-H to turn off code echo on commands?

[gfair]

Just had a thought - there are many fixed room echos when we use commands.  After a while, that part gets boring.  And you're doubling-up when you do the commands, and then write an emote on it, which personally I would rather not do.

Idea:

Add a -H modifier to some commands, which would hide the coded echo to both the player and the room, allowing us to replace it with an original emote or three?

Just a thought.

[Marauder Moe]

Bad idea.  WAY to much room for abuse.

[gfair]

Bad idea.  WAY to much room for abuse.

Could you provide at least a couple examples when you pass judgement? This doesn't help anyone figure out what you mean, how you see the idea.

Also, just a point - any hard-coded command can potentially be abused.  And as some have said in the past, you don't even need code to abuse it.

So the question is not whether it can be abused or not, but how much can people abuse it before they get caught by the staff?

[Crestor]

Which commands were you thinking of in particular?

If I'm thinking the same way as Marauder Moe, any commands that affect the room (e.g. dropping something, getting something) with this -H flag would be open for abuse by simply using the flag and not emoting.

Voila - invisible actions.

I realise these commands probably weren't the ones you had in mind, but that might've been what Moe thought.

[gfair]

Which commands were you thinking of in particular?

Voila - invisible actions.

Right, let me clarify - the specific commands I won't think through, there are a lot. But if you use the -h modifier, you are obligated to emote out something.  Too much -h without emotes is abuse, and can be as easily caught by staff.

Let's talk about a specific example, spice.  Somehow you managed to get spice into 'Nak, but a Soldier stops you, you stinking Tuluki, you.

The soldier gets distracted for a moment, you type "put -h knot cloak".  No room echo.  The soldier may not see it even if you -don't- use -h, but let's assume a loyal 'Nakki citizen just happens to be watching you.

Using -h obligates you to emote, but lets you emote more generally, rather than letting the full crowd of 30 other PCs in the Barrel decide whether or not they saw you stuff that knot of viscuous black spice into your cloak.  See what I mean? You could have been stuffing a shard of obsidian, a piece of mandible, or any other small black object in, but with the code it shows everyone.

So you emote:

em grabs a small black object and quickly plunges his hand into his cloak.


That's -h in an example where the person could just as easily use -h and type no emote - it has the potential for abuse, as does so much in this game.  In fact, isn't it true that there must be room for abuse by dishonest players to allow all players greater freedom?  Abuse can be caught, as much in this scenario as in others.

Perhaps the -h command wouldn't turn off the room echo, only make it more stealthy, so only those with high visibility, or immortals, could notice specifically what happened.

So ... there are a wide range of commands that could potentially gain, and naturally to allow greater freedom the code can't be 100% abuse-free.  Or at least, those are both opinions of mine.

[Bestatte]

If you did that gfair, then there'd really be no point at all to the steal, palm, or plant skills.

We have skills that allow you to do sneaky things, and if you're good enough with them, you won't get caught and there will be no echo. Having something like an -h modifier allows anyone to do those sneaky things without any consequences.

Obligating us to emote..meh. There are times during a given 24 hour period when there are no IMMs to "catch" people who might abuse something like this. It is -too- easily abuseable to risk, in my opinion. Yes, anything can be abused. Most things are, by one person or another, at one point or another. But you don't want to hand a loaded gun to a killer and ask them pretty please don't shoot you. This would be a loaded gun.

[Crestor]

Hmm, see your argument and I agree that there might be valid commands that would benefit in some way from it (in reference to your example: can you not do a similar thing already with palm or sleight-of-hand?  It's been a while since I used either...)

However, surely it's just as simple to emote after the coded echo and assume that your emote takes precedence?  I accept that there are times that you don't WANT the other PCs in the room to e.g. notice that spice you're hiding away, or you don't want to rely on them to ignore what they know the code is telling them...

...but as you said, players have to be allowed some freedom.  And with that freedom comes risk.  Risk that, in this example, they won't ignore the coded echo.

Having said that, I do think it's an interesting idea.  It just needs further exploring.

Edit: Bestatte beat me to it regarding the sneaky skills already in place.  I need to type faster.  

[creeper386]

Even if it just got rid of the sit stand echoes it could end up being pretty abusable.

Someone just sits at your table with that on, emoting doing something and change their ldesc... They don't even need listen untill someone finally look table or look tables. Pretty damn abusable.

Use it for stand. People just stand up with it. Maybe they will emote, maybe not. They could just attack ... Leave ... Sneak away ... Hide ... And noone would even know they GOT UP from where they were sitting. WAY abusable. Anywhere from a bar scene to out in the desert.

Now, I don't think the current sneaky skills allow you to stash anything away unnoticed. Just get stuff out, but does that mean EVERYONE should be able to do it? I really don't think so. You don't want to give other players the choice rather or not they see the action. I don't blame you from just watching characters instantly know someone else as stepped into the tavern and what not, but still no reason to make everyone uber quick, snap of the fingers, didn't see what I did magicians.

Obligated to emote? I'd say you're obligated to emote alot of the time. Doesn't mean it happens all the time. How far would this "hide coded echos" go? Perhaps it will hide movement echos? Hide combat echos? Someone just sees their HP going down and doesn't know why? Of course it'll hide put, drop and get? If it helps out non-sneaks so much in being sneaky, it'll have to help sneaks with their hiding and their sneaking and their stealing. As you know, they are trying to go unnoticed, like the other people using the command. Oh, I know. Next... Lets make it a SKILL that hides the coded echos!!! Yeah that'll work.

Ooh, my point. The idea is ridiculous for the most part. Suggest more commands have the code to allow emotes onto them. Or something. Not a coded way to just make all or most all echos go away. Ooh, people with scan might be able to see it... Hmm... What about people WATCHING you pretty damn close. Maybe that soldier doesn't have scan, but he's right their glaring down at you as you stash something away. Let me tell you, maybe a different situation, but let some cops IRL think you have something illegal on you. Then when they approach you quickly stash something away. Depending on where your at and what your dressed like... Everything from a polite conversation to having guns pulled on you could very well happen. As they'll see that movement of you hiding something.

HmmHmmHmmm...


Creeper

[Callisto]

No.

[spawnloser]

No.

[Quirk]

I'm opposed to this because it would be too twinkable. I really regret having to be opposed to it, as it would undoubtedly make the game world a better place when used responsibly.

However there is no coded way to "anti-palm", that is, put something away secretly, so those who argue the code handles that already are not quite on the mark. As suggested, however, it would however obviate the need for palm via get -h.

Quirk