Armageddon General Discussion Board

Simple suggestion: whenever your sdesc is replaced by a non-sexed sdesc (e.g. 'the figure wearing the filthy hooded cloak', but not 'the male wearing the purple gimpka mask') replace all gendered emote substitutions with the gender-neutral (e.g. instead of 'his', 'its')

NB: This might end up being more annoying than not, if you end up talking to people in hoods a lot.

I'd not do it in 'communication' related commands (say, tell, etc.).  You can more often than not de-unsex your interlocutor by listening to their voice.

But in all other commands, sure!

I would be fine with that. Makes sense for certain people to not be specifically outed as to what they chose their "char-gen sex" as. It could be that their sex is much more complicated than the binary selection the code allows.

I don't think we need to change the way cloaks or masks or anything like that works.

Those work perfectly for girls who look like girls and boys who look like boys.

It seems we just need to add a gender classification at character creation for "Undefined" or "Andro", or whatever you want to go with.

Then have -that- be the trigger that determines what your special pronouns or whatever are based on your gear selection.

Quote from: Desertman on April 14, 2016, 04:45:16 PM
I don't think we need to change the way cloaks or masks or anything like that works.

Those work perfectly for girls who look like girls and boys who look like boys.

It seems we just need to add a gender classification at character creation for "Undefined" or "Andro", or whatever you want to go with.

Then have -that- be the trigger that determines what your special pronouns or whatever are based on your gear selection.

but...

Quote from: RogueGunslinger on April 14, 2016, 04:38:17 PM
I would be fine with that. Makes sense for certain people to not be specifically outed as to what they chose their "char-gen sex" as. It could be that their sex is much more complicated than the binary selection the code allows.

Either they look like a boy, they look like a girl, or they are andro.

Is there something else that exists that I'm not aware of?

Maybe add an option of "What you actually are for info reasons but what you look like for emote reasons" and shit.

Quote from: Desertman on April 14, 2016, 04:48:55 PM
Either they look like a boy, they look like a girl, or they are andro.

Is there something else that exists that I'm not aware of?

Halflings.

Quote from: Desertman on April 14, 2016, 04:48:55 PM
Either they look like a boy, they look like a girl, or they are andro.

Is there something else that exists that I'm not aware of?

It's not always so easy to tell when someone is one or the other. The way the code is now specifically makes that type of play impossible. If, however, the pronouns were simply made gender-neutral (very easy to do) then it would fix that problem. For instance a woman can dress a certain way and look androgynous but still be 100% female.

Only problem I see with it is you won't automatically know someone's sex without looking at them, reducing a bit of ooc awareness. No more: "you notice an extremely short female during an assassin attempt you" and automatically know that 1 female dwarf assassin in the game did it.

Is one's curvaceousness indicative of gender and is this something a cloak would conceal?

Quote from: Molten Heart on April 14, 2016, 04:59:18 PM
Is one's curvaceousness indicative of gender, and is this something a cloak would conceal?

Sometimes yes sometimes no.

Quote from: RogueGunslinger on April 14, 2016, 04:57:32 PM

Quote from: Desertman on April 14, 2016, 04:48:55 PM
Either they look like a boy, they look like a girl, or they are andro.

Is there something else that exists that I'm not aware of?

It's not always so easy to tell when someone is one or the other. The way the code is now specifically makes that type of play impossible. If, however, the pronouns were simply made gender-neutral (very easy to do) then it would fix that problem. For instance a woman can dress a certain way and look androgynous but still be 100% female.

Only problem I see with it is you won't automatically know someone's sex without looking at them, reducing a bit of ooc awareness. No more: "you notice an extremely short female during an assassin attempt you" and automatically know that 1 female dwarf assassin in the game did it.

You just described exactly what andro is.

If that female dwarf doesn't want people to know she's female then write up a character that doesn't have female qualities and pick the option for "andro" (that doesn't currently exist).

Unless you mean they look female but are specifically picking out disguises to hide their gender.

In that case this needs to be a thread about a Disguise Skill and not a "change the way cloaks work for the entire world" thread.

(I like the idea of a disguise skill.)

Because then everyone who is androgynous would be specifically pointed out as androgynous when that's not how it works in real life. You go, "Oh look at the pretty woman in the distance..." then "that woman has manly features" until "wait no, the man has womanly features." and finally "Wait I can't tell." It's not a detail that should be so obvious that you don't have to look to know. People don't have a specific detector that allows them to know whether someones a male that looks female or a female that looks male, or if someone is in between that can pull off both...

I think the code needs a lot of updates to better handle the gender spectrum but a blanket change would not be a good one. I voted no to this one.

I'm one of those people that liked the main description hiding masks and cloaks.

I voted yes.

Quote from: RogueGunslinger on April 14, 2016, 05:15:56 PM
Because then everyone who is androgynous would be specifically pointed out as androgynous when that's not how it works in real life. You go, "Oh look at the pretty woman in the distance..." then "that woman has manly features" until "wait no, the man has womanly features." and finally "Wait I can't tell." It's not a detail that should be so obvious that you don't have to look to know. People don't have a specific detector that allows them to know whether someones a male that looks female or a female that looks male, or if someone is in between that can pull off both...

The solution to this isn't that my very male characters shouldn't be recognized as being extremely male because they are wearing a mask.

The same goes for female characters with gigantic fuckjugs.

You would be trading a random rare instance of an andro not being seen as andro enough for their liking for the vast majority of the playerbase that does fall into a easily recognizable physical gender identity not being easily recognizable.

It's makes about as much sense as burning your fields to fight obesity so that you end up starving to death.

The only solution to this problem would be to put in character creation code that allows people to pick which exact percentage of which gender they either do or do not resemble based on standard principles surrounding what is commonly accepted as physically male or female. Then they would have to go a step further and create code that allows you to perceive said percentages within a certain spectrum of values while applying a random number as well for that bit of "error" one may or may not have depending on the situation.

The solution to this problem has nothing to do with cloaks or masks.

Did I miss the point of this thread?

I thought it was about a better way to hide who your character is, not one about gender choice and equality in Zalanthas??

I'm not sure the benefit is worth the grammatical can of worms.

Quote from: Desertman on April 14, 2016, 06:28:19 PM

Quote from: RogueGunslinger on April 14, 2016, 05:15:56 PM
Because then everyone who is androgynous would be specifically pointed out as androgynous when that's not how it works in real life. You go, "Oh look at the pretty woman in the distance..." then "that woman has manly features" until "wait no, the man has womanly features." and finally "Wait I can't tell." It's not a detail that should be so obvious that you don't have to look to know. People don't have a specific detector that allows them to know whether someones a male that looks female or a female that looks male, or if someone is in between that can pull off both...

The solution to this isn't that my very male characters shouldn't be recognized as being extremely male because they are wearing a mask.

The same goes for female characters with gigantic fuckjugs.

You would be trading a random rare instance of an andro not being seen as andro enough for their liking for the vast majority of the playerbase that does fall into a easily recognizable physical gender identity not being easily recognizable.

It's makes about as much sense as burning your fields to fight obesity so that you end up starving to death.

The only solution to this problem would be to put in character creation code that allows people to pick which exact percentage of which gender they either do or do not resemble based on standard principles surrounding what is commonly accepted as physically male or female. Then they would have to go a step further and create code that allows you to perceive said percentages within a certain spectrum of values while applying a random number as well for that bit of "error" one may or may not have depending on the situation.

This would all have a point if not knowing someone's gender when they're covered in a cloak (not a mask) was actually a bad thing. You're not trading one rare instance(I illustrated multiple instances, for one thing) for one very common occurrence, because the two are not comparable. One makes no sense(automatic sex-detector,) and one makes a lot of sense (not immediately knowing someones sex when they're covered in a cloak and 3 leagues to your east.)

Quote
The solution to this problem has nothing to do with cloaks or masks.

Except it IS a solution to the problem I pointed out.

Quote from: flurry on April 14, 2016, 06:54:12 PM
I'm not sure the benefit is worth the grammatical can of worms.

"The tall human/dwarf/elf wearing a tattered, ebony cloak" would make a lot of sense to me. Because race is something you absolutely can tell even when soemone is wearing a cloak.

Quote from: RogueGunslinger on April 14, 2016, 09:10:14 PM

Quote from: flurry on April 14, 2016, 06:54:12 PM
I'm not sure the benefit is worth the grammatical can of worms.

"The tall human/dwarf/elf wearing a tattered, ebony cloak" would make a lot of sense to me. Because race is something you absolutely can tell even when soemone is wearing a cloak.

I don't think this is true.  I can be a short breed and have humans shorter, taller or the same height as me.  Breeds the same height or taller.  Elves taller and much taller.

Well, I left breeds out for a reason... It would surely be easier to tell than sex, wouldn't it?

I suppose "the tall, thick person in a hooded, ebony cloak" is fine.

I voted no. I can generally tell at a glance irl (even when wearing a hoodie and other gender neutral clothing) that someone is a male or female. Tits or not, it's a pretty easy read usually.

A glance is exactly what the look command is.

I thought I was clear in the OP, but apparently not.

I'm not arguing for hidden-sex characters. We might want andro/undefined characters, but that's a different thread.

All I'm suggesting is that emote substitutions that are sex-coded (the ones that use pronouns, viz. !, #, ^, etc. but not ~, %, and =) are changed to sex-neutral pronouns in cases where the game is already hiding your sex, specifically when your sdesc follows the form of 'the so and so figure in the such and such cloak'.

Would this keep you from seeing someone's sex? No, use the look command. Or the assess command.

As for arguments that you can tell via voice, the intentional lack of sexual dimorphism in Zalanthas could very well extend to voice. If someone has a feminine voice, he can roleplay that. Or if a masculine voice, he can roleplay that. Or if he gives you no audible clues via emotes you can use the look or the assess command and then roleplay that you figured out his sex. Or hers.

One more time, for clarity: the only proposed change is to turn this

The short figure in the roughspun brown cloak adjusts her seat at the bar before looking around to see if anyone is staring at her.

into

The short figure in the roughspun brown cloak adjusts its seat at the bar before looking around to see if anyone is staring at it.

(Yes, maybe that's ugly. Thus the poll.)

Desex cloaks.

Would it be less ugly with them and their?

The short figure in the roughspun brown cloak adjusts their seat at the bar before looking around to see if anyone is staring at them.

I think I would be fine with that.

Quote from: RogueGunslinger on April 27, 2016, 02:57:50 AM
Would it be less ugly with them and their?

The short figure in the roughspun brown cloak adjusts their seat at the bar before looking around to see if anyone is staring at them.

I think I would be fine with that.

I strongly resent the drift of the use of the third person plural for the third person singular, but I'm a grammatical pedant, as a careful reading of my posts will reveal.

Quote from: Tisiphone on April 27, 2016, 03:56:16 AM
I strongly resent the drift of the use of the third person plural for the third person singular, but I'm a grammatical pedant, as a careful reading of my posts will reveal.

That's a very old-school grammar rule that isn't necessary to follow (http://grammarist.com/usage/they/).  It's widely accepted (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/words/he-or-she-versus-they) now in speech and writing.  There are also some genderqueer people who prefer to identify as them/their.

Anyway, I prefer the them/their look.

I like the option of the change but I don't want it forced on me. I still vote no.

Quote from: Tisiphone on April 27, 2016, 02:14:14 AM
As for arguments that you can tell via voice, the intentional lack of sexual dimorphism in Zalanthas could very well extend to voice.

I feel this lack of sexist, gender-based roles is being sorely misinterpreted when extended to imply there is no physiological difference between a male and female zalanthan.

It is arguably possible (and codedly so) for any zalanthan (female or male) to be physically as capable as any other zalanthan of the same race in the performance of coded abilities related to their physical and mental capabilities without those similarities signifying a total obliteration of gendered appearance.

It is also the case, enforced more so by GM fiat and against civilization's inherent tendencies based on who bears children and who doesn't, that there are no gender norm'd roles in society.  This does not equate to the obliteration of gendered appearance.

Finally there is the normalcy of same gender relationships, which does nothing to discount gendered appearance.  In the case of same gender relationships there is still an expectation, based on appearance, of what one is going to find "down there".  There is no premise for every relationship in the Known to be a case of Zalanthan Roulette as the clothes come off.

Long way around this?  I'm all for being able to make an androgynous character or find suitably disguising gear that masks one's gender while the gear is on such that the code alters to "You hear a voice from the east" or "the figure grabs their stuff while they run out the door", however basing that decision on the premise that male and female are arbitrary labels in Zalanthas is a poor choice of foundation for the argument.

Quote from: Tisiphone on April 27, 2016, 02:14:14 AM
I thought I was clear in the OP, but apparently not.

I'm not arguing for hidden-sex characters. We might want andro/undefined characters, but that's a different thread.

All I'm suggesting is that emote substitutions that are sex-coded (the ones that use pronouns, viz. !, #, ^, etc. but not ~, %, and =) are changed to sex-neutral pronouns in cases where the game is already hiding your sex, specifically when your sdesc follows the form of 'the so and so figure in the such and such cloak'.

Would this keep you from seeing someone's sex? No, use the look command. Or the assess command.

As for arguments that you can tell via voice, the intentional lack of sexual dimorphism in Zalanthas could very well extend to voice. If someone has a feminine voice, he can roleplay that. Or if a masculine voice, he can roleplay that. Or if he gives you no audible clues via emotes you can use the look or the assess command and then roleplay that you figured out his sex. Or hers.

One more time, for clarity: the only proposed change is to turn this

The short figure in the roughspun brown cloak adjusts her seat at the bar before looking around to see if anyone is staring at her.

into

The short figure in the roughspun brown cloak adjusts its seat at the bar before looking around to see if anyone is staring at it.

(Yes, maybe that's ugly. Thus the poll.)

It wouldn't break my game.

But it's also not breaking my game now, nor anyone else's.

If some staffer has a lot of free time and wants to champion the cause, more power to them, it won't break my dick if it gets put in.

But, in general, I don't see any actual value in the change.

Quote from: whitt on April 27, 2016, 10:44:26 AM

Quote from: Tisiphone on April 27, 2016, 02:14:14 AM
As for arguments that you can tell via voice, the intentional lack of sexual dimorphism in Zalanthas could very well extend to voice.

I feel this lack of sexist, gender-based roles is being sorely misinterpreted when extended to imply there is no physiological difference between a male and female zalanthan.

It is arguably possible (and codedly so) for any zalanthan (female or male) to be physically as capable as any other zalanthan of the same race in the performance of coded abilities related to their physical and mental capabilities without those similarities signifying a total obliteration of gendered appearance.

It is also the case, enforced more so by GM fiat and against civilization's inherent tendencies based on who bears children and who doesn't, that there are no gender norm'd roles in society.  This does not equate to the obliteration of gendered appearance.

Finally there is the normalcy of same gender relationships, which does nothing to discount gendered appearance.  In the case of same gender relationships there is still an expectation, based on appearance, of what one is going to find "down there".  There is no premise for every relationship in the Known to be a case of Zalanthan Roulette as the clothes come off.

Long way around this?  I'm all for being able to make an androgynous character or find suitably disguising gear that masks one's gender while the gear is on such that the code alters to "You hear a voice from the east" or "the figure grabs their stuff while they run out the door", however basing that decision on the premise that male and female are arbitrary labels in Zalanthas is a poor choice of foundation for the argument.

You have to keep in mind that the premise behind the genders being equal in Zalanthas has nothing to do with the lore in reality.

It exists for one reason. OOC sensibilities.

That's fine, but trying to explain actual physiological differences and similarities between the genders by rationalizing the lore and the genetics of the beings of the game world is folly.

It won't ever make any sense because there is no IC reason for it, it exists in its entirety for OOC reasons.

It's one of those things that you just kind of have to gloss over.

MOST people are going to play characters that fit traditional gender roles in terms of physical appearance/voice etc.

The stipulation that if someone doesn't you have to "pretend to not notice", is really just there as an OOC rule and consideration.

I'm glad the rule exists, but, I think trying to rationalize it into the IC world is just always going to be sort of "meh". It exists for OOC reasons, always has, always will.

This doesn't extend to clothing though, because you will get looks for wearing dresses.
Those sexist bastards.

Quote from: Jihelu on April 27, 2016, 03:24:57 PM
This doesn't extend to clothing though, because you will get looks for wearing dresses.
Those sexist bastards.

It's just kind of funny to see a guy wearing a dress.

I have seen it happen a couple of times in-game and yes, every time, the guy got some extra attention for it.

I don't recall ever seeing anyone go all out with a, "WEAR PANTS FAG-BOY!", or anything like that. (Which would have got a report from me on the spot, and most anyone else, mind you.)

It was always just sort of jokingly noticed as if to say, "Well, you don't see that every day.".

Sure, it was probably something that should have been reported, but then again, I don't think it deserves anything more than a slap on the wrist and a, "Hey, just keep in mind this is normal and shouldn't really get any chuckles.".

Quote from: Desertman on April 27, 2016, 03:32:14 PM

Quote from: Jihelu on April 27, 2016, 03:24:57 PM
This doesn't extend to clothing though, because you will get looks for wearing dresses.
Those sexist bastards.

It's just kind of funny to see a guy wearing a dress.

I have seen it happen a couple of times in-game and yes, every time, the guy got some extra attention for it.

I don't recall ever seeing anyone go all out with a, "WEAR PANTS FAG-BOY!", or anything like that. (Which would have got a report from me on the spot, and most anyone else, mind you.)

It was always just sort of jokingly noticed as if to say, "Well, you don't see that every day.".

Sure, it was probably something that should have been reported, but then again, I don't think it deserves anything more than a slap on the wrist and a, "Hey, just keep in mind this is normal and shouldn't really get any chuckles.".

i wore dresses as a corporal in salarr once.

nobody uttered a fucking word.

nobody.

Quote from: Majikal on April 14, 2016, 11:05:33 PM
I voted no. I can generally tell at a glance irl (even when wearing a hoodie and other gender neutral clothing) that someone is a male or female. Tits or not, it's a pretty easy read usually.

I voted yes because my interpretation of Zalanthas is that the genders have a far less pronounced secondary sexual dimorphism, no matter what the f-me sitting next to you at the bar wants you to think.

The potential for males and females is equal, yes. Females can be born muscular and tall and males can be born tiny, curvy, weak, or otherwise non masculine. That is how the docs describe it.  Potential.

Nowhere in the docs state that there is less dimorphism overall.

The point of this documentation is to allow players to play the concept they want to play. The point of this is not to force a lack of dimorphism on those who do not want to play a buff, tall, ripped female or a dainty male.

It should be an option that someone not have a "female voice" or to not be a "her" automatically with a hood up, but by no means should the range of potential be interpreted as blanket reduced dimorphism. A lack of sexual differentiation should not be a forced factor for all characters.

This is a big deal because many roles and playing styles requires hoods to be up often and if everyone were required to be genderless when so then this will be a jarring change. I would much rather it be an option, which would be a beneficial change since then some people will become gender neutral and be differentiated in storms or when hooded.

The option of "being genderless when the face is hidden" would be awesome. Forcing it because of a misinterpretation of the docs on everyone would be awful, in contrast.

Yeah.

Unsex cloaks, please.  Does not fit game.

Unsexing cloaks would be a good first step towards making it difficult to distinguish individuals within a group 3 miles away, as well. (I'll get around to making that thread one of these, SuchDragonWow.)

Indeed.  I knew it was you all along!  I saw your supple figure and sparkling blue eyes from a mile away.  You know, literally.

(http://pixel.nymag.com/imgs/daily/vulture/2013/09/25/25-chris-traeger-literally.w750.h560.2x.jpg)

The raven himself is hoarse
That croaks the fatal entrance of Duncan
Under my battlements. Come, you spirits
That tend on mortal thoughts, unsex me here,
And fill me from the crown to the toe topful
Of direst cruelty!


The raven-haired svelte woman raises the hood of her hooded, black cloak.
The figure in the hooded, black cloak tugs [b]their[/b] lips into a tight frown.


I'm +1 on the idea -- to unsex the pronouns whenever the code already masks the form of the person.

I'd go with the plural over singular neuter.

Quote from: BadSkeelz on April 28, 2016, 01:50:34 PM
Unsexing cloaks would be a good first step towards making it difficult to distinguish individuals within a group 3 miles away, as well. (I'll get around to making that thread one of these, SuchDragonWow.)

This already happens.

I voted "Yes" because why the hell not?
Nerf look 2016.

Quote from: BadSkeelz on April 28, 2016, 01:50:34 PM
Unsexing cloaks would be a good first step towards making it difficult to distinguish individuals within a group 3 miles away, as well.


->look e
[Near by]
A tall, green-eyed man.
A short, blond-haired woman.
[Far to the East]
A humanoid figure.
An tall elven figure.
A short dwarfish figure.
[Very Far to the East]
A few humanoid figures. (Could be dwarf, human, elf - you can't tell from here.)
A half-giant figure.

Or something similar. I could fux with this.

Yes, yes, yes, on the far-away thing.

I've always found it a bit odd that you can do a bit of a meta thing with how the code works with facewraps, hoods, and masks.  So, say you are wearing a bright green cloak, you can (a) lower the hood and confuse your opponent or (b) put on a mask/facewrap and confuse your opponent.  But really, would the mask/facewrap do that?

I like the idea suggested above: change sdesc to more and more vaguer wording the further away someone is.


->look e
[Near]
A tall, green-eyed man
A short, blond-haired woman
[Far]
A humanoid male
A short humanoid male
A tall and thick humanoid female
A very tall elven male
A short dwarven male
A gigantic and obese half-giant female
[Very Far]
A tall humanoid figure
A short humanoid figure
A tall and thin humanoid figure
A very short and thin humanoid figure
A gigantic and obese humanoid figure


If they're cloaked and hooded, then you don't see gender.

Quote from: Delirium on April 28, 2016, 04:00:23 PM

Code Select Expand


->look e
[Near]
A tall, green-eyed man
A short, blond-haired woman
[Far]
A humanoid male
A short humanoid male
A tall and thick humanoid female
A very tall elven male
A short dwarven male
A gigantic and obese half-giant female
[Very Far]
A tall humanoid figure
A short humanoid figure
A tall and thin humanoid figure
A very short and thin humanoid figure
A gigantic and obese humanoid figure


If they're cloaked and hooded, then you don't see gender.

Yeah. Follows the size-relative height/weight descriptors. Perfect. Ship it!

Okay, let's take a game where the ability to see long distances is severely impaired, information gathering is a struggle involving multiple typed commands, and telling cloaked people apart in groups is a fucking nightmare, and let's make all of that worse.

My no vote x 9000, thanks

Fwiw I always thought rolling around with a group all hooded was pretty silly.  And not really necessary, as far as I can glean.  What is this, the inquisition?  Even raiders in my mind would be parading their ugly mugs.  Don't get me started on masks.  Rofl

Quote from: Harmless on April 28, 2016, 04:35:46 PM
Okay, let's take a game where the ability to see long distances is severely impaired, information gathering is a struggle involving multiple typed commands, and telling cloaked people apart in groups is a fucking nightmare, and let's make all of that worse.

It'd make the wastes more mysterious, dangerous, and nerf archer-snipers picking out the sponsored role from a group of 20. What's not to like?

Because it isnt a perfect solution. If you come to recognize someone as wearing a certain cloak and being of a certain height and shape, then you should be able to recognize them again if they were to reappear after a period of not seeing them. If you follow someone walking further away from you in a group you will be able to track which shape was whom with that info even from far away. I agree that initially you wouldn't recognize them coming at you from far away. But there isn't the coding time available to account for subtle issues like that. What you are suggesting therefore is realistic in some situations and very unrealistic in others.

Furthermore we have the ability to RP having less information than the game gives us. You can RP not knowing who someone is in the distance even if OOCly you have a very good idea because you know how the code works.

I would rather have things stay generally as they are except giving people the option of making a gender ambiguous character. That way responsible roleplayers can portray what their character sees without forcing them to be unrealistically blinded to characteristics that should be apparent at a glance.

Finally the code already handles it pretty well in my opinion.

Quote from: BadSkeelz on April 28, 2016, 07:29:35 PM

Quote from: Harmless on April 28, 2016, 04:35:46 PM
Okay, let's take a game where the ability to see long distances is severely impaired, information gathering is a struggle involving multiple typed commands, and telling cloaked people apart in groups is a fucking nightmare, and let's make all of that worse.

It'd make the wastes more mysterious, dangerous, and nerf archer-snipers picking out the sponsored role from a group of 20. What's not to like?

Maybe kill/archery/spell targeting shouldn't use names or nicknames if hooded/masked whatever?

Quote from: Case on April 28, 2016, 10:13:15 PM

Quote from: BadSkeelz on April 28, 2016, 07:29:35 PM

Quote from: Harmless on April 28, 2016, 04:35:46 PM
Okay, let's take a game where the ability to see long distances is severely impaired, information gathering is a struggle involving multiple typed commands, and telling cloaked people apart in groups is a fucking nightmare, and let's make all of that worse.

It'd make the wastes more mysterious, dangerous, and nerf archer-snipers picking out the sponsored role from a group of 20. What's not to like?

Maybe kill/archery/spell targeting shouldn't use names or nicknames if hooded/masked whatever?

I had already brought a version of this up as a possible change 2 years ago in this thread (http://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,48502.msg858896.html#msg858896).

It really shouldn't.

Eh, this would cause some unrealistic issues as well.

If I look north and see fifteen people wearing "a hooded brown military aba".

If my target is, "The massive, hulking man.", I should pretty easily be able to pick him out and shoot him despite the fact everyone around him is wearing the same cloak. (I could just do "shoot massive", if I knew one of his keywords I suppose, but if I've never seen him, I wouldn't know that. Whoever hired me to pick him off would have just told me, "He's huge. He's much bigger than most any other Bynner." Which would be enough for me to pick him out pretty easily....but now I can't....even though I would be able to realistically.)

Cloak =/= Everyone Looks The Same

A lot of cloaks don't even close in the front in fact and so at a distance you would still see all of their other gear. How do we account for that?

Just because there are four people wearing "Black Cloaks", I'm still going to know which one is the gemmer, because of the gem, even at a distance.

So on and so forth.

With all of that being said, I don't think I've ever shot anyone where I didn't know their keywords/their name, so, I'm just throwing out possibilities for the sake of refining the idea.

Quote from: Harmless on April 28, 2016, 07:38:39 PM
Because it isnt a perfect solution. ... But there isn't the coding time available to account for subtle issues like that. What you are suggesting therefore is realistic in some situations and very unrealistic in others.

You just described every coding change ever made for the sake of "realism." (Looking at you, LookBuff2016, not that you would notice now...)

Honestly, I don't give a shit whether it functions in the city. If look worked this way in the desert it would, as Bad Skeelz said, increase the danger and mystery. No more seeing a rider on the horizon and knowing they're harmless because you can see what shade of blue their eyes are from way over here. (Not that there are dangerous PCs in the desert these days anyways...)

It would offer coded incentives to RP distances better while in the wastes.

Quote from: Harmless on April 28, 2016, 07:38:39 PM
Furthermore we have the ability to RP having less information than the game gives us. You can RP not knowing who someone is in the distance even if OOCly you have a very good idea because you know how the code works.

That sounds good on paper, but attempts to RP realistic things that the code doesn't enforce usually plays out for me like this:

Very Far to the East:
The azure-eyed, lightly-freckled man stands here.

Shading his eyes with a hand as he squints eastward, you say in Sirihish:
  "Someone on the horizon. Can't tell who this far out."

The tall muscular man glances eastward.

The tall muscular man says, in sirhish:
   "It's a guy with blue eyes and freckles. You need your eyes checked Malik."


Quote from: Desertman on April 29, 2016, 10:21:08 AM
Eh, this would cause some unrealistic issues as well.

If I look north and see fifteen people wearing "a hooded brown military aba".

If my target is, "The massive, hulking man.", I should pretty easily be able to pick him out and shoot him despite the fact everyone around him is wearing the same cloak. (I could just do "shoot massive", if I knew one of his keywords I suppose, but if I've never seen him, I wouldn't know that. Whoever hired me to pick him off would have just told me, "He's huge. He's much bigger than most any other Bynner." Which would be enough for me to pick him out pretty easily....but now I can't....even though I would be able to realistically.)

Cloak =/= Everyone Looks The Same

A lot of cloaks don't even close in the front in fact and so at a distance you would still see all of their other gear. How do we account for that?

Just because there are four people wearing "Black Cloaks", I'm still going to know which one is the gemmer, because of the gem, even at a distance.

So on and so forth.

With all of that being said, I don't think I've ever shot anyone where I didn't know their keywords/their name, so, I'm just throwing out possibilities for the sake of refining the idea.

I still think this problem is easier to fix than people using name or nickname keywords for targetting.