As long as we're discussing mounts and loyals...

Lynara

As long as we're discussing 'mounts' and 'loyals' and such, I was hoping there could be a new attribute added to the list of attribs, for things loyal to an adventurer. It'd be even better if there were a 'details' bit that said who things were loyal to in gmcp, which would allow even knowing if they are loyal to denizens or places. However, just adding a new attribute letter for critters loyal to adventurers would make things a lot more simple, kinda like the 'm' attribute did for figuring out if you could kill something in a room scriptably. With the 'y' (random letter I picked) attribute, could make sure you don't kill James' goat that got left in Actar accidentally, thinking it was just another goat you were hunting...

Discuss.

Achimrst

If James was careless with his goat and I needed it's corpse for gold. It dies, sorry James but you should take better care of your mount. Most of the time the ones just standing about are starving anyway.

Sylvance

@Achimrst - come on, man... that's cold...

Anyway, with the greatest respect, your point isn't relevant to what's being discussed. The tag wouldn't be there to stop you from killing James' goat, it's to help you to make an informed decision about whether you want to kill James' goat.

I also once heard that somebody made a pet that was similar to an oft-bashed mob, put it in the area that you'd find that mob, purely to farm Cause. This would take asshole tactics like that off the table also, if that story's even true.

Kyrra

If in doubt, PROBE. Command is there for a reason. Don't people teach novices anything during those hour long talks?

Korben

I also once heard that somebody made a pet that was similar to an oft-bashed mob, put it in the area that you'd find that mob, purely to farm Cause.

I'm pretty sure it's true, though I don't remember who it was. Old Achaea at its finest.

Lynara

Sylvance said:

Anyway, with the greatest respect, your point isn't relevant to what's being discussed. The tag wouldn't be there to stop you from killing James' goat, it's to help you to make an informed decision about whether you want to kill James' goat.

I also once heard that somebody made a pet that was similar to an oft-bashed mob, put it in the area that you'd find that mob, purely to farm Cause. This would take asshole tactics like that off the table also, if that story's even true.

Um, well. Yes. Would be there to stop you from ACCIDENTALLY killing said goat. With this being added simply as an attribute which lets you know it's loyal to an adventurer, it would prevent accidents, not the act.

@Kyrra
As far as probing, yes. It's a commonly taught mechanic, to probe. And as you said, 'when in doubt'. However, people in general only probe things that they are in doubt of. If you know that goats in Actar are good for gold, and weren't paying close attention to the goats in the room, you could easily kill a mount before probing it. People don't generally probe every single one of <mob> each time they run through an area, just to make sure it hasn't changed.

Kresslack

Kyrra said:

If in doubt, PROBE. Command is there for a reason. Don't people teach novices anything during those hour long talks?

This. Stop making fifty threads about mount related uselessness. In short, stop being lazy. If you hunt in Actar you know damn well what the goats look like. If it's a novice, chances are they'll be killed by it if it's an actual mount.

Lynara

I'm unsure when you last attacked a mount.  In my experience, they aren't strong enough that you can expect them to kill a novice. Especially with the HTML5 client having an auto-sipper built in. Now, as for knowing what they look like, I'm in complete agreement. I'm not in agreement that this means the idea is intrinsically bad, nor am I in agreement that ideas, when had, should not be visited.

So, since those are your stances, and you've not brought any reasoning against the idea itself, we'll just hafta agree to disagree.

Delphinus

@Kresslack: Mounts don't attack at all, just FYI. Pets attack, but those are pets.


ETA:

Kyrra said:

If in doubt, PROBE. Command is there for a reason. Don't people teach novices anything during those hour long talks?

The "hour-long talks" shouldn't even be happening. Surprisingly, there's only so much information a person can take in in a single span. In real life, we call that a lecture, and we give people studying and homework to reinforce the knowledge because it's hard to absorb it all.

In a game, we don't do that because it is boring.

Nim

@Delphinus: Except for the fact that houses do do that, in the form of house advancement.

That said... people actually listen to those? I think I forgot most of Nim's orientation by the next day - the only reason I know what goes down in those is because I later gave a few!

Xith

I think if you're hitting all goats on balance or whatever, the consequences are yours to deal with. Just like McFoofus leaving his goat in Actar is an obvious derp move.

Not seeing the need for whatever's being proposed.

Sylvance

Xith said:

I think if you're hitting all goats on balance or whatever, the consequences are yours to deal with. Just like McFoofus leaving his goat in Actar is an obvious derp move.

Not seeing the need for whatever's being proposed.

Only they're not. They're yours and whoever's-loyal-you-killed's to deal with. This is a small, simple idea that is going to cause you, @Xith, not a single moment of inconvenience, and which could save a lot of people a lot of headache.

Kresslack

Here's an idea: Don't leave your mount out unattended. There are numerous stables throughout that go unused on a regular basis. Many more mounts who are left outside unattended, and also starving. Seriously people, take responsibility. If I leave my falcon out of Sanctuary when leaving, someone(either a House member or an enemy) is going to kill it. That's the result of my carelessness. This is no different. It takes very little effort and time to 'p <animal>' to see if it belongs to someone, and a lot of the times you can tell it's not a denizen based animal simply by the appearance and short-name.

Xith

Sylvance said:

Xith said:

I think if you're hitting all goats on balance or whatever, the consequences are yours to deal with. Just like McFoofus leaving his goat in Actar is an obvious derp move.

Not seeing the need for whatever's being proposed.

Only they're not. They're yours and whoever's-loyal-you-killed's to deal with. 

Collectively known as "consequences of one's actions". Are we really trying hardcode good behavior now?

Eld

This wouldn't be hardcoding any kind of behaviour. Just adding a way to check through the gmcp attributes whether something's loyal, instead of through probing, as you can with a number of other things. How is that objectionable?

Korben

Lusternia got the behavior it wanted out of its playerbase by hardcoding away the behavior it didn't want. Just saying.

Tvistor

Targossas offers insurance on all goats with minimal premiums for raiders.

Adet

I don't have a particularly strong opinion on this either way, but to suggest that it would save newbies from accidentally killing loyals seems somewhat flawed.  If it's GMCP based, this would presumably require some level of client-side coding to flash up a warning when the newbie enters a room with a loyal.  To expect a true newbie to be able to do that seems somewhat ambitious.

I also don't know much about GMCP: it may be that including this attribute would allow it to be done server side.  

Sylvance

Adet said:

I don't have a particularly strong opinion on this either way, but to suggest that it would save newbies from accidentally killing loyals seems somewhat flawed.  If it's GMCP based, this would presumably require some level of client-side coding to flash up a warning when the newbie enters a room with a loyal.  To expect a true newbie to be able to do that seems somewhat ambitious.

I also don't know much about GMCP: it may be that including this attribute would allow it to be done server side.  

I just did a CTRL + F to search for the word 'newbie' in this thread. Nuff said.

Adet

I don't have a particularly strong opinion on this either way, but to suggest that it would save novices from accidentally killing loyals seems somewhat flawed.  If it's GMCP based, this would presumably require some level of client-side coding to flash up a warning when the novice enters a room with a loyal.  To expect a true newbie to be able to do that seems somewhat ambitious.

I also don't know much about GMCP: it may be that including this attribute would allow it to be done server side.  

Arditi

Tvistor said:

Targossas offers insurance on all goats with minimal premiums for raiders.

Typically, it is fairly easy to add your spouse to your insurance...

Silas

I'm curious what @Adet thinks.

(Also, as with Tesha's thread on DK disarm attacks dropping your weapon into your inventory instead of on the ground, I have no idea why this idea is receiving the vitriolic disagreement that it is. The fact that there are other ways to handle something doesn't mean this wouldn't be handy.)

Lynara

Adet said:

I don't have a particularly strong opinion on this either way, but to suggest that it would save novices from accidentally killing loyals seems somewhat flawed.  If it's GMCP based, this would presumably require some level of client-side coding to flash up a warning when the novice enters a room with a loyal.  To expect a true newbie to be able to do that seems somewhat ambitious.

I also don't know much about GMCP: it may be that including this attribute would allow it to be done server side.  

... Yeah, I'm with @Sylvance here. Who ever suggested this was for helping newbies? Granted, my example of 'Actar' and a 'goat' has been taken fairly literally, but it was still just that - an example. This happens to non-newbies as much as any newbie. Newbies, in fact, get a warning when they first try to attack a loyal. Definitely not aimed at them. Aimed at people who do the programming client-side, and simply want a better way to avoid targeting things they ought not to target. Same as the 'm' attribute allows them to avoid targeting things like totems and fenceposts.

Mordric

I think it's just a way to make people more lazy. I agree with @kresslack

It takes less than a second to probe something, faster if you have keybindings to do it quickly.

Stop bein' lazy folks

Cesarina

Too much stuff to read, not going to bother, but I like the initial topic because I'm sick of killing my pegasus or random peoples' mounts when I am using gmcp targetting.

Sylvance

The straw-manning in this thread has got to stop.

Eld

Sylvance said:

The straw-manning in this thread has got to stop.

Good luck with that, though.

Echald

Donkeys looks pretty adorable when they wear a straw hat, though.

Kresslack

I'm not sure what GMCP targetting system people are using that have this issue, but if it's an issue with the targetting system, suggest a fix for that, not an aspect of the game that isn't faulty perhaps. I've always just used a targetting alias (t <target>) and I have never killed someone's mount or pet unintentionally. Intetionally on very rare occassions, but never unintetionally. 

Eld

Again, the proposal isn't for a "fix" to a part of the game that's "faulty". It's for an addition of a convenient way to get certain information.

Sylvance

<Learning self control. Slowly>