Desertman has a thread going about sdesc sniffing over the Way.
My "perfect" solution would be to start a riot by standardizing sdescs with:
a) pick from a list for adjective visible at long range
b) pick from a list for adjective visible at short range
c) pick from a list modified by gender and race
so a player would pick, during character creation:
a) dreadlocked
b) blue-eyed [but never "blue eyed"]
c) male halfbreed
from the same room: the dreadlocked, blue-eyed halfbreed
from one room away: the dreadlocked halfbreed
from two rooms away: the male halfbreed
from three rooms away: the tall figure
Caveats:
Let the watch skill be tested to get more information.
Let players request other words be added to the lists using an app process.
And then, over the Way (to return to the original idea) have each part of the desc be shown after some kind of skill contest similarly to contact/barrier.
Edit: to add gender
P.S. If all goes well, we can then use this feature to have hoods and cloaks cover specific parts of the sdesc.
I really don't like this. There are already some limitations on sdescs that I am not fond of. The more limited the creativity allowable when expressing your character, the less deep, interesting, unique, and appealing the character, IMO. That's why I don't play mmo's and if I did, it sure as shit wouldn't be for the shitty imitation of roleplay their lack of customization and depth and variety to the world. I just... meh.
Would be better if you could still use any combination of words that you want, but just differentiate them by tags. Like html tags. So in your example, when I'm making my character, I would type:
the [far]dreadlocked, [/far][near]blue-eyed [/near]halfbreed
But I always get in trouble when I suggest tag systems, so I'll just leave it at that.
I like your tag systems, especially for main descriptions. I thought about something like that here, as well. In the end, I decided that a menu-driven system would have a shorter learning curve for new players, and prevent that awkward moment I have come to hate:
>look north
[Very far]
A dude with blue eyes stands here.
[Far]
Nothing.
[Near]
Nothing.
[...some time later...]
The frowny-faced templar says, in better-than-you-accented sirihish:
"So, you saw him from a distance?"
You say,
"Yes."
The frowny-faced templar says, in better-than-you-accented sirihish:
"What did he look like?"
Embarrassed, you say,
"He had blue eyes."
The frowny-faced templar says, in better-than-you-accented sirihish:
"And...?"
Well, the default would be you not putting tags in and everything showing. Tags are definitely NOT more complicated than learning which symbols you need to emote. And obviously it would need to display to you after you put it in so you can see how it looks.
I always wondered how people were able to see eye color over long distances, but nothing else.
Quote from: valeria on November 13, 2012, 05:57:01 PM
Would be better if you could still use any combination of words that you want, but just differentiate them by tags. Like html tags. So in your example, when I'm making my character, I would type:
the [far]dreadlocked, [/far][near]blue-eyed [/near]halfbreed
But I always get in trouble when I suggest tag systems, so I'll just leave it at that.
Yeaaaaaah, I like that.
I just don't see how sdesc sniffing is a problem that you have to limit people's creativity just to stop it.
EDIT:
Also just seems like a lot of work codewise for something I don't think is a problem.
Quote from: kayza on November 13, 2012, 11:24:53 PM
I just don't see how sdesc sniffing is a problem that you have to limit people's creativity just to stop it.
This goes beyond sdesc sniffing, toward a more useable model of distance in the game. As a text-based game, using a system like this to add more meaning to the words we use, through tags or by other means, would be a serious advance in how we interact with the game world.
On the other hand, you are right, it would involve a lot of coding as NPCs were brought into the new code.
The argument that it "limits creativity" isn't one that I agree with, especially if:
- a) words can be added after staff review (a function that would be mitigated by using pre-existing descriptive terms as a database), and
- b) we can live without reverse-order "the man with blue hair" descriptions.
Reverse-order descriptions already are more likely to contain less information, with one descriptor instead of two. IMHO, a character where we can only know three notables things (adjective, gender and race) at a glance instead of four (two adjectives, gender and race) hardly seems to enhance creativity.
Further, reverse descriptions interact badly with certain rare items in game. Templar cloaks, for example, change the description to substitute "templar" for the last word, meaning that it is codedly possible to see "the man with blue templar is here."
I think that, as an enhancement of coded distance, this idea would add something very cool to the game. But then again, that is why I wrote the OP in the first place.
You are right. I like this system better. It does prevent abuse anonymity since it's no different than someone wearing the hood of cloak up.
I got confused which thread was saying what. This topic just exploded!
'Reverse' sdescs really jar me. Did they get popular after the mainstream release of girl with the dragon tattoo?
Quote from: Maso on November 14, 2012, 07:49:56 PM
'Reverse' sdescs really jar me. Did they get popular after the mainstream release of girl with the dragon tattoo?
What? No, lol.
I like sdescs like that though, personally.
Quote from: Maso on November 14, 2012, 07:49:56 PM
'Reverse' sdescs really jar me. Did they get popular after the mainstream release of girl with the dragon tattoo?
My next Nakki character is so going to be..
the boy with the dragon tattoo
Quote from: Malken on November 14, 2012, 10:27:15 PM
the boy with the dragon tattoo
Too bad boy / girl aren't acceptable sdesc keywords. The teen with the dragon tattoo? Could be male or female at first glance, win-win.
Lizbeth was a bit androgynous until she got her plastic surgery, anyway.... :P
Far and very far should just tell whatever race they are.
Better yet, add humanoid/animal to vague figure shapes and do that instead?
Quote from: MeTekillot on November 20, 2012, 01:28:16 PM
Far and very far should just tell whatever race they are.
Better yet, add humanoid/animal to vague figure shapes and do that instead?
This would be awesome ... Till you think about how badly it would nerf archers.
Maybe if you pass a scan roll you can get a better image? If you're scanning, anyway.
Actually make rangers even more into scouts, you know.
Quote from: musashi on November 20, 2012, 06:50:00 PM
Quote from: MeTekillot on November 20, 2012, 01:28:16 PM
Far and very far should just tell whatever race they are.
Better yet, add humanoid/animal to vague figure shapes and do that instead?
This would be awesome ... Till you think about how badly it would nerf archers.
How is that a bad thing? It's already a bit strange and unrealistic that, thanks to keyword targetting, ranged attacks can only hit or miss the desired target, but never, ever hit something unintended. This would add a touch of realistic risk to archery, rather than being the precise death-dealing doom that it is now.
Just tie it to that other skill that lets you see things at a distance that other people can't see. If you have good eyes, you can make out details at a distance. If not, you can't.
Most archers will have this skill.
psi Hey, I just wayed you, and this is crazy, but will you be my boyfriend maybe?
(http://i1.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/007/423/untitle.JPG)
Quote from: catchall on November 20, 2012, 08:13:29 PM
Quote from: musashi on November 20, 2012, 06:50:00 PM
Quote from: MeTekillot on November 20, 2012, 01:28:16 PM
Far and very far should just tell whatever race they are.
Better yet, add humanoid/animal to vague figure shapes and do that instead?
This would be awesome ... Till you think about how badly it would nerf archers.
How is that a bad thing? It's already a bit strange and unrealistic that, thanks to keyword targetting, ranged attacks can only hit or miss the desired target, but never, ever hit something unintended. This would add a touch of realistic risk to archery, rather than being the precise death-dealing doom that it is now.
It wouldn't fix the thing you think is a problem. Archers would just have to go one room closer, spot the keyword they need, and then fall back and use that keyword; which is just an extra layer of ooc annoyance more than anything else in PC v PC conflict ... and a severe set back that may well get you killed in PC v Always Looking In Every Direction At All Times Ready To Attack Aggro Mobs conflict.
What you want is for failed archery attempts to have a chance of randomly hitting someone else in the room instead. I'm in favor of that, but its outside the scope of this thread.
Quote from: musashi on November 27, 2012, 06:42:47 AM
Archers would just have to go one room closer, spot the keyword they need, and then fall back and use that keyword; which is just an extra layer of ooc annoyance more than anything else in PC v PC conflict ... and a severe set back that may well get you killed in PC v Always Looking In Every Direction At All Times Ready To Attack Aggro Mobs conflict.
Wow, you mean that archers would need to either use their other skills as well, or employ someone who can, in order to OHK/terradin/headshot people they don't like?
I do not think that that would be so terrible.
This originally posted idea would require:
new code
more oversight in the app process to have it make sense
new guidelines for players so that they submit it correctly
It's certainly not a big enough problem to require all of that. The coded solution that Morgenes is reviewing should suffice if it is deemed feasible. If it is not, we can look at other options, but this one seems like a bad way to create more of an app bottleneck.
Quote from: Morrolan on November 27, 2012, 09:02:25 AM
Quote from: musashi on November 27, 2012, 06:42:47 AM
Archers would just have to go one room closer, spot the keyword they need, and then fall back and use that keyword; which is just an extra layer of ooc annoyance more than anything else in PC v PC conflict ... and a severe set back that may well get you killed in PC v Always Looking In Every Direction At All Times Ready To Attack Aggro Mobs conflict.
Wow, you mean that archers would need to either use their other skills as well, or employ someone who can, in order to OHK/terradin/headshot people they don't like?
I do not think that that would be so terrible.
No. I mean that an archer would just have to get one room closer to you, look again, get the keyword they want, then fall back and shoot you. You, the player, would very likely never notice since we don't spend all our time spam looking every direction over and over again. So the grief you experience by being neck-shot would still persist without hinderance.
Whereas on the flip side, whenever you play an archer, your chances of getting griefed by a tembo you thought was a goudra but needed to get close enough to make sure would sky rocket because aggro mobs
do spend all their time spam looking every direction over and over again.
But this thread is/was about the Way, not how archery needs a nerf. Make another derail thread for that if you like.