A tall, muscular man is standing here.
-He is armed
Quote from: Blackisback on July 14, 2010, 08:11:30 AM
A tall, muscular man is standing here.
-He is armed
I think it's logical that if you have to look at someone to see the three foot horn sticking out of their face while cloaked that you also have to look at them to see that they're armed.
But that's just going to lead to another minirant about how people overreact to people LOOKing at them.
Doesn't assess -v give you armed? ??? I know it gives a good few general qualities.
Quote from: AmandaGreathouse on July 16, 2010, 04:16:08 PM
Quote from: Blackisback on July 14, 2010, 08:11:30 AM
A tall, muscular man is standing here.
-He is armed
I think it's logical that if you have to look at someone to see the three foot horn sticking out of their face while cloaked that you also have to look at them to see that they're armed.
But that's just going to lead to another minirant about how people overreact to people LOOKing at them.
If it's obvious someone is carrying a backpack, it should be obvious they are armed.
You can't tell someone is wearing a pack without looking at them.
Quote from: RogueGunslinger on July 16, 2010, 05:32:07 PM
You can't tell someone is wearing a pack without looking at them.
The tall, muscular man is standing here.
-He is carrying a large leather backpack
Not equipped, just carrying.
That has to do with the size and weight of the item. For instance say if someone is carrying around a couch, that will be pretty obvious.
Quote from: RogueGunslinger on July 16, 2010, 07:06:25 PM
That has to do with the size and weight of the item. For instance say if someone is carrying around a couch, that will be pretty obvious.
And if someone were wielding a deadly weapon, you're saying you wouldn't notice this?
The best fix, IMO is to make 'assess -v' not echo to the assessee unless they are watching you or actively scanning.
(Which is already the case, for the most part)
Quote from: a strange shadow on July 17, 2010, 11:23:30 AM
(Which is already the case, for the most part)
Hrm didn't know that. I thought I had gotten the echo before when not scanning/watching.
Your character doesn't have to be actively watching. Actively watching increases the chances of noticing things like someone assessing someone else. Watch is the skill involved in the check to see if your character notices.
Quote from: Blackisback on July 17, 2010, 10:54:59 AM
Quote from: RogueGunslinger on July 16, 2010, 07:06:25 PM
That has to do with the size and weight of the item. For instance say if someone is carrying around a couch, that will be pretty obvious.
And if someone were wielding a deadly weapon, you're saying you wouldn't notice this?
In a world where everyone ins carrying around a blade, not without looking at them. And when I saw it I wouldn't be surprised. Holding a weapon doesn't mean wielding it offensively.
Quote from: RogueGunslinger on July 17, 2010, 04:27:21 PM
Quote from: Blackisback on July 17, 2010, 10:54:59 AM
Quote from: RogueGunslinger on July 16, 2010, 07:06:25 PM
That has to do with the size and weight of the item. For instance say if someone is carrying around a couch, that will be pretty obvious.
And if someone were wielding a deadly weapon, you're saying you wouldn't notice this?
In a world where everyone ins carrying around a blade, not without looking at them. And when I saw it I wouldn't be surprised. Holding a weapon doesn't mean wielding it offensively.
So where is the differentiation between seeing someone carrying a backpack and someone wielding a deadly weapon? Why have one without the other?
Quote from: RogueGunslinger on July 17, 2010, 04:27:21 PM
Quote from: Blackisback on July 17, 2010, 10:54:59 AM
Quote from: RogueGunslinger on July 16, 2010, 07:06:25 PM
That has to do with the size and weight of the item. For instance say if someone is carrying around a couch, that will be pretty obvious.
And if someone were wielding a deadly weapon, you're saying you wouldn't notice this?
In a world where everyone ins carrying around a blade, not without looking at them. And when I saw it I wouldn't be surprised. Holding a weapon doesn't mean wielding it offensively.
If the person was HOLDing (ES/Hold) it, sure, but if the person is WIELDing (EP/ETWO) it then I'd defiantly notice it.
Quote from: Blackisback on July 17, 2010, 08:08:04 PM
Quote from: RogueGunslinger on July 17, 2010, 04:27:21 PM
Quote from: Blackisback on July 17, 2010, 10:54:59 AM
Quote from: RogueGunslinger on July 16, 2010, 07:06:25 PM
That has to do with the size and weight of the item. For instance say if someone is carrying around a couch, that will be pretty obvious.
And if someone were wielding a deadly weapon, you're saying you wouldn't notice this?
In a world where everyone ins carrying around a blade, not without looking at them. And when I saw it I wouldn't be surprised. Holding a weapon doesn't mean wielding it offensively.
So where is the differentiation between seeing someone carrying a backpack and someone wielding a deadly weapon? Why have one without the other?
I already explained this. It's a function of the code, not a mirror of reality. They thought that having a certain sized item in your inventory should show up. Note that this is in your inventory, not with items held. All I'm trying to day is your shouldn't compare them by saying if there's one, then there should be the other. As that is not how the code is currently functioning.
Quote from: bcw81 on July 17, 2010, 08:48:40 PM
If the person was HOLDing (ES/Hold) it, sure, but if the person is WIELDing (EP/ETWO) it then I'd defiantly notice it.
This suggests that one can't simply hold an item in their primary hand. Which is silly. I more often hold items in my primary hand, then my secondary. Do you consider anyone carrying a bottle in their primary hand to be wielding a weapon? After all they could break it and use it as a knife...
What about the person holding a chitin blade in their primary hand so they can cut their steak and eat it? Should you be immediately aware of this?
Quote from: RogueGunslinger on July 17, 2010, 09:23:35 PM
What about the person holding a chitin blade in their primary hand so they can cut their steak and eat it? Should you be immediately aware of this?
Yes. They're -armed-.
Quote from: Blackisback on July 17, 2010, 08:08:04 PM
Quote from: RogueGunslinger on July 17, 2010, 04:27:21 PM
Quote from: Blackisback on July 17, 2010, 10:54:59 AM
Quote from: RogueGunslinger on July 16, 2010, 07:06:25 PM
That has to do with the size and weight of the item. For instance say if someone is carrying around a couch, that will be pretty obvious.
And if someone were wielding a deadly weapon, you're saying you wouldn't notice this?
In a world where everyone ins carrying around a blade, not without looking at them. And when I saw it I wouldn't be surprised. Holding a weapon doesn't mean wielding it offensively.
So where is the differentiation between seeing someone carrying a backpack and someone wielding a deadly weapon? Why have one without the other?
Because the one can't be determined by the use of the 'look' command while the other can.
Quote from: Blackisback on July 17, 2010, 10:45:09 PM
Quote from: RogueGunslinger on July 17, 2010, 09:23:35 PM
What about the person holding a chitin blade in their primary hand so they can cut their steak and eat it? Should you be immediately aware of this?
Yes. They're -armed-.
I don't know what world you live in, where people have the innate "spider-sense" to know what everyone in the room packed full of people is holding, without looking at them.
Edit: Sorry for the snarkiness, I suppose this post could easily be considered argumentative, and that's not what I was going for. Just trying to point it out that there's some things I believe people shouldn't realistically be aware of without having to look at you.
Quote from: RogueGunslinger on July 18, 2010, 01:19:45 AM
Quote from: Blackisback on July 17, 2010, 10:45:09 PM
Quote from: RogueGunslinger on July 17, 2010, 09:23:35 PM
What about the person holding a chitin blade in their primary hand so they can cut their steak and eat it? Should you be immediately aware of this?
Yes. They're -armed-.
I don't know what world you live in.
ZALANTHAS
invalidates ability to sneakily draw a blade dont it? I'm against.
Quote from: Dar on July 18, 2010, 01:54:21 AM
invalidates ability to sneakily draw a blade dont it? I'm against.
Having played a stealthy class, I don't think so. I could be wrong..
Quote from: Dar on July 18, 2010, 01:54:21 AM
invalidates ability to sneakily draw a blade dont it? I'm against.
Why not just make the command echo for larger weapons then? I can see not noticing a steak knife or a dagger, but a longsword or battleaxe? Then again, there is always the time when you're showing off your new weapon, holding it out with on hand on the blade or some such, but you need to draw it first.
Devils advocate powers go!
How about if the weapon you're wielding is large enough to show up to others if it's in your inventory, then it shows up like this:
The short, hairless dwarf is here.
- she is wielding a two-handed bone greatsword in both hands.
It's safe to say that anything less would be concealable in some way.
Quote from: bcw81 on July 18, 2010, 02:26:42 AM
Quote from: Dar on July 18, 2010, 01:54:21 AM
invalidates ability to sneakily draw a blade dont it? I'm against.
Why not just make the command echo for larger weapons then? I can see not noticing a steak knife or a dagger, but a longsword or battleaxe? Then again, there is always the time when you're showing off your new weapon, holding it out with on hand on the blade or some such, but you need to draw it first.
Devils advocate powers go!
This makes sense.
This sort of thing could get utterly spammy during an HRPT.
I would like it (if it had a brief toggle). My reason being it is illegal to have a drawn weapon in most centers if civilization, and therefore should be highly standout-ish.
perhaps it is given that the character is not skilled enough to not make a noise of some sort when drawing even a steak knife.
One could surmise that bone, stone or wood makes a subtle sound when being drawn, bumps the buckle on a belt, plate of bone or shell on the armor, or perhaps even ones own gloves. Could be that your leathers on your armor needed oiling and had not been tended so that when your drawing your weapon your movement is enough to draw attention or even offer the familiar sound that most other pcs become customer to hearing. Light Catches along some shinny part of the blade or glints off the polished hilt. A vnps is watching you and gasps as the blade is drawn, bringing others attention upon you. One can always rationalize if one choses to.
I don't like the idea. It's always served me well enough to just look at anyone I thought might be armed. If I didn't look, then my PC just didn't notice the impending attack.
My characters are -not- all seeing, all knowing. Sometimes you miss things.
Finally, when it comes to moving around with 20 people through the desert, all armed, less spam is a good thing.
Quote from: Dan on July 18, 2010, 02:12:22 PM
I don't like the idea. It's always served me well enough to just look at anyone I thought might be armed. If I didn't look, then my PC just didn't notice the impending attack.
My characters are -not- all seeing, all knowing. Sometimes you miss things.
Finally, when it comes to moving around with 20 people through the desert, all armed, less spam is a good thing.
+1
I think, if anything, it should be a representation of your character. If you're an assassin trying to sneakily wield that longknife (assuming the longknife isn't -too- large/gawdy) then it shouldn't show. If you are a run of the mill warrior who is waltzing about with their shortsword or a battleaxe without any attempt at subterfuge, then it should be made clear that you are armed.
As for talks about being "not all seeing", there are instances of this already in place. Seeing people walk in and out of buildings, people emoting, people crafting, etc. To say we are not "all seeing" when all evidence points to the contrary is pretty ridiculous. We may not acknowledge these emotes, but we can surely see them. Why emotes/walking/crafting and not "-He is armed", which is something any casual observer would note?
QuoteI don't like the idea. It's always served me well enough to just look at anyone I thought might be armed. If I didn't look, then my PC just didn't notice the impending attack.
My characters are -not- all seeing, all knowing. Sometimes you miss things.
Finally, when it comes to moving around with 20 people through the desert, all armed, less spam is a good thing.
Quote from: Dan on July 18, 2010, 02:12:22 PM
Finally, when it comes to moving around with 20 people through the desert, all armed, less spam is a good thing.
>brief armed
Quote from: X-D on July 18, 2010, 03:43:25 PM
QuoteI don't like the idea. It's always served me well enough to just look at anyone I thought might be armed. If I didn't look, then my PC just didn't notice the impending attack.
My characters are -not- all seeing, all knowing. Sometimes you miss things.
Finally, when it comes to moving around with 20 people through the desert, all armed, less spam is a good thing.
+1
All right, then why not compromise? It would be nice if you got an echo
>He is armed with ____
When someone simply draws a sword or axe or hammer or whatnot. But when someone stealthily pulls something out of their boots/wrists/gloves/etc the echo can not be seen without specifically looking at the person?
I know nothing of MUDcode, so that might not even be possible/easy though.
Personally, I doubt someone could conceal anything larger than a shortsword if they're holding it with in one or two hands. Something like a two-handed sword in a city would defiantly be noticeable though, just like someone holding a gun in our world.
...
Don't you already GET an echo when people draw and wield weapons?
I've seen this, every time, without fail.
Complete with slip/palm for your stealthy thing (that part is, I admit, a guess. Dunno if it's been done in front of me, if it has, I haven't seen it.)
Quote from: AmandaGreathouse on July 18, 2010, 08:00:45 PM
Don't you already GET an echo when people draw and wield weapons?
You totally do, unless they're using a sneaky command or special equipment.
Not what I was talking about. I was saying when they draw it regularly without the sneakiness then they get the tag under their SDESC "-Is armed" so if someone new walks in they'll see:
The ____, _____ Curved Sexy Female is here.
-She is carrying a large, afro-ridden bag
-She is armed with an extremely large Key
Nah.
Somebody having a giant bag show is one thing, but if you want to see if they are armed, there are two commands for that.
Next thing you know people will want to know if somebody is naked without looking, soon we walk into a room and get 7 pages of eq spam from 2 PCs. No thanks.
Quote from: X-D on July 18, 2010, 08:36:11 PM
Nah.
Somebody having a giant bag show is one thing, but if you want to see if they are armed, there are two commands for that.
Next thing you know people will want to know if somebody is naked without looking, soon we walk into a room and get 7 pages of eq spam from 2 PCs. No thanks.
Why do people keep dodging me when I ask this? Why accept someone holding a bag (someone being completely non-threatening and less noticeable than someone wielding a weapon) but you so vehemently refuse to have an -armed tag? How can you justify one without the other?
You shouldn't have to 'peek' in their shiz to see if they got a bag half their size on their back. That's why it's different. You can look/assess to see if someone is wielding a weapon.
Quote from: Majikal on July 18, 2010, 09:06:29 PM
You shouldn't have to 'peek' in their shiz to see if they got a bag half their size on their back. That's why it's different. You can look/assess to see if someone is wielding a weapon.
Couldn't have said it better myself.
Not to mention, I don't see how LOOKing to SEE something makes little sense?
Sorry, but it's a text-based game. If you can't be assed into reading even an eq list, then I can't fathom why you'd want to play something without graphics.
Quote from: AmandaGreathouse on July 18, 2010, 09:50:27 PM
Sorry, but it's a text-based game. If you can't be assed into reading even an eq list, then I can't fathom why you'd want to play something without graphics.
Cut the snark, it has nothing to do with reading, it has everything to do with common sense.
Edit:
And once again, no justification for -He is holding a large bag.
Quote from: Blackisback on July 18, 2010, 10:03:41 PM
And once again, no justification for -He is holding a large bag.
If they're carrying a couch.. you, as a player, should know it. Be it RP purposes or combat or what. How is that not justification for seeing heavier items?
Assess -v amos
he is excellent
he is sweepy
he is ARMED
Too lazy to type maybe?
assess and assess -v return an echo if people are particularly perceptive.
By typing "look" without arguement (as in, look at the room, not at anything specific), you can see if someone is carrying a couch, but you can't see that someone is standing there wielding a massive bone broadsword. You can't even tell he's armed at all. You can't even tell that he's totally and completely buck-naked, except for his massive bone broadsword, and his massive broad boner.
I believe you should be able to see this just by virtue of your being in the room and typing "look."
I WANT 2 C UR BONR
Quote from: Majikal on July 18, 2010, 10:15:41 PM
Quote from: Blackisback on July 18, 2010, 10:03:41 PM
And once again, no justification for -He is holding a large bag.
If they're carrying a couch.. you, as a player, should know it. Be it RP purposes or combat or what. How is that not justification for seeing heavier items?
Assess -v amos
he is excellent
he is sweepy
he is ARMED
Too lazy to type maybe?
So why would someone living in a dangerous desert world not immediately notice those who are armed and those who aren't? Too stupid to make that distinction?
Look covers it all, assess covers it, heavy item code covers the rest. I've never even briefly wanted an 'armed' tag, mebbe I'm speculz
Protip: Everyone is armed.
I actually tend to be more scared of people that aren't holding weapons in scary places in the word. At least if they're holding a spear I only gotta worry about getting poked!
Quote from: Majikal on July 18, 2010, 10:40:03 PM
Look covers it all, assess covers it, heavy item code covers the rest. I've never even briefly wanted an 'armed' tag, mebbe I'm speculz
Protip: Everyone is armed.
I actually tend to be more scared of people that aren't holding weapons in scary places in the word. At least if they're holding a spear I only gotta worry about getting poked!
Yeah, the last thing you want is a dwarf coming at you barehanded.
Fuck's sake, is there seriously a discussion about this?
Use assess -v, goddamn. :/
The seeing the heavy item, is because being in inventory, there is no way to tell someone is carrying a couch around without a class-specific skill. Which is not as it should be. So something heavy enough in inventory shows up at a glance at the room, because that is the best solution currently implemented.
To see more than the vaguest impression of someone you need to at least glance at them. assess -v will give you whether they are armed and some other general traits. look will tell you if those are skin-colored tights or they're naked from the waist down. But there are ways to see these things without it cluttering up the room.
Personally I dislike look echoes, maybe a peek that didn't check into someone's inventory would be nice for a less-echoey look, with different fail message. But to, y'know, tell if they're armed, naked, masked, all that.
Quote from: Blackisback on July 18, 2010, 10:28:55 PM
So why would someone living in a dangerous desert world not immediately notice those who are armed and those who aren't? Too stupid to make that distinction?
How about we just agree to disagree?
Sounds like a good suggestion to me. In fact, I'm willing to go so far as to say it's the best one I've ever heard. Blackisblack deserves a medal.
Not sure what all the buttrapey posts are about; a brief, unobtrusive line under a sdesc signifying if they're armed or not would be neat.
If your PC has keen enough senses to see some dude walking into a room, he/she can just as easily see them walk into a room wielding a bigass sword.
It'd be a pretty swanky addition for certain situations aswell.
The tall man crumples to the ground.
You stab the tall man's neck, wounding him.
Grinning, you exclaim, in sirihish:
"Ah yeah, look at all this 'sid!"
Wipes his knife off on his pantleg and goes to root through the tall man's body.
The figure in a hooded red tabard has entered from the east
-He is armed
The figure in a hooded red tabard has entered from the east
-He is armed
The figure in a hooded red tabard has entered from the east
-He is armed
Quote from: Gobbleneck on July 19, 2010, 09:25:34 AM
Sounds like a good suggestion to me. In fact, I'm willing to go so far as to say it's the best one I've ever heard. Blackisblack deserves a medal.
Not sure what all the buttrapey posts are about; a brief, unobtrusive line under a sdesc signifying if they're armed or not would be neat.
If your PC has keen enough senses to see some dude walking into a room, he/she can just as easily see them walk into a room wielding a bigass sword.
It'd be a pretty swanky addition for certain situations aswell.
The tall man crumples to the ground.
You stab the tall man's neck, wounding him.
Grinning, you exclaim, in sirihish:
"Ah yeah, look at all this 'sid!"
Wipes his knife off on his pantleg and goes to root through the tall man's body.
The figure in a hooded red tabard has entered from the east
-He is armed
The figure in a hooded red tabard has entered from the east
-He is armed
The figure in a hooded red tabard has entered from the east
-He is armed
Exactly. But, instead of making valid arguments I guess it's easier to accuse someone of being "lazy".
Or even..
The armed figure in the red and white tabard has arrived from the west.
The armed tall figure in the red and white tabard has arrived from the west.
The armed tall and obese figure in the red and white tabard has arrived from the west.
Quote from: Lizzie on July 19, 2010, 09:32:37 AM
Or even..
The armed figure in the red and white tabard has arrived from the west.
The armed tall figure in the red and white tabard has arrived from the west.
The armed tall and obese figure in the red and white tabard has arrived from the west.
No, that's lame.
I think the 'holding a backpack' thing was a strawman mostly, if I'm thinking straight enough to use that term right. It shows up for different reasons.
To be honest, I don't care much one way or the other whether this was put in or not, personally. I just had a tangential want. So someone else decide. ;)
I can't even begin to comment on this without being highly abusive.
If you're too goddamn fucking lazy to 'look' or 'assess' then you get what you fucking deserve.
BING. Welcome to your next goddamn PC.
Eventually you'll figure it the fuck out.
Know your environment, and pay special attention to the crazy fuckers who live there.
Whoa, calm down there cupcake. It's just a game, try not to get so high and mighty over a suggestion.
Besides, it's not about being lazy, it's about having a quick notification that makes sense. If you are in a room with 6 other pcs, 3 of them are armed, you should know it just by looking at the room, not them.
Stop taking it so personally, jeez.
really...you should?
No.
You enter the gaj, a dimly lit room, large, smoky, dusty, 30 or so people in it. Some standing, some sitting, many with backs to you are sides or whatever.
But you all want to automagickly know who all the armed people are?
Five people arrive from the east, heading down caravan way. twenty or more other people on the same section of road, did you notice the five, maybe, was there maybe people between you and them? Yes. Are they waving weapons in the air? No. Maybe they are holding them at thier sides, under them big fluffy cloaks.
No, over all, an unrealistic, bad idea that does not take the game world into consideration, causes spam and pushes code ahead of Roleplay.
Not to mention what Mali said.
Easy there Mali and X-D. Blackisback didn't mean it as a personal insult or to upset you guys.
His suggestion is just for aesthetic value. If you look at a room, you would be able to spot which fuckers are holding swords the same as you would be able to spot them standing or sitting there.
It doesn't have anything to do with laziness to >look or >assess
And yes, you should.
X-D, your scenarios only work in, well, those scenarios. I guess I could do the same by saying you're in a desolate wasteland during a bright and sunny day. A handful of bynners runs up on your elf buddies, 3 of them have weapons drawn, 3 don't. You -should- be able to tell which ones have weapons out without having to >look at them. This is the way the real world works, this is the way the gameworld should as well.
I think you guys need to take a chill pill, pull your heads out of the coded gameworld and step outside for a minute. Fresh air does the body good.
To suggest we're all raging at your suggestion is a silly and childish way to shrug off all the valid points we've brought up. Address them if you feel like continuing the argument, but don't insult our ability to reason with inane deflections.
I'm not shrugging off any suggestions, I'm countering with arguments of my own. However, I do think the people raging in this thread need to take a shower or suck on a binky.
No one is "raging" at you. People are becoming irritated because you've more than once now completely disregarded the point of someones post to nitpick at one or two little issues without taking the full scope of the argument into consideration.
I don't think that's enough to merit a couple adults taking time out of their lives to rage on the internet about an internet video game.
So now you're just openly trolling? I think this thread is done.
This sounds like a fine idea to me.
No, not at all. The thread was already finished when you said "agree to disagree", but then Malifaxis felt inclined to rage. Hopefully he's gotten it out of his system.
TLDR MY GAMEWORLD ARRRGHH
How in the world did a simple suggestion like this trigger this much aggression in folks? ???
Quote from: Nahara on July 19, 2010, 01:38:53 PM
How in the world did a simple suggestion like this trigger this much aggression in folks? ???
Once again... welcome to GDB! ::) :P
But seriously, it's not because we're a bunch of jerks. It's about passion. We all love this game, and care very much about many of its smallest details.
Quote from: Blackisback on July 19, 2010, 01:37:34 PM
No, not at all. The thread was already finished when you said "agree to disagree", but then Malifaxis felt inclined to rage. Hopefully he's gotten it out of his system.
TLDR MY GAMEWORLD ARRRGHH
That wasn't rage, that was pointing out that you're unreasonably refusing to listen to what's been said. Some, like myself...just have an abrasive conversational style. It's not that we're -trying- to, it's just a matter of being blunt. So don't think you were raged at, as that was actually checked. But, as noted...there are already means in game of quickly identifying whether or not people are armed.
I'll put it this way. If you want to be a alert, and aware, and perceptive of all those who might be armed...it is not a passive thing. There are plenty of people who are -not- actively paying attention who shouldn't receive that boon. Being alert, and aware, is an active state, which requires it to be an active endeavor on your part, the player. Be alert. Be attentive. Check on people. If there were a compromise to be made...I'd say attach it to the watch skill.
>watch weapons
You are now watching for armed people.
>The short figure in a dark, hooded cloak has arrived from the west. (Armed)
>l
>The short figure in a dark, hooded cloak is standing here. (Armed)
Quote from: Marauder Moe on July 19, 2010, 01:41:50 PM
Quote from: Nahara on July 19, 2010, 01:38:53 PM
How in the world did a simple suggestion like this trigger this much aggression in folks? ???
Once again... welcome to GDB! ::) :P
But seriously, it's not because we're a bunch of jerks. It's about passion. We all love this game, and care very much about many of its smallest details.
I can accept that.
Quote from: Marauder Moe on July 19, 2010, 01:33:29 PM
This sounds like a fine idea to me.
I never said I didn't like the idea. In fact I don't even know how I got stuck arguing against it. It's an interesting idea. I just don't find it very realistic to be to so omniscient, think it adds spam, and makes sneakies less able to discreetly stab people. There's enough problems with the idea that it just doesn't seem worth the time to implement without offering some levity to all the concerns people have about it.
*DELETED*
Quote from: RogueGunslinger on July 19, 2010, 01:47:44 PM
Quote from: Marauder Moe on July 19, 2010, 01:33:29 PM
This sounds like a fine idea to me.
I never said I didn't like the idea. In fact I don't even know how I got stuck arguing against it. It's an interesting idea.
That statement wasn't really directed at anyone, but...
QuoteI just don't find it very realistic to be to so omniscient,
I don't think it's terribly omniscient to look around the room briefly and see which people are holding big old swords. Also, as has been mentioned, there's already several other types of "omniscience" in this game that the vast majority of players are perfectly content with.
Quotethink it adds spam,
So does looking at each person, except look echoes to everyone else in the room too.
Also, it's been suggested that a brief mode could turn off the armed tags for people who don't want to see them.
Quoteand makes sneakies less able to discreetly stab people.
It's also been suggested that small weapons like daggers wouldn't cause someone to appear as armed.
QuoteThere's enough problems with the idea that it just doesn't seem worth the time to implement without offering some levity to all the concerns people have about it.
Seems to me all those problems have had proposed solutions in this thread, which you seem to have simply ignored.
EDIT:
Also...
Quote from: X-D on July 18, 2010, 08:36:11 PMNext thing you know people will want to know if somebody is naked without looking, soon we walk into a room and get 7 pages of eq spam from 2 PCs. No thanks.
Actually, yes I would like a naked tag too.
If that means that one PC could generate a block of text about how he's naked, armed, glowing, flying, surrounded by magick fire of doom, and carrying a couch, so be it,
because that's something most people would notice immediately.
Rage?
snickers
Anyway, I argue that weapons in many cases are not noticable without looking, hell, I wear a big fucking pistol on my side and people don't notice. I was talking to a cop and after 5 minutes he jumped, then laughed because he just noticed my DE.50.
In game, people wear cloaks and such, if I'm holding a big pair of hammers outside my cloak but down at my sides in the folds, should you automagickally notice when you enter a wilderness room a mile square? No, Tavern room crowded with people? No again. So you having to OOCly take action to see if somebody is armed IS realistic not the other way around.
And that is most of my point, I am always against code taking from roleplay, Staff has done a wonderful job already at removing our beloved grey areas (sarcasm) I'd like to keep the few endangered bits we have left.
Haha, you really did come off as the kind of person who carries a gun around. Hahaha
I think I might notice the guy with the hammers.
The gun, however, was clearly sheathed in that situation.
Also... how exactly would this take away from roleplay? Seems to me it'd solve many more problems where people fail to notice something that they realistically should have because they, as a player sitting at a keyboard, didn't take/have the time to look/assess everyone in the room individually.
And the tag wouldn't echo for holstered weapons, obviously. It would show if you are physically armed (ie if you have a weapon in your hand)
If they, the player did not have time then They the PC did not notice.
As to the roleplay, come on now.
draw sword
you draw your sword
em lays his sword on his lap, hand over the guard and flips his cloak across.
em sits at the bar with his back to the door, both hammers between his knees.
But no, when you walk in the door your going to see 2 armed dudes right away, no matter where they are in the room, no matter what they are wearing, no matter how many people are between you and them. No matter what they emote, no matter what ldesc or anything else says.
This is a code straightjacket on RP. as I said, we have enough of that already.
Quote from: Marauder Moe on July 19, 2010, 01:57:30 PM
I don't think it's terribly omniscient to look around the room briefly and see which people are holding big old swords. Also, as has been mentioned, there's already several other types of "omniscience" in this game that the vast majority of players are perfectly content with.
And I could easily argue that those things should be worked around or fixed before adding in more instances of the problem. People have argued before that movement echo's should be hidden.
Also, those several types that people are content with are there to circumvent even greater annoyances that would occur if they weren't. Namely having to "Look room" every five seconds to see if someone's entered. Note that drawing weapons gives an echo. You notice a change. If someone is casually holding a sword at their side while they banter at the bar it's a lot less noticeable. Enough so that you'd have to LOOK in order to see.
Quote
So does looking at each person, except look echoes to everyone else in the room too.
I'd love for look not to echo, but hey, we've gone over that one before, haven't we? Guess what doesn't echo most of the time? Assess -v.
QuoteAlso, it's been suggested that a brief mode could turn off the armed tags for people who don't want to see them.
No one would use it, because that would be like codedly gimping yourself. Knowledge like this is power, who wouldn't want to know who is, and is not armed in the world? Those characters who are paranoid enough in such a situation to want to know this have to go through the extra care of looking at each person to get this information. While those of use who want to play inattentive, or spacey characters get to stay uninformed without having to do extra work in forcing ourselves not to notice.
Quote
It's also been suggested that small weapons like daggers wouldn't cause someone to appear as armed.
Alright then, we're reaching a consensus of sorts. But where do you draw the line? With half swords? Full swords? When does a weapon become so big it's immediately obvious to everyone? Do you think this is really worth figuring out and coding in with the amount of weapons and weapon types we have?
Quote
Actually, yes I would like a naked tag too.
If that means that one PC could generate a block of text about how he's naked, armed, glowing, flying, surrounded by magick fire of doom, and carrying a couch, so be it, because that's something most people would notice immediately.
Yes, and lets just throw in a couple free steaks too. I tend to start ignoring ideas suggested when they start stepping outside of the realm of possible implementation. I know, I know, we're not supposed to care about how hard something is to implement.
Notice I said I thought it was a interesting idea? Sure, there are merits but:
My main issue is that no, I don't believe you should know whether everyone in an area is armed or not, without having to look at each person. That's pretty much it. And this is where it comes down to being an agree to disagree issue. You think your character should have this knowledge immediately, without any sort of work on your part. And I think such a thing requires you to be actively attentive, in the form of the look or assess commands.
Quote from: X-D on July 19, 2010, 02:45:08 PM
If they, the player did not have time then They the PC did not notice.
Nonsense. It takes a lot less time to turn my head and look around a room than it does to do:
>look burly
(read result)
>look voluptuous
(read result)
>look scarred
(read result)
And so on.
QuoteAs to the roleplay, come on now.
draw sword
you draw your sword
em lays his sword on his lap, hand over the guard and flips his cloak across.
em sits at the bar with his back to the door, both hammers between his knees.
But no, when you walk in the door your going to see 2 armed dudes right away, no matter where they are in the room, no matter what they are wearing, no matter how many people are between you and them. No matter what they emote, no matter what ldesc or anything else says.
This is a code straightjacket on RP. as I said, we have enough of that already.
I disagree. In that example, you should not be wielding that weapon. It should be in your inventory.
But even so... what's the problem? What would have been taken away from you? Your ability to pretend you're an uber-Hollywood-assassin who can quickly surprise your victim with
a pair of warhammers?
X-D: King of anecdotal evidence. =P
Fully opposed. There are things having an 'armed' tag displayed (just by looking in the room) would make obsolete and/or impossible. This would turn on 'easy mode' for Armageddon and thus I can not support it.
Quote from: RogueGunslinger on July 19, 2010, 02:46:05 PM
Quote from: Marauder Moe on July 19, 2010, 01:57:30 PM
I don't think it's terribly omniscient to look around the room briefly and see which people are holding big old swords. Also, as has been mentioned, there's already several other types of "omniscience" in this game that the vast majority of players are perfectly content with.
And I could easily argue that those things should be worked around or fixed before adding in more instances of the problem. People have argued before that movement echo's should be hidden.
Also, those several types that people are content with are there to circumvent even greater annoyances that would occur if they weren't. Namely having to "Look room" every five seconds to see if someone's entered. Note that drawing weapons gives an echo. You notice a change. If someone is casually holding a sword at their side while they banter at the bar it's a lot less noticeable. Enough so that you'd have to LOOK in order to see.
Not so easily argues after all, since you seem to have already provided your own counter-example.
So what if I want to circumvent the greater annoyance of having to spam the room looking at everyone if my character wants to know who might be ready to chop his head off?
QuoteQuote
So does looking at each person, except look echoes to everyone else in the room too.
I'd love for look not to echo, but hey, we've gone over that one before, haven't we? Guess what doesn't echo most of the time? Assess -v.
It's still more spam to 3rd parties than an armed tag would create.
QuoteQuoteAlso, it's been suggested that a brief mode could turn off the armed tags for people who don't want to see them.
No one would use it, because that would be like codedly gimping yourself. Knowledge like this is power, who wouldn't want to know who is, and is not armed in the world? Those characters who are paranoid enough in such a situation to want to know this have to go through the extra care of looking at each person to get this information. While those of use who want to play inattentive, or spacey characters get to stay uninformed without having to do extra work in forcing ourselves not to notice.
Now hold on here. We're not talking about the power to know who is and who isn't armed in the world. As you just pointed out, that can already be done (mostly silently) with assess -v. The only power we're talking about it obtaining that knowledge without having to type a command for each person in the room and parsing the extra data from the result. Is that really so significant? Would you really cry foul if, say, I wrote a client-side script that would automatically assess -v everyone in the room (and people who enter) and compile the results for me?
I find it strange that someone could consider something to be simultaneously annoying and convenient.
QuoteQuote
It's also been suggested that small weapons like daggers wouldn't cause someone to appear as armed.
Alright then, we're reaching a consensus of sorts. But where do you draw the line? With half swords? Full swords? When does a weapon become so big it's immediately obvious to everyone? Do you think this is really worth figuring out and coding in with the amount of weapons and weapon types we have?
Sure. You could probably do a rough pass by just having daggers, saps, and throwing weapons/darts being exempt. Alternatively, you could do it by weight.
QuoteQuote
Actually, yes I would like a naked tag too.
If that means that one PC could generate a block of text about how he's naked, armed, glowing, flying, surrounded by magick fire of doom, and carrying a couch, so be it, because that's something most people would notice immediately.
Yes, and lets just throw in a couple free steaks too. I tend to start ignoring ideas suggested when they start stepping outside of the realm of possible implementation. I know, I know, we're not supposed to care about how hard something is to implement.
Which of those things are impossible? Everything but armed and naked are already implemented. We've discussed armed at length already. Naked is pretty easy too. You're naked if you're not wearing anything about your body, on your torso, and on your legs. If we wanted to be really strict, I suppose we could add other wear locations, but I think those three account for practically naked.
QuoteNotice I said I thought it was a interesting idea? Sure, there are merits but:
My main issue is that no, I don't believe you should know whether everyone in an area is armed or not, without having to look at each person. That's pretty much it. And this is where it comes down to being an agree to disagree issue. You think your character should have this knowledge immediately, without any sort of work on your part. And I think such a thing requires you to be actively attentive, in the form of the look or assess commands.
I think that IRL my eyeballs work a hell of a lot faster than my fingers.
It is good to have Moe back. He's so wonderfully calm and reasonable. He could teach me a thing or two, as well. :-*
;)
I'm calm because I don't really care all that much. While yes, this feature would be nice, I've gotten along just fine all these years without it.
I'm mostly arguing because forum debates are a good way to pass the time waiting for my code to compile.
I don't see why some people think instantly knowing who is armed is such a big deal. I really can't imagine a scenario where it would make much of a difference.
Mudsex ambushing.
I'd tell you why I'm opposed except that it would tell anyone that hasn't found a particular thing out IG about something that they should find out IG. It's possible that you are unaware of this feature of the game, so I won't fault you for championing the cause of having this displayed. Let's just say that it is possible to be sneaky in ways that this would make obsolete.
Anecdotal...sure, point being is that people are not nearly as perceptive as they all think they are.
Proven hundreds of times over on any eye witness test/experiment.
They do them all the time, Dude runs into room, wearing green shirt, sunglasses, blond hair holding a grey 9mm, shouts at people, grabs a purse, runs out.
After, the people in the room are questioned and asked to describe the person. Not only are they usually missing at least 50% of the info, much of what they do say is wrong. Some see the gun, some do not, some think the gun was a silver .38, some think it was a knife, some think it was a woman, some see blond hair, some see no hair some see a yellow jacket, some see a black shirt.
Many of you tout realism for this type change, I argue that it is more realistic the way it is.
As to it taking less time to turn your head. Give me a break, if you cannot type l dude and scan the spam in 3 seconds, maybe you should not be playing a text game.
If you honestly time yourself in real life on how long it takes you to notice what everybody in a room is holding, you would find it is far longer then you assume right now. Unless they are all lined up in front of you facing you with a fucking spot light on them. A far cry from any city room in the game.
And Why should that sword be in my inventory, I clearly emoted laying it across my lap with my hand on the guard, technicly it is still in my grasp. Course I'm facing away from the door with a big ass cloak on, sitting down. But oh sure, I forgot, your PC has Xray vision.
Enough of these hamfisted examples. They're completely arbitrary and do nothing to move your argument forward. If you're going to wave the realism card then perhaps we shouldn't be able to see people entering rooms unless we >watch door, we shouldn't witness emotes unless we >watch person and we shouldn't be able to hear people's words unless we have >listen toggled on. The fact is, you can't have complete realism in games like these. However, you -can- make good design decisions that enable players to have a faster-paced experience and that manage to cut down the total amount of typing necessary to conduct your character. Just because I don't want to have type >look X several times to get an idea of whether or not someone is wielding a deadly weapon (something that you should notice after a cursory glance across a room) doesn't mean I'm lazy. It means I know there are optimizations that can be made.
I understand your reasoning behind "We are not omniscient" but your arguments don't work in this regard. Typing >look tells you exactly what's in the room, crowded or not. You can choose not to notice emotes, speech, and people, but the information is readily available. So, why not add -Armed to that? Since there is a clear distinction between being -Armed and not being -Armed, via the >assess command, why not have that as something readily available? Everyone knows when someone is or isn't wielding a weapon, unless that person is sufficiently crafty and can manage to conceal their actions (which I support). It's not a matter of breaking realism, it's a matter of common sense and optimizing code.
Quote from: X-D on July 19, 2010, 03:47:15 PM
And Why should that sword be in my inventory, I clearly emoted laying it across my lap with my hand on the guard, technicly it is still in my grasp. Course I'm facing away from the door with a big ass cloak on, sitting down. But oh sure, I forgot, your PC has Xray vision.
You only cite instances that support your stance.
What about a situation where you are facing the door with your front, as opposed to your back? How do explain this away? I don't need x-ray vision to see you clearly are armed or have a big weapon in your inventory without using the code to look at you.
I don't care if this goes in either way I guess. Just a devil's advocate here! =P
Nyr is here.
-He is wielding a banhammer, intended for people that continue to bait and troll.
-He has a tenuous grasp on a wooden shield called "Patience."
And I do not agree that is the case.
A cursory glance, as you say, in game already shows what you would be likely to see in a "cursory glance".
A room full of people. It even shows who is sitting, where they are sitting, who is standing, maybe where they are standing, if they are laying down. If they are hooded, or not, face covered or not.
If you want to find out that Joe bynner has a mace held behind his back, you have to check. Why, because that is information not readily noticable at a "Cursory glance" of the room.
Does your cursory glance show that elf carrying a couch on his head...um, yes. Why, because it is a Fucking Couch on his head. That dwarf with a scrab corpse over his shoulder. Yup, that too.
You keep referencing instances where the individual has the weapon behind their back, or hidden from plain view.
What about an instance where one's view of the weapon is not obstructed?
You still haven't answered this question.
Quote from: Kiara on July 19, 2010, 04:39:18 PM
You keep referencing instances where the individual has the weapon behind their back, or hidden from plain view.
What about an instance where one's view of the weapon is not obstructed?
You still haven't answered this question.
Everyone in Arm plays a knife-wielding assassin now, didn't you get the memo?
Yes I have.
The code has no way of knowing what is or is not in plain view, that is why we have emotes, change ldesc and other things, often refered to as roleplay, or in some cases, "grey area". The points where You, the player get to decide what is happening with your PC.
Besides, what exactly is "plain View"?
If I am holding a machete at my side, is that? Or do I have to be waving it over my head?
If there was tags saying people were armed at a glance you would pretty much have to assume that they are all waving them over their heads for some odd reason instead of comfy realistic positions...WHICH, would maybe not be readily noticable at a cursory glance or in plain view. Specialy not in a group of other people milling about.
Don't forget, when we are talking city rooms, they are also full of VNPCs often many, quite a few rooms are described as teaming, bustling etc. And in a wilderness room, that is at least a mile square, is that shortsword in plain view a half a mile away?
It is up to the player to decide what is or is not in plain view, not the code.
Again, if you want to know, use look, assess -v, peek.
When are you ever not going to look at someone who has such a glaring tag stamped to them as -armed? I vote against it for redundancy.
What about the fellow who's simply forgot to put his weapons away? I'd like to see less of the "Holy shit don't kill me with that sword, bro." mentality. I think this change would only do the opposite.
For the instance where the item is in plain view? Yeah, totally, the game should let you know!
The tall muscular man is here
-he's waving around a steak
-he's balancing a spoon on his nose
Maybe we should add in code that lets you know whenever someone is wielding tools too. I mean, it's pretty obvious when someone is carrying a hack-saw around, right? Or when they're about to sew a bolt of cloth. That's totally obvious.
The tall muscular man is here.
-tooled
Quote from: X-D on July 19, 2010, 04:46:18 PM
It is up to the player to decide what is or is not in plain view, not the code.
Oh boy.
If that's the case, why even have skills like sneak, hide, or any other skill or magickal spell for that matter?
Why don't we just eliminate the code and convert Armageddon into a MUSH since code isn't important? After all, it's up to the players to decide what's going on.
Straw man.
Edit: I say this knowing full well that half of my previous post had straw-men arguments in it.
Not much of a post there...But hey, why don't we get rid of emotes, change ldesc, tdesc, think, say, talk, tell shout, feel and mood? Put in all socials and smileys and become WoW?
Arm has a unigue balance of code backed roleplay, thats why. The code is the GM, it does decide what happens in many cases, usually dealing with the world. You the player get to decide the story and the icing.
But every bit of code you add tips that balance away from player driven and into code driven. Some of us, me at least, feel that balance has already shifted more towards the code side then it should be.
QuoteNo it's not.
Yes it is
QuoteWhy do you get to pick and choose which code is more important than the other?
The code does not exist, so that is an easy one.
QuoteWhy do you get to decide that I can't see your weapon?
Use look
QuoteAre you taking it's weight, mass and makeup into account?
Are you taking PC weight, mass makeup into account?
QuoteAre you considering the amount of people in the room, both real and virtual, who could potential see your weapon? After all, you may have your back to one player, but what about the other?
The other used Look
QuoteYour inventory should only be used for something you are holding in your hands, arms or balancing somehow. It's not a magickal spell that lets items float around you without taking up space in your hands. It's something that needs to be addressed and accounted for.
What does that have to do with an armed tag?
QuoteAllowing other players to see things such as weapons will account for this.
Huh, how will that show what is in my inventory, lost me again.
QuoteDo you keep items in your inventory in case you are disarmed? How do you roleplay having those weapons in your inventory? Are they in the crook of your arm? Are they tied to an article of clothing that's visible. Do you actively emote this, letting other players know? At the very least, are you using semote?
If you find somebody doing that, report them. Most people keep them sheathed someplace though.
QuoteIf you don't want this code in game, then I'd like to see other players actively alert others as to what's in their inventory. All too often I see people use their inventory space as a way to hide things from the general public/eye.
I'm still missing how inventory applies to the thread subject.
QuoteNot everyone has skill 'peek' after all.
Then it was not readily noticable to your PC.
Quote from: RogueGunslinger on July 19, 2010, 04:52:06 PM
Straw man.
No it's not.
Why do you get to pick and choose which code is more important than the other?
Why do you get to decide that I can't see your weapon?
Are you taking it's weight, mass and makeup into account?
Are you considering the amount of people in the room, both real and virtual, who could potential see your weapon? After all, you may have your back to one player, but what about the other?
Your inventory should only be used for something you are holding in your hands, arms or balancing somehow. It's not a magickal spell that lets items float around you without taking up space in your hands. It's something that needs to be addressed and accounted for.
Allowing other players to see things such as weapons will account for this.
Do you keep items in your inventory in case you are disarmed? How do you roleplay having those weapons in your inventory? Are they in the crook of your arm? Are they tied to an article of clothing that's visible. Do you actively emote this, letting other players know? At the very least, are you using semote?
If you don't want this code in game, then I'd like to see other players actively alert others as to what's in their inventory. All too often I see people use their inventory space as a way to hide things from the general public/eye.
Not everyone has skill 'peek' after all.
I think most players that know their PC is visibly armed have the tiny required amount of trust from me to emote that their weapon is visible, and how exactly it is visible (held in front of them? waved over the head?). I think if they're not emoting that they have a longsword in their hand at the Gaj, they must've forgotten it was in their hand or somehow have the right to wield a weapon openly in the Gaj.
This is why I proposed earlier in the thread that, were an idea like this to go in, only the most obvious of weapons should be echoed:
Quote from: Cutthroat on July 18, 2010, 07:53:12 AM
How about if the weapon you're wielding is large enough to show up to others if it's in your inventory, then it shows up like this:
The short, hairless dwarf is here.
- she is wielding a two-handed bone greatsword in both hands.
It's safe to say that anything less would be concealable in some way.
Because by then, if you unwield the weapon and stow it in your inventory, then it would show up to people anyway since it's so heavy. Wielding that weapon again shouldn't suddenly hide it.
That is fair.
> draw ginormous double-bladed bardiche
You draw a ginormous double-bladed bardiche.
> change ldesc is here, holding a ginormous double-bladed bardiche.
That description is too long.
> change ldesc is here, holding a double-bladed bardiche.
That description is too long.
> chang ldesc holds a double-bladed bardiche.
That description is too long.
A nondescript man has entered the tavern.
> emote As ~nondescript enters, @ smiles vaguely, making sure that ~bardiche is clearly apparent.
A boring woman has entered the tavern.
> emote smiles cheerfully, obviously holding a ~bardiche.
A bland person has entered the tavern.
> emote Once again, @ makes it clear that he's holding a damn bardiche.
------------------------
Do the people who oppose an (armed) tag also oppose longer ldescs? I know at least one of the most vocal opponents of an (armed) tag also gets uppity when longer ldescs are suggested ...
The short, hairless dwarf is here
-he is wielding a big fucking sword in both hands
-he is carrying a large bag
-he is carrying a filthy bag
The massive beast of a half-giant is here
-he is wielding a massive beast of a club
-he is wielding a massive beast of a club
-he is carrying a trunk for some reason
a war beetle is here
-he is carrying a large bag
-he is carrying a couple of filthy, crude hide bags
a glossy, black-shelled inix is here
-he is carrying a plain chest
-he is carrying a couple of large bags
That wouldn't get spammy... at all. :-\
@Majikal
Exchange -He is wielding a... with a single -He is armed and you're only adding 2 lines to that exaggerated example.
Quote from: Kiara on July 19, 2010, 04:57:39 PM
No it's not.
Yes it is, and so is all of this:
Quote
Why do you get to pick and choose which code is more important than the other?
Uh, I'm not sure what you're getting at. I wasn't picking or choosing anything. I'm advocating for things to stay the same. Where if you want to know what someone is holding, you have to look at them. It doesn't need to get any more complicated than that.
Quote
Why do you get to decide that I can't see your weapon?
Not sure what you're getting at again. I'm not deciding anything. You can still see if I'm armed or not by using the look command...
Quote
Are you considering the amount of people in the room, both real and virtual, who could potential see your weapon? After all, you may have your back to one player, but what about the other?
We've been over this. The code will never be able to take into consideration positioning, where your eyes are, and where your hands are. So this is left in the realm of players to decide, and come to consensus on.
Quote
Your inventory should only be used for something you are holding in your hands, arms or balancing somehow. It's not a magickal spell that lets items float around you without taking up space in your hands. It's something that needs to be addressed and accounted for.
When did I ever say something to the contrary? This is the definition of a straw man. You're arguing about something I've never even implied, and then making it out as if you're winning the argument, when I'm in complete agreement with you here.
Quote
Allowing other players to see things such as weapons will account for this.
So does the look command. As well as, like Cutthroat said. The player. IF someone is wielding something conspicuously it's their responibility to show it in emotes and ldesc. However, if they aren't being conspicuous about it, there's no "concealment" code that can take this into account. So it's left on you, the other player, to "look"
Quote
Do you keep items in your inventory in case you are disarmed? How do you roleplay having those weapons in your inventory? Are they in the crook of your arm? Are they tied to an article of clothing that's visible. Do you actively emote this, letting other players know? At the very least, are you using semote?
Where are you getting this idea from? What are you talking about this for? STRAW MAN.
Quote
If you don't want this code in game, then I'd like to see other players actively alert others as to what's in their inventory. All too often I see people use their inventory space as a way to hide things from the general public/eye.
Once again; I don't disagree. Another great tool for doing this is Tdesc.
Quote
Not everyone has skill 'peek' after all.
Really? Whodathunkit.
Edit: X-D did it faster...
Nope, I advocate having shorter sdescs. Amazing how much easier change ldesc gets when you have even 4 extra chars because you did not go with the gargantuan violet locked man and went instead with the big fat dude
Quote from: Majikal on July 19, 2010, 05:09:33 PM
The short, hairless dwarf is here
-he is wielding a big fucking sword in both hands
-he is carrying a large bag
-he is carrying a filthy bag
Or ...
The short, hairless dwarf is here. (armed)
Quote from: X-D on July 19, 2010, 05:12:29 PM
Nope, I advocate having shorter sdescs. Amazing how much easier change ldesc gets when you have even 4 extra chars because you did not go with the gargantuan violet locked man and went instead with the big fat dude
Let the players decide, eh?
:)
Quote from: Thunkkin on July 19, 2010, 05:13:43 PM
Quote from: X-D on July 19, 2010, 05:12:29 PM
Nope, I advocate having shorter sdescs. Amazing how much easier change ldesc gets when you have even 4 extra chars because you did not go with the gargantuan violet locked man and went instead with the big fat dude
Let the players decide, eh?
:)
DON'T TREAD ON ME
Cognitive dissonance never smelled better.
Why do I get the feeling I'm being talked to like a child by some people? I think I've been fairly composed in this discussion.
Condescension is a tool to make people believe you have mental acuity, or at least superior knowledge of the subject.
Edit: Not to confess or anything. Just pointing it out. I was being civil.
I wasn't necessarily referring to you.
The only way I think this is fair is to apply it to normally etwo-d weapons. Greatswords, axes, spears of almost all types, etc. Maybe bows as well.
However, shortswords, daggers, knives, very small rocks, gravy, churches and lead can easily be held in one hand and obfuscated. We aren't even talking about behind the back. Simple body posture and grip can conceal a hell of a lot.
Honestly, I don't think this should be done at all. Even with larger weapons, body posture can conceal them, especially in a crowded room. Having the weapon leaning up against you puts it easily within reach and use. You can lean on the weapon, propping your elbow upon it, and remain at a casual stance to conceal intent, if not the weapon.
Having mondo-uber weapon sense seems completely idiotic to me. Pay attention to your environment.
Quote from: Malifaxis on July 20, 2010, 04:29:57 PM
The only way I think this is fair is to apply it to normally etwo-d weapons. Greatswords, axes, spears of almost all types, etc. Maybe bows as well.
However, shortswords, daggers, knives, very small rocks, gravy, churches and lead can easily be held in one hand and obfuscated. We aren't even talking about behind the back. Simple body posture and grip can conceal a hell of a lot.
Honestly, I don't think this should be done at all. Even with larger weapons, body posture can conceal them, especially in a crowded room. Having the weapon leaning up against you puts it easily within reach and use. You can lean on the weapon, propping your elbow upon it, and remain at a casual stance to conceal intent, if not the weapon.
Having mondo-uber weapon sense seems completely idiotic to me. Pay attention to your environment.
Everything that Mailfaxis said.
First the spam is unappealing, second people don't need ANOTHER reason to not ever HAVE to LOOK at a person to glean anything about them, third, I think it's ridiculous, just in general. You mean you don't have to SEE someone to see that they're armed? You can see, in theory, just the back of their head, and yet the dagger in front of them is so obvious you get x-ray vision to see it?
I'm with the 'pay attention to your surroundings' camp. Since there's already 2 different ways to see if someone's armed, having this seems redundant, a pointless time sink, and like nothing but extra spam. I'm sorry, but if you ARE sizing up LITERALLY EVERYONE in a tavern or wherever you go to see if they're armed, it should be conspicuous that you're doing it.
soandso looks at you.
soandso glances your way.
Yup. Seems about right. As it is.
SOLUTION!
New command: Armed
So, you enter a room with five people in it:
The blah blah man is here
The blah blah woman is here
The blah blah breed is here
The blah blah dwarf is here
The blah blah elf is here
Typing "look X" for all five will take you about 50 times longer than it would take to quickly scan the room and notice who's holding the giant broadsword in his or her hands.
So, you simply type "armed." The command checks your 'watch' skill, but it's a fairly low bar to pass. Perhaps based on weapon weight? Then the command returns:
The blah blah breed is armed
The blah blah elf is armed
Everyone in the room has a chance, based on their watch skill to notice ...
You notice: The Thunkkin scans the room quickly, eyes darting back and forth.
Ta da!
I like Thunkkin's idea. Part of what determines whether you see if someone is armed, could be the size of the item in comparison to the size of the wielder. So a half-giant holding a greatsword might actually slip. But a dwarf holding the same greatsword would stick out.
I could get behind Thukkin's idea.
Finally have a use for "watch" other than to catch the occasional hemote.
>_>
I like Thunkkin's suggestion too.
Reliance upon "look" is a pretty unsatisfactory solution for something like this. Depending on context, of course, you're probably going to notice someone is armed even if you haven't made a point of direction your attention at them.
I'll add that if your PC is wielding a conspicuous weapon, and is someplace where that would be unusual or unexpected, the burden probably falls upon you to tip people off to that fact with your emotes.
has it been considered that adding more elements that allow a player to pull away from taking the time to make them selves aware of the environment and those in it by having such things scream out at you just promotes laziness.
I can not think of any instances where someones description of having a weapon out or not has been an issue, nor has it ever been an issue to look at players.
The way it is mentioned here, it would seem none are taking into account that the area is full of people pc, npc, and vnps, which means that you wish a pc to stand out more in a crowd than they currently do. Which I realizes their is some flaw in my own statement, but if you think about the fact that pcs are not generally holding the weapon head level, the first thing in a crowd you see is a face, then you look and see their gear, if they catch you iterest, otherwise consider some one is blocking your view, or the pac is moving and you are only catching a glimpse.
Is the look command broken, I am just curious why people feel it is to much effort just to look which is code enough, I would think.
if its a case of -I keep forgetting my weapon in my hand and getting in trouble- issue then make your self take the time to stop and inspect your own character. I think things that promote others and oneself to be more aware with out the code making it so you have to, helps to eliminate laziness and help make you Rl more perceptive.
I dig the concept of Thunkkin's idea, but I think it needs some modification. It needs to react appropriately to crow situations. The more people in a room, the more likely it is that someone can hide a weapon.
Perhaps when you use the 'armed' command, the first person in the room has a 0 modifier, the second gets a -5, the third a -10, the fourth a -15, the fifth a -20, etc. The negatives are a great impact, sure, but this is also a way to count vnpcs into the math. Realistically if you did this in the Firestorm during prime time, there should be maybe 50 to 100 people in there, and you're going to try to scope all of them. Since at any given moment there probably won't be more than 6-10 people in the bar, by giving them larger negatives, you take into account those extra non-people.
Perhaps even throw in some messages about vnpcs... shrug.
Fuck it. I can't brain today. I hope this made sense.
Take into account the size of the room as well and I think we've got something good here.
General percentage as to people armed or have large noticeable weapons?
>scan armed
>About 60% of the visible people have clearly distinguishable weapons.
That doesn't tell you who is armed though, which is what I'd like to see taken into account.
I'm not caring about how many people are armed. I will assume, when I walk into a room where the mdesc says there are tons of soldiers hanging around, that all those VNPCs are armed.
My concern, is that I can see clearly when someone is carrying something heavy, that is not being "held" or "wielded." And yet, as soon as they "hold" or "wield" it, I can no longer see it clearly unless I make a point of looking at them, which returns an echo for everyone to see.
So, a guy carrying a large bag in his inventory, I can see the bag when I walk into that room. I don't know WHY I'd want to see it, I don't know why it's so noticeable, ICly. ICly, it shouldn't be noticeable. It's just a bag. I can't see the 20 cylops larvae inside it all wriggling to break free. I can't see the 60,000 obsidian coins that were stuffed into it. I can't see what it is, about that bag, that is so significant that when I walk into the room, I see it in this guy's inventory.
HOWEVER - a dwarf e-twoing a massive obsdiian-bladed bone broadsword, that is a full 2 cords taller than he is, I can't see upon walking into the room.
It just doesn't make any sense at all that I can see one guy's large bag, just by being in the same room as him, but I can't see the HUGE BIG REALLY LARGE FUCKING DEADLY RIDICULOUSLY TALL BLADE in a little stump's arms, without making a point of looking at him.
How about adding something to the code that does what it does for large items in inventory to large items in equipment as well? Then you don't get any information on the people with knives, just the people carrying things that are of a certain weight/size relative to their strength.
( edit for grammatical clarity )
I just figured instead of all these "if then" possible scenarios that might require different code criteria, it'd be easier to simply add the word "armed" after the article "The" when a person walks into the room, and becomes a part of the room's description.
The armed, red-haired man is sitting here at the bar.
The armed, blue-eyed soldier stands in a corner.
The armed, maimed and scarred youth is here, bleeding profusely.
If you want to know WHAT he's weilding/holding, you'd STILL need to look at him, you'd STILL need to echo to the room that you looked. Or you could take your chances with the peek skill...and it could be that he's armed with a little rounded green marble. You wouldn't know what he's armed with, until you look at him, which you have to do now anyway. So that wouldn't change at all. The only thing that'd change, is that you know upon his entrance that he does, indeed, have something held in his hand(s).
I think it'd just provide people with a more useful set of options.
Still against the ideas that involve you magically knowing that someone is armed without looking at them.
How can you know someone is armed without knowing what they're armed with?
Peripheral vision.
Peripheral vision won't get an entire room, at least not reliably.
Quote from: spawnloser on July 24, 2010, 08:45:17 AM
Peripheral vision won't get an entire room, at least not reliably.
Malifaxis proposed negatives depending on the amount of people in the room. This would make things more balanced, right?
I'm still having trouble seeing why it's so damn inconvenient to just use assess or look....
Quote from: Qzzrbl on July 24, 2010, 10:37:14 AM
I'm still having trouble seeing why it's so damn inconvenient to just use assess or look....
Because it takes much longer to type "look keyword" and then examine someone's gear list and then move on to the ten other people in the room than it does in real life. By about a factor of 10. Or maybe 50. Do you disagree, Qrzzbl?
However, if look didn't echo, I'd look at every person in the room all the time. As it is, I hate look spam and so I quite often don't look at people because nothing is more annoying than having one person come into the tavern ... and look at everyone ... and then another person enter ... and look at everyone ... and everyone else all looks back ... and then someone else enters ... and everyone all looks ... and I want to stab my eyes out.
Quote from: Qzzrbl on July 24, 2010, 10:37:14 AM
I'm still having trouble seeing why it's so damn inconvenient to just use assess or look....
I'm having trouble seeing how your comment contributes positively to the discussion in any shape or form.
What Thunkkin said.
Takes me about 4 seconds per PC to look and determine if they are armed, less if I use assess.
Takes much longer in real life...well, unless I happen to find a bar where everybody is lined up facing me with hands on heads...Which is rather easy, I just have to follow sheriff Joe around.
Quote from: Kiara on July 24, 2010, 11:16:32 AM
Quote from: Qzzrbl on July 24, 2010, 10:37:14 AM
I'm still having trouble seeing why it's so damn inconvenient to just use assess or look....
I'm having trouble seeing how your comment contributes positively to the discussion in any shape or form.
What Thunkkin said.
I kind of feel like it does contribute to the discussion. People get way too up in arms about people using the 'look' command. Inside and outside certain situations. I think that suggesting that it's a viable option to see that someone's armed is a good point. People SHOULD look at other people to tell if they're armed. Taking into account things like the arrangement of seating regarding exits, terrain in outdoors rooms, and more, it seems perfectly realistic to need to look at a person to tell it. While what Qzzrbl said certainly wasn't long-winded or overly verbose, it also wasn't snarky, and made, I feel, a valid point.
If look didn't echo I don't think this topic would even exist. The whole reason it exists is because of the echo and the spam created by it.
As Thunkin said, he sometimes omits looking at all, just to avoid the spam. ICly, his character WOULD look. But because of the OOC imposed coded spam created by that one command, used on everyone in the room by everyone who walks in..it's one of those things people are more likely to avoid using.
I don't care what anyone thinks of me, the player, when my character looks at them. Really. What I care about, is this:
The tall guy looks at you.
The tall guy looks at the other tall guy
The tall buy looks at the dwarf.
The other tall guy looks at the first tall guy.
The dwarf looks at you.
The big guy walks in.
You look at the big guy.
The dwarf looks at the big guy.
The tall guy looks at the big guy.
The other tall guy looks at the big guy.
The big guy looks at you.
The big guy looks at the dwarf.
The big guy looks at the tall guy.
The big guy looks at the other tall guy.
Now add in all those pretty emotes to break it up so one guy is looking with a curious gaze, another is flitting his golden orbs down the bar, another is twisting in his seat to watch the entry, another is rubbing one off and leering..
And really all you have is decorative spam.
If we could just get rid of that echo, a whole lot of frustration, and several threads suggesting improvements for situations related to the look echo, would no longer be an issue.
Quote from: Lizzie on July 24, 2010, 11:45:43 AM
If we could just get rid of that echo, a whole lot of frustration, and several threads suggesting improvements for situations related to the look echo, would no longer be an issue.
I do agree with your point here, Lizzie.
I've always been in the 'look with no echo' camp.
I'm in the look with no echo but a chance to notice via watch camp.
If look did not echo and masks hid mdescs, it would solve ... a lot.
I disagree with masks hiding mdescs. Highly.
There are too many other variable things to account for on a person other than the face for an item which, by definition, covers only the face, to be able to completely obscure all details of what a person looks like.
I'm glad that the mdesc masks are gone.
Er, sorry, shouldn't have mentioned masks, since that's its own beaten to death horse. Mea culpa.
The main argument against look not echoing is raiding, however. If look didn't echo, there'd just be an equal amount of crying about how muggers/raiders/etc. just kill everyone since they assume 100% that every detail of their appearance will be reported shortly to the nearest templars who will raise several units of militia to go hunt them down.
So, removing the look echo without some reliable form of making yourself anonymous wouldn't cut down on this type of thread.
Quote from: a strange shadow on July 24, 2010, 11:58:36 AM
I'm in the look with no echo but a chance to notice via watch camp.
But then people who are watching, who have max skill, would be stuck dealing with the spam just because they're hoping to catch someone planting something on someone, or peeking into someone's pack, or palming something, or semoting...
Look allows you to include emotes with it. I think that's sufficient. If I -want- my look to be noticeable, I'll include an emote with it. I can trust my fellow players enough that if -they- wanted their looks to be noticeable, they'd add emotes to them.
Maybe, I'll "look" at everyone, and then realize there's someone who has something that stands out. And THEN I'll look again, but include an emote. Or maybe I'll just emote, and not have to look again.
Hard to "look in awe" at someone over something they're wearing, if you don't know what that awesome thing is, until AFTER you've already looked. So now you have two things: The look..curiously maybe. A curious look. You look curiously at the guy. And after looking at him, you realize he has something awesome. So now you have to add an emote to indicate that you have noticed something awesome about him.
Instead of the nice neat tidy look guy (returning no echo at all) followed by...
emote gazes in awe at the awesome thing the guy has.
Which makes sense, since I'm not really looking at him. If he's got something awesome that I'm gazing at, I probably wouldn't be able to tell you what color eyes he has. Since I'm too busy gazing at his awesome thing. Unless of course it's his eyes that are awesome. Maybe they're sparkling purple with flickering flames shooting out of them. In which case, don't bother asking me what he's wearing, or even if he's wearing anything at all. I am not paying any attention to his wardrobe. I'm gazing in awe at his awesome, awful eyes.
But that look echo indicates clearly to everyone present, that I, the player, just saw a screen capture of this guy's entire mdesc and everything he's wearing that's visible. Which sucks, because that makes it difficult for me to RP only noticing one part and ignoring the rest.
And it's all because of an echo.
Quote from: Lizzie on July 24, 2010, 11:45:43 AM
If look didn't echo I don't think this topic would even exist. The whole reason it exists is because of the echo and the spam created by it.
As Thunkin said, he sometimes omits looking at all, just to avoid the spam. ICly, his character WOULD look. But because of the OOC imposed coded spam created by that one command, used on everyone in the room by everyone who walks in..it's one of those things people are more likely to avoid using.
I don't care what anyone thinks of me, the player, when my character looks at them. Really. What I care about, is this:
The tall guy looks at you.
The tall guy looks at the other tall guy
The tall buy looks at the dwarf.
The other tall guy looks at the first tall guy.
The dwarf looks at you.
The big guy walks in.
You look at the big guy.
The dwarf looks at the big guy.
The tall guy looks at the big guy.
The other tall guy looks at the big guy.
The big guy looks at you.
The big guy looks at the dwarf.
The big guy looks at the tall guy.
The big guy looks at the other tall guy.
Now add in all those pretty emotes to break it up so one guy is looking with a curious gaze, another is flitting his golden orbs down the bar, another is twisting in his seat to watch the entry, another is rubbing one off and leering..
And really all you have is decorative spam.
If we could just get rid of that echo, a whole lot of frustration, and several threads suggesting improvements for situations related to the look echo, would no longer be an issue.
But assess doesn't echo like that....
ass <keyword>
That took me less than two seconds to type that.
And if you're on that whole, "Well what if I run up on a huge group of people in the dezertz! I NEED TO KNOW IF THEY'RE ARMED!" boat....
I mean.... Really?
Is it -so- hard to just assume everyone around you is armed?
Everyone pretty much is, all they have to do is type, "Draw sword".
And bam, they're armed.
There's no real advantage or disadvantage to knowing if someone's armed from the get-go whatsoever.
Prove me wrong, put up a situation where knowing if someone else was armed is all that damn important, that can't be combated with use of the "assess" command.
And before any one says, "Six PCs come in from the west in the middle of the desert...."
Seriously? If you type -that- slow, just "assess" one or two of them.... If those two are armed, they're all armed.
You're in the middle of the desert, why wouldn't anyone not trying to suicide their PC not be armed?
::Edited to add::
tl;dr: Everybody and their mother is armed on Zalanthas.... Be on your way.
>assess <keyword> echoes
assess -v does not, I think.
They both have hemote echos.
Quote from: Kiara on July 24, 2010, 12:30:22 PM
>assess <keyword> echoes
assess -v does not, I think.
They echo as a hemote, that will likely go unnoticed unless you're being watched.
assess and assess -v both echo to anyone who is perceptive, plus even if you're not perceptive there's a chance you'll notice someone glancing your way. Or you'll notice someone glancing someone else's way. Or you'll notice someone glancing at a brown inix.
If you notice someone glancing, it's because they assessed, and you saw the echo. I think I've used the "watch" command - twice? Three times maybe, since it was implemented. And I still see that glancing thing on occasion. Now imagine someone who actually has their watch skill running, and maxed..and everyone decides to follow Quiz-Herbal's advice and assess the fuck out of everything.
And that poor schmuck who just wanted to know if his buddy was gonna plant spice on the incoming elf, gets stuck seeing a screen full of glancing. And that was TO AVOID THE LOOK ECHO.
See? If you get rid of the look echo, no one will have to come up with creative alternatives just to avoid it.
Quote from: Lizzie on July 24, 2010, 12:34:45 PM
See? If you get rid of the look echo, no one will have to come up with creative alternatives just to avoid it.
Better yet, just give "look" a hemote echo like assess does.
Or even better so, "Look brief".
Toggle that shit on, and you'll never see "look" spam again.
Quote from: Lizzie on July 24, 2010, 12:34:45 PM
assess and assess -v both echo to anyone who is perceptive, plus even if you're not perceptive there's a chance you'll notice someone glancing your way. Or you'll notice someone glancing someone else's way. Or you'll notice someone glancing at a brown inix.
If you notice someone glancing, it's because they assessed, and you saw the echo. I think I've used the "watch" command - twice? Three times maybe, since it was implemented. And I still see that glancing thing on occasion. Now imagine someone who actually has their watch skill running, and maxed..and everyone decides to follow Quiz-Herbal's advice and assess the fuck out of everything.
And that poor schmuck who just wanted to know if his buddy was gonna plant spice on the incoming elf, gets stuck seeing a screen full of glancing. And that was TO AVOID THE LOOK ECHO.
See? If you get rid of the look echo, no one will have to come up with creative alternatives just to avoid it.
And that whole situation.... You'd only catch hemotes from the person you're watching-- watch isn't a passive skill that watches everyone in the room.
You don't watch everyone in the room with maxxed watch.
And I'm fairly certain this whole "OMGARETHEYARMED?!" problem, isn't a huge problem with alot of people. So I certainly wouldn't imagine that one single person you're watching is going to assess everybody in the damn room to see if they're armed. Because it's pretty much an unwritten rule of Zalanthas. Everybody is armed. Always.
If they don't have a weapon in-hand, all it takes is "Draw weapon" and they're armed. Instantly. And there was nothing you can do about it.
Quote from: Qzzrbl on July 24, 2010, 12:43:55 PMit's pretty much an unwritten rule of Zalanthas. Everybody is armed. Always.
If they don't have a weapon in-hand, all it takes is "Draw weapon" and they're armed. Instantly. And there was nothing you can do about it.
And if they're NOT armed out in the desert, it's pretty likely they don't need weapons to kill things.
Just sayin'.