For the necker's out there...

[halfhuman]

So, I have started getting into the role of a #1 stealthy dude that can't sneak for shit, and I was wondering about how much I can overlap commands.

Like, I know you can hide and emote and sneak and all that and it'll just show up as "someone masturbates in Walmart, back to the security camera"

But I was wondering if I could hide AND watch a direction at the same time? Like, if I was on a stake-out or something, could I

hide
watch e

Or would watching negate the hiding, as you normaly have to be standing to do it?

Also, can you

hide
change ldesc sitting at a back table, watching the bar.

So that patrons know you're trying to avoid suspicion, not detection?

ALSO, you can prompt a bar that tells you when you're sneaking, but I think there should be one that tells you weather or not you're trying to hide, so that if you do something to negate your hide, you'll know it.

[wizturbo]

All these are valid questions, that no one will answer because they'll say "Find out IC".  Of course finding out IC means basically doing OOC tests getting someone to help you...but thats the way some things are in Arm.  Basic, rational information being concealed so that you can't get a coded advantage.

[lazycritic]

But I was wondering if I could hide AND watch a direction at the same time?

Watch <direction>, then hide. I'm not sure whether it breaks it.

Or would watching negate the hiding, as you normaly have to be standing to do it.

Normally have to be standing to hide, too.  :wink:

change ldesc sitting at a back table, watching the bar.

Yes. PCs will be wary of someone who suddenly pops up at a table, though, and isn't sitting at a coded table(not sure that they should be). Also, it would be twinkish to then steal from your sitting position...

ALSO, you can prompt a bar that tells you when you're sneaking, but I think there should be one that tells you weather or not you're trying to hide, so that if you do something to negate your hide, you'll know it.

Eh...sounds like something that tells if you're hidden or not, which is not gonna happen.

Things to avoid doing while hidden:

1)Typing "eq"(don't think you have to worry about "inventory").
2)Getting things(including drawing weapons). Basically anything that is an obvious action.

You can use your common sense on many things, but trial and error is the way it goes. Maybe I've told too much.

Edit: According to one old thread I read "stand" will break your hide too...doesn't make sense to me, but best to avoid it.

[halfhuman]

No, not a prompt that tells you if you're successful or not, just one that tells you whether or not you're still trying.

Also, I know not to steal while I'm sitting. And, if the player base is alarmed by someone sitting there, than I think that's their problem, not mine.  I've had a few characters killed for not getting alarmed by the "someone does this" emotes. Never pretty, but always makes me feel happy about myself. Yay me!

I'll have to get someone I know to help my piddle with the command echoes than, but the problem is finding the right medium.  The right place where no one would walk by and see my strange behavior, and the right person that'd take some time out of their lives (or lack there of) to help me play with code echoing.

[joyofdiscord]

No, not a prompt that tells you if you're successful or not, just one that tells you whether or not you're still trying.

Problem is, I'm not sure there is a "trying to hide" state.  I'm assuming this based on the fact that there would be no conceivable reason for such a state -to- exist, except to allow one to figure out what commands break hide.  I presume when you type hide, you either fail or succeed, then if you succeed, you get the scan vs. hide skill contest detailed in "help scan".  If you fail, you are exactly the same as before, except perhaps with a skill raise.

I figure, if the IMMs really, really wanted us to know, or be able to easilyy find out, what commands break hide, it would be in the "hide" helpfile.  In the event they suddenly do want us to know, putting them into the helpfile seems far more efficient then coding in a "trying to hide" state.

[Agent_137]

While wizturbo's post is bitter and far too negative to achieve anything worthwile, I have to say that knowing which illogical commands break hide would be a GOOD thing, and should be included somewhere obvious.

For instance, stand and equip. It isn't logical that these would drop you out of hide. Of course, it's GOOD to have these, so you can drop out of hide for roleplay purposes, or following a proper emote.

Code Select Expand

>
emote sneezes suddenly, bending over with his hands on his knees.
>
think FECK
>
stand

[Too tired to log in]

Your best bet it this, if you've typed hide and don't want it break, use only "look", "think" and "emote" as these are probably the only commands that don't break the hide, since they don't require you to move anything except your eyes. Of course emote will still give an echo, but that's a good thing or a bad thing depending on the other players.

[fearwig]

Well, that rule would also apply to equipment, inventory, and watch, right? But I personally have no idea about those ones. In my last mud, any command entered broke hide, so maybe I'm extra-jittery, but I'm rather sure there are unintuitive commands that will break hide in Arm.

[Raesanos]

Changing your ldesc does not break your hiding status.

The watch command breaks your hiding status. The advice someone posted that keeping your input to a minimum when attempting to hide is good advice.

All these are valid questions, that no one will answer because they'll say "Find out IC".

These are code questions, not IC questions.

[amoeba]

These are code questions, not IC questions.

That being said, does looking -at- someone provide an echo when hidden as it does when not?  Otherwise this would require ooc comunication to verify.  You know a faq on what does not break hide, and what echos are possible could prove useful.

[Raesanos]

That being said, does looking -at- someone provide an echo when hidden as it does when not?  Otherwise this would require ooc comunication to verify.  You know a faq on what does not break hide, and what echos are possible could prove useful.

Most commands are intuitive about whether or not they break your hide status.  I don't intend to go through a list of all commands and say yes/no, but I don't mind offering help on the confusing ones like change and watch. An idea you might suggest is having the game echo when you issue a command that breaks your hiding status.  I'm not sure I'd support the idea since I haven't thought it through, but I do think it achieves the same effect as a faq while being far easier to use.

[amoeba]

Most commands are intuitive about whether or not they break your hide status.

For most cases true, but there are a couple like the one I asked, are a bit more obtuse.  To refocus back on the question.  You have a successful hide then you look at someone.  Now, did he, and the entire room get a "someone looks at you." or not? This is really a code thing as far as I can tell, but intuitive it is not.  I would only put what non-obvious things break hide in the help file. For example as was stated, using 'eq'.  A faq is probably the wrong  place, but neither is the search for it in the gdb, or repeating the same answer ad-nausuem.

An idea you might suggest is having the game echo when you issue a command that breaks your hiding status.  I'm not sure I'd support the idea since I haven't thought it through, but I do think it achieves the same effect as a faq while being far easier to use.

I wouldn't like this. Personaly I like the ambiguity as to is you were successfull or not, and I also like the fact that you may, through a mistake you didn't notice that you broke hide and didn't notice that your ass is sticking out from behind that bush.  It could change the RP.  That being said, I would like to know up front what types of actions do that.  Does this make any sense?.

[Raesanos]

What I mean by intuitive is that you can guess the behavior using common sense. If a lot of people guess wrong using their common sense, then it probably isn't intuitive. If you're not sure what the behavior for "look" is, how can you say its not intuitive?

As another quick note, the hypothetical code I mentioned would not identify successes and failures, it would only identify commands that always fail, and thus it would be equivelent to your faq idea, which was the intention of my suggestion.

[fearwig]

That being said, does looking -at- someone provide an echo when hidden as it does when not?  Otherwise this would require ooc comunication to verify.  You know a faq on what does not break hide, and what echos are possible could prove useful.

Most commands are intuitive about whether or not they break your hide status.  I don't intend to go through a list of all commands and say yes/no, but I don't mind offering help on the confusing ones like change and watch. An idea you might suggest is having the game echo when you issue a command that breaks your hiding status.  I'm not sure I'd support the idea since I haven't thought it through, but I do think it achieves the same effect as a faq while being far easier to use.

Here's an idea:

When hiding, you are prompted whenever you try to enter a command that will reveal you. A simple yes/no y/n response will reveal you or allow you to maintain your secrecy, taking all the guesswork out of the equation. It will also produce some delay in escaping from a hiding position, and give people a better image of the fact that they're actually stuck behind something, or in some other way are in an awkward position. It keeps them from simply spam-running out of a room where they're hidden, for one thing--or at least it gives that mental impression, I think.

There's nothing that distinguishes the physical movements involved in "watching" from those involved in "looking", to me. Watching is a continuation of looking. If this is something someone came to using his or her common sense, I might suggest his or her common sense is somewhat differently organized than that of most people, or myself, at the least. The prompt is a nice idea, I think.

This beats an echo. Sure, with an echo, you'd learn by experience--but it'd be the player learning, not the character. Which is just adding an additional unnecessary learning curve to the game.

[Rhyden]

I say no to any echo or command that will reveal whether you are hidden or not.

Is this really realistic? Would you know if somebody can see you or not? As well, if there is more than one person who aren't hidden in a room, the code wouldn't support whether one person could see you if you made an action and if the other couldn't. Scan does this nicely.