Would it be possible to add a system message saying "You heard X sneaking about" or "You spotted X sneaking about", as appropriate, when you detect someone in stealth? This would solve two major problems: 1) the current impossibility of telling whether someone is sneaking or just plain walking if you have a high Spot modifier or if you didn't notice them appearing on your screen, and 2) the confusion and unintentional metagaming that arises from people sometimes mistakenly "recognizing" sneaks that they actually only heard. To this end, the heard-message could even include a reminder that you don't know any details about who in particular is skulking nearby.

Thoughts?

I've played on servers with vaguely similar scripts, and they are quite useful. However, the inherent problem specifically to the "You hear X sneak about" script is that people would assume that as they read the name there, they know precisely who it is, even though they've merely heard and not seen the person.

easy:

Successful listen check - You have heard something moving nearby. Successful spot check - You have seen player X trying to sneak nearby.

9lives I've played on servers with vaguely similar scripts, and they are quite useful. However, the inherent problem specifically to the "You hear X sneak about" script is that people would assume that as they read the name there, they know precisely who it is, even though they've merely heard and not seen the person.

Anthee To this end, the heard-message could even include a reminder that you don't know any details about who in particular is skulking nearby.

I like what Chezcaliente added, if that could be done. It would be great.

You could even say a general direction of the sound too to know which direction to at least hunt.

Except that I think that checks are done at engine level, I may be wrong. But if you have a scripted listen check, and a non scripted one, you get clashes like:

what happens if the engine shows someone as "heard" and your scripted check doesn't?

What happens if you hear someone and the engine doesn't show them because the engine check failed?

I don't think it's worth while and would Probably be a clunky heartbeat system that would cause lag.

On the other hand, IF you can detect "onstealth" somehow, adding a vfx to someone stealthing would allow you to know the difference between someone Actively hiding and someone just standing there (which can't be determined at the moment)

The server events have hooks (on heard and on percieved). I'll have to think about this one. I'm not sure about how much spam it will create. Probably quite a bit actually.

This is not really desirable, since as it is, if you see someone solidly, you see them whether they're sneaking or not. If you hear something, you see a pellucid version of the PC.

In short, it's pretty clear as is, without a crazy script.

I would be so happy if there was some way to prevent, "I see an invisible female standing right in front of me." I feel like I explain the 'heard not seen' rule at least once or twice every time I log in. Almost all of the time, people are very willing to quickly fix their mistakes and learn from them, but it would be even better if it just didn't have to be said. It only takes one person to exclaim he's "SEEN" an invisible person to fiddle stuff up.

I assume on efu the WHITE aura is always used to describe HEARD not SEEN.

I guess this can get confusing if you have true seeing or detect invisibility up and the engine is still showing you WHITE AURA even though you can effectively see them completely.

The white aura is only for people who are invisible.

Metro_Pack This is not really desirable, since as it is, if you see someone solidly, you see them whether they're sneaking or not. If you hear something, you see a pellucid version of the PC.

In short, it's pretty clear as is, without a crazy script.

A simple scenario where this matters a whole lot:

A and B are talking, C is eavesdropping on them in stealth. A wouldn't be suspicious of C even if he saw C, but B would be: C knows this, so he tries not to be seen. Now, currently, if it so happens that A spots C but B does not -- without A noticing C's appearance on his screen -- A wouldn't get suspicious because C shows on his screen exactly as any non-stealthed PC would. Realistically, however, C is actually trying really hard not to be spotted (ie C is stealthed) because of B knowing him, something that A would notice if he did indeed spot C. This, then, would of course make A suspicious even though, unlike B, he has no reason to suspect C as a person.

So essentially, the mere fact that someone is stealthed tells something important about their motives in any given situation.

Obviously, there are numerous situations sharing a structural similarity with this scenario where the sneaker has an advantage due to this simple distinguishment that the NWN engine is incapable of making. Things are definitely not "clear as is".

I see your point, but the benefit is relatively minor in terms of scripting priority, and the fact that 80% of the server uses stealth mode for walking anyway whether sneaking or not.

Still, a well thought out suggestion.