Lephys

Ahh, I see. I just recognized the name as a character from the Wheel of Time book series, and knew nothing of the relationship between poster names and included game characters, 8P. Thanks for the lesson, ^_^

Lanfear? Will Robert Jordan's widow have to get in on the rock-paper-scissors battle over who gets to bill? Or is that not also a reference to an Interplay "asset"?

Granted. But, that's a bit closer to someone than I intended. I'm just saying that, for example, your sheer presence shouldn't really alert anyone to anything. I mean, you'd probably agree that if there was a 10-foot-thick solid stone wall between you and an enemy, then he probably would have much difficulty either seeing or hearing ANY indication of your presence, correct? And yet, you'd still be within the radius within which he's capable of detecting things, under normal circumstances. Varying circumstances are represented by changes in the system's factors (movement on loud floor = increased noise radius, etc.), not represented by the base system, itself. It's kind of like line of sight with a ranged weapon. Sure, you can hit something within 30 feet, maybe, but if it's on the other side of a 10-foot-wide oak tree, you have to move before you can hit it. Your radius is simply the range at which you can make an attack, not the total area in which you are always capable of making an attack. So, I just think we need to make sure the system we're sort of brainstorm-assembling here actually logistically allows for base ranges/radii/mechanics, etc, which are then modified by relevant circumstances, whatever they may be. I'd rather it just say "well, he's looking the other way, so he's not going to SEE you right now" than sit there and have to convolutedly calculate how many stealth ticks we need to give a Rogue because he should, feasibly, be able to sneak past this guard behind his back, or exactly how to build levels and position sentries so that the overlapping radii always allow for an appropriate amount of tick-depletion to provide the means to sneak past them (i.e. no guards blocking 5-foot-wide alleyways, because you'd ALWAYS have to sneak so close to them that your potential for detection would spike crazily. *shrug*. It just seems a lot easier, for balancing and tweaking and such, to just account for factors that wouldn't actually contribute to your detection at all. For what it's worth, I'm all for little things like the emperor example; if you're in a polished marble room, maybe the radius in which you begin slipping towards detection/investigation is greatly increased. I would expect lighting and fog and such to affect this, so why not room-surface reflectivity? At least, when it's an extreme difference like that (super shiny marble versus regular stone). And, same with sound; sneaking on cobblestones should be much noisier than sneaking on dirt. So, it makes sense that there should be times when sneaking on dirt -- between the quietness of the dirt and your at-least-decent ability to sneak -- that your sound radius is so small that you could sneak within 5-10 feet of someone who couldn't see you at the time without audibly causing any alert whatsoever (or even any risk of it, no matter how many times you tromp back and forth on that dirt), while sneaking on a different ground/floor material would lead to at least potential suspicion. As opposed to "doesn't matter 'cause you're so close to the person, your stealth ticks are going to deplete at SOME rate, even though you're pretty much making no noise." Another thing I just realized (at least, as a collective thought), is that your radius could simply represent noise, while the sentry's radius could represent sight. So, if the sentry touches your circle, he's heard you, and if you touch his circle, he sees you. Fog/lighting could affect his circle (shadows could cut off a 30ft vision cone/radius at the 15ft mark, etc.), and floor material + boot material + Sneak skill, etc, could affect the size of your noise circle (walking on grass puts out a 5 foot circle, while walking on marble floor puts out a 20ft circle, etc.). Then, your Sneak skill (maybe coupled with the sentry's Perception skill? Kind of like your to-hit chance ranges being decided by attack-vs-defense) could affect two main things: the rate at which your points deplete towards detection, and the dividing line between suspicion/detection zones in a given sentry's radius. Just like in JFSOCC's example, you'd have basically (at the very least) an outer zone and inner zone. In the outer zone, only your Suspicion points("ticks") deplete. If they're gone, the sentry notices SOMEthing, but doesn't actually know what, and investigates. At this point, even the outer zone will begin depleting actual detection points. The inner zone will immediately spark suspicion and begin depleting detection points. As for the effects of your Sneak (and possibly the sentry's Perception) on the zones, if a guard has awesome perception, and you suck at sneaking, then maybe his ENTIRE perception range is one big detection (inner) zone, and the suspicion (outer) zone has been snuffed out of existence by the huge different in your skills. Or, on the other extreme, you are a master Sneakist, and the sentry is a militia farm boy, then maybe the divider gets pushed the other direction, and his entire radius is one big suspicion (outer) zone. (Or, most of it... I think both zones should maybe be maintained, even if one is quite small). If your Sneak and his Perception are evenly matched, then the divider will be at the halfway mark; the outer half of the radius will threaten suspicion, and the inner half of the radius will threaten full detection. Same goes for enemy Perception vs. your Sneak for your noise radius. It's almost the exact opposite, functionally. If his Perception is really high, and your Sneak is teh suck, then your noise radius will be mostly detection and barely any suspicion. The only difference here is that your points will deplete when he is in your circle, and not when you are in his (as with sight). If his Perception sucks, and your Sneak is awesome, then most of your circle will merely threaten suspicion, instead of detection. And if they're even, 50/50. The way this seems to have value, to me, is that visual and audible detection will vary under different circumstances. If it's super dark, but you're on cobblestones, then your noise radius will be the major concern, since it will be something like 30 feet and the sentries' sight radius will be maybe 15 or so. So, you want to be more quiet than you do hidden. But, if it's bright outside and there's little cover, and the ground's made of soft grass, your noise radius will be MUCH smaller than the sentry's sight radius (it's a LOT easier to see someone in broad daylight, even at 50 feet, than it is to hear them at that distance, unless they're being VERY loud). But, even with the circumstantial difference in detection radii, your skill still comes into play to further effect your radius's relation to detection chance/rate. For example, a novice Sneaker might still have trouble sneaking on quiet ground past a sentry 20 feet away if his noise radius is 15 feet, but most of it is Detection zone (automatic investigation, begin depletion of detection points towards full detection). Whereas, a pro sneaker, under the exact same circumstances, might easily walk on even louder ground (giving him a 30ft circle instead of a 20ft one) because so much of his noise radius is merely Suspicion (outer) zone, and his points deplete more slowly on top of that. If that makes any sense. They say a picture is worth a thousand words... Maybe I should just draw a couple of pictures. 8P

What if it's really just 1 actual arrow, and the other 19 are soul-powered ethereal clone arrows? 8D For reallies, though... what if the combat mechanics support things such as shield-disarms (breaking the opponent's shield arm and/or the straps/rigging by which the shield is held?), or possibly even (though more iffy) armor, ehh... disablement? What I mean is, you actually smash some big orc's torso so as to cause his breastplate to come partially detached. Basically (you people probably have better ideas and examples than I to handle the details), things that would enable/increase ranged weapons' effectiveness. Like Trashman said, a shield's gonna stop a lot of arrows, as opposed to lessening their damage or something. So, shield up, bow ineffective. Shield down, though, and bow is now quite effective (or much more so than it previously was). Like I said, partially dis-armoring people is a bit iffy of an idea. But, I figure that kind of stuff had to happen in war/battle, right? Even without armor "durability," you've still got "Oh no, my pauldron's come off" and such. Granted, you're probably pretty wounded from that blow. But... *shrug*. Like I said... iffy. I was just thinking that, mechanically, you're opening up larger holes in armor, thereby allowing professional bow-aimers a greater chance to hit flesh and not armor.

Well said, Fearabbit. I couldn't have said it better (even though I tried, but failed miserably). Basically, my take is that pickpocketing is very much implemented in games as a good thing packaged with a bad thing. Like a birthday cake with shards of glass in it. If you take out the shards of glass, you still have cake, and it's delicious and doesn't prevent you from enjoying it. And shards of glass aren't necessary to have cake, just as many of the things that are in pickpocketing systems aren't inherent to the sheer idea of pickpocketing. Obviously people are allowed to find pickpocketing not super exciting. However, it's very hard to eat the shards-o-glass cake and say, with confidence, "No, it's definitely a problem with the cake recipe, even without the shards."

It might be interesting if you could actually go into one or more libraries (or simply happen upon book collections) throughout the game, and read books on the various languages. Just as sort of extraneous lore, but useful and interesting extraneous lore (with pronunciation lessons and such).

This might've already been touched on somewhere around in the forums, but in the interest of consolidated smaller ideas within this single thread: More intuitive indicators for the well-being of a foe (like the BG "uninjured, barely injured, injured, badly injured, near death"). I actually kind of like the idea of not actually knowing exactly how many hitpoints something has, but instead just knowing how its currently faring relative to its total health, but I think maybe an icon or something that pops up rather instantly upon mouse-over might do better than -- to use BG as an example -- waiting on a scroll to unravel and read the state of the enemy. It's information based on your characters' perception (even if not mechanically done so), so I'd think it wouldn't take 5 seconds to figure out if something seems to be limping badly and bleeding profusely out its eye or not. My tentative idea (open to further improvement, as always), was maybe an icon (a heart or something? Whatever reads well), which sort of loses fragments for each stage of wounding (uninjured to barely injured, and so on). So, if you see one little heart fragment, you know it's near death. An almost-complete heart icon would mean it's still doing fine, or barely injured, at a glance. Of course, we could always just use health bars, but, I just thought the idea of a simple indicator (like the BG scrolls) was kind of nice as opposed to an exact meter. *shrug*

I would back five thou--sand dollars, ohhhh an' I would back five thou--sand more, just to BE the man who backs ten thou--sand DOLLARS an' falls down at Obsidian's door! LA DA-DAT-daaa (LA DA-DAT-daaa)... The official 10K backer theme song. Or... maybe just the wish-I-could've-been-a-10K-backer theme song? o_O

I vote that the three of them form a coalition, known only as the Portrait Posse. The results will ensure portraits so overbearingly glorious that none of us ever even make it past the character creation screen.

Especially if they don't post a photo immediately following that statement. Since we'd be then unable to even do as they said.

Agreed. Although, to be fair, sizes above 24-or-so might start causing problems with screen real estate, between dialogue boxes filling the entire screen and/or the player being inable to read more than about a short sentence at any given time without having to scroll. Who knows, though... Maybe there's some far-reaching voice that comes from inside the heads of those hearing it, for miles and miles, and to convey the sheer magnitude of its source, Obsidian uses Size 48 font for a brief moment, as it beckons thousands of people at once to succumb to some command or something. *shrug* Like you said... if they find a valid use for it, I say go for it.

Thanks for the reply, Osvir! I would've even welcomed a flat-out disagreement, here, so long as it was an actual response to what I actually typed. Yeah, I mean, it can obviously be over-used, as with anything. Sometimes you see it in sentences where all the words that are defaultly emphasized are all italicized or hugged by asterisks, and it's 3 words every other sentence. But, something that can be over-used can obviously be not-over-used, to effect. Then, of course, there's the matter of which to go with. Personally, I prefer italics or even bolding to asterisks and underlining, as they don't actually clutter up the text with extra symbols/markings. Capitalization even has its place. For example: "Synelle." "Synelle!" "SYNELLE!" Without the third one, the second could be anything from a serious/disciplinary tone to a shout at the top of one's lungs. If you see the third one, though, as opposed to the second one, you know that it represents an even greater intensity than just the exclamation point. Of course, much like italics and bolding, capitalization can sometimes get over-used by basically having it take the place of an exclamation point. But, it's pretty easy to take care not to over-use such devices.

Only if you can show me a screenshot of a game in which two people engaged in a dispute got a room and it was necessary. I suddenly find myself worrying about the necessity of anything Obsidian is doing in this game that they cannot show screenshot evidence of from existing games. Explanations have apparently become useless, and innovation no longer exists. O_O

Well, obviously there are times when it's not very useful. But, it really comes into play when you've got this world full of people and various cultures behaving and commenting on things. I mean, take cultural architecture. It's not about the player being able to identify which culture, in reality, that came from. It's about having a more developed understanding of actual, functional architecture, and the types of differences cultures have shown in their architectural styles, and what contributed to those differences. When you understand basic engineering, and the various materials and techniques people used and why, you can better build a virtual world in which even fictitious people build things certain ways because of the materials available to them or the environment in which they live. In other words, if the fictitious snow people build cities into the ice, and they (and other aspects of the game) actually reference and comment on the way in which they've adapted to the location and climate, as opposed to how another culture does it (out on some plains or something), then it starts falling apart really quickly when you just make a bunch of crap up. Sure, a bunch of made up stuff might work, but you're much more likely to start running into disconnects. Or, worse, if you just leave all that out, then you miss out on all the effects of cultural variation. If not the architecture and smithing and the general way in which they approach tasks/processes, and their reasons for this, then what makes them different from any other culture/people in the game world? Whereas, with a little real-world knowledge as a foundation, you can build a whole bunch of variations upon that, and they all already make sense and interconnect like Voltron. Flawlessly. Reality is a good example of how things effect other things, from physics to society. So, even when you start making up stuff, it fits nicely into the grand scheme of other things. It's hard to make a coherent game based hardly at all on realistic knowledge without it suffering in the depth department. "How did that guy get in here? We had the whole place covered!" "Because he's super stealthy!" "Yeah, but there wasn't even a crack to slip through or anything!" "Uhh... magic?" "Yeah, but we KNOW about teleportation magic. Why haven't we researched a way to disrupt such things in an area, or placed magical sentries who can take care of such threats, instead of simply assuming that regular dudes will be sufficient to stop someone from teleporting in here?" "Erm... because this is fiction?" I think being able to understand how, realistically (or verisimilitudinously?) someone got past all defenses to steal something or kidnap someone, in the context of the world, is much more effective in a narrative than "Oh man, this guy is so good, and he just got past everything and kidnapped the princess, because he's just that good." I mean, that makes me think "What's to stop him from just taking over the entire world, then? No one can stop him, apparently." Then you have to make up some way for him to be stopped, instead of it being more emergent and apparent from the situation. It's valuable to study the sort of glue of reality, so that you can better mix up a glue that holds together your fictitious reality. It's not about making fiction just like reality, but about making fiction work as well as reality works.

The best part about this is you didn't even address my allegation of the irrelevance of an actual screenshot/example directly from a game in proving the usefulness of visual word emphasis in dialogue text. You didn't disagree with me. You just pretended I didn't even say it. I'm not sure how you accidentally ignore an entire post, and respond to it anyway. I suppose it's possible, though. I don't know how to type words that will actually impact your thought process despite being ignored, so until I develop that superpower, I bid you adieu. *tips hat*

The topic isn't your quote and only your quote. Your quote is an example of the topic, which is the emphasis of specific words within a section of dialogue text via visual indication. Italics, bolding, asterisks... They're all just substitutes for one another. At the very least, if I'm off-topic, and you don't disagree with me (because the only thing you disagree with is the use of asterisks), then you agree with the use of visual indicators to emphasize key words, as long as it's not done with asterisks like in IWD 2. So, maybe I'm off your overly specific topic, but that still brings us to the fact that the potential for visual emphasis on key words serves a useful purpose. As for the "you haven't shown me any game examples" bit, that's utterly preposterous and irrelevant. If game examples were the only useful examples, then why did you point out the fact that authors have done without such "gimmicks" for years to support your argument that these "gimmicks" are pointless? By your very own reasoning, that wasn't a game example, and therefore was completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. Oh wait, except dialogue text is dialogue text, no matter if it is displayed within a game or printed upon a page. I can't believe you're serious, at this point. It's highly, highly improbable that you're not simply being difficult on purpose, for the jollies.

I'd actually like to know where I get you saying that, so I'm right there with you. You've depleted the benefit of the doubt. You're either so wrapped up in your own superiority of understanding that you're not even reading and attempting to comprehend others' posts (hence the "confusion"), or you're intentionally pretending to misunderstand in an attempt to facilitate frustration. Either way, a lack of effort on your part means a lack of purpose to any further effort on mine. I hope, at least, that your delusions of surpassing comprehension help you sleep better at night, so as to grant at least a modicum of purpose to your posts.

Undoubtedly. I had no intention of suggesting otherwise. I only think that, even when someone is already suspicious, there's a range of increased suspicion between "suspicion" and "detection." It's not as if suspicion automatically gives sentries the ability to have their senses override all other factors of noise and concealment, to the point of "Yep, I suspect that I may have heard yet another strange noise, and therefore I now know that there is definitely an intruder and exactly where that intruder currently is!" And I know that wasn't the intention of your idea, so I just wanted to make sure we addressed it, is all. I think having a set of depletable points between suspicion and detection maintains that range of visibility/audibility, while a hard "if you're in this area/radius/cone, you're automatically detected simply because someone is more alert than usual" doesn't really do so. A chance works better, in that respect, but it still provides that really weird "even though this area was pitch black and you're quiet as a mouse, this guy not only glimpsed you, but also glimpsed you so well that he knows you're a person and exactly where you are and will now sound the alarm and attack you" scenario, because chance. Not to mention the times when you have almost no chance of going undetected, and you somehow successfully do. If you're that visible, it makes more sense that you'd simply be easier to detect. Not that a coin toss could still decide that you just don't get seen. I like chance maybe affecting the potency of a sentry's suspicious searching. That might be cool. But, in that, it's not a dice roll between "do factors count for anything" or "don't they and you're simply detected?," but rather the exact effect, within a range, of his searching efforts. Say he rolls a d20 when he's suspicious, for example. Maybe if he rolls below 10, your Detectability ticks, in your given spot/circumstances, decrease at a rate of 3/second instead of 2/second. But, if he rolls above 10, they decrease at 4/second instead of 2/second. That sort of thing. There's no doubt that they're going to decrease, or that they're going to decrease at an increased rate (as compared to his non-suspicion).

I think so. Having item durability as opposed to no item durability, because it's more realistic, for the sake of realism (but just with respect to item durability) would detract from the whole experience and frustrate players more? So... you're not arguing against detracting from the whole experience and frustrating players more? Wait... you'd rather do that than what other option? Oh, right... leaning toward realism (in some respect, like item durability) for its own sake, which detracts and frustrates. But you're still not arguing against it, right? I mean, how could you be? You said you weren't. I've taken it out of context? So, you started with realism for realism's sake (whether it's just certain things, or everything in the universe is completely irrelevant, since the reason is still the reason; for realism's sake), and then talked about how you'd rather go with something other than realism for realism's sake, and now, at point #4, you've said that it seems Macmanusaur would go the other way "just for realism." The way you were going was not simply toward realism (it was a balance), and it doesn't make much sense that you'd be suggesting Macmanusaur would rather go AWAY from realism "just for realism" (crazy, right?), so that only leaves the suggestion that Macmanusaur would rather lean toward realism, again, "just for realism." If I'm not mistaken, that means "for no other reason than realism." Shall we recap? You claim you've never argued against realism for its own sake, and even challenged anyone to present evidence as to the contrary. What I've presented is your pointing out how "having more realism (in certain respects) for the sake of realism" is a negative thing. You then specifically point out how you would go the other way, in relation to the option of more realism for realism's sake. Following this, you claim that Mcmanusaur would go the "other" way, in relation to your stance, which is already the "other way" in relation to more realism for realism's sake. Thus, this puts Macmanusaur pointed directly toward realism for realism's sake. I'm not sure what the fact that you were referring to "certain respects" (like durability) has to do with anything, since more realism for realism's sake is the same goal with the same reasoning, regardless of whether or not you're applying that goal in an item system or a movement system or the graphics, etc.

I wasn't aware that the two possibilities were the "overuse" of such things, or the complete absence of their use. I'm... not really sure how that works, to be honest. One would think that something that's overused could, by very definition, be potentially underused, which would mean that some kind of equilibrium exists there, in the middle, in the form of simple, unprefixed "use." Two things you're ignoring: A) I still have yet to claim that visual indication of inflection is just-plain necessary for textual dialogue to even function, and yet you're still arguing against that for some befuddling reason. B) I already made an example of how it can be used to great (and yet still not necessary) effect. You know what, though? I'll go again, shall I? "I could help you" vs "I could help you." Without saying any other words, the second emphasizes the fact that it's there's a possibility of help (as in conditional) as opposed to the text simply being a statement of the fact that the speaker has the means to help you. "I can't help you" vs "I can't help you." The second version specifies that the speaker is conflicted about helping, based on the identity of the "you," rather than simply stating that they lack the ability to help the other person (as in the first version). It's functionally the exact same thing as using an exclamation point instead of a period. Or, better yet, a question mark. "You've already eaten." versus "You've already eaten?" Same exact words. Only the punctuation tells us how to read it, and the specific meaning of the sentence. Same with italics. As in the above example, "can" has various specific meanings. A precise use of emphasis conveys one meaning over another. It provides knowledge of that precise meaning that would otherwise be guessed. And, just to stress one more time, it's still not necessary to be able to read dialogue. It's simply nice to be able to convey a more precise meaning of a sentence/word that could possess any number of nuanced meanings, depending on inflection. Why do you think we use inflection when we speak in the first place? Why don't we all just speak in monotone? If we do it in speech, why would we arbitrarily forego it in text?

Hahaha... ^_^. You're fantastic, you know that? Truly. Cars provide speedier travel, which is useful but not necessary. Italics/bolding, etc., provides indication of more precise inflection/tone in textual dialogue, which is useful but not necessary. You're right. Apples and oranges. I don't know what came over me, as I was clearly trying to point out how similar cars are to italics. I could've sworn they were practically the same thing, for a moment there. Hmm... I'll not argue that I missed a mark, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't the mark. (See how much splendid-though-unnecessary use I'm getting out of italics? You should try it sometime, 8D)

*ahem*... u_u: The bolded portion even shows where you specifically cite Mcmanusaur as arguing that very thing.

*shrug*. As I said... I could be wrong. I just know they've stressed a few times that they REALLY don't want to spoil the story with any kind of testing-type access. So, at the very most, I think we'll be playing actual snippets of the game with the story stuff cut out (arbitrary characters and builds, etc., as opposed to "this is where you'll be and what level you'll be and the stuff you'll actually have access to at this point in the game"). It might still be something you'd enjoy. Who knows.

There is plenty of sense in your words, TMZUK, but there still seems to be a small disconnect. You act as though, in regard to DA activated talents, stamina is a means of directly representing actual real-life stamina, when it's actually a huge abstraction used to regulate your beyond-default abilities in combat. That's why your character keeps moving and fighting even when you're "out of stamina." So, yes, you are absolutely correct that taking a different stance in real life wouldn't suddenly change your stamina pool or anything. But, the game isn't even claiming that in any way. Like I said, the warcry thing (that's often seen in a lot of games) is clearly a weird, pseudo-magical exaggeration of a non-magical ability, and that's pretty weird, when you really think about it. I don't disagree with you at all in that respect. But, something as simple as wielding a two-handed greatsword instead of a short sword (or even a long sword) actually affects the rate at which you use up your actual stamina (not just abstract video game ability-controlling stamina). And something like using two-weapon fighting instead of a sword-and-shield affects your ability to defend and your ability to attack. So, why is it impossible (and only crazy and magically intangible) for you to assume a stance to gain a specific benefit at the cost of a specific detriment? That's not making yourself less skilled. It's adapting to the situation. If you're in a high-altitude location where the air is thin, you do things to preserve oxygen and make sure you don't pass out. If you're protecting someone in the center of a ring of opponents, and the well-being of that person takes priority over the not-so-well-being of your opponents, then you're going to fight at a trade-off; you're going to focus on engagability (for lack of a better term) at the cost of offensive damagability. You don't care if you're actually cutting people, as long as you can knock swords out of hands and/or deflect attacks. Individually, aggressively assailing each target isn't the best way of making sure none of the targets harm the person you're trying to protect. Or, better yet, if you're fighting with a sword and large shield, and there are multiple ranged attackers present, are you simply going to ignore them and stand there fighting like you normally would? Or are you going to be more careful to keep behind your shield as much as possible, and only go for attacks at quite opportune moments? I would bet the latter. Unless you don't care about arrows coming to kill you, you're going to fight less aggressively to decrease the chances of getting riddled with arrows. In a game, how is it to represent this if not with a mode? It's not a simulation... you're not directly controlling your character's every maneuver and flourish, so how do you tell the game you want to focus on simply deflecting as many attacks as possible instead of actually damaging the enemies, if not with some sort of coded indicator? Are there not factors that justify altering the manner in which you approach a given situation, even with the same tools and capabilities at your disposal?

Well, it seems to me that the system of depleting ticks serves as a direct (though abstract) representation of the suspicion/investigation process, as fewer ticks brings you closer to absolute detection, and more ticks takes you further from detection. So, it just seems like the only thing that's really missing is something that actually toggles the ticks. In other words, under one set of circumstances, ticks shouldn't even start ticking. Then, under all other circumstances, suspicion is sparked, and ticks begin ticking in their respective areas. Rogue or non-Rogue, if someone has no reason to even suspect that anyone's behind them, then no amount of time spent behind them should bring you any closer to detection, if that makes sense. Same with in front of them. If you're hiding behind a thick shrub, then it shouldn't matter how long they stand there looking that way, or how far into their inner vision cone you're residing, unless they suspect that they saw someone/something, or that someone's possibly hiding in the vicinity. I'll tell you what else might work: two sub-systems of ticks (kind of like what you said about the ticks just leading up to discovery, except without the "vision begets instant discovery" bit). One for suspicion, and another for detection. If you're hiding behind a bush, in the target's sight range (like 10 feet away), then, the longer he's looking around in that direction (being an alert sentry and all), the greater the chance he's going to eventually notice some little inch of you visible through that bush. Obviously the cover would matter here. A wall would completely conceal you, no matter how long you stood there. But, movement within sound-relevant ranges would use up ticks (basically action-based, instead of time-based) towards suspicion. I like the idea of a depletable, finite resource like the ticks much better than a % chance of being detected. A master of stealth, even if seen, is going to warrant suspicion where a nooblet Rogue would've warranted full detection. Shy of a complete lack of stealth-supporting environmental factors, or a blatant lack of active attempt at stealth, I don't see even a 1% chance that a master of stealth is going to just suddenly be completely detected as an intruder, because he's that much quieter and better at concealing himself, etc., under exactly the same circumstances as one of lesser skill. With something like ticks, under bad circumstances, you have a definite smaller window of opportunity (distance to cover, time sneaking, etc.) to stealth around targets, and under good circumstances, you have a larger one. Plus skill: more skill causes the ticks to deplete more slowly, translating into greater sneakability, and less skill depletes them more quickly. A master might be able to move across 20 feet of shadow without even sparking suspicion, while maybe a novice could get about 15-feet before triggering suspicion. So, he could even make it all the way across (because shadow is on his side), but he has to take extra measures to avoid the target who's now making his way toward that area to make sure he didn't see something there, while the master has no such worries. That sort of thing. The simplest system would be something like "when target is suspicious, double the rate at which ticks deplete." But, there's a lot of leeway there. Your "ticks just lead up to suspicion, then after that, you're either seen and detected or not-seen and not-detected" system is a definite option. I just wanted to clarify that I wasn't trying to shoot that down. I'm just sort of getting carried away brainstorming possibilities, hehe. Factors in this are like playdough! I just like seeing what we can make with them.