if your doing it right no one should notice you.

Um, no. Not unless you're playing such an ultimate sneaky type that no-one will have a scan ability high enough to ever see you, and even then certain magickers might. People *will* see you. Conveying to those who can see you what you're up to is the whole point of this thread.

Quirk

[spawnloser]

Until this type of command goes in, I will not emote while being sneaky.  I think.

Meatwad, this is how you do it...your examples are ridiculous.

>think Okay, right up behind the guy and reach for the pouch...
>think Oh, he looked over his shoulder...non-chalant...just a normal guy...
>steal (target)
You sneak up on your target.
>think Okay, now, under the cloak, grab the pouch and...

potential 1:
You are caught:
>think Oh shit!
>flee self

You get it:
>think Yoink!
>think Now...where to sell this and quick?