How do you see taming?

[Chewett]

So I have an idea of what the skill taming represents but I am wondering what others think?

What does it mean for you and how would it look like as an icon?

once we have had some ideas I might ask mur what he thinks to see if anyone has gotten it close to mur or myself.

rewards be here.

[Lintara]

Taming in MD seems to be the player's ability to collect special resources from creatures when the creatures are under some condition or mood induced by certain items from the player's inventory. For example, items from Elecu Bration can only collected when it is feeling happy and "Rich", and resources from grasans can only be gained when they react to wiiya gas. 

Since the resources are gained not by the creatures giving them to the player themselves but by the player collecting them, I imagine that the icon would look like the act of collecting. Below is a picture I drew of the player's hand carefully  collecting either colored paper or skin. 

[Fang Archbane]

I personally think taming is something that comes with a crits age. The longer you have a creature as a part of you, the greater the bond between you two, and the deeper the understanding. That's not to say I dont agree with what Lintara has said, I do believe she makes a valid point, but in my mind taming is closer related to the relationship one builds with their creatures. Anyone can train, sac, resource grind, etc, but it takes a special person to look at his creatures as more than just an extension of himself, as actual family, pieces of you you simply couldn't do without.

Edited September 4, 2018 by Fang Archbane

[Chewett]

3 hours ago, Fang Archbane said:

I personally think taming is something that comes with a crits age. The longer you have a creature as a part of you, the greater the bond between you two, and the deeper the understanding. That's not to say I dont agree with what Lintara has said, I do believe she makes a valid point, but in my mind taming is closer related to the relationship one builds with their creatures. Anyone can train, sac, resource grind, etc, but it takes a special person to look at his creatures as more than just an extension of himself, as actual family, pieces of you you simply couldn't do without.

So you feel that the taming skill should be renamed as it’s not about keeping your creatures long but gathering materials and working with them?

[Fang Archbane]

Id have to personally say so Chew. If i had the chance and the right to rename/rework that skill, assuming it worked as i personally believe it should, i would call it Devotion.

It would gain .1 in said stat per 30 days a creature has spent in said players family (creatures traded with aged days already on them wouldnt add to said count) and It would also degrade any amount a specific creature gave upon sacrificing/trading of said creature.

To me, Taming means living and dying by said creatures. If you expect dedication and love from anything it expects the same in return, as well it has the full right to. These are just the thoughts of a simple minded man in the middle of a serious self journey but, from where i currently stand these are my thoughts on the subject.

And a sincere thank you for taking the time to read my opinion. I hope this reply finds you well old friend.

[Ungod]

Creatures are tamed once through fighting (see artwork of, say, winderwild or drachorn). Their use (in battle) empowers the player with skills such as defence, attack etc.

 Taming skill is a second 'level' of taming, where creatures that are useful in combat become useful in a system that works with resources/materials. This skill shows a player has an even stronger grip on his creatures - and a deeper relationship, that is less likely to end in front of altars (in theory). 

It is quite a revolution. 

 

I feel a yoke would be appropriate for an icon; alternatives for this: collar, shackles or chain(s).

[Ungod]

Well, double posting is not ok, but i'm making more work for mods ????. 

Just read the other posts - and i think fang is right on the relationship idea (as i wrote as well), but i disagree with the renaming and the gain of skill in other ways than coded now.

[Chewett]

8 hours ago, Fang Archbane said:

Id have to personally say so Chew. If i had the chance and the right to rename/rework that skill, assuming it worked as i personally believe it should, i would call it Devotion.

It would gain .1 in said stat per 30 days a creature has spent in said players family (creatures traded with aged days already on them wouldnt add to said count) and It would also degrade any amount a specific creature gave upon sacrificing/trading of said creature.

But that surely would be a new skill? You are describing a completely new mechanic.

My question was, You seem to think taming is keeping your creatures for a long time and looking after them. So what do you think the current skill should be called? If the new skill you postulate is "taming"

 

[Fang Archbane]

Hrm... it's a complicated matter for me I guess. You're right though, It would seem to be a new skill in itself. And I do think taming is keeping a creature for an extended period of time and raising then as family. Maybe we could combine the two aspects? Have it be a combination of resource collection as well as aging/caring for the creature as a part of yourself? Maybe add a small new mechanic where you can spend time with 1 creature at a time for a half hour each, outside of battle and just exploring with the creature, to really build that bond and degrading over time not spent with them. Elus are a good example, they are not meant to fight and that makes it clear that not all creatures are for battle, so why would any of them be solely for battle? I work way too much so its quite possible I'm too sleep deprived to make any sense... either way, these are my thoughts.

Edited September 4, 2018 by Fang Archbane

[Syrian]

the current mechanics of taming is more mutualism than taming a creature to obey you, you provide the creature something it needs/wants, and in return you get something you need, it's a relationship of mutual benefit.

[MaGoHi]

1 hour ago, Syrian said:

the current mechanics of taming is more mutualism than taming a creature to obey you, you provide the creature something it needs/wants, and in return you get something you need, it's a relationship of mutual benefit.

mutual benefit can you explain tha part?

 

 imo creatures are just slaves now and in the end they will get killed for stat gain, heat loss or just because you dont have enough space

[Syrian]

58 minutes ago, MaGoHi said:

mutual benefit can you explain tha part?

 

 imo creatures are just slaves now and in the end they will get killed for stat gain, heat loss or just because you dont have enough space

true, perhaps in the long term you couldnt consider it to be mutualism, though, in the short term its for the benefit of both, you provide it something to feed from, and get something you need in return.

taming to me implies that you are taming something wild and making it tolerate or work with you, which isn't happening here. of the two i feel mutualism would work better.

perhaps something like "collecting" would work as well, as (iirc) the button that allows you to gain these resources does actually say "collect".

Edited November 12, 2018 by Syrian

[MaGoHi]

7 minutes ago, Syrian said:

true, perhaps in the long term you couldnt consider it to be mutualism, though, in the short term its for the benefit of both, you provide it something to feed from, and get something you need in return.

i dont see the benefit of the creature

you take it from any recruiter, then it starts existing (reasoning this through its age, if it would be alive before it would age), so if giving it an existence is good then that might be a positive thing, BUT you still make it fight for you

[Syrian]

16 minutes ago, MaGoHi said:

i dont see the benefit of the creature

you take it from any recruiter, then it starts existing (reasoning this through its age, if it would be alive before it would age), so if giving it an existence is good then that might be a positive thing, BUT you still make it fight for you

you could make the argument that what if they want that? they don't seem to have any wills of their own, they just follow ours. though i do agree perhaps mutualism isnt the best word for it, but also neither is taming, its a very strange thing to try to sum up in one word.

[MaGoHi]

7 minutes ago, Syrian said:

you could make the argument that what if they want that? they don't seem to have any wills of their own, they just follow ours. though i do agree perhaps mutualism isnt the best word for it, but also neither is taming, its a very strange thing to try to sum up in one word.

i agree on that xD

[Fang Archbane]

Maybe we should just rename the skill Coexistance.

D1) the state or condition of living in harmony despite different ideologies or interests.

"what is needed today is peaceful coexistence"

D2) the state or fact of living or existing at the same time or in the same place.

"a remarkable coexistence of two profoundly different artistic traditions"

I feel both main definitions wholly apply, seeing as they become one with who we are if even only for a time.

Edited November 12, 2018 by Fang Archbane

[MaGoHi]

i cant agree there fang, because without us they wouldnt even exist, its like crafting a hammer and saying that would be coexistance
 

[Fang Archbane]

A valid point, however, while the hammer is an inanimate object, even assuming the creatures have no free will of their own (which isnt proven and I'd disagree with either way) they are indeed sentient.

Coexistance, in my eyes, is an agreement either spoken or unspoken between two sentient beings.

[MaGoHi]

Aramors are well known throughout the Realm as they are one of the few entities who will aid anyone, without taking into consideration if their master is good, evil, sane or mad. Contrary to popular belief, there is no foreign spirit living inside the suit of armour, for the Aramor is alive and sentient through a permanent enchantment. At this time the defensive Aramor's plating is made entirely out of copper.

i'd have to check all the descriptions, for aramors -see bold text above- it even says that it is just held together through enchantment not by a spirit

so i dont think that co existance is it in that case, if you want to get a skill from using crits you would have to make it different for each different crit, some will have the same, some might have to be uniqe

 

my issue with this is just the generalization that wouldnt fit on all, if you come up with a better word that might change

 

edit:

i mean if you look at it this way you could call it "raising" or "guidance" or something like that, because the creatures grow under your guidance and evolve with your guidance, but since they dont "do" anything on their own i dont think that you could say co existance

Edited November 13, 2018 by MaGoHi

[Fang Archbane]

My point was that coexistance is between two sentient beings. You literally just proved for me (in the aramors case) that magic makes it sentient ( o.o);

I kid, I kid, I see your point and it's a valid one.

I do however find it difficult to be persuaded on this matter. The creature recruited was given existence through you, battles along with you, has the potential to reward you with skills etc for your combined works, some give you processed materials, and so much more.

To me, at least in my current work exhausted state, this describes coexistence.

Edited November 13, 2018 by Fang Archbane

[MaGoHi]

7 minutes ago, Fang Archbane said:

The creature recruited was given existence through you, battles along with you, has the potential to reward you with skills etc for your combined works, some give you processed materials, and so much more. 

The creature recruited was given existence through you : yes

battles along with you: partly true it battles for you, sometimes with you

has the potential to reward you with skills etc for your combined works: you are literally killing it to get the skills/stats thats why it cant be co existance, if you would just "free it" it would be a different story, but you can only kill or or give it to someone else

some give you processed materials, and so much more: yes that can happen

[Fang Archbane]

9 hours ago, MaGoHi said:

you are literally killing it to get the skills/stats thats why it cant be co existance

I disagree here, I get more stats from grinding friendly battles with teammates in a day then I do sacrificing. That's a small part of the reason I stopped saccing long ago.

[John Constantine]

If you understand taming as I do and if I do understand it as Prince did then taming is a process of transformation of a creature into yours creature.

Taming a creature reduces its freedom because it creates a connection with your persona and connection means dependance, but in the same time it enforces the responsibility for the creature on you.

Taming means time. Taming means shaping the creature into your own image. Taming is changing the creature in your own likeness.

You are superior to your creatures but your creatures are part of you. They are the mirrors in which you reflect yourself. Even the act of sacrifice or destruction ("I did it just for the stats, I swear, officer!") is an act which reflects upon you. You can tame your creatures to be stronger, better adapted to encounters or you can just make them unprepared, weak and stagnated.

A collar is a good representation of taming because it captures the hierarchical structure of the relationship between tamer and tamed.

Time is not a sufficient condition for being tamed. It also requires a specific action which is intentionally stimulated by a master on a creature to benefit the master.

There is a difference between being tamed and being a slave. Slave wants to become free from his miserable condition (of course if the slave is concious about his state) and actively or passively defies the master. The tamed one on the other hand wants to satisfy the master will for a gift to be returned (like increased level, upgrades! or even because of fear of being redundant and ultimately destroyed or punished). Master can enforce obedience by using force and or encouragement - it doesn't matter. The tamed creature allows to be tamed because it gets something in return.

Edited November 17, 2018 by John Constantine

[MaGoHi]

18 hours ago, Nava said:

A slave does not defy their master.  To be enslaved is to do the opposite.  If you enslave that which is within, then you're enslaving yourself.

a slave can defy its master, just pretending to be loyal until a chance for freedom arrives

[Syrian]

@John Constantine the problem with this, while i do agree with parts of it, is that it doesnt relate to what the skill actually does. if the skill was referring to recruiting creatures, and that's how you gained it, then yes, but it's not.

20 hours ago, Nava said:

A slave does not defy their master.  To be enslaved is to do the opposite.  If you enslave that which is within, then you're enslaving yourself.

as mago says, a slave doesnt defy because it's accepted it cannot, given the chance they will choose otherwise, if they are of sound mind. but also as above, the concept of slavery in any form isn't really relavent to the topic at hand.

the skill itself comes from the act of taking or collecting resources from the creature, and the name of it should reflect this action, it's a little strange that it doesn't really reflect the nature of the skill or provide any accurate hints/clues as to what you would do to actually gain it.