Emote balance

by Richter

Back to Ideas.

Richter2005-08-14 23:07:37
I brought this up before, but I'm not sure what became of the thread. I had a great idea for emotes:

Have them work on their own balance.

See, if I want to "snigger like a raving madman" or "smile evilly at someone" why should it affect my balance? I believe the point of having emotes tied to balance was so that people could not abuse them. That's fine and good, but I can't twirl my mace around, and then hit someone. I have to do the emote, wait, and then do whatever it is that I was going to do.

Please, can we have emotes run on thier own balance?
Ialie2005-08-14 23:34:53
Yeah I don't see the point of custome emote balance when you can abuse imgame emotes in the same way.


Gaetele2005-08-15 01:36:16
Seriously. Shouldn't the time it takes to type out the emote be balance enough? And if you have an alias, that would make it EXACTLY like an ingame emote (albeit with your title on if you have one).

Also, I adopt the movement for the option to turn titles off in your emotes.
Morik2005-08-15 01:56:25
QUOTE(Ialie @ Aug 15 2005, 07:34 AM)
Yeah I don't see the point of custome emote balance when you can abuse imgame emotes in the same way.
166634



Yup, you can use in-game emotes as attack-like lines. Yup!
Gaetele2005-08-15 02:02:18
From what I've seen of most Lusternia combat lines, they don't often start out with the person's name in the beginning. Thus, emotes shouldn't trigger reflexes or cures unless under certain circumstances.
Terenas2005-08-15 02:08:30
Not particularly. I could just emote the first line that uses my name. Add enough spaces to make an affliction shows up on the next line, then use enough spacings for the rest. It's incredibly easy to abuse, giving emote its own balance would open up for so much abuse. Removing titles in emotes is great, putting emote on its own balance is a bad idea.
Sylphas2005-08-15 02:28:02
So far, taken as a whole, people want either no balance/own balance emotes, without titles, and some people even want targetted or otherwise even more custom emotes. While I'm sure we all want Illusions, if it's that important to you, make a mage.
Unknown2005-08-15 04:50:07
On MUSHclient, at least, you can make your triggers ignore certain colors (or even only trigger on certain colors). And you can set emotes to display a different color. So I don't really think that's a worthwhile abuse of emotes, because it's so easy to get around.
Richter2005-08-15 04:50:30
I think people are missing my point.
Unknown2005-08-15 09:32:28
I think it'd be neat to have emotes on their own separate balance. It'd give combat so much more color if you could throw in grunts and taunts without having to sacrifice attack rounds.

And, as someone said, most attack lines cannot be properly faked by emotes, emotes can be colored differently to instantly be recognizable as such, and finally, seeing as you cannot have more than one consecutive space in an emote, you cannot really do affliction lines in anything but the most crude and obviously fake way.

Any trigger that would be fooled by an emote attack/affliction could be abused right now too, seeing as emotes can be quite long and contain alot more than just one or two attacks and afflictions. So having them on a separate balance wouldn't really make them all the more abusable in the end, I think.

Go separate emote balance cheer.gif
Gregori2005-08-15 13:03:12
There are more than enough affliction lines that start with the person's name to make it abuseable. In fact all you need is one affliction line with the person's name first and it is abuseable. Manual curers "purists" rarely fell for emote attacks, but trigger users, have always been quite easily fooled by someone who can emote properly. Essentialy, making emote another attack if the person had fast enough balance.

QUOTE
emote quickly flings a tarot card at you, and you feel unreasonable lust
emote stands a tarot on his open palm, and blows it lightly at you.
emote raises a hand towards you and blasts you with cold, frigid air.
emote twirls his staff above you and brings it crashing down on your left arm. A bone breaks with an audible snap, rendering the limb useless.
emote throws a Lovers tarot at you and as it strikes true, you fall in love with him.
emote quickly flings a tarot card at you, and you feel unreasonable lust
emote pronounces that you are under an ill omen
emote succeeds and carries you, knocking you to the ground.
emote slings a ger rune and an othala rune at you, hitting you in the chest.
emote slings an othala rune at you, hitting you in the chest.
emote slams you hard to the ground, and you are crushed under his weight.
emote tilts his head back and bellows at you, forcing you to cover your ears.
emote grabs some glowing glyphs and throws them at you.
emote begins to chant in a deep and baleful voice, and an iron cross rises up
emote points his athame at you and vines shoot forth, entangling you
emote hurls a tarot card with the image of the Hanged Man on it at you. As it reaches you, a huge mass of rope bursts out of it, entrapping and hindering you.
emote points a golden ring at you, and sparks fly out of it.


Those are just breif examples of emotes that can seriously mess someone up if emote had its own balance,and even on regular balance, but very fast races using it, can be quite hazardous to people with automated systems.
Unknown2005-08-15 14:56:24
It all boils down to how well your system is done.

It is very easy to avoid emoted attacks by configuring Lusternia to make emotes show up in a different color and making your system set a temporary ignore flag when that color shows up.

Also, the same kind of fake attack can already be done via SAY, which has its own balance, and TELL, which has no balance at all. Yet, hardly anybody protects their systems against that - an indication that such feigns aren't very common, don't you think?

So, I still think that the abusability of the suggested emotes is quite limited, whereas on the other hand having them operate on a separate balance would be -very- nice for all the roleplayers.

And, in the end, I can't imagine that giving emotes a separate balance is something that'll occupy a coder more than five minutes really. Why not just implement it and see what happens? It's one of those things that would make people happy while costing little.
Gregori2005-08-15 15:41:01
The same type of fake attack cannot be done with Say or Tell.

Emote = Gregori quickly flings a tarot card at you, and you feel unreasonable lust.

Say = Gregori says, "Gregori quickly flings a tarot card at you, and you feel unreasonable lust."

Tell = Gregori tells you, "Gregori quickly flings a tarot card at you, and you feel unreasonable lust."


Vastly different as it is easier to anchor a trigger than work with ansi color protection in most clients.
Unknown2005-08-15 18:31:16
*shrug* I'm going by what I've seen so far in various people's systems, which is most of them use hardly any anchors at all. Which is why most people get awfully upset if some unaware newbie pastes an affliction line on the guild channel.

It's probably pointless to argue though. I still think it'd be a neat, easy to do addition to the game to make people happy that could be implemented and just tested to see how it works out. But, telling from how much debate we have had about it already even in this thread, I reckon there'd be a few people who'd go above and beyond to prove just how much indeed it could be abused. Oh well.
Richter2005-08-15 18:36:46
So just nerf emotes then, aye? glare.gif
Stangmar2005-08-15 19:16:47
I remember when i was a noob i sent a letter full of affliction lines to some Celestian leaders to set off their reflexes as a joke. Got a 7 day Truedisfavour for that. unsure.gif
Bau2005-08-16 12:17:01
*snicker* that's not very nice, Stang.

That reminds me of the old days...

look
Epicurus' Garden
blah blah blah

Ringing vibrantly, a female voice shouts, "OK to commence the lesson."

Name1 exclaims, "OK!"

Name2 exclaims, "OK!"

Name3 exclaims, "OK!"

Name4 exclaims, "OK!"

Name5 exclaims, "OK!"
Richter2006-02-24 23:12:31
So here's the facts:

-The fact that emotes run on the same balance as skills do is lame.

-Using emotes in any way, shape, or form, to make triggers go off as if it was a skill, is strictly prohibited, completely ooc, and issueable.

My suggestion, if anyone missed it, was to have emotes run on a seperate balance. I'd like to be able to scream madly before I hit someone, or skip merrily before I exit the room, instead of waiting two or three seconds for my balance to come back. Someone mentioned that the time that it takes to type the emote should be enough. ...what? For any that are confused, balance is lost -after- you perform an action, not before.

In my opinion, skills and emotes should not share a balance for any reason.
Viravain2006-02-24 23:18:25
Gregori has already posted, using his excellent examples, of why this isn't likely going to happen. It's especially not going to be changed, *just* because some people will have 'better systems than others'. Use some common sense.
Richter2006-02-24 23:25:10
QUOTE(Viravain @ Feb 24 2006, 03:18 PM) 262110

Gregori has already posted, using his excellent examples, of why this isn't likely going to happen. It's especially not going to be changed, *just* because some people will have 'better systems than others'. Use some common sense.


Use some common sense? huh.gif Systems have nothing to do with my points.

Gregori posted why idiots and metagamers could try to abuse emotes. Know what? You can currently do that, you just can't hit when you do it. It's still ooc, it's still illegal, and I don't think that RP should have to suffer because some people "might" abuse something like this.

As I said in the other thread, I fail to see why people will shoot something down, because it could be abused, in the exact same way (or in this case, almost exact), as the current thing already can.

In this case, we're making allowances for cheaters and idiots. Not saying that this would get implemented anyway, but a major point is, "It could be abused", and I think that's far from a valid point.