I think it would be cool to emote to everyone in the room except one person who gets a hemote. say...
> hemote (amos) flips ~amos a bad gesture as #amos turns to leave.
> hemote (amos) wets his finger before slowly bringing it to %amos ear.
Everyone in the room, but amos would see it. Amos would get a chance to see it.
There are times I want to do something to someone, and not have EVERYONE see it, 'cause it's subtle, but have the PLAYER of said someone see it.
No, not just sexual stuff.
And vice-versa?
You know, a hemote to a person. They'd be guaranteed to see it, but the whole room would get a chance to see it.
And I realize this could be fixed by watching each other, but there are some things that you wouldn't necessarily need to be watching someone to see.
EDIT: damn you tortall
And vice-versa. I like it.
> hemote () - exclude one
> hemote [] - include one
Quote from: Chettaman on December 17, 2009, 08:49:20 PM
And vice-versa. I like it.
> hemote () - exclude one
> hemote [] - include one
Awesome suggestion.
Quote from: Chettaman on December 17, 2009, 08:49:20 PM
And vice-versa. I like it.
> hemote () - exclude one
> hemote [] - include one
Yes!!
Quote from: Chettaman on December 17, 2009, 08:49:20 PM
And vice-versa. I like it.
> hemote () - exclude one
> hemote [] - include one
I want! I WANT!!!!!!!
As somebody who uses hemotes a lot, anyway, I'm a fan. This would only make me use them more.
Quote from: Chettaman on December 17, 2009, 08:49:20 PM
And vice-versa. I like it.
> hemote () - exclude one
> hemote [] - include one
() and [] already mean before and after in command emotes.
what about:
<excluded>
>included<
+included
-excluded
- is already used for stuff though.
Quote from: nyrk on December 18, 2009, 12:49:11 AM
Quote from: Chettaman on December 17, 2009, 08:49:20 PM
And vice-versa. I like it.
> hemote () - exclude one
> hemote [] - include one
() and [] already mean before and after in command emotes.
what about:
<excluded>
>included<
you could include or exclude multiples as well, not just a single target....
emote turns around to face the the troopers behind him.
hemote >trooper1, tooper2, trooper3< draws his finger across his neck and rolls his eyes at ~fancypants.
You can't emote and use "()"s.
ex: > emote (tries to lick ^me elbow)
The tall muscular man (tries to lick his elbow).
But I'm down to use any code for this to be implimented. "<>"s are fine with me.
I'm skeptical about this. My reasoning is, realistically you can do something that only someone else would notice if you know they're watching you. This is already achievable in game.
Quote from: Rhyden on December 18, 2009, 03:01:13 PM
I'm skeptical about this. My reasoning is, realistically you can do something that only someone else would notice if you know they're watching you. This is already achievable in game.
No, what if I'm kicking their foot under a table?
Does the table have a floor-length tablecloth?
heh... It does seem to be slightly overly complicated though... But that's just me.
Quote from: Rhyden on December 18, 2009, 03:01:13 PM
I'm skeptical about this. My reasoning is, realistically you can do something that only someone else would notice if you know they're watching you. This is already achievable in game.
Hm. True. It's more of a convenience. (SP!?)
This makes it easier to get your friend's attention when you want to show off by sneaking up to an elf you're about to pants. Then you can emote actually doing it.
Quote from: Rhyden on December 18, 2009, 03:01:13 PM
I'm skeptical about this. My reasoning is, realistically you can do something that only someone else would notice if you know they're watching you. This is already achievable in game.
I agree with Rhyden. The way this usually works in game for me is that I will have previously noticed my "partner in crime" hemoting something, and be inclined to watch them from there on out. Then I won't miss it when they kick me under the table. Alternately, Way your buddy to say "Look close, I'm gonna make elf-ears behind this dwarf."
Quote from: Zoltan on December 18, 2009, 03:05:24 PM
Quote from: Rhyden on December 18, 2009, 03:01:13 PM
I'm skeptical about this. My reasoning is, realistically you can do something that only someone else would notice if you know they're watching you. This is already achievable in game.
No, what if I'm kicking their foot under a table?
You can solve this with an hemote which they will/won't notice or do a regular emote and let everyone see. I don't think the circumstance or need is enough to require new code.
If it was implemented, I think it would just make our overly-complicated emote system even more complicated.
Quote from: Rhyden on December 18, 2009, 03:13:14 PM
Quote from: Zoltan on December 18, 2009, 03:05:24 PM
Quote from: Rhyden on December 18, 2009, 03:01:13 PM
I'm skeptical about this. My reasoning is, realistically you can do something that only someone else would notice if you know they're watching you. This is already achievable in game.
No, what if I'm kicking their foot under a table?
You can solve this with an hemote which they will/won't notice or do a regular emote and let everyone see. I don't think the circumstance or need is enough to require new code.
If it was implemented, I think it would just make our overly-complicated emote system even more complicated.
Well, you're right, it would make it even more complicated. It's just one of those things that I wistfully sigh about as I hemote away... but yeah, it's not strictly necessary.
Quote from: Gimfalisette on December 18, 2009, 03:09:54 PM
Quote from: Rhyden on December 18, 2009, 03:01:13 PM
I'm skeptical about this. My reasoning is, realistically you can do something that only someone else would notice if you know they're watching you. This is already achievable in game.
I agree with Rhyden. The way this usually works in game for me is that I will have previously noticed my "partner in crime" hemoting something, and be inclined to watch them from there on out. Then I won't miss it when they kick me under the table. Alternately, Way your buddy to say "Look close, I'm gonna make elf-ears behind this dwarf."
Yeah.... Only what are you gonna do when you want to subtle kick them under the table, or poke their leg? Going to way them "Look close, I'm gonna kick you."?
No. I think this would be a very good addition, to expand how we can emote.
And my brain just turned off and I really don't feel like arguing my point right now. I'm going to Arm instead.
P.S.
Almost no one sees my hemotes unless they're watching me, and almost no one uses watch EVER.
It would appear to me that the decision on whether or not a character notices a particular hemote is determined by the code.
I'd even go as far as saying that this would be power emoting, as proposed.
Quote from: tortall on December 18, 2009, 04:10:01 PM
Almost no one sees my hemotes unless they're watching me, and almost no one uses watch EVER.
I guarantee you that if I notice you hemoting on occasion, I'm approximately 427% more likely to watch you. Also, don't assume that no one is seeing your hemote; perhaps they are simply not responding to it visually, or they are responding to it with an hemote that you then miss. I actually very much appreciate that it's possible to hemote, have PCs notice that, but then the players often just won't react to it. It leaves breathing room in the RP space when I know that my PC can maybe roll her eyes and not necessarily get the Hammer of Authoritative Doom brought down on her head, and I'm more likely to do it.
Characters who hemote frequently are to-die-for sexy, no matter what they are hemoting. I wish I remembered to hemote more often, but sometimes I simply forget to do it. I think it adds so much depth to a PC when the player hemotes.
I have to disagree with the OP.
Excluding/including who sees your hemotes is unrealistic. What if somebody else who was not intended to see you giving Amos a wet willy, actually in fact notices it by accident?
Quote from: Gimfalisette on December 18, 2009, 04:21:00 PM
Quote from: tortall on December 18, 2009, 04:10:01 PM
Almost no one sees my hemotes unless they're watching me, and almost no one uses watch EVER.
I guarantee you that if I notice you hemoting on occasion, I'm approximately 427% more likely to watch you. Also, don't assume that no one is seeing your hemote; perhaps they are simply not responding to it visually, or they are responding to it with an hemote that you then miss. I actually very much appreciate that it's possible to hemote, have PCs notice that, but then the players often just won't react to it. It leaves breathing room in the RP space when I know that my PC can maybe roll her eyes and not necessarily get the Hammer of Authoritative Doom brought down on her head, and I'm more likely to do it.
Characters who hemote frequently are to-die-for sexy, no matter what they are hemoting. I wish I remembered to hemote more often, but sometimes I simply forget to do it. I think it adds so much depth to a PC when the player hemotes.
Gimf, we once again agree. Hemote FTW!
Though I still think if I want to poke AT someone under the table, I should be able to make them notice, and have few/none others notice. When you're doing an action TO someone, they're about 95% likely to notice.
I actually assumed that when you used ~/!/#/%/^/ect in a hemote, the person you were targeting saw it. Or, I did until they never responded. :-D
Quote from: Manhattan on December 18, 2009, 04:26:35 PM
I have to disagree with the OP.
Excluding/including who sees your hemotes is unrealistic. What if somebody else who was not intended to see you giving Amos a wet willy, actually in fact notices it by accident?
Er, that's the whole point of hemote. As it stands NOW, however, not even Amos will notice you sticking your wet infer into his ear.
We're just asking that there be a way to target someone you WANT to see what you're doing, and have everyone else only MAYBE notice it.
I -can- see how EXCLUDING people MIGHT be twinkish.
But frankly, there's tons of stuff that's twinkish in this game. Tdesc could be used as twinkish, but it's actually a VERY useful, NEWLY ADDED, RP tool. Within the last year.
This thread just made me remember a couple days ago I wanted to a possessive hidden emote and didn't know how, so it took me a few minutes to reword to a hemote, which could have gotten me a second hemote/phemote... Which is the syntax I didn't know about:
phemote!
Quote from: tortall on December 18, 2009, 04:27:25 PM
Though I still think if I want to poke AT someone under the table, I should be able to make them notice, and have few/none others notice. When you're doing an action TO someone, they're about 95% likely to notice.
I actually assumed that when you used ~/!/#/%/^/ect in a hemote, the person you were targeting saw it. Or, I did until they never responded. :-D
Well, I said before...I think this is solved by training the PCs you play with, over time, to watch you :) I have often had PC relationships where over time we just started watching each other whenever we were together, because we knew something subtle and interesting was going to happen.
And I think it's really OK that if your burly buddy Malik is watching someone at the bar (because he's hot for them or he suspects they're a threat), then he doesn't notice you bumping him under the table. He's paying more attention to other stuff than he is to you; it's IC. I recommend slapping him full on the face, shrieking at him to pay more attention, and storming out. Then pout until he watches you! :)
Alternately, kill him and acquire a more attentive buddy.
Oops. I might've been mistaken.
I hate these circular logics. Like 'nosave'. Always takes me a while to understand that 'nosave arrest' means you want to be arrested, or 'nosave climb' means you want to fall. Maybe I'm just dumb.
Quote from: Nyr on December 18, 2009, 04:19:48 PM
It would appear to me that the decision on whether or not a character notices a particular hemote is determined by the code.
I'd even go as far as saying that this would be power emoting, as proposed.
I certainly see room for abuse, but the code can't tell the difference between:
> hemote elbows ~amos in the ribs.
and
> hemote sticks out ^me tongue at ~amos as !amos turns away.
Yet Unwatchful Amos should probably have a much higher chance of noticing the first example than the second.
I think the abuse potential is much, much higher for the "hemote to one person, normal emote to everyone else" idea, and basically oppose it for that reason.
I'll settle for being able to target one-two people who will DEFINITELY see a hemote, rather than neither likely seeing it.
That's really all -I- want.
I definately still like this idea.
But I'm definately going to watch a lot more people.