I dunno how hard this would be to code, but it would be nice if, instead of:
think (glancing at ~woman) She's purdy.
turns into
You think, glancing at ~woman:
"She's purdy."
was instead
You think, glancing at the buxom woman:
"She's purdy."
That's all.
think (glancing at ~woman) She's purdy.
Will give you
Feeling glancing at ~woman, you think:
"She's purdy."
You dont add emotes to thinks, you add feelings. Afterall, if you added emotes like "glancing" and such, then thinks should become public and they're not.
I only like this idea it echoes to everyone else: Rhyden glances at the buxom woman while thinking something.
nah, then you'll get templars demanding to know what you're thinking.
I don't think it's necesarily obvious that someone is thinking. Sometimes it is, but not always.
Rhyden doesn't seem to mention at all what, if any, these thinkmotes will echo to the rest of the room. I'm going to have to guess that he doesn't mean to suggest it echoes to the room, just to yourself (and any immortals watching). However, I'd have to say that the example provided is innapropriate. He should be looking, emoting a glance, or hemoting a glance so others have a chance to notice the action being portrayed. And if you're going to emote/hemote it anyway, why does it need to be attached to think? The only benefit I see is making your own logs look nicer, but that's hardly substantial.
While a physical action shouldn't go in a think/feel, I do think there's a place for targetted think/feels.
> hemote flinches almost imperceptibly.
The bystander flinches almost imperceptibly.
> think (sympathetic toward ~man) Ow, I bet that hurt.
Feeling sympathetic toward the clumsy man, you think:
"Ow, I bet that hurt."
Yeah, you can imply it without the targetting, but I really don't see what the issue is with having the targetting available for those who want it.
I intended for the target to only be seen by the thinkier and staff. It would just be a tool to make thinking about targeted items/people easier. I use think quite a bit and I already do target stuff with ~ in my thinks forgetting that you can't.
I don't think we'd need a think-action command since it's already easy to incorporate a think and emote as is.
And Moe, sorry for not hmoting in a hypothetical GDB code test. :roll:
look woman (watching her intently)
You look at the buxom, young woman.
She is pretty.
She is wearing clothes.
think (scrutinising %buxom form) Krath she's hot.
You think, scrutinising the buxom, young womans form:
"Krath she's hot."
Yeah, I still believe that would encourage people to just thinkmote things instead of (h)emoting them like they should.
You as a player certainly know what you're thinking about. The staff can probably figure it out too from context.
I have to agree with Gim and Moe. Actions should be done with the emotes we have now. Semote, hemote or simply emote.
I'm with Rhyden on this one. I've been struggling for awhile to capture thoughts and actions and his solution might meet both of my desires.
There are two types of scenarios I can see.
Scenario #1: Elaborating on an action
em glances up to ~man with a fond smile.
phemote eyes flicker over %man face, lingering on ^man mouth.
think (wryly, as she takes in %man beard) ... He looks like shit.
Currently, I'd either have to do:
em glances up to ~man with a fond smile.
phemote eyes flicker over %man face, lingering on ^man mouth.
semote looks at %man beard.
think (wryly) ... He looks like shit.
or:
think (wryly) ... Look at that beard. He looks like shit.
The first one I dislike because a) it takes longer, and b) it's still not entirely clear that my thought and my semote are tied.
The second one isn't actually what I thought. I adapted my thought to fit the constraints of code. :P
Scenario #2: Thoughts as Imagery
em sinks into the bed as she looks up at the ceiling.
think (the children's song still playing in her thoughts) ... Frickin' annoying.
I don't know about you, but my thoughts are very rarely coherent sentences. I'm always fumbling with my 'think' commands because 75% of the time I see pictures or remember sensations, not hear dialogue.
Being able to associate more than emotions with my thinks would help me immensely. :(
Quote from: "Rairen"I don't know about you, but my thoughts are very rarely coherent sentences. I'm always fumbling with my 'think' commands because 75% of the time I see pictures or remember sensations, not hear dialogue.
Exactly. Imagery, emotions, feelings and sensations. I've always hated trying to work with that damned think command to convey what isn't really expressed in spoken word.
Just to clarify my stance on this issue, while I believe that ACTIONS should not be conveyed in the context of think/feel, I do agree with Rairen and rishenko that think/feel should be much more useful for conveying imagery, emotions, feelings, and sensations, AND THAT this could be achieved partly by allowing think/feel to take ~ arguments.
NO to:
think (looking at ~man) Mmm hottie.
YES to:
think (lustful toward ~man) Mmm hottie.
I am FOR targetting in think/feel. While it might be "misused", it is not "abusable" in the sense of giving any character an advantage over another character. Think/feel are currently not flexible enough, and adding targetting would provide more flexibility and room for creativity.
I've realized that I was not as verbose as I potentially should have been with Gim's post. Pretend I've repeated what she said, and then we'll call it a day.
Ok,
So the arguement is that if think targets were enabled, people wouldn't hemote/semote as often to give off subtle hints of what they're thinking about.
I think the people who would use think targeting if allowed, would be the same people who fire off an hemote for every think. And I don't believe think targets would reduce h/semote hints. People not using h/semote hints out of laziness will reduce that.
Edit: Yeah, what Gimfalisette said. Think targets aren't for actions, they're for emotions.