Armament

[Larrath]

Because most wielded weapons should be very obvious to everyone, I propose that characters wielding any weapons (barring very small ones such as daggers) are given a squiggly in their Long description.

Code Select Expand


> look
The Room
  This is a room.  Don't ask what it is, you'll ruin the surprise.  There are
some walls though, and kanks.  Plenty of kanks.  Yellow kanks, red kanks,
yetti kanks, laser-beam kanks.  Stop reading this already.
There is a table here.
The tall, muscular man is standing here.
! The taller, muscularer man is standing here.

The taller man is wielding a weapon.

This would affect all PCs and humanoid NPCs.

Discuss.

[Marauder Moe]

Interesting idea.

One objection I could think of would be to making special modifiers preceding ldescs that commonplace.  Some people might find it jarring.

Also, would you have to tag items as "weapons" or would it just show up if someone was ep'ing or etwo'ing something?  What about holding?

[Delirium]

Don't particularly like this, it would be a bit too jarring for me.

Would much prefer a 'glance' command, sans mdesc.

[Larrath]

One objection I could think of would be to making special modifiers preceding ldescs that commonplace.  Some people might find it jarring.

This is true, but I'm hoping that a special modifier that doesn't look close to other modifiers in shape would be good.  Plus, there could also be a helpfile describing the most common special modifiers to further prevent confusion.
Or perhaps it could show up in paranthesis instead:

Code Select Expand


(Armed) The tall, muscular man is standing here.

This would only show in the Long Description though, so any emotes won't include the (Armed) bit.

Also, would you have to tag items as "weapons" or would it just show up if someone was ep'ing or etwo'ing something?  What about holding?

I'd say weapons only, otherwise the change becomes meaningless.  Es, ep or etwo, as long as its size (perhaps the code could work on object weight instead) is above a certain value or perhaps depending on the weapon type, making all dagger-type weapons exempt.

[LauraMars]

What if they were armed and NAKED?  I don't see why holding weapons is so important that it gets a squiggle when something like being covered in blood from head to foot or being nude would not.  Glance command (with a PARTIAL LIST, wear whores) of eq would be better.

It is a unique and creative idea but perhaps it could be modified to be more inclusive to other important states of being.

[Larrath]

First of all, nakedness is more difficult to detect - what if you're wearing nothing but a headband that has attached cloth drapes that cover the rest of the body?  Or wearing nothing but a loincloth around the waist, or whatever.

Second, you can't glance or look at people in other rooms.

Third, there's a much greater justification to have an indicator for a person being armed and dangerous than having an indicator for a person that has been in combat recently or is naked.

Consider walking in the 'rinth and seeing a group of four NPCs to the north.  Wouldn't you like to know whether they're holding any weapons or not, or would you be more interested in knowing if they're naked?

[bloodfromstone]

I can see the usefulness, but I don't particularly like it being on the mdesc. It might go good under assess or something.

[Larrath]

I can see the usefulness, but I don't particularly like it being on the mdesc. It might go good under assess or something.

Mdesc = main description = the verbose description when you type Look Man.
Ldesc = long description = what you see when you type Look in the room.
Sdesc = short description = what we see instead of names.

The main description can only be seen when you're in the same room with the character or NPC.  The long description can be seen from as much as 3 rooms away if you look in a direction.

Assess, Look, Glance, Consider or whatever other commands require that you be in the same room with the character, which reduces some of the functionality.

The whole thing could be pretty awesome, really.  Ranged weapons could be seen from 2 rooms away, bows from 3 rooms.  Other weapons would be visible based on distance - daggers at either the same room or not at all, light swords from one room away, axes from 2 and spears/greatswords from 3.

[Jherlen]

Instead of some kind of tag, if we were going to do this, I would prefer something appended to ldesc instead.

Code Select Expand

The tall, muscular man is standing here, wielding a curved obsidian scimitar.

But I don't think even that is a very good idea.

You can also have some weapons drawn without anyone noticing - I wouldn't want that ability to be foiled by a simple look to the room. If I've drawn my poisoned backstabbing dagger and am about to gut somebody, I feel like people should have to look right at me closely to notice I'm palmning a blade.

Similarly for knowing if someone is wielding or not from another room. You're far enough away you might not be able to tell.

[Larrath]

Why aren't people reading the posts?

Daggers and sufficiently small weapons would be exempt.  Other weapons would be visible from other rooms based on their type and weight - it's hard to hold a weapon in both hands without anybody noticing it.  A shortsword could be seen from one room away, and a longsword might be seen from two rooms away.  Three rooms away would show spears and other oversized weaponry.

As for it being in the ldesc, that would mean some people would be discouraged from setting an ldesc while wielding weapons, and that would be a shame.

[Jherlen]

Okay. I missed the bit about daggers. I still don't like it, though.

Can the code differentiate between shortswords, longswords, daggers, spears, handaxes, greataxes, etc?

More directly, a one-handed spear and a dagger are both piercing weapons. Can the code tell that one is a dagger and should be hidden, and one is a spear and should not?

I suppose you could do it by weight, but that might get kludgy.

I would find anything like an (Armed) tag or even a ! in front of somebody's name a little jarring. Especially considering the frequency of how often you would see a tag like this. Even in taverns, any noble hanging around will have an armed guard with them. In the wastes or less lawful places, nearly everyone will probably be armed. I don't think I need to be reminded of that every time I type look.

Wouldn't mind something added to assess -v, or a glance command, etc. But this is too much.

[Larrath]

...as long as its size (perhaps the code could work on object weight instead) is above a certain value or perhaps depending on the weapon type, making all dagger-type weapons exempt.

I don't know if Arm works like this since it doesn't seem to have separate skills for weapon type (working on damage type instead), but in regular DIKU a weapon has two flags that identify it - weapon type to determine skill (sword, mace, dagger, spear) and damage type (slashing, crushing, acidic bite, holy damag).

Regardless, since Arm's code can have fractions in object weight, it's very likely that even the smallest spear would weigh considerably more than any small dagger in the game.  Metal and obsidian are both somewhat heavy, but holding a metal weapon without anyone noticing it is already impossible and obsidian is usually shiny and reflects light.

Adding this to glance - sure.
Adding it to assess -v is pointless because people simply don't use assess -v that frequently, and they usually do after checking Look first.

But for the Nth time, glance and assess -v work only when you're in the same room.  This suggestion would let you see if people in adjacent rooms are armed or not.

[Seeker]

Not a fan. Not a big opponent, either.

If you cannot see that the person in the next room is wearing a seventeen-foot tall, brightly-colored feathered hat, I don't see that it's realistic that you can notice that he has a sling in one hand.

Within the same room, I lean towards the other objections already mentioned.  An alert player can spend the effort to monitor his environment with the tools we already have.

I think its a useful feature, but it decreases the paranoia and caution required to play, which may or may not be the direction we want.


Seeker

[Medena]

Third, there's a much greater justification to have an indicator for a person being armed and dangerous than having an indicator for a person that has been in combat recently or is naked.

Consider walking in the 'rinth and seeing a group of four NPCs to the north.  Wouldn't you like to know whether they're holding any weapons or not, or would you be more interested in knowing if they're naked?

While I the player might find it a great deal more useful to know if they were armed, -realistically-, I am just as likely to notice that they have an axe sticking out of their chest or are buck naked as I am to notice they are holding a club. I mean, what if they are turned half away from me?

I'm sorry Larrath, but I am strenuously opposed to this idea. It's really creative and all, but to me, having a flag, no matter how small, on PC's would make the mud look like a hack and slash where everything has [evil] [glowing] [flying] in front of it.  It would just spoil the feel of the scene.

[Jherlen]

[But for the Nth time, glance and assess -v work only when you're in the same room.  This suggestion would let you see if people in adjacent rooms are armed or not.

I understand that. I'm saying it would still be too jarring for my taste to be seeing (Armed) or ! in front of half the people you walk past in rooms. I don't think being able to tell whether or not somebody is armed from a distance is a good enough tradeoff for this. (If you're exploring the 'rinth or a cave and see a crowd of dudes hanging around looking tough, you ought to know better than to just walk up and say hi anyway.)

Also, I don't see a direct correlation between how heavy or not something is, and how easy it is to notice. You can make up excuses for things like obsidian and metal (though, I think hiding a metal dagger inside your cloak is perfectly possible), but what about other kinds of weapons? Stone daggers exist, for example. They may be too "heavy" to hide, even though in terms of volume they're pretty small. Wooden swords also exist, and some of them might be light enough to be hideable, which would be just as bad. I know it's pointless to argue implementation without being able to look at code artifacts, but my point here is that I don't think it's necessarily simple or trivial, which means it should be thought over carefully.

Sticking this into assess -v makes sense to me. If it had some added functionality it might be used more frequently. It would tell you the most basic stuff you could know about somebody... Bob is human, Bob is a man, how tall/heavy/old Bob is, whether Bob is bleeding or exhausted, and whether Bob is wielding weapons. (We could even throw in a "Bob is naked" too, just to make Laura happy.)

Basically, I agree with a way to make information that somebody is wielding weapons available without having to look at them. I don't agree with it being pushed onto everyone every time they type look. I would find that jarring.

[X-D]

The problem as I see it is figuring out exactly when the flag would be vis.

Sure, some knife, easily concealed in a hand even.

Now then, How about a club? Sap? hatchet?

Easily concealed if somebody is wearing  even a small cloak.

Now, how about all these people wearing big heavy leather cloaks? That should cover everything short of the big etwo only weapons IMO. But all of them should still be noticed if you actually look.

Course, since I'm not in any way against the look echo. I prefer to just look at everybody in the room then decide if my char notices the weapon or cares.

So, though an interesting idea, I can't say as I think it is needed and don't like or dislike it at this point.

[LauraMars]

Something that I really don't NEED to point out, since you all know, but would like to do anyway is that you -can- place the fact that you are armed in your ldesc, and this can also be seen from other rooms.  I'm positive that I need to tell nobody that changing your ldesc is incredibly enriching to the world and other players.  Still, I tell, I tell.

And because of the decision making capabilities which each (most...a few) of us have, we can decide if we're waving that little wooden dagger around in the open or draping the folds of our cloak over it.  I still don't think we need a squiggle when we can already alert the entire room, and surrounding rooms, if we're armed or not.  If indeed we believe we need to.

This has limitations, naturally, especially if someone decides not to use it, (I see far too little ldesc use) or abuses it.  But it's better than seeing the checkmark or whatever next to the heavily cloaked ranger from three rooms away in the grasslands and knowing that he's got his ..."bone sword" out.  Hehe. Hehehehe.  *ahem* It makes things a little too easy.

Naked Bob with his steel greatsword had better have the sense to re'conize.

change ldesc stands here nude, wielding a steel sword.

[Maybe42or54]

To me, this is a no no.

It unbalances the equation goodtimes=badtimes in the badtimes' favor.

I don't see how this will help much.

I wont see anyone wielding a weapon until I look at them, or glance at them, but when I walk into a bar, I doubt I'm going to see a guy holding a hatchet on the bar. It isn't like they are always waving it above their head.

[spawnloser]

Consider walking in the 'rinth and seeing a group of four NPCs to the north.  Wouldn't you like to know whether they're holding any weapons or not, or would you be more interested in knowing if they're naked?

I think that the distance between rooms is not the same as the distance from your kitchen to your dining room.  It is VERY possible that you can not tell if the person is naked OR wielding a weapon from as far away as some rooms are.  I mean, consider being in the largest city in 100 miles from where you currently live...and consider that Allanak is only about 30 rooms across (internally).  So, you can look and see three rooms away.  Do you think you could see very much about the person that is 1/10th of the city away from you?  Realistically, could you even see that he is blond and blue eyed? ...or tall and muscular?  I mean, half of the information in someone's sdesc shouldn't be able to be seen from that far away, so why should we be able to see if there are weapons in hand, clothes not on body or blood coating the person?

[Synthesis]

Just a note: The code already adds an ldesc for you if you're covered from head to toe in blood:

"The clueless noob is standing here, bleeding profusely."

If the code does it for wounds, it should do it for weapons.

Thumbs up.

I'd have it look something like:

"The ultimate d00d stands here, weapons drawn."

It has about the same extra verbiage as "bleeding profusely," and adds a bit of very useful and immediately desirable information.

Also, I'd add a separate ldesc for holding a bow or wielding a crossbow:

"The deadeye sharpshooter stands here, holding a bow."

The code already adds an ldesc for when you're taking aim ("Soandso is standing here, taking aim."  Or somesuch...), so why not before, when you've got everything ready but the aiming?

Ultimate thumbs up.

[Moofassa]

Hate it. It's too jarring, in my mind.

! bob walks in the room.


ew.

[bloodfromstone]

Synthesis' twist on the idea works much better, for me. Good call.

[Larrath]

! bob walks in the room.

Excuse me, I need to go shoot myself.

Anyway, Synthesis' idea also looks good.

If it does get added, it would be nice to see it working together with the injury ldescs so you don't get things like "The tall, muscular man is standing here, bleeding profusely, holding a bow".

"The tall muscular man is here, holding a bow and bleeding profusely" would be nicer.

[Cegar]

Personally, I hate the injury sdescs.

the puffy, preening noble is here, bleeding profusely.

the mousy servant says, "OH MY HIGHLORD!"

the puffy, preening noble says , "Yeah, I was just poisoned by eating food."

the mousy servant says, "Then why are you bleeding all over, my Lord?"


I hate situations like that SO MUCH.

[LauraMars]

I hate situations like that SO MUCH.

Yeah, the "bleeding" code is very much Diku h&s stock solution to a problem which, in roleplay rich zalanthas, more often than not has multiple answers.  It's irritating.  "not well" "in moderate condition" "does not look well."  Those are better descriptions.  Do you really think people would spar with each other with BLUNTED WOODEN WEAPONS if they were going to lose so much blood every time?  If you really are a gushing hemmorage then fine, the code works in your favor.  But a lot of times, you're not.

Synthesis' idea = better.