Mounts

[Anonymous]

I've seen mounts fight, and have been told ICly how to do it, but I can't figure out how to do it OOC. If it's only specific mounts that can fight, then fine.

[Savak]

This depends on exactly what you mean.  There is/was code only on certain specific mounts which allowed (skilled?) riders to type "pull reins" while mounted and the mount would do some nifty thing against whoever its rider is fighting.  This is triggered by a little attached program, but doesn't cause the mount to -enter- combat per se -- i.e., it doesn't cause the mount to try to "kill <whoever>" nor "assist <rider>".  Off the top of my head there is no code currently which will cause a mount to enter combat per se, on behalf of its master.

-Savak

[Sanvean]

(and if I seem to be pushing scripts, it's because I am - scripts don't require a coder's intervention, we've got it set up so staff can upload and test scripts on the testport all the livelong day, and there's some super scripters on staff.)

At any rate, what would you suggest? Highly trained battle mounts? What would they do in combat? What sort of nifty special effects would you put on them?

[John]

I'd be thinking perhaps House Tor or some other House, might want to start developing fighting techniques for kanks.

That way it's both IC, generates activities for characters to do and have a fun time with, and also let's the Imms add little functions to it, instead of having to do it all at once (if that's preferable).

For those who've read WoT, maybe something like Lan's battle horse? Obviously that would be on the extreme.

You can do simple things like teach a kank not to let anyone else touch it's reigns unless you give the person the reigns. Which in WoT is something battle horses are taught first up.

As well as they actually start fighting, maybe use their pincers?

Could also teach them how to charge a room or two away into a target, which would be funny if the mount runs along up until he's 1 inch away from the target and just stops and you fall of the mount.

It all depends on how insect's minds work on Zalanthas.

I think a factor is, not teach mounts how to fight, but teach HUMANS how to fight on a mount. So you'd get a bonus, instead of a minus.

This could also be dealt with IC before you implement it, and it require you to be both an excellent fighter as well as an excellent rider.

PS push the scripts, I love them.

[Pale Horse]

I like this idea.  In the help files under 'ride', it says that experienced riders will be able to stay on their mount during a fight, and that the mount may actualy fight with said person.

While I've never experienced this (most of my characters being elves), IMHO this would be a great thing to assist any character, be they soloing or rideing in a group.  While out in the desert and suddonly attacked, I find it incredibly anoying to find that my coward mount has bucked me off its back and then just STANDS there while I'm getting the crap beat out of me.

:lol: I can remember a thread posted a while back about how two characters were talking about the possability that their mounts were some how in league with the creatures of the desert in an attempt to kill their owners.

Having a trained war mount would be a great assistance to anyone who feels like takeing a ride out into the wilderness.  Just imagin the suprise that a raider would feel when their 'easy mark's' mount suddonly lashes out with claw, beak or fang in an attempt to aid it's master.  Kank's, who I imagin as some sort of giant, stuby ant, have a nasty bite on them, Erdlu's have their sharp beaks and powefull clawed feet (NEVER attack a wild erdlu by yourself), and Inixs...well, it's pretty much self evident what they have going for them.

Just think of the opportunities.  A PC  with a high rideing skill, could get a job with a merchant house as a Mount Trainer, saddleing up variouse beasts and showing his pupils the correct way in manageing their animals.  You would not have to fear the bloody longnecks suddonly running in, knocking you off your mount, hitching it to themselves and running off with your packed equipment.

[Angela Christine]

Kanks . . . no.  The advantage of kanks is that the keep going and going and going -- kanks are the energizer bunnies of Zalanthas.  Besides, I've had kanks attacked and they kind of suck as fighters anyway, no point getting your kank killed in battle and having to walk home.  Inix are huge, but they are basically peacefull herbavores not fighters.

I would like to see some of the beasts that are supposed to be dangersous do something useful once in a while.  Erdlu, Sunback lizards, warbeetles, ratlons, and some of the exotic wild-caught mounts are supposed to be fiesty.  Many of these are under-used because they don't have the incredible stamina of a kank, but does anyone really need to ride all the way from Allanak to Tuluk without a rest?  I don't think so.    At the point where you can ride with both hands full, mounted combat starts to look like a good option, but (as a byn sargeant pointed out to me) everyone sucks at fighting while mounted.  A helpful mount could at least put mounted fighters back on even footing with pedestrians.  

It's been pointed out, as justification for the mounted combat penalties, that kanks are huge ungainly beasts with very little in common with war horses, and that's true.  But Erdlu and Sunbacks aren't huge, some humans weigh more than an erdlu, and they look pretty manuverable.  You might not be able to use daggers effectively, but most normal sized weapons should work fine from the back of these creatures so there is no need for lances.  It would be great if these small, manuverable mounts confered a lower combat penalty or none at all for skilled riders.  

The most obvious way a mount could help would be if it were possible for skilled riders to "order mount assist me" but that could be abused.  Obviously you should only be able to order mounts you are riding or that are hitched to you, and nobody wants rangers going around the desert looking for trouble with 3 or more trained attack erdlu.   :shock:  

Something like the script Sanvean mentioned could work too, and it could even take into account the abilites of each kind of mount.  And erdlu might claw and peck, an inix could stomp, a sunback could claw, bite or lash out with it's tail, a warbeetle could . . . um, they must do something since they were named warbeetles.  There could be several options for each creature, and they would randomly choose one.  For naturally agressive creatures, they would always or nearly always do something to hurt whoever you are fighting.  For placid creatures like kanks and inixes, 9 times out of 10 they would do something completely useless like wave their antenae in a threatening manner,  :wink: chew their cud, or sniff the air.   In the case of scripts the skill of the rider might not come into play, but that makes sense if the action relys on the training and instincts of the mount rather than the ability of the rider.

This would encourage people to use a variety of mounts depending on their goals.  Cross-world caravans would still use reliable kanks, and hope to outlast any nasty things that are chasing them -- these guys aren't looking for a fight.  Short-range raiders might choose a fast and nasty creature like erdlu, they are useless over long distances but if you are chasing your prey that far you've already lost.  Those that regularly patrol a modest area, like the kurac militia, might choose a Sunback because it has more staying power than an erdlu (but is slower than an erdlu) and is still helpfull if you get attacked by a few raptors or raiders.  A lone ranger might choose a sunback as his primary mount, but a sturdy kank as his pack animal and back-up mount for long distance travel.


Angela Christine

[lukie]

Riding an erdlu with a lance... that reminds me of that one old game... what's it called...

JOUST! I love that game!

Not to mention with the kanks chewing their cud...
That reminds me of Earthbound for the SNES. In the beginning, you have some people helping you, and half the time they cry or look important or something like that. But enough with deconstructiveness. I'm done here.

[Tlaloc]

In response to AC's post regarding placidity of animals, and such:

Besides, I've had kanks attacked and they kind of suck as fighters anyway, no point getting your kank killed in battle and having to walk home. Inix are huge, but they are basically peacefull herbavores not fighters.

Elephants are also huge, peaceful herbavores, and look what Hannibal did with them. :wink:

Additoinally, any animal which is as common as the Kank will probably have 'war' versions of it eventually trained/bred. I don't beleive size matters much, unless the mount is too -small-. Size is actually an advantage, and I think usually what you're looking for when you go into battle on a mount. I think I'd much rather go into a fight on a Kank, which is covered in natural armor and has huge pinchers, than on a horse, who's best defense is barding, and a pair of hooves.

Personally, while I agree, more scripting could go in to make mounts more 'intuitive', and making the ride skill alittle cooler, I think its amazing that many people -neglect- the ride skill once they can get from point A to point B without fail. Theres a reason why the Cavalry was one of the greatest martial inventions of all time, and I think if people worked at it, they might get plesantly surprised at what you can eventually do with the ride skill, as is.

Just a few thoughts...
[/quote]

Mounts that even have names like 'war beetle' or something shouldnt just buck you at the first sight of danger. If you are some big guy with a nice round shield and a long weapon (spear, halberd, axe.) It might be very easy to fight while mounted. I dont see why the code allows for such little work like this. I have seen groups of mounted raiders that cant even fight while mounted...

Maybe make more domestic mounts, and then the more battle-inclined things.

I would LOVE to see cavalry type things, supported by a strong infantry. Not just a bunch of guys that always dismount when fighting.

Youd think that a strong, fast group of riders would be able to do alot against some slow, very unagile creature/person.

It might seem a bit unrealistic for you to be fighting these little gurths from atop a massive kank, but maybe fighting an inix from kank back or something? I know they arnt so agile that they will jump at you and knock you off, and the kank would put you at a pretty good height.

And besides, how much more quick and fightworthy can you be in sweltering heat, on dunes that most likely arnt the easiest to stand in.

Okay... just some more ideas.
Jenred :shock:

[Impska]

On a couple of notes:

(to Jenred) The way the code is, it's not so much that the mount sends you flying, but that you can't hold on. After all, very proficient riders can stay mounted in combat, as well as ride with both weapons. Although, they still get their ass totally whooped when mounted.

(to... the rest)  It would be sort of cool to see mounts with pincers able to gore, in something of the same way "pull reins" triggers a sunback tail lash. War beetles, if they truly are war beetles could be the most proficient or something, while kanks somewhat weaker. Not sure about inix... maybe they could bite? They're a bit big for tail lashing, I would think. Or maybe not. I'd have to compare their desc to a sunbacks to be conclusive. An erdlu could have a pretty vicious peck.

Personally, I don't see why we get such a penalty for mounted combat. I think at the level you can ride with no hands, and stay on a mount, any penalty you might face should be counteracted by the fact that you've got a height advantage now. At least this way, you'd be at something of the same level of skill as a fighter on foot, and fighting mounted wouldn't be such a death sentence.

[X-D]

Well, this has actually forced me to post, since this is a subject I feel
almost as strongly about as adjoining room combat sound echos (little plug).

I myself found it a bit annoying when my 40 day sword user could get beaten by a 10 day war when mine was mounted, though that same char could take a 20 day war with ease if he was walking, being mounted should not offer that bad a neg, not considering the bonuses it gives in real life, a mounted fighter in real life may get fewer swings and be slightly less able to dodge, but can impart far more powerful blows do to the fact he has the mounts strength weight and speed to back him up (one of the reasons cavalry was a mainstay in armies for so many hundreds of years)

Now, as far as the mud is concerned I think the way it should work (and should not be to hard to do) is dodging a blow while mounted should just depend on your mounts dodge (passive defense rating I think that is) Now, kanks and other heavy mounts can't dodge that well, we all know, and an inix, well, forget it, but a sunback warbeetle, erdlu, should be pretty good, then everything else would be the same as normal combat, check on shield, parry and armor.

Of course, I also think that learning to be good in mounted combat should maybe be a bit harder and possibly damaging too :wink: bit more stun damage, bit more hp damage, maybe a chance of your mount trampling you once, things like that.

well, thats all for now.
X-D

[krelin]

Realistically and historically speaking, a mounted rider is generally at a significant disadvantage when facing a trained infantryman.  I have often seen this sited as one of the reasons for the great successes of the Roman legions.  Cavalry are good for running down fleeing opponents, and especially good at moving quickly (thus able to flank large forces that have --surprise-- been engaged by infantry, for example).  They are not good at single-combat.

Finally, try it sometime.  Try navigating a horse against a foot-soldier while you're fighting (with a weapon in both hands, even???) and the foot-soldier is also doing mean non-PETA approved things to your mount.

The lance changes things slightly, btw, but that's another discussion.

Maybe there could be a "kick"-like command added for Fighter types (Warriors and Rangers) that have a high enough ride skill. You know, just kind of eggs your mount into doing something nasty to whatever it is in front of you. Again, it may be something useless like a kank nudge, or it could be something like an inix trample. Maybe? Nahhh... probably more important things to code.

[lukie]

What's more important than being nudged by a kank?

[X-D]

That is why I was saying you can dodge no better then your mount,

Biggest use of cavelry was for breaking lines or flanking BTW

But imagine A man on a warhorse (or any hourse for that matter) Charging at you with a cavelry Sabre at 25mph total weight in excess of 1200lbs, if he hits, it is over, almost does not matter where he hits, if he misses he is 50+ feet away before he can turn around, but you sure are not hitting him with your sword from there, then give him a shield and stick him on a kank (no need to add armor, Kanks shell good enough)
He charges, now, you have a chance to dodge, but if you fail then you can be hit by the weapon, shield, bowled over by the kank, possibly trampled, And I tell ya, if you are trying to dodge a kank (or armored warhorse Which were trained to kick out to all sides and bite) being ridden buy a warrior with a big ass weapon coming your way at Hi speed You are gonna find it hard to land any hard blows, less ya wanna stand your ground and swing, in which case, Don't plan on getting a second shot.

Infantry was used because they were cheap to outfit and easy to train and could be fielded in large numbers, cavalry were the elite and usually held in reserve till a quick hard decisive blow was needed


But I will agree, no cavalry man would just stand his mount in one place and fight, less you are talking about knights of the middle ages, in which case they rode 2500-3200lbs trained fighting fully armored warhorses, I myself would never want to go against even a wild mustang stallion if all I had was a sword, let alone one of these beasts, watch a rodeo sometime and see what that pissed off bronc does to the cowboy if the rodeo clowns don't get there in time, and it only weighs maybe 800-1000LBS.

but in mud, I doubt anybody wants to go through all the changes to make mounted combat more realistic, it would be a major undertaking, but I think the things I stated in my post before this one are viable, Or something like them.

[Sakra]

Alright, if reworking the mount code is out of the question, how about mounts (at least the larger ones like inix and maybe kanks) being able to attempt to trample <target>? If not, how about small scripts like what there is now for sunback, kanks could gore and perhaps inix could swing their tails, etc. I know I'm not bringing up anything new, but I want to stop dying on my mount!

[Armaddict]

It occurs to me that the reason mounted fighting is so disadvantageous is because of one of the things that has been brought up before, but never implemented:  Height Advantage.

It really gets on my nerves to see that dwarf with a short club suddenly whack a half-giant in the head and knock him out.  That's some -nice- reach for a short fella.  Shorter people should be hitting lower on taller people, and taller people higher on the shorter people.

In mounted combat, this changes things tremendously.  That mounted rider with the warclub, sure, you may want to attack him, but do you want to take that chance, considering that unless you have a polearm, you have to make that unwieldy swing over your head to get in a decent strike?  If you make a normal one, you're going to hit his legs, or maybe his waist, if you're lucky, or the mount, if you're unlucky.  The mounted fighter, on the other hand, has a fairly easy downward stroke that's very likely to club you over the head, or at the very least your chest or arms.  He'd have to bend over and put himself in unnecessary danger to have a -chance- to strike the legs.

This would also made half-giants more of the massive fighting force they should be.  Most people are going to have a hard time getting a good strike in on these guys, they're going to have to make quick strikes at their legs and hope the big fellas fall down, so that they (and hopefully their friends) can swarm over the fallen monster.

Basically, I'd just really like to see a height check made to influence where your blows are going to land.  It just makes more sense, this way.

[John]

I've thought of this idea in the past and came to some bad points before I got around to posting the idea, so here is the only bad point I can remember.

The code wouldn't be able to take emotes into account. Let's say I'm in a fight and my really short half-elf jumps onto a table and swings at the half-giant, he should get the head, however if it's coded so he will hit the lower body most of the time, chances are I'm gunna hit the lower body, not his head. I've heard people say that one time when a dwarf sparred with an elf or half-giant he kicked the person in the head, and they both RP'd the dwarf kicked in the leg. I think this is a better solution.

I would prefer to see the ability to aim for body parts before this was implemented.

Just my -very- tired 2 'sid.

[Armaddict]

It's a matter of personal opinion, I suppose, but I'd much rather see people being unable to hit the head even after an emote than have this race that's supposed to be a battle-beast and an extremely scary thing to go against be penalized.  Sure, they hit hard now, but their -low- agility makes them just too damn easy to take out of commission.  I'd always pictured them as similar to ogres in combat...lots of little people around them, jabbing frantically and trying to take them down while they sluggishly swing around their huge weapon that can disable one of the bothersome little people in one or two good blows.

Not only that, but keep in mind that they are penalized with this sort of thing in -all- combat, while as the smaller races would be penalized only when they make an emote that would indicate they could reach this giant's head.  Not to mention that -no one- makes these emotes currently.  If it was implemented, perhaps people would start to actually give consideration before attacking something so much larger than them.  Give the larger races an actual intimidation factor beyond the fact that they can subdue you almost every time, and make it so that they don't -have- to subdue every time something with a little speed attacks it.

Once again, I suppose it's just a matter of personal opinion.

[Sakra]

I like the idea of height factoring into fights, so to take down a half-giant you need either several people, a mounted fighter, or another half-giant. As it is now, practically anyone can beat an HG of the same class because of the massive penalty to agility .  

This would probably be a pain to code though, but I'm no coder so maybe not.

[Rindan]

Um, as a person who has fought more then one half giant, half giants gets some crazy combat bonuses.  I am almost positive that strength plays into ability to hit, because I remember a newbie half giant ranger managing to land a blow on my hardened bad ass warrior.  Newbie warriors of normal races couldn't hit this guy.  Hell, non-newbie warriors couldn't hit him, but a half giant managed to take out half his HP in one swipe with a training weapon.

Having fought half giants with real weapons, I can say that they are scary bastards.  Sure, the little guys might be landing a horde of blows, but one or two whacks from a half giant and you are dead.  Three newbie human warriors or human elves wouldn't scare my character.  A newbie half giant... that would give me pause.  Let us not forget the subdue command while we are at it...

[Wintermute]

I really like the idea of height factoring.

But I bet it'd be a nightmare, heh.

Anyhow, if it ever came about, it'd sure give new meaning to the term 'anklebiter'..

[Locke]

If mounted fighting improves, wouldn't it would drastically change Arm? Not neccasarily in the urban areas, but in the dessert, if certain mounts are able to attack and you are able to fight with an advantage (that is if the height thing is added), dessert fighting would be quicker and alot more dangerous. Not to mention dessert-elves will now be at a disadvantage since mounted warriors have both height and probably speed. An example...

An domestic Erdlu or a Gwoshi as a mount would allow its rider to both attack and escape easily (if they're quick..), while attacking the rider's enemy. Thus quick and powerful attacks by a couple riders of these beast could eventualy bring down a caravan of walking merchants.

Several dessert elves, though with their abiltity to run long distances, if caught by these kinds of riders in the open, would be at a disadvantage as well since they don't have the height and the extra attack the beasts allow.

...Just a thought...:twisted:
But anyway, even if the mounted fighting isn't improved by that much, wouldn't improving the mounted fighting have the same effects as the gunpower being discovered, in midieval ages? But this applies only if both better mounted combat and height are implied...I think.

[creeper386]

Most the time... People on mounts don't have any speed advantage beyond being able to ride though. They have a height advantage.

What I think should be coded. Is making hits from a mounted person land higher on the target and harder, but with the same difficulty as it is to hit now, while hits landing on a mounted person most likely hit weaker, and lower on the target, but some sort of timer, like after so long after the fight depending on the riders ride skill, it gets easier to hit the rider.

This would make mounted combat more realistic, allowing riders to come in and fight, but if they remain in the fight too long they get the disadvantage of lack of manueverability.

It wouldn't necessarily need any sort of height advantage code, although something like that I think would be alot more interesting, and it'd make some animals more of the fierce things they are supposed to be.

As for giving d-elves the disadvantage. They can still hit and run. In short distance, they can out run most mounts, just not forever. D-elves still can use projectiles... All other sorts of.. OMG tactics. That should be in place when dealing with people on large mounts.

But anyway, even if the mounted fighting isn't improved by that much, wouldn't improving the mounted fighting have the same effects as the gunpower being discovered, in midieval ages?

The only problem... Is gunpowder WAS discovered. Mounts should have been the same all along. It's nothing all the sudden new IC, it's just something that hasn't been coded as of yet.


Creeper

[Stroker]

Actually, elephants suck in combat, because they get frigtened and start just running around, trampling over people, most of the time doing more harm than good. I do believe Hannibal managed to get most of his elephant horde killed in the climb over the mountains .... and they ate them! To conclude my rant, elephants are there to frighten people, not actually fight.

[FiveDisgruntledMonkeysWit]

To get back on topic... I would personally like to volunteer my services (whatever they might be) to the mounted combat project. Project Cavalry, perhaps? Here's how I see it working...

What I would like to do, personally, would have a command that went something like 'pull reins <target>'. And it would only work while mounted (whistling to your erdlu and having it tear up a guy is sort of ludicrous... From what I understand, people normally issue commands to their pack animals by shifting their weight, kicking it's side, that sort of thing. Therefore, your mount could only 'attack' while you're on top of it. This would prevent rangers with packs of ninja-erdlus, as AC mentioned).

Anyways, a player would type, while mounted, something along the lines of 'pull reins gith'. For the sake of example, let's say he was riding an inix. He would type 'pull reins gith', and it would run a check on his ride skill. Depending on the outcome, you would then get a result like;
'A brown inix solidly stomps a hunch-backed gith's head.'

Or you would get something like;
'A brown inix raises it's foot, but then puts it back down, staring blankly into space.' You know, a 'failure' message.

Furthermore, mounts would have different attacks depending on their species, and some types would be more effective than others, or have different strengths. Slow, heavy hitters like warbeetles and inixes would do significant damage, but might miss a lot of the time. Erdlus, sunbacks and the like should hit more often, but shouldn't be as lethal as the big boys. Kanks, I agree with AC, should be more or less useless in combat (except for the charge skill, that is). Mekillots... Well, I'll leave that up to your own twisted imagination. :wink:

The only problem I see with this is that the inix might -continue- to attack the gith, which I think is bad. I think the player should need to type 'pull reins gith' again and again, each time checking his ride skill, and bucking him off when appropriate. I sincerely hope something like 'hit <target specified>; disengage' for the inix can be coded in, triggered by the 'pull reins <target>' command (I have little to no knowledge of the game code, so I'm not sure how feasible this might be).

As I said, this is a project I would be -very- interested in working on, and I'll even spear-head it, if there are no other volunteers. Some things I would need to get started would be...

-A reply from the Imms, as to whether my idea of 'hit <target specified>; disengage' is feasible or not
-Main description examples of pretty much any mount you can muster
-Opinions from players and staff as to what different mounts should attack with (does a sunback to strike out with it's mouth, it's foreclaw, it's tail? All of the above?)
-Opinions from players and staff as to what a mount's strength should be (should inixes do more damage then erdlus, but miss more often?)
-Pretty much any ideas from anyone relating to the project
-How I should write out these scripts, and submit them

You can reach me at undaunted06@yahoo.com

Long live Project Cavalry!

[Lazloth]

help skill_charge

[Anonymous]

Thanks be to Lazloth.

[Malifaxis]

I don't agree with the height thing, and honestly I believe that mounted combat is fine the way it is.

That's the summary of my post, here's the reasons:

Mounted Combat should be extremely hard to master, as it is.  Swinging a weapon at someone of any height without getting your bug or lizard to freak out would be a challenge.  Kanks, as I have figured, are naturally skiddish creatures.  Compound eyes pick up most everything possible, so you swinging a huge freakin sword over it's antennae and head is going to be frightening.  Keeping it under control would be tough.  It would naturally wish to move away from any threat, and a perceived threat upon its back... well, get a job at a rodeo if you can hang on.  Keeping a bug the size of a Yugo calm, while smoking your opponent in the melon with a big freakin stick... that takes some mad phat skillz, yo.
As for lizards... reptiles, in general, are attracted to fast motion.  When they detect fast motion, if the motion is caused by something smaller, instinct tells it to devour.  If larger, instinct says run.  An inix is going to recognize a gith as a natural predator, and is not going to want to try to devour it.  A half giant?  No freakin way.

As for the half giant height thing, I look at it this way:  There is a trade off to being able to rip a full grown baobab from the ground and slam someone with it... it's not just the agility negative, it's the fact that those arms, when they swing at you, are easy to step within the range of.  With a high agil low height player, that's one hell of a hand hold.  Grab one of the passing armor straps, swing up on to the arm, and climb up on to its shoulder.  I, as a player, have never been comfortable with emoting a strike before it lands... I always wait for the location and damage code, and then emote around that.  

If height modifiers ARE added (I am not saying they should, but if they are) I would highly suggest height mods being applied both ways.  Harder to hit a big guy in the head, but overall, easier to hit a big guy.  Easier to hit a short guy in the head, but overall, harder to hit a short guy.

Tell me the truth, do you actually ever want to piss off Joe Pesci?

[Rindan]

I like mounted combat as it is, especially now that there is change skill.  In general, in Zalanthas mounted combat is risky.  The animals commonly used for mounts simply don't take well to it.  They are either too damned big to be effective (inix), or too skittish to be worth while (kank).  I think that it adds flavor to the game that when two groups meet bent on killing each other, everyone jumps off their respective mounts and charge for battle in light armor and sharp weapons.  A few might eventually learn to master mounted combat, but they are the exception rather then the rule.

[Kill4Free]

Kanks . . . no. The advantage of kanks is that the keep going and going and going -- kanks are the energizer bunnies of Zalanthas. Besides, I've had kanks attacked and they kind of suck as fighters anyway

Actually my kank was attacked several times, and it almost singlehandedly destroyed a pack of jackals.  I was helping it, but I didnt do near its damage, as it was doing grievous wounds almost every hit.  Although I did fight kanks as well, and to me chars, they rarely did more then solidly, so I think their combat abilities are better suited against beasts.

[Armaddict]

Yes, kanks can fight pretty well, contrary to popular belief.  Don't believe me?  Attack one with a newbie warrior.

[Xygax]

Let's move this discussion away from the IC details of how well various races/breeds/etc. fight, please.

[Armaddict]

I would think most anyone who uses a kank (the majority of the pc population) would very likely know, but very well.

[Quo]

Why does 5dmw's post sound so much like too many episodes of 'Fury' to me?
IRL, most mounts have a nature or rather escaping a threat than turning to fight as long as escape is still an option. In Sweden it has been tried to train elks in the past, for their unique abilitity to move without sound. The project was abandoned, since it proved impossible to get them used to gunfire. With horses, it's possible to get them to trust a rider enough to make them stay in combat, and even carry their rider. It's on the top end of the 'skilllist' though, to get a horse to assist in combat though, and they won't just stay and fight while their master keeps whistling. Part of the problem is staying mounted while the animal is moving in fight - which is far from the fluent and rhythmic motions with which distances are covered. The other one is to overcome the animals fear and instinct, and the last one to train the actual movements themselves. Not every horse can master it, and not every rider.
So what about Zalanthan animals? There may be a few possible mounts that are not bound to run. If their instinct is telling them to fight, a rider might in fact have a hard time to stay on top, and even less of a chance to land any blow of his own while his mount is raging at an opponent. Let's assume you're riding a (coughs) mek. If their killer instinct would take over, does the rider feel safe himself still? What if he doesn't manage to remain mounted? Won't he get attacked as well while his trusty mounts eyes are still covered in that red haze?
Like other animals that can be trained for combat, the more ferocious they are, the more of a chance that their instincts take over. There has been more than one of those gen-deficient fighting dogs that are so much en vogue nowadays who attacked a master or family member.

Quo

[Agent_137]

I hate kanks, they have too many advantages.

I'd like to see mounts with clearer advantages and disadvantages instead of everyone riding kanks and then the one crazy person who rides something else just to be different.

I'm reduced to making up IC excuses for not riding a kank . . . like they smell, are stupid, and they smell.

[Armaddict]

I'd rather hear those reasons than 'it doesn't fight as well' or something stupid like that.  Kanks seems to be the all-around best -traveling- mounts.

Other mounts are used for specialized reasons, usually.  Which is kinda nice.

[Larrath]

Superstition can be very useful for this.

"You know, I heard that riding kanks makes your package smaller."