Talk:Tameness - Revision history

Qazmlpok: /* Tameness of ki-rin */

2011-07-24T00:14:50Z

Tameness of ki-rin

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:14, 24 July 2011
Line 8:		Line 8:

	If a pet's tameness reaches 4 and it is inediate, will it still be all right? [[Special:Contributions/75.58.127.95\|75.58.127.95]] 21:53, 23 July 2011 (UTC)		If a pet's tameness reaches 4 and it is inediate, will it still be all right? [[Special:Contributions/75.58.127.95\|75.58.127.95]] 21:53, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
			:Yes. As long as the tameness is at least one it is still your pet. That just means you can't be separated from it for long or try to ride it very many times. -- [[User:Qazmlpok\|Qazmlpok]] 00:14, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

75.58.127.95: /* Tameness of ki-rin */ new section

2011-07-23T21:53:53Z

Tameness of ki-rin: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:53, 23 July 2011
Line 4:		Line 4:

	OK, I've checked the source, and it looks like it has nothing to do with the pet being a non-eating monster or not. It seems to me that pets will only become hostile if left alone on a level for a very long time, or if revived after being abused a lot. In all other cases (mounting, kicking a steed, or even directly attacking), the monster will become peaceful when tameness reach 0.		OK, I've checked the source, and it looks like it has nothing to do with the pet being a non-eating monster or not. It seems to me that pets will only become hostile if left alone on a level for a very long time, or if revived after being abused a lot. In all other cases (mounting, kicking a steed, or even directly attacking), the monster will become peaceful when tameness reach 0.

			== Tameness of ki-rin ==

			If a pet's tameness reaches 4 and it is inediate, will it still be all right? [[Special:Contributions/75.58.127.95\|75.58.127.95]] 21:53, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Galehar: /* hostile or peaceful? */ new section

2010-01-27T15:41:06Z

hostile or peaceful?: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:41, 27 January 2010
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Ack... after going through the source for some references, I see that the devs use wild to mean hostile, and peaceful to mean peaceful. I used feral for hostile and wild for peaceful ex-pets... either I got that impression from stuff out there in chatlogs and community publications, or else I just thought it sounded good and went with it. Should the terminology be changed to be more in-line with the source comments? Or does it make sense enough as written. I admit I pretty much just speculated about stuff like the relative tameness scale, but I think it's a fair gauge of how the system works... [[User:MysterX\|MysterX]] 06:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)		Ack... after going through the source for some references, I see that the devs use wild to mean hostile, and peaceful to mean peaceful. I used feral for hostile and wild for peaceful ex-pets... either I got that impression from stuff out there in chatlogs and community publications, or else I just thought it sounded good and went with it. Should the terminology be changed to be more in-line with the source comments? Or does it make sense enough as written. I admit I pretty much just speculated about stuff like the relative tameness scale, but I think it's a fair gauge of how the system works... [[User:MysterX\|MysterX]] 06:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

			== hostile or peaceful? ==

			OK, I've checked the source, and it looks like it has nothing to do with the pet being a non-eating monster or not. It seems to me that pets will only become hostile if left alone on a level for a very long time, or if revived after being abused a lot. In all other cases (mounting, kicking a steed, or even directly attacking), the monster will become peaceful when tameness reach 0.

MysterX: Minor boo-boo in terminology

2008-01-23T06:33:19Z

Minor boo-boo in terminology

New page

Ack... after going through the source for some references, I see that the devs use wild to mean hostile, and peaceful to mean peaceful. I used feral for hostile and wild for peaceful ex-pets... either I got that impression from stuff out there in chatlogs and community publications, or else I just thought it sounded good and went with it. Should the terminology be changed to be more in-line with the source comments? Or does it make sense enough as written. I admit I pretty much just speculated about stuff like the relative tameness scale, but I think it's a fair gauge of how the system works... [[User:MysterX|MysterX]] 06:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)