Poll
Question:
What should be done with the look echo?
Option 1: Keep it.
votes: 10
Option 2: Make it into a hemote.
votes: 71
Option 3: Get rid of it entirely.
votes: 5
Please turn the look echo into a hemote with a chance to be noticed, unless emotes are attached to it with () and []. It has never made sense to me that the act of looking at someone is so noticeable that everyone in the room will see you doing it, no matter where they're sitting, no matter what they're doing.
It adds very little to the game but spam, can make people nervous to look at templars, and often results in weird meta play involving the scan and hide skills. (Oh, that person looked at me - I guess they either have a high scan skill or I'm not hidden/invisible!)
Half my logs of parties and gatherings with more than 5 characters present are filled with people looking at other people - so many people looking at other people, in fact, that my screen is spammed with that, instead of their talking, their emotes, and their actual meaningful roleplay. I'd prefer to see all that stuff, instead of yet another echo about someone looking at someone else.
I've been saying the look echo needs modification or removal since I started playing this game. It's one of the very first topics I made a thread about, and here I am, making a thread about it again a decade later (Sorry, Agent_137). Let's discuss it!
+1. Nothing else to add.
(http://i.imgur.com/OfYGY.gif)
Also, I added a poll.
Definitely.
I like the idea so much I'm voting with my alt account!
I'd say it should be a free action if you're hidden, invis etc, or are scanning and the victim is hidden, invis etc.
I used to vote no on this issue (look echoes feel quintessentially "mud" to me and like one of the building blocks of interaction in the genre) but now I guess I wouldn't mind.
But isn't it pretty easy to just get your client to gag the look messages?
I vote yes, a million times yes. However, in the interest of the debates, I seem to recall the arguments con being something like:
o Shady types will get screwed if you remove the look echo.
But I honestly forget what the argument there was. I'll have to dig it up.
(I don't like removing it altogether -- make it hemote. SoI has it removed, and it's just annoying, especially if we combine it with our lack of a visible 'afk' flag, then we really won't know if someone is afk or just ... um ... roleplaying the quiet stoic type.)
Quote from: nauta on January 06, 2016, 10:48:23 AM
(I don't like removing it altogether -- make it hemote. SoI has it removed, and it's just annoying, especially if we combine it with our lack of a visible 'afk' flag, then we really won't know if someone is afk or just ... um ... roleplaying the quiet stoic type.)
Yeah there's something to be said for giving PCs who don't emote a pulse of sorts.
Quote from: CodeMaster on January 06, 2016, 10:51:01 AM
Quote from: nauta on January 06, 2016, 10:48:23 AM
(I don't like removing it altogether -- make it hemote. SoI has it removed, and it's just annoying, especially if we combine it with our lack of a visible 'afk' flag, then we really won't know if someone is afk or just ... um ... roleplaying the quiet stoic type.)
Yeah there's something to be said for giving PCs who don't emote a pulse of sorts.
I was the single person who voted remove it entirely, though I spent a good while pondering between that and hemote. I like it when MUDs have absolutely no echo whatsoever. I suppose without a look echo, those stoic PCs would have to find some other way to indicate that their player is actually watching the screen, and willing to roleplay.
But I'm definitely tired of all the look spam, and while yes, I could gag it from my client's display, that doesn't stop the general "staring contest" culture MUDs with an always-visible look echo always have.
I'm curious about the argument that no look echoes hurts the shady types, though. Someone explain?
Found it! Naturally, it was in a thread about being topless. :D
http://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,49617.msg893883.html#msg893883
I haven't re-read it thoroughly, but roughly I think the idea seems to be that people might abuse the fact that we can see mdescs when we look. Although... I'm honestly not too sure I see the connection with the look echo on that, but I think it's related to the worry that if you look at a bad guy, they will kill you, and so bad guys want to know if you looked or not?
Maybe someone could clarify, but it seems like hemote would solve this problem -- plus, you know, being good role-players...
Quote from: Alesan on January 06, 2016, 12:46:59 PM
I'm curious about the argument that no look echoes hurts the shady types, though. Someone explain?
because then you don't know if you're visible to people or not (which is how it should be - you're trying to blend, you're not invisible). when you get the "guy looks at you," you know you're failing the skill and it's time to enter "hide" again. with it as a hemote, you have a chance of spotting it or... not. that's how it should be.
i'm all for it, though. pretty sure this has been discussed multiple times.
edit: I think there's also an overwhelming consensus on the subject every time it's brought up.
Quote from: TheWanderer on January 06, 2016, 01:02:03 PM
Quote from: Alesan on January 06, 2016, 12:46:59 PM
I'm curious about the argument that no look echoes hurts the shady types, though. Someone explain?
because then you don't know if you're visible to people or not (which is how it should be - you're trying to blend, you're not invisible). when you get the "guy looks at you," you know you're failing the skill and it's time to enter "hide" again. with it as a hemote, you have a chance of spotting it or... not. that's how it should be.
i'm all for it, though. pretty sure this has been discussed multiple times.
edit: I think there's also an overwhelming consensus on the subject every time it's brought up.
After thinking about it, I realized that was why. I can understand the sentiment that it might
hurt sneaky types, but I don't think it screws them. From what people have said, it's way easy to skill up hide/sneak anyway, so I'm for making it a bit more difficult, if that's the case.
Quote from: Alesan on January 06, 2016, 12:46:59 PM
I'm curious about the argument that no look echoes hurts the shady types, though. Someone explain?
The general argument isn't really so much about the echo as the fact that folks can look at you and. despite every IC attempt to hide your mdesc, still see your mdesc. Which means you are reliant on the proper RP of other players to not tell someone exactly who mugged/raided/ran by... etc.
This is the shady's problem with no look echo: you tell the guy not to look at you because there is no other coded way to remain anonymous. We really should be able to hide our mdescs with being totally wrapped and cloaked, but we can't. And people have definitely abused that in the past.
My suggested solution with hemote look: "watch" your mark.
Quote from: valeria on January 06, 2016, 01:12:35 PM
My suggested solution with hemote look: "watch" your mark.
Not to mention most guild/subguild combos with hide/sneak have scan as well, so they should be picking up on the hemote, for the training worry (see TheWanderer's post) and the busted-bad-guy worry (see the Topless Thread).
As to the busted-bad-guy worry, it won't go away unless we get the mdesc-masking code (back?) in, but: I've taken to using tdesc to make it VERY clear to those looking at me that I am ninjashark shadow and there's very little you can obtain from me to feed to your precious templar. Pretty much that verbatim actually. :D
In any case, the pros always seemed to outweight the cons.
with the overwhelming consensus on this, derail and start voting for the reappearance of mdesc hiding objects.
and make it so helmets do what masks do - the figure in a fur-lined, chitin helmet.
VIVA LA VIDA 2016
I really like this. To echo Valeria's suggestion, the Watch skill is the counter for any Shady Types who have a problem with this. Watch your mark, or choose a guild/subguild that have buffed Watch skill and you'll catch looks more often even if you aren't Watching the person in question.
Quote from: TheWanderer on January 06, 2016, 01:18:10 PM
with the overwhelming consensus on this, derail and start voting for the reappearance of mdesc hiding objects.
and make it so helmets do what masks do - the figure in a fur-lined, chitin helmet.
VIVA LA VIDA 2016
It'd be nice to have that feature, but you know what would happen - every single even
slightly shady character would start wearing the cloak+mask combination
at all times. I remember reading somewhere this is why it was removed to begin with? Completely hiding your identity is a powerful thing. And though some of us don't want to admit it, I think there are a lot of people who would love to abuse the mechanic to its fullest. And staff can't handle every single case of unreasonable use of cloak+mask that comes up.
Edit: Off Topic moving threads
Quote from: Alesan on January 06, 2016, 01:34:43 PM
Quote from: TheWanderer on January 06, 2016, 01:18:10 PM
with the overwhelming consensus on this, derail and start voting for the reappearance of mdesc hiding objects.
and make it so helmets do what masks do - the figure in a fur-lined, chitin helmet.
VIVA LA VIDA 2016
It'd be nice to have that feature, but you know what would happen - every single even slightly shady character would start wearing the cloak+mask combination at all times. I remember reading somewhere this is why it was removed to begin with? Completely hiding your identity is a powerful thing. And though some of us don't want to admit it, I think there are a lot of people who would love to abuse the mechanic to its fullest. And staff can't handle every single case of unreasonable use of cloak+mask that comes up.
It's an easy IC fix by having the Templarate and citizens declare masks and facewraps within the city too shady for comfort. We have RL businesses and establishments that don't allow these types of items for the same reason. Now, cloaks should't hide mdesc, but masks, facewraps, and some helmets? Yes.
It's ridiculous that you can't do anything in disguise because everybody can just automatically spot you through a dozen layers of sandclotch. I MUST HAVE A MASQUERADE BALL.
Edit: One of the helpers move this to Nauta's thread, please.
Snipped due to being off topic.
Quote from: nauta on January 06, 2016, 01:15:59 PM
Quote from: valeria on January 06, 2016, 01:12:35 PM
My suggested solution with hemote look: "watch" your mark.
Not to mention most guild/subguild combos with hide/sneak have scan as well, so they should be picking up on the hemote, for the training worry (see TheWanderer's post) and the busted-bad-guy worry (see the Topless Thread).
??? Scan does not equal picking up on hemotes. That's the "watch" skill.
Quote from: valeria on January 06, 2016, 03:08:21 PM
Quote from: nauta on January 06, 2016, 01:15:59 PM
Quote from: valeria on January 06, 2016, 01:12:35 PM
My suggested solution with hemote look: "watch" your mark.
Not to mention most guild/subguild combos with hide/sneak have scan as well, so they should be picking up on the hemote, for the training worry (see TheWanderer's post) and the busted-bad-guy worry (see the Topless Thread).
??? Scan does not equal picking up on hemotes. That's the "watch" skill.
Oh, I always thought scan increased your chances of picking up hemotes in the vicinity. I just read the HELP file, and I guess I just made that up out of full cloth. Ooops.
ETA: Although I swear it's true. It's why I've always gone for guild/subguilds with high scan, since I prefer threesomes+, and watch really limits you there.
Quote from: valeria on January 06, 2016, 03:08:21 PM
Quote from: nauta on January 06, 2016, 01:15:59 PM
Quote from: valeria on January 06, 2016, 01:12:35 PM
My suggested solution with hemote look: "watch" your mark.
Not to mention most guild/subguild combos with hide/sneak have scan as well, so they should be picking up on the hemote, for the training worry (see TheWanderer's post) and the busted-bad-guy worry (see the Topless Thread).
??? Scan does not equal picking up on hemotes. That's the "watch" skill.
I have never once used the watch skill on a single PC to my knowledge.
I have however caught many hemotes while only scanning....
to be fair, I feel like I catch every hemote without doing anything
Quote from: TheWanderer on January 06, 2016, 04:22:59 PM
to be fair, I feel like I catch every hemote without doing anything
Good point. Hmm.
It's really easy to see hemotes.
Quote from: CodeMaster on January 06, 2016, 10:45:27 AMBut isn't it pretty easy to just get your client to gag the look messages?
Sort of, but I'd rather not gag them all - some of them have emotes attached.
If it's too hard for look to be made into a hemote I'd really rather just have it removed altogether and treated like the look command for every other thing in the game (items, directions etc), invisible unless an emote is attached.
anyway it seems consensus is overwhelming which...I don't know that I've ever seen before on the gdb.
Do hemotes have a greater chance of being noticed by someone if they are targeted in the hemote?
If you
>hemote sneaks a sidelong look at ~amos
Does Amos stand a greater-than-normal chance of noticing your hemote even if he is not watching you? I think maybe he should.
To bring it in line with the "Look Echo for Hemote" discussion... do you think people should notice when they are looked at with a hypothetical hemote look?
Quote from: BadSkeelz on January 08, 2016, 06:51:38 PM
Do hemotes have a greater chance of being noticed by someone if they are targeted in the hemote?
If you
>hemote sneaks a sidelong look at ~amos
Does Amos stand a greater-than-normal chance of noticing your hemote even if he is not watching you? I think maybe he should.
Not unless he's watching you! If he's watching you, there are really good chances he'll see it. Otherwise, I think the odds are about 40% seeing it from personal experience.
I'd like a targettable hemote (temote) that the target always sees, and the room has a minor chance of seeing. That sort of thing happens all the time in real life. But with the Way, that sort of nonverbal communication is replaced with mind-speaking. ::)
Quote from: BadSkeelz on January 08, 2016, 06:51:38 PM
Do hemotes have a greater chance of being noticed by someone if they are targeted in the hemote?
If you
>hemote sneaks a sidelong look at ~amos
Does Amos stand a greater-than-normal chance of noticing your hemote even if he is not watching you? I think maybe he should.
To bring it in line with the "Look Echo for Hemote" discussion... do you think people should notice when they are looked at with a hypothetical hemote look?
To the first question: I so wish! I've had that thought multiple times when playing footsy under the table with someone who wasn't watching me. OOCly, I'd be like: You are missing all these fabulous fucking hemotes! The glory!
To the second question: I'm not sure.
Quote from: Asanadas on January 08, 2016, 07:02:38 PM
I'd like a targettable hemote (temote) that the target always sees, and the room has a minor chance of seeing. That sort of thing happens all the time in real life. But with the Way, that sort of nonverbal communication is replaced with mind-speaking. ::)
Quote from: nauta on January 08, 2016, 07:03:45 PM
To the first question: I so wish! I've had that thought multiple times when playing footsy under the table with someone who wasn't watching me. OOCly, I'd be like: You are missing all these fabulous fucking hemotes! The glory!
contact tressy.bewbs
psi LOOK AT MY FUCKING FEET
cease
Compromise!
then their clueless ass is going to look at you while emoting at your feet. It's only slightly jarring to have to way someone, "Watch me."
because then it doesn't make sense to touch them with your feet and then do nothing.
or when your sarge turns around and you wanna stick your tongue out at him and you want everyone else to notice except him.
"hemote< target" as hide this emote to just target
"hemote> target" as hide this emote to everyone except target
"hemote" hide this emote.
Is a grand idea.
You know what? I'm gonna write the code and submit the fucker. Maybe tomorrow.
Quote from: nauta on January 06, 2016, 03:16:07 PM
ETA: Although I swear it's true. It's why I've always gone for guild/subguilds with high scan, since I prefer threesomes+, and watch really limits you there.
I also wanted to say you're one of my other favorite people ever. I need to make a list. Probably tomorrow...
and after proof reading everything I posted, what the hell thread am I in...? Sorry guys. xD
Look should definitely be a hemote. I agree. You can just emote looking at someone if that's what you want to do. I imagine abuse of the code where no one ever looks at each other even if they just stole from you or whatever, but you know. Eh.
I am in support of this idea. It is a good idea.
Bump.
Slightly off topic, but it's my birthday today
I'm not hinting for the implementation of this to be my birthday present or anything
I AM BLATANTLY ASKING
(http://cdn.showviral.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/ShowViral_puppy-dog-eyes_414344.jpeg)
Fuck yes... I hate when I walk into the Gaj.
Dude A looks at you (2 seconds after the room descriptions pops)
Tressy A looks at you (1 second after that)
Dude B looks at you (same time as tressy)
etc etc
I'm adding a rider!
crafting echoes for hemote 2525.
forage echoes for hemote 2525.
Quote from: nauta on March 24, 2016, 06:40:07 PM
I'm adding a rider!
crafting echoes for hemote 2525.
forage echoes for hemote 2525.
Crafting is meh, because normally they take so damn long it doesn't really spam.
Forage however, yes, if you go out salting or rock grebbing with two other people. Prepare to miss a lot in so and so searches intently for something!
Quote from: nauta on March 24, 2016, 06:40:07 PM
I'm adding a rider!
crafting echoes for hemote 2525.
forage echoes for hemote 2525.
I think making crafting echoes hemotes will just encourage people to spamcraft more.
Foraging echoes... eh. We all spam it, but it's kind of nice to know someone is looking and not just suddenly producing pumpkins out of the ground.
My reaction to removing the look echo or making it an hemote:
(http://i.imgur.com/wt3Py7H.gif)
This is one of the things as a new player that bugs me a lot. I mean, how many times do you look at someone in real life and they never notice, or how many times has a friend told you that someone is looking at you without you noticing first. If they aren't watching me, HOW DO THEY KNOW WHERE MY EYES ARE WHILE THEY'RE FIGHTING SOMEONE?
+1 look echoes for hemote 2016.
Yes Please please. Hemote it!!
Wow, look at that poll, it's a clear winner that everyone hates look emotes.
Hopefully some day soon we will see some release notes from Nessalin saying he made it happen.
April 1 often offered real goodies. I' m hoping hard. ;D
Quote from: solera on March 29, 2016, 05:19:46 AM
April 1 often offered real goodies. I' m hoping hard. ;D
A fantastic April 1 prank would be to give "skills", "stat", and "weather" a room echo.
The figure in a black sandcloth cloak just confirmed that, yes, he didn't mysteriously branch anything while idling for the last ten minutes.
Quote from: Thunkkin on March 29, 2016, 10:48:54 AM
A fantastic April 1 prank would be to give "skills", "stat", and "weather" a room echo.
Also "time", "eq", "inv", "look self"
great idea. adds depth to raider vs. victim interactions too
Quote from: whitt on March 29, 2016, 12:11:24 PM
Quote from: Thunkkin on March 29, 2016, 10:48:54 AM
A fantastic April 1 prank would be to give "skills", "stat", and "weather" a room echo.
Also "time", "eq", "inv", "look self"
Look self already echo's.
Quote from: RogueGunslinger on March 29, 2016, 05:15:09 PM
Quote from: whitt on March 29, 2016, 12:11:24 PM
Quote from: Thunkkin on March 29, 2016, 10:48:54 AM
A fantastic April 1 prank would be to give "skills", "stat", and "weather" a room echo.
Also "time", "eq", "inv", "look self"
Look self already echo's.
:o Don't mess with me, RGS.
Err. Now you've got me wondering if I'm wrong.
remove '>look self'
#have2usemirrors2016
I'm always habitually typing look self. I have to edit gobs of 'look self' spam out of my logs. Don't tell me that other people can see my narcissism.
I'm pretty sure it doesn't echo...
#psi intercept 2016
Quote from: Beethoven on March 29, 2016, 05:55:05 PM
I'm always habitually typing look self. I have to edit gobs of 'look self' spam out of my logs. Don't tell me that other people can see my narcissism.
I do this a lot, mostly to make sure I'm not carrying around something dumb or forgot to take off/put on some piece of equipment.
I keep forgetting that you can put 'armed' in your prompt and would probably gloss over it if I did, anyway.
I'm 99% positive "look self" does not echo unless you attach a command emote.
>equip shows you what you've gotten equipped, if you'd care to skip your mdesc. >look me does show what you look like to others, so some advantage there. I'm also 99% sure it doesn't have an echo either.
(http://i.imgur.com/HYUMDK2.jpg)
Woo! Been hoping for this for yeeeaaaaaaaars. THANK YOU THANK YOU.
Quote-Look changes
-Look <character> now treated as a hemote, includes any emotes attached to the command, and can be spotted with watch the same as hemote
-Look <direction> shows items of sufficient weight.
-Look <direction> does not show empty description for hidden items.
Woot!
xD
I can't tell if it's a joke! But I hope it's not!
Quote from: BadSkeelz on March 30, 2016, 12:34:02 AM
>equip shows you what you've gotten equipped, if you'd care to skip your mdesc. >look me does show what you look like to others, so some advantage there. I'm also 99% sure it doesn't have an echo either.
I still prefer to >look me. It's invaluable for combat heavy roles seeing as how we're almost always armed and/or covered in blood...
God damn I love this game.
I don't like this change.
Quote from: Jingo on April 02, 2016, 01:57:42 PM
I don't like this change.
I don't either.
Here's my gripe about it:
For me, I always treat 'look' as a blatant look, unless emoted 'with a glance'.
My reasoning is, if you can read this guy's mdesc down to his last toe scar, and see his equipments down to the thong he's wearing in his pants, then that's a blatant look.
If you walk into the Gaj and everyone that is in the Gaj looks at you, then you would notice that people are looking at you.
Now you have to look at people - which becomes a hemote, and then you have to emote about looking at them.
>look bob
>em eyeballs ~bob.
When this solution can be managed with just 'look bob (eyeballing !bob)'.
I get the argument that you can't always spot someone looking at you immediately, or from across the room. In that case, why don't we just put in a new code command? Like, 'glance'? Glance will only show partial information about the PC you want to look at, for example, just the equipments, or just the main description. That way, when you look at someone, you're looking, checking out his looks, the color of his cloak, if he's wearing that Kadian armband, what weapons he's actually using.
For me, I feel this look as a hemote is just a
partial solution and not the full one.
STAFF DON'T LISTEN TO THESE NAYSAYERS
74 votes in favor 7 against says this was the right decision right
RIGHT?
(https://m.popkey.co/76b7ee/LmY5p.gif)
I like the change, but it needs other things added to address concerns.
So, ok, how about this.
"look" should stay as it is (hemote), except it does not show mdesc, only sdesc and gear.
"study" command should be added with warning echo and pre-delay. This replaces old look and is a blatant "looking you over from top to bottom"-type command. It shows mdesc. It can be command-emoted. It doesn't have to be a hostile interaction - think somebody checking you out, or looking directly at you, or, yes, staring you down.
Other option but with huge potential can of worms:
look continues to show mdesc, but cheap, widely available mdesc hiding gear is introduced. Study and peek reveal mdesc.
Just spitballing here, but I think the main concern is the amount of information given in a "possibly hidden" look - remove mdesc from the equation and I think we'd be good.
Quote from: Delirium on April 04, 2016, 09:48:04 AM
I like the change, but it needs other things added to address concerns.
So, ok, how about this.
"look" should stay as it is (hemote), except it does not show mdesc, only sdesc and gear.
"study" command should be added with warning echo and pre-delay. This replaces old look and is a blatant "looking you over from top to bottom"-type command. It shows mdesc. It can be command-emoted. It doesn't have to be a hostile interaction - think somebody checking you out, or looking directly at you, or, yes, staring you down.
Other option but with huge potential can of worms:
look continues to show mdesc, but cheap, widely available mdesc hiding gear is introduced. Study and peek reveal mdesc.
Just spitballing here, but I think the main concern is the amount of information given in a "possibly hidden" look - remove mdesc from the equation and I think we'd be good.
It doesn't address the problem. The problem is, how do I know whether or not to roleplay staring at someone, if I have no idea if they have some feature worth staring at? The only way to tell if someone has something worth staring at is the current LOOK command. I look at the guy - see that he's rather ordinary, no one that I know, nothing unusual, and now I know I can safely ignore him, OR try to get to know him, or not give him any more attention than I'm giving any other ordinary person in the room that I don't know.
BUT if he has a humpback - then I'll know that I really do need to react to seeing it now. Whereas - if his mdesc is hidden, I won't know about something THAT blatantly obvious.
I'd end up studying every single hooded person or person I don't already know, and we're right back to square one - except now I'm stuck with a clunky delay in addition to the awkwardness.
In short: I treat the "look" command as an ooc device, to give me, the player, more information about the scene I'm in so that I can know whether or not my character needs to react to the scene appropriately. I append the "look" command or supplement "look" with a follow-up emote when I know that my character is already reacting in some fashion. Opting in (adding emotes after using the OOC device of "look") is much more flexible and graceful than opting out (pretending you didn't actually see something to avoid the ooc device from becoming an IC thing).
Quote from: Lizzie on April 04, 2016, 10:01:05 AM
In short: I treat the "look" command as an ooc device, to give me, the player, more information about the scene I'm in so that I can know whether or not my character needs to react to the scene appropriately. I append the "look" command or supplement "look" with a follow-up emote when I know that my character is already reacting in some fashion. Opting in (adding emotes after using the OOC device of "look") is much more flexible and graceful than opting out (pretending you didn't actually see something to avoid the ooc device from becoming an IC thing).
Agreed. I'd like it if
look (emote) still echoed, because that's a look "with effort". Whereas the plain old look is the same look you give every person walking towards you on the street.
Something as obvious as a hunchback would (and should) be in the sdesc.
what if he's got a hunchback but he also has a huge tumor on his nose, dreadlocks, and a missing hand?
you can't fit every single easily noticeable, distinguishing characteristic into an sdesc
Quote from: Delirium on April 04, 2016, 10:23:47 AM
Something as obvious as a hunchback would (and should) be in the sdesc.
Yes, you're right. But it isn't always. It often isn't, in fact. I've seen more "dark-skinned brown-eyed" people with massive scarring and disfigurement or unusual inks, than PCs whose players have actually included those features in their sdescs. I typo them, but usually nothing comes of it and the massively-disfigured dwarf remains "the short stocky dwarf" for the rest of his existence as a PC.
In addition, someone with several blatantly obvious features won't be fitting them all on an sdesc, because it has a fairly short character limit. I've seen plenty of this as well, so it's not a rare "what if" impossibility.
These seem like edge cases that the player should be RPing via emotes regardless. But... fine, what would you suggest that can be easily implemented without sacrificing look hemote?
The third suggestion I have is to revert look back to an echo but have a "brief look" command that turns them into hemotes.
or maybe it should just be >brief party
Wherein eat, taste, drink, sip, and look all turn into hemotes. Haw.
Honestly, the best case scenario is likely the introduction of the study command alongside mdesc-hiding gear, but people seem really opposed to that for some reason.
Personally I like the suggestion and think it solves everything neatly (and leaves "mdesc" in normal looks for the Lizzies who just HAVE to know if you have a wart on your nose).
Keep in mind that unless the person is smart enough to change out their gear, a mask - mdesc hiding or not - isn't going to save them from suspicion.
Regarding a 'study' command - Main descriptions are one of the best ways a player has to creatively establish their character's appearance. I'd never want to force people into experiencing an irritating delay in order to read someone else's description. If you want to stare at someone in a way that you think would be noticeable, you are perfectly free to emote doing so. But just looking at people isn't noticeable, and it's never been realistic that everyone notices you doing it, and I have to assume that is why this change was made.
I'm almost never looking at people to check out their gear. An echoing study command would defeat the point for me and bring back much of the spam. (Also I really don't have to stare at people irl to pick out main facial features, body size and shape, big tattoos, and must other things in an mdesc).
UNLESS there was a disguise command and it would give you a chanceto look through the disguise but I already posted that idea somewhere else so I won't reiterate here.
I don't mind the "visible" look either, so a flag might help for people who don't want their look to be hidden: look -v man
This was to cut down on spam and to make the game more realistic. If I go into the local shithole bar where fifty people are, the real life Gaj, and I sit in the corner and look at you, you won't be able to tell unless you get very lucky or are watching me.
Plus as said above, the vast majority wanted this change, let's not muddy it up mlby taking the change that people wanted and making it a choice. No we don't need a toggle, no you shouldn't be able to turn it on so your sneaky character has a visual cue he sucks at sneaking.
Just adapt and play guy. I don't think I've seen a single change to the game in the past year where people aren't like, This is awesome, but let's make it a choice...
Just be happy you're not getting spammed by looks constantly like you should and let's move on.
This is what I mean by it is only a halfway solution.
Sure, Asmoth, I can suck it up and play the game and still enjoy myself. You will notice that I hardly post on the gdb, and I have always adjusted my playstyle with the new changes, and enjoy myself. The reason why I am posting in this thread is because I feel there can be improvements to the code that can make both the naysayers and the ones for the code happy.
I get your reasons for changing 'look' into hemote. You don't want to be look-spammed. You don't think you should notice that 50 individual PCs in one room are all looking at you. So let's break this down:
1. You don't want to get look spammed.
Some people treat the look command as OOC, some people don't (like me). For me, when a PC looks at me. They are looking at me. they are looking at my hair, if I have booger on my face, if I put on my socks wrong, or if my skirt is tucked up in my underwear because I was in a hurry to get out of the toilet (that can happen you know!). If there are 50 people looking at me when I wander into a room, I will know there is a big frigging crowd of people looking at me. Because... well, they're looking. Since I will be spammed by look echos, I won't go through all 50 sdescs to remember how each person that looks at me look like, except the sdescs that are familiar to me (just like real life!), or someone who has a funny sdesc (just like real life again!).
Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but it feels to me like we should make 'get all bag' and 'put all bag' into hemotes, because we don't want to be spammed.
2. You don't think you should notice every single PCs in a room looking at you.
This is a valid point. This nevered bothered me as a player because I don't always react to people looking at me, unless I'm bored, or if I'm curious, or if I am in need of interaction (OOC things). I have met some players that play their PCs as not noticing my glance (when I emoted it with the look command). Just personally thinking, this should be up to player responsibility to play to the realism of the environment rather than something we should change the code to. You can argue that a majority of players don't care about that, but then I think it's up to us who do care about it to lead by example.
BUT! I'm not here to say this is a really bad idea and we should just revert it back altogether. Like I said, this is only a halfway solution.
My proposed solution was to do a new command. The 'study' idea is a good one. If you don't like splitting it all into two commands, how about tweaking the 'look' command?
>look PC
Without emote, this turns into a hemote.
>look PC (with an emote)
With an emote, this turns into a non-hemote.
I've never coded, so I'm not sure if it's difficult to do or not. Someone with more experience can chime in on this. This is just me brainstorming.
PS. Holy crap, that's a long post. Also, it's late for me. I try to make sense as much as possible when I'm tired but uh.. no promises. >>
What the hell kind of sneaky player are you guys playing with such an abysmal watch skill anyway? Ever since the change went in I'm still noticing looks out the yin-yang and my PC's watch isn't even good.
if there is a way to fix it that doesn't make me notice every look and glance, then cool. But I don't think they need to recode this for that reason. This is a HUGE win for the look command, it's not a bad thing at all.
See post below - didn't hit the quote button like I should've.
Quote from: Delirium on April 04, 2016, 11:00:13 AM
These seem like edge cases that the player should be RPing via emotes regardless. But... fine, what would you suggest that can be easily implemented without sacrificing look hemote?
The third suggestion I have is to revert look back to an echo but have a "brief look" command that turns them into hemotes.
or maybe it should just be >brief party
Wherein eat, taste, drink, sip, and look all turn into hemotes. Haw.
Honestly, the best case scenario is likely the introduction of the study command alongside mdesc-hiding gear, but people seem really opposed to that for some reason.
Personally I like the suggestion and think it solves everything neatly (and leaves "mdesc" in normal looks for the Lizzies who just HAVE to know if you have a wart on your nose).
Keep in mind that unless the person is smart enough to change out their gear, a mask - mdesc hiding or not - isn't going to save them from suspicion.
I have no suggestion, because I like the change as is. If they had asked me before they implemented it, "Hey Lizzie, we'll do whatever you want - what do you want?" I'd say "ditch the echo for the look command, period. Don't replace it with anything. Just make "look" a completely totally officially OOC command, and if people want someone to know they're looking at them, they can append it with emotes and it'll show up in the game.
Look is not an OOC thing. That is ridiculous.
I don't know how to respond because all I'm getting is, 'Look hemote is implented, get over it'.
If you think look is an OOC thing, would you care to elaborate? For someone who has always taken 'looks at you' as an IC thing, this doesn't make sense to me.
Quote from: Inks on April 04, 2016, 09:11:14 PM
Look is not an OOC thing. That is ridiculous.
It depends on its use. Just like - if you have set an ldesc, and want to turn it off, you type STAND. Even if you're already standing. That command - STAND - is not IC, when you are using it that way. It is strictly an ooc tool to change a string back to its default.
LOOK - when used to tell the -player- the data they need to determine whether or not their character needs to react to something - is strictly an ooc use of the command. That's actually the #1 use I have for it, personally. I rarely use look as an IC device, it's almost always to inform me, the player, of what my character is being presented with so I can roleplay accordingly.
Look is IC. I don't know how you can argue otherwise. It's like saying ">close pack isn't an IC thing."
When you're standing, you're standing. It's not a pure IC thing or a pure OOC thing. It's a mixture of both.
The OOC part is: You need to get your character standing in order to leave the room.
The IC part is: Your character stands up, because he or she is about to leave the room.
The same goes for the look command.
OOC: You look at a PC to see how he or she looks like and what he or she is wearing.
IC: You are looking at the PC.
By seperating it into pure OOC or pure IC is ridiculous. Because while Arm is a RPI, it is one based on code. In order to achieve something IC, you need to do it codedly (aka stand/sit/look/etc).
Quote from: BadSkeelz on April 04, 2016, 09:50:07 PM
Look is IC. I don't know how you can argue otherwise. It's like saying ">close pack isn't an IC thing."
I'm not arguing otherwise. I'm _telling_ you flat out. I don't consider it strictly IC, and I don't use it strictly ICly. I use it either ICly or OOCly depending on why I'm using it each time. You don't have to like the fact that I consider it that way, but it's a fact. I do it that way. If you're not able to do it that way, that's okay, I don't mind at all. Just accept that when I type "look badskeelz" I'm not going to type "look badskeelz (but isn't really looking, she just wants to know if you have a humpback so she can roleplay her character making a disgusted expression about it)" I'm going to type just "look badskeelz" and when I see that humpback I will then emote gets a disgusted look on her face.
Quote from: Kankfly on April 04, 2016, 09:54:21 PM
When you're standing, you're standing. It's not a pure IC thing or a pure OOC thing. It's a mixture of both.
The OOC part is: You need to get your character standing in order to leave the room.
The IC part is: Your character stands up, because he or she is about to leave the room.
The same goes for the look command.
OOC: You look at a PC to see how he or she looks like and what he or she is wearing.
IC: You are looking at the PC.
By seperating it into pure OOC or pure IC is ridiculous. Because while Arm is a RPI, it is one based on code. In order to achieve something IC, you need to do it codedly (aka stand/sit/look/etc).
You completely and totally missed what I wrote.
I was talking about using the command STAND in order to revert an ldesc to default. Not to stand up. If you're already standing and you have set your ldesc to "is doing exercises in the yard here"...
and the sergeant walks in and you want to NOT have that ldesc anymore..
you type STAND.
And it will take that ldesc off of you.
You're not roleplaying that you're standing, because you were already standing.
In this case, STAND is strictly an ooc device to change an ldesc to a default.
Look - can be used for a strictly ooc purpose AND it can be used ICly. It isn't exclusively one or the other. And there's no fault to anyone who chooses to use it frequently to remind them of what their VBFF's shoulders look like or what color eyes their 2-year-anniversary mate has, or whether or not they have that famous humpback, so that the player can have their character respond accordingly.
I can say it a few more dozen times, but the answer will remain the same: look has OOC functionality, and until the staff says it's not allowed, I'll continue using it that way. Sorry that it bothers you. Pretty sure that's one of the reasons they changed it so that you no longer have to see the spam.
I'm kind of with Lizzie on this, but I can see it both ways.
I've come to treat look (without command emotes) as a minimal IC thing (almost an OOC thing) to be ignored basically by other characters, and I actually dislike it when people respond to my looks (without command emotes) as if they were IC things like ogles or whatever -- Hey, whatchew looking at?.
Why? I don't think sdescs give me a clear enough picture of the people I potentially could interact with for me to understand what's going on in order to RP appropriately. So I do a look. At everyone. In the bar. Even my friends. Especially raiders. Even the NPCs. Sometimes, I even do it with vNPCs:
em looks down at the purple-eyed blue-haired child.
(I'm joking on the last one.)
Well, you misunderstand me too.
I am not here to whine. I am here to brainstorm a better option rather than just 'hemote look', which is why I put up proposed solutions. I've bolded 'halfway solution', because it is, and I am certain that there is a viable reason why staff has chosen to implement this change to the game.
This is a discussion board, where players are allowed to speak their thoughts about things, to be convinced that 'oh I haven't thought about that, now that you put it that way it's a good idea' and go along with it, or to come up with a good solution to further improve the game. As you can tell, I am not convinced, which is why instead of 'sucking it up and continue to enjoy the game', I am posting here.
Like I said in my previous posts, I am
not telling everyone that we should revert back to regular look. I am merely brainstorming ideas to help
refine the solution. You want to keep hemote look, I didn't say we should take it away. All I'm suggesting is tweaking the code.
Quote from: Kankfly on April 04, 2016, 12:50:47 PM
My proposed solution was to do a new command. The 'study' idea is a good one. If you don't like splitting it all into two commands, how about tweaking the 'look' command?
>look PC
Without emote, this turns into a hemote.
>look PC (with an emote)
With an emote, this turns into a non-hemote.
I've never coded, so I'm not sure if it's difficult to do or not. Someone with more experience can chime in on this. This is just me brainstorming.
If you view a command, that's designed to provide you with IC knowledge (Look Command), as an OOC construct at all, you're not using it right.
We aren't talking about Score, or Stat, which is something that others can't see about you. We are literally talking about someone shifting their eyeballs towards you.
If there is one command that is UNDENIABLY IC, it's the look command. There is no OOC way to say, "Well when my character looked at him."
You guys are twisting the point of view to try and somehow bend logic into an illogical construct because you don't agree with the way look works.
Quote from: Lizzie on April 04, 2016, 09:55:02 PM
Quote from: BadSkeelz on April 04, 2016, 09:50:07 PM
Look is IC. I don't know how you can argue otherwise. It's like saying ">close pack isn't an IC thing."
I'm not arguing otherwise. I'm _telling_ you flat out. I don't consider it strictly IC, and I don't use it strictly ICly. I use it either ICly or OOCly depending on why I'm using it each time. You don't have to like the fact that I consider it that way, but it's a fact. I do it that way. If you're not able to do it that way, that's okay, I don't mind at all. Just accept that when I type "look badskeelz" I'm not going to type "look badskeelz (but isn't really looking, she just wants to know if you have a humpback so she can roleplay her character making a disgusted expression about it)" I'm going to type just "look badskeelz" and when I see that humpback I will then emote gets a disgusted look on her face.
You can't look to see if someone has a hunchback without your character actually looking at them. Unless you have a spec-apped "sixth sense for physical deformities" and you can smell cripples or something.
Quote from: nauta on April 04, 2016, 10:13:04 PM
I've come to treat look (without command emotes) as a minimal IC thing (almost an OOC thing) to be ignored basically by other characters, and I actually dislike it when people respond to my looks (without command emotes) as if they were IC things like ogles or whatever -- Hey, whatchew looking at?.
Pretty much this.
I like the new look because I can now look around at everyone without it being this:
QuoteAide arrives from the north.
Aide looks at X.
Aide looks at V.
Aide looks at Z.
Aide looks at Y.
Aide walks north.
I
want to look at your PC and I
want to read your description, even if it will never have relevance to my PC. I used to avoid it because of how some people responded (YOU PEEPIN' FO' SOMETHING FOOL?! <- an actual thing, thanks 'rinth), or not wanting to spam up a screen with scroll that adds nothing to the flow of things. Now, I can, without it being an issue.
If the look has flavor texted, I treat it as IC.
If it's a straight look, I usually ignore it as players doing some recon'.
Seems like a happy medium and it works for me.
I guess my view is ...
just as look (without a command echo) on objects (like bags, bars, tables, hidden bits in a room, rooms)
so too look (without a command echo) on PCs and NPCs;
but the former doesn't echo anything; therefore the latter too.
I still voted for hemote despite my complaints. I would quite like if look with an emote attached was visible though, much like talk. Treating look as OOC is bad form though, IMO. If you look, your PC is looking at that person/thing.
Yep, you can't tell the Raider who says, "Look at me and die! Give me all your clothes!"
After looking at them.
OOC WAIT, that look was an OOC look...
Let's not be ridiculous here.
I'm not going to... well, I am. But I don't mean to... but I guess I do.
I've noticed people on the GDB getting upset OOCly about things that happen ICly.
or... more like, people are getting upset over things that their characters may not be okay with? - but they address the issues here.
I felt like I may have been crazy and just reading something into what wasn't there or whatever, but I thought I should bring it up. This is one of those issues, I can't think of the others off of the top of my head.
Well, no. I guess it makes sense to be upset about people ''spam'' looking. but while I have yet to do it, I like the idea of people being able to ''look dood'' without drawing attention to themselves. I like the idea that people can ''choose'' what catches their direct attention. I mean... it's not like people were complaining when I actually /was/ spam looking at a mural on the wall while I was talking to someone. Or spam looking at the bar. Or spam looking at the tables. Or spam looking at myself - which I do a lot.
Or spam looking at people's items because it's never echoed. Or spam looking at a direction (which I stopped doing as soon as I learned watch was a thing).
no, to tell the truth I can see the ... ooc in all of those things, but I promise I used that evil for good.
Hey I just met you
And this is crazy
But here's my sdesc
So Way me maybe
It's hard to look right at you baby
But here's my sdesc
So Way me maybe
Quote from: dravage on April 05, 2016, 03:25:58 AM
Hey I just met you
And this is crazy
But here's my sdesc
So Way me maybe
It's hard to look right at you baby
But here's my sdesc
So Way me maybe
Thanks for some wakeup lols dravage.
Seems like an unnecessary distinction to make.
Of course you have to look at someone to see if there's something you need to react to. Your character can't react unless you look at them. This doesn't make looking an OOC act. It's like saying opening your pack, getting your coins out, putting them back in and closing your pack are all just an OOC necessity when your character wants to buy something. The process is important, not just the end result.
I don't understand why you would need to say "oh, there's nothing there for my character to react to. therefore I didn't actually look at them." You are constantly looking at people all the time without reacting to them. When you turn and look around the room you're in, you just spammed 40 look commands at the various objects there, and it happened completely ICly. The whole point of changing look to be a hemote is that looking should be a ubiquitous, unintrusive thing that people do to one another. The whole point is that there isn't a lot of IC commitment there--you can brush it off as saying you were just looking around the room, only glanced at them or saw them out of the corner of your eye. It's all kosher. And it's all completely IC.
There's no reason to open the door to possible nastiness where you have information you're trying to pretend your character doesn't have, or where you're trying to pretend your character didn't look at someone when other people saw you do it and are roleplaying accordingly.
Ya know, Hyzhen. You're right, man.
All the stuff I posted on this look hemote thing... dumb.
There really is no reason to get upset that someone looked at you without you knowing.
Though, I would still encourage people to emote actually looking in directions and at other stuff when appropriate.
Quote from: hyzhenhok on April 05, 2016, 07:42:04 AM
Seems like an unnecessary distinction to make.
Of course you have to look at someone to see if there's something you need to react to. Your character can't react unless you look at them. This doesn't make looking an OOC act. It's like saying opening your pack, getting your coins out, putting them back in and closing your pack are all just an OOC necessity when your character wants to buy something. The process is important, not just the end result.
I don't understand why you would need to say "oh, there's nothing there for my character to react to. therefore I didn't actually look at them." You are constantly looking at people all the time without reacting to them. When you turn and look around the room you're in, you just spammed 40 look commands at the various objects there, and it happened completely ICly. The whole point of changing look to be a hemote is that looking should be a ubiquitous, unintrusive thing that people do to one another. The whole point is that there isn't a lot of IC commitment there--you can brush it off as saying you were just looking around the room, only glanced at them or saw them out of the corner of your eye. It's all kosher. And it's all completely IC.
There's no reason to open the door to possible nastiness where you have information you're trying to pretend your character doesn't have, or where you're trying to pretend your character didn't look at someone when other people saw you do it and are roleplaying accordingly.
Hey I'm fine with that. But apparently a few people here are adamantly against the idea that using "look" doesn't have to "mean" anything. They insist that when my character looks at them, it's significant and if I roleplay that my character didn't see anything worth reacting to, I'm doing something wrong and twinky, and that using the look command requires a response/reaction, always.
As I've said countless times in the past: sometimes a look is just a look, means absolutely nothing, and there's nothing to respond/react to at all. If look (without appended emotes) had no echo whatsoever, I'd be very happy. Look, all by itself, should have no echo. The only time it should echo is if you attach/append it with emotes, because then you are doing it intentionally as part of the roleplay and not merely for player data-collecting purposes.
But that was what I was suggesting ???
Making 'look <target>' a hemote, and 'look <target> (emote)' not a hemote.
But... like... instead of saying whether this is a good idea or not, all I got was 'it's done, get over it.'
Quote from: Kankfly on April 05, 2016, 10:29:31 AM
But that was what I was suggesting ???
Making 'look <target>' a hemote, and 'look <target> (emote)' not a hemote.
But... like... instead of saying whether this is a good idea or not, all I got was 'it's done, get over it.'
o kankfly...
Quote from: evilcabbage on April 05, 2016, 10:45:41 AM
o kankfly...
With just these two words, I'm going to assume you think I'm making a deal out of nothing and I should drop it and move on.
In that case, please read my previous posts properly. The
point of me posting here isn't to whine against the change, I'm suggesting a code tweak, one which Lizzie seems to agree on, which means we just spent two pages of this thread debating about different views on the change. Rather unnecessary might I add. If you feel this is blown out of proportion or if there is something you don't agree on, please feel free to explain to me, because while I'd love to try a psionist IG, it doesn't mean I am one RL.
Quote from: Lizzie on April 04, 2016, 09:55:02 PM
I'm not arguing otherwise. I'm _telling_ you flat out. I don't consider it strictly IC, and I don't use it strictly ICly. I use it either ICly or OOCly depending on why I'm using it each time. You don't have to like the fact that I consider it that way, but it's a fact. I do it that way. If you're not able to do it that way, that's okay, I don't mind at all. Just accept that when I type "look badskeelz" I'm not going to type "look badskeelz (but isn't really looking, she just wants to know if you have a humpback so she can roleplay her character making a disgusted expression about it)" I'm going to type just "look badskeelz" and when I see that humpback I will then emote gets a disgusted look on her face.
Once upon a time a long time ago, two PCs from a certain area came to pay my PC from a certain clan a visit and negotiate and "learn". The two clans had strained relationship, so the meeting was tense. My PC had the upper hand due to certain IC reasons and one of the terms & conditions of the visit, is that the two PC are to talk to me while staring down at
the ground the entire time without looking up at me or anyone that would be in my company. They complied, they emoted looking down at the sands while speaking to my PC who was very extremely well shrouded.
So! If let's say a similar scene occurs with the hemote look happening, how would these PCs react? Would they still look and role play as them
not knowing how my PC would look because it is as Lizzie says "sometimes IC or OOC depending on why I'm using it"? Then how would anyone monitor it? Do I have to watch the two PCs at the same time? (Codedly not possible to do so)
OORRR do I have to just entirely put my complete 100% trust in the other players that they would do the "right thing"?
Because I can envision a few things happening:
1, Player can hemote look then ignore PC A with a massive hump on his/her back (as an example) on an
IC basis because this is a
purely OOC thing. But in that case, why even look in the first place? To satisfy OOC curiosity?
2, Player can hemote look at PC A with a massive hump on his/her back and then report it to whomever else that the person they were meeting had distinct feature A, B and C. But in THAT case, when someone is actually looking at you....wouldn't you notice they're looking at you and your massive hump on your back?
3, Player can hemote look at PC A with a massive hump on his/her back disguising as an
"OOC thing" but then react one way or the other in an IC manner. But then in THAT case...well that's just super twinky isn't it?
So basically...I just need to trust the entire Arm playerbase not to do any of the 3 points above. Am I right?
My Two CentsJust like subdue which you can toggle on and off. Perhaps players themselves have the choice of toggling on and off whether they would notice people look at them or not? So for distrustful bitches like me, maybe I can have an option of actually KNOWING if someone is looking at me (no matter whether it be OOC or IC), and for others who are sick of the annoying spammage they could switch it off?
Juuuust throwing an idea out there. :)
I think in the above case, your PC was not able to keep an eye on both of them at once and one of them snuck a look at you.
That sounds like an IC problem, not an OOC one.
Quote from: Delirium on April 05, 2016, 11:38:51 AM
I think in the above case, your PC was not able to keep an eye on both of them at once and one of them snuck a look at you.
That sounds like an IC problem, not an OOC one.
I'm using that as an example. Obviously it happened a long long time ago, and it didn't happen. But let's pretend there's you're one on one with another PC and something similar happens?
In that case all you have to do is >watch that PC. The code handles if you notice that they snuck a look or not.
Not trying to be difficult, just saying - this is actually pretty well handled by the current implementation of the code.
Also with the chance that you'll catch the look emote, they would be taking a calculated risk to try to sneak a peek. I'm also I'm the "the code now handles that very well, roll with it IC" camp.
Quote from: Me on April 05, 2016, 11:45:20 AM
Quote from: Delirium on April 05, 2016, 11:38:51 AM
I think in the above case, your PC was not able to keep an eye on both of them at once and one of them snuck a look at you.
That sounds like an IC problem, not an OOC one.
I'm using that as an example. Obviously it happened a long long time ago, and it didn't happen. But let's pretend there's you're one on one with another PC and something similar happens?
Use watch or scan to pick up on the echoes. I've personally not found it that difficult to see them, even without active watching or scanning.
And when someone looks at you after being ordered not to, kill them
Quote from: Kankfly on April 05, 2016, 10:29:31 AM
But that was what I was suggesting ???
Making 'look <target>' a hemote, and 'look <target> (emote)' not a hemote.
But... like... instead of saying whether this is a good idea or not, all I got was 'it's done, get over it.'
an hemote is an echo. I'm saying look, without (emote) should not have any echo at all, not to anyone.
I strongly disagree for many reasons which have already been stated. Fortunately, I don't see that ever happening.
look for hemote 2016!
Return the look echo 2017!
Nerf paper plz, rock's fine!
WTF DO YOU PEOPLE WANT!@#!@ ???
To have new and exciting things to be holier-than-thou about, it looks like.
Who's getting holier-and-thou, now?
Put "emote" back in "Look (With command emotes)" 2Q2016.
Quote from: Vwest on April 05, 2016, 04:38:06 PM
To have new and exciting things to be holier-than-thou about, it looks like.
Okay. I don't see where my posts are 'holier than thou'. But alright.
In my 'holier than thou' attitude, I propose look WITH emote to be not hemote. Holier-than-thouly. :)
Those of you who didn't read my posts properly, the above is basically the summery of what I proposed. In a holier than thou tone of text-voice.
Quote from: Kankfly on April 05, 2016, 11:20:55 AM
Quote from: evilcabbage on April 05, 2016, 10:45:41 AM
o kankfly...
With just these two words, I'm going to assume you think I'm making a deal out of nothing and I should drop it and move on.
In that case, please read my previous posts properly. The point of me posting here isn't to whine against the change, I'm suggesting a code tweak, one which Lizzie seems to agree on, which means we just spent two pages of this thread debating about different views on the change. Rather unnecessary might I add. If you feel this is blown out of proportion or if there is something you don't agree on, please feel free to explain to me, because while I'd love to try a psionist IG, it doesn't mean I am one RL.
i was making a joke about a kankfly that was in the gaj one day, that said "o kankfly".
in front of people.
i apologize for not being clear.
I'd definitely like the idea kankfly suggested of
l dude (squinting)
to not be a hemote, while look without an emote be hemotey as hell.
It's so hard breaking the habit of putting actions in my looks.
Quote from: evilcabbage on April 05, 2016, 08:05:32 PM
Quote from: Kankfly on April 05, 2016, 11:20:55 AM
Quote from: evilcabbage on April 05, 2016, 10:45:41 AM
o kankfly...
[...]
i was making a joke about a kankfly that was in the gaj one day, that said "o kankfly".
in front of people.
i apologize for not being clear.
Dude. The 'o kankfly' thing was my story, and it happened in the Salarrgossy..
http://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,31486.msg892026.html#msg892026
Unless it happened twice.
Also, I'm +1 on kankfly's suggestion: old habits have me shoving loads of expressive material into the look command. (My secret personal preference, which is minority-o-rama is to have look PC work just like look room or bag, viz., without a command emote, no echo; with a command emote, echo. But I'm down with having hemote instead of no echo.)
i thought i saw it happen in the gaj.
Just takes some getting used to, I think we'll all come around to the change given another week or so of use.
I'll add that if look (frowning) man got the visible emote back, it would be cool if watch (frowning) man got a visible emote too.
Quote from: Kankfly on April 05, 2016, 08:02:27 PM
Okay. I don't see where my posts are 'holier than thou'. But alright.
I was speaking generally, but I can see how you might take it as being specific to you.
Sorry about that, boss.