Ask Kank

[LauraMars]

I think it would be cool if you could use the "ask" command on an animal hitched to you.

Just to be able to make it emote and interact with you more fluidly.  Great for loner wanderers.

So...what do you think?

[Seeker]

ask kank emote After receiving an hastily whispered command from ~elf, @ scrambles over, squats and lies a steaming loaf on %templar glossy boots.

[Cale_Knight]

ask kank emote After receiving an hastily whispered command from ~elf, @ scrambles over, squats and lies a steaming loaf on %templar glossy boots.

True, but the assess command shows who an animal is hitched to.

[Seeker]

ask kank emote After receiving an hastily whispered command from ~elf, @ scrambles over, squats and lies a steaming loaf on %templar glossy boots;unhitch kank

[Maybe42or54]

ask templar's-kank Rolling over to take ~templar in his arms, This hunk of a grey kank makes sweet loving to the templar. Aww.. How beautiful.

[LauraMars]

So does this mean you guys think it's a bad idea?

What do you think would be better?

[Maybe42or54]

Yes. I think it is a bad idea.

[picklehead]

I guess I'm confused.. you can already interact with your kank through says and emotes. You want to make a command that automatically targets the kank you have hitched? The kank you're riding?

[Tamarin]

This command already exists.  You use it to animate certain NPCs in certain situations that are under your command.

[LauraMars]

Yes, Tamarin is correct.  There is an ask command used to interact with people under your command.  This is similar to the "order" command, but it is usually only used to cause an npc to emote or say things.

I would like to be able to use this command with a mount that you are hitched to, because it would be a cool extra.  Maybe42, you wouldn't be able to ask any old kank to do any old thing.  You'd have to be hitched with them.

The only thing you'd really be able to use it for would be to make your kank emote without your sdesc appearing in the emote, but even so, I still say it would be cool and fun, especially for variety.  You could create a whole scene with your kank having a little adventure and roaming around your camp while you rested on the plains without having to try and work yourself into every single emote.

[Seeker]

Its not that its a bad idea.  It's just an idea that requires a lot of faith and trust in the entire playerbase.

Unlike other "orderable" NPCs, which are usually only made available to players by their clan IMMs in connection with some earned position of responsibility, if we make mounts "orderable", anybody can drop three small and have an instant comedic side-kick.

ask kank emote bats her eyelashes suggestively to ~studly.


Seeker

[jhunter]

I think it would be neat. Make so that the -only- command you can "ask" the mount to do is "emote". Anything abusive with it would then be no different than someone poweremoting. Most people are good about not poweremoting. And if someone isn't, you can always log it and send it to the mud.

[Cegar]

I second this command. I doubt people would abuse it, and if they did, I'm sure the immortals would be able to swiftly stamp it out. Someone could just as easily emote something jarring as they could make their kank emote something jarring.

[LauraMars]

I think you should be able to see what animal is hitched to who when you walk into a room, anyway.   I mean, you're holding their reigns, presumably.

[jhunter]

Yeah. I think you should see when someone is hitched to an animal.

lo e

[Near]

The wiry, huge-testicled man is standing here, holding the reins of a greenish-brown kank.
A greenish-brown kank is standing here, tethered to the wiry, huge-testicled man.

Something like that.

[Anonymous]

Its not that its a bad idea.  It's just an idea that requires a lot of faith and trust in the entire playerbase.

How does it require any more faith in the playerbase than is already the case with the regular old emote command?

emote The tavern erupts as ~man launches himself angrily towards ~templar, knocking me down as he draws his blade.

I'm sure if someone abused the command it would be reported and dealt with but one or two occurances of someone abusing their ability to make a mount emote without referrencing themselves isn't much of a risk if you ask me.

As long as it was limited to emotes I don't see what the problem would be.

[Aldiel]

Just include their emotes as an extension of your own.  If you're asking for mounts to be able to be ordered around, then I think that is something that could be very, very easily abused: ask kank kill scrab, ask kank guard <character's name>.  If it was just for emotes, ok, that'd be cool, but I'm no sure if that'd be a bitch to code or not.

[InsertCleverNameHere]

I think I've seen something like this.. Though without giving much detail, it wasn't a kank. It was a mount, I saw it hitched, ridden, etc. It however did toss some emotes out without having the sdesc of the person who it was hitched to included in the emotes anywhere. I suppose it's possible it was simply IMM animated for this particular character, though it seemed to be a sort of 'constant companion' to its owner.
That aside, I don't think anyone and everyone should be able to make their mounts act completely independantly with 'ask' or 'order'.. A lot of the things can be achieved by simple creative emote.
"The silt-colored kank swings its massive head at ~dude for a better look, while @ looks down the road with a bland expression."
or..
tell dude (as ~kank swings its head and pulls at the reins) Damn thing always acts like this after eating bad grain.
If you want a mount that's more tailored to yourself, that can guard, attack, etc, this should be something you need to take up via email with the IMMz for a SINGLE mount that has been specificly trained to do so, and that your character is ICly able to handle. After all, there's a big difference between the tired, sway-backed ponies at the fair you can safely set your 3 year old on, knowing the horse will only follow the butt in front of it, and a highly trained show-horse that can stand on its hind legs to dance a jig, or to backtrack, horses trained for a warrior to ride, that will rear up and slam an opponent with its hooves, but not throw its (also trained) rider.

[jhunter]

If it was just for emotes, ok, that'd be cool, but I'm no sure if that'd be a bitch to code or not.

I believe, (I'm not 100% on this) the npcs that are able to be ordered using "ask" have a list of commands that they will follow. I think it can be changed to limit it to any command(s) you choose for that particular npc.

[Tamarin]

There is -already- (as jhunter just implied) a coded difference between being able to just 'ask' an npc to do something, and being able to order it to do something.

To the best of my knowledge, you can not 'ask' an npc to commit a violent, agressive, or negative act: kill, subdue, kick, disarm, steal, etc etc.

What you -can- ask them to do is: follow, say, tell, whisper, emote, pemote, change ldesc, sit, stand, rest, run, walk, mount, hitch, unhitch...basically the non-offensive commands.

This is already -in-.  I promise I'm not lying to you about this.  It doesn't need to be coded.  Just extended to kanks!