Somtimes I do this:
emote places his hand over %<some person>
I see:
The black haired man places his hand over the black haired woman's.
Sounds good, right?
They see:
The black haired man places his hand over your. (<--- no 's' on your)
Would it be feasable to code something like:
emote places his hand over %woman's (<--- adding the apostrophe as a sign to add the 's' to your)
so that the message you see remains the same, but they see:
The black haired man places his hand over yours.
Does this make any sense at all?
In these situations, I tend to:
em places his hand over %<the supergorgeous ninja babe> hand.
I know, it's awkward, but it's a fix.
emo places his hand over %so & so shoulder.
They see... Someone places his hand over your shoulder.
The way you propose... Someone places his hand over yours shoulder.
It just doesn't make sence, I don't know, maybe I'm just seeing this wrong.?
Hows about:
EMOTE places his hand over %woman own.
Ueda, its more when the two body parts are the same...like two hands, two sets of eyes...whatever...by repeating hand or whatever, it adds redundancy.
The one you did is totally cool. I suggest having both.
Well Ueda..
The idea was to add -'s- onto '%babe'
So.. yeah I think we should keep %babe and mayb add '*babe'
For '%babe's' So it wont mess up on the keyword part :)
I had this idea a while back. I proposed, at that time, a NEW emote tag...not %, but & (or something) that would show like...
emo places his hands over &person
You see: (your sdesc here) places his hands over person's.
They see: (your sdesc here) places his hands over yours.
Everyone else sees: (your sdesc here) places his hands over person's.
Don't screw with what works...just add something else that works too.
Actually, a simple check in the code as to whether the %word or ^word has a comma or word after it would work fine. If there is no word or there is a comma, then it would translate out to indicate yours. If there is a word after it, with no comma or period, then it translates to your.
Very simple, actually.
Not nearly as simple as you think...
Because a lot of folks make grammatical errors fairly often, and put commas where they shouldn't go, and omit them where they should go. It would end up being a mess.
I like the idea of a new emote symbol to signify "yours."
The modification to the code itself would be simple.
Also, I agree with the grammarical mistakes. However, I don't see them as being too large a problem with the check. How many times have you seen folks type, "em places his hands over %sara, hands"?
With Venomz's idea, the whole 'puts his hand over %person as/while/during/etc' thing would get messed up. I still think his idea is the best way to fix this though; it's a smooth fix for almost all situations and I can deal with it not working in the others.
Bah...I'd not even thought of that situation. My bad.
How is it a smooth fix? Not every situation will be the same, meaning that at times, things will get screwed up in the grammatical sense. I still say, "Add a new modifier tag like &."
Smooth as in making use of an already existing modifier tag and as in not creating any trouble for the emoter save keeping in mind when it'll echo a bit wrongly. Less modifier tags to keep track of, as well. It isn't a problem for you or me, but as a complete newbie, all the tags of the emote system scared me quite a bit.
What is most appealing about Venomz's idea is that the extra tag has been suggested before without anything happening. Maybe there's a greater chance of our imm coders changing the already existant % tag.
I get by with using 'own' but it feels very clumsy indeed, and would welcome this change in either and any version.
Personally, I believe the tags we have are great...if they are confusing, go to the Armageddon store and buy the sticker to put on your monitor or make a cheap knock-off. Adding one more emote targetting tag shouldn't be too much more for people to deal with.