Talk:Creatures & enemies
From SWG Wiki
Table of contents |
[edit] Creatures, Variants and Planet Wildlife link
I was browsing through the creatures and found that if there exists variants of one type of creature, each has it's own page, see Bantha and Bantha Matriarch as well as the several different Dewback variants Grizzled Dewback, Mountain Dewback Cannibal Dewback.
Isn't that a little bit scattered? Would it be okay to reorganice them into one single page for one type e.g. for Dewbacks, which lists all different variants? See Kima.
- I agree, suggest a type-subtype relationship in the form of type (creature)#subtype.--Caray-tid 15:52, 15 Jun 2005 (CEST)
In addition I added to some planets an Topic :Renown Wildlife of Planetname (as for Kima's on Talus, Kimoglias on Lok and Krayt Dragons on Tatooine) to enlist some of the cenown creatures from that planet and easier link from the planets to the spezific Planets Wildlife. See Renown Wildlife of Talus.
See also: [1] for a newly started discussion on the SWG Wiki Forum.
Honestly Im not very happy with the naming of the topic at the planet page, so if any native english speaking or better english speaking ppl could come up with a better naming, be my guest. --5C0UT 13:53, 15 Jun 2005 (CEST)
- Reorganization of the Creatures & Enemies page is welcome. I suggest titling the secion on the planet pages to simply "Unique Wildlife." It's unnecesary to include the planet name in the title, since you're already on that planet's page. Also, I agree that "Creatures & Enemies" should perhaps be renamed to something else. Inhabitants may be too broad, though, since that to me would include NPC's in cities that give out missions. I would think those type of NPC's should be on a separate page, or included in static city pages (as on Mos Eisley page). Anyone have other suggestions?--Tandalo 06:27, 16 Jun 2005 (CEST)
- I agree with bringing all variations onto each page. We shouldn't need to list them on the main page. Keep the variations listed for reference, though, if the page hasn't been created yet. Compiling and writing this bestiary will take a lot of time and effort. Is there a complete (finished) creature page that can be used as an example template? This may be more helpful for those wanting to start new pages. Bantha would be good, except that it also incorporates information for pets, which would be misleading as a template. --Tandalo 08:24, 16 Jun 2005 (CEST)
- Saw that you were working on that, yes I think we need a general stats section with the differences listed at the variants. Im working on the creatures template to show what I had in mind. The thing is,, I dont know which stats are POST CU relevant, since it looks like the combat stats were from PRE CU. --5C0UT 11:28, 16 Jun 2005 (CEST)
- Ok cool. My main problem with the creatures is that i don't know much about them. Do we have a creature expert here somewhere and hear an opinion what template would be best?--Webmaster 11:34, 16 Jun 2005 (CEST)
- Thats exactly where my problems is to. Im hardly know anything about creatures, especially since they are all now tied to levels, I ll just gues, so far what might be needed in the statistics table. --5C0UT 11:50, 16 Jun 2005 (CEST)
Okay, I directed all creatures pages to one page and "readyed" them to point to the apropriate subsections. I haven't touched any humanoids yet, since I think we should point to a page regarding the faction they represent and put their variants as well as their stats on that page. --5C0UT 00:01, 17 Jun 2005 (CEST)
- Agreed. The NPC info can be compiled on that page; would make it a lot easier to finish, to read, and to find the info.
Creatures and planets , I just noticed that i might be wrong with putting some creatures on certain planets. It looks like even tough Im shutteling around talus, not all creatures on the loading page are related to talus. I ll check that out as soon as I nkow more --5C0UT 18:30, 22 Jun 2005 (CEST)
- I'm sure most others will be able to catch if the planet is incorrect.--Tandalo 21:18, 22 Jun 2005 (CEST)
[edit] Babies
I don't think we need to list (baby) versions of creatures on the main page. All babies will be CL 1 and share the other characteristics of babies: CL 1, not aggressive, stalker, killer, or social. You can tell if a creature has babies by seeing if it's tamable or not. We can make a page about babies, if that will be more helpful, but adding extra entries for babies of each tamable creature will be a lot of extra work and space. --Tandalo 23:52, 11 Jul 2005 (CEST)
- Actually this has changes slightly since the CH changes (babies are the same level as their parents in the spawn, seem to be generally non-aggressive, but may be social. However, I agree there is no reason to list them. --SwordMage 11:15, 25 Sep 2005 (CEST)
[edit] Page name
I'd like to move this page to use a name with proper grammar (i.e. replace & with "and", only capitalize first word and proper nouns). "Creatures and enemies" is an obvious first choice, but perhaps there's a better name. Maybe Bestiary? That seems a popular name for creature/NPC databases. Anyone have a suggestion? --Influenza 04:26, 22 Sep 2005 (CEST)
- I think Bestiary would be better, but that usually implies creatures only and not NPC's. We still haven't really settled on what should be included for combative NPC's anyway. Should they be on this page? Just linked from the Factions page? They don't really fit the template we have for creatures, and I don't really know how useful individual pages would be for most NPC's. Perhaps this should be a RFC page? --Tandalo 03:39, 23 Sep 2005 (CEST)
- Many of the game sites (Allakhazam comes to mind and also Ogaming) use Bestiary for both; however, I think is would be best to split the page into "Creatures" and "Combatant NPCs" or the like. I think combining them like this just confuses things (at least I know I was confused at first). If you want to leave them together, the explanation of which NPCs are included here needs to be tightened. --SwordMage 10:23, 23 Sep 2005 (CEST)
- Splitting it into Bestiary for the NPCs I would suggust Denizens of the Galaxy? Its a more "neutral" expression, since it depends on your faction standing if they are realy your combatants or you rallies. An other Alternative would be Residenz of the SWG, or if you want: NPC Residenz of the Galaxy. --5C0UT 12:15, 23 Sep 2005 (CEST)
- Perhaps just switching to Creatures and Enemies would be fine, as "enemies" implies that you could fight them/they could fight you. If we could come up with a non-confusing name for NPC's that reflects that they could attack you (excluding factional NPC's), I'd be for that instead. Combatants would work well, except that it is now a faction setting. Hostiles? Foes? Opposition? While I don't like the idea of including "NPC" in the title, it may be needed to keep the idea clear of what is being included on the page.--Tandalo 10:30, 27 Sep 2005 (CEST)
- Oh! Just thought of something. How about "Creautres and NPCombatants"? Catchy? =) --Tandalo 10:36, 27 Sep 2005 (CEST)
I second the name "Creatures & Enemies". I also offer maybe "Beatiary & Enemies" or even "Beasts & Enemies". When I see the term NPC, I think of non-combatant characters.
--M.A.X. 18:02, 29 Sep 2005 (CEST)
Let's work for a consensus here. I think we should split NPCs to another page, but I'm not sure what to name that page. I know not all NPCs are enemies, but I do think that NPC enemies would make a good page name, as would NPC combatants. And I think this page (sans NPCs) should be renamed Bestiary with a notice to seek the other page for NPCs. Let's have a vote; put whether you think NPCs should be removed from this page, what their own page should be named if so, and what the name of this page should be. --Influenza 23:36, 18 Oct 2005 (CEST)
I know I said that the term "NPC" makes me think of non-combatants, but I do like the idea of removing them from the Creatures & Enemies page and changing the page to just "Bestiary". Because I cannot think of a better name, I'm voting to call the new page NPC Combatants. Because, not all NPC combatants are enemies. --M.A.X. 00:21, 19 Oct 2005 (CEST)
[edit] Update
I've updated the Corellian section. I added all variations that haven't been listed on a page yet. So there are a lot of red links, but if anyone has time, it's easy to tell what needs work. I'm wondering whether it's necessary to list variations on this page once they are listed on the specific page. Would it be helpful? I did it here to know what needs to be added yet, but this page will get huge very quickly if we include links for all variations. Comments?--Tandalo 09:57, 25 Sep 2005 (CEST)
- When I looked at the page after your update, that was my first reaction as well. Removing the variations and placing them on the species page would make this page much more manageable. It would also make it more obvious when coverage is missing (right now the varients for Slice Hound all link to a page that doesn't list them). It probably also makes sense to not bother mentioning whether or not there are variants here (just assume they will be covered on the species page either directly or by reference; for instance, Tusken Raiders really needs to tie together all the varient pages).
- In the short run it might be useful to simply create stub pages for the species to hold the varient lists until the data can be entered. --SwordMage 11:07, 25 Sep 2005 (CEST)
[edit] NPC Template
While we're hammering out a name for the NPC's, we should also figure out a template for pages that will link from here. A few examples actually exist, but I think a simple, short list of basic info is all we need for stats. Captain of the Guard, for example. And any description as appropriate. The Prima guide has the basics, with the exception of location. We should include Elite and Boss difficulty as a stat, though, as that can make a big difference, and is a new change post-CU. Ideas? Comments? Suggestions? --Tandalo 10:35, 27 Sep 2005 (CEST)
- Hi all, I was just willing to tell you that it exist some tamed creatures by Factioned NPC like the Gurk on Lok or the Veemok from Maulers on Naboo, the Gungan Kaadu the Gungan Fambaa the Tusk cats from Tusk Cats riders the Rebel sludge Panthers ! ! !
In which categorie are they ? Creatures variant or NPC variant ?
If you choose to put them in Faction NPC classification then you will prefer the Faction notion instead of the Race one...
I hope this will help you to take the best decision...--Niom 12:30, 27 Sep 2005 (CEST)
- I just made a template for NPC Combatants, so we can have something to go from. I applied it to the Drall page. Since all Rebel and Imperial NPC's should be listed on their respective pages, I left out the Rebel Drall Guard. Comments? Changes?
- As to some creatures being aligned with NPC factions, I would say we should list them on the creature page and then link to that page from the NPC Combatant page. For example, Tusken Bantha has an entry on the Bantha page, but should be referred to (linked) from the Tusken Raiders page. No need for double entries. That's what makes sense to me. If you think it should be organized otherwise, please comment. --Tandalo 21:55, 27 Sep 2005 (CEST)
[edit] Natural Level vs Combat Level
I've seen a few pages with Natural Level rather than Combat Level and was wondering the difference. Besides the name, is there really a difference between Natural Level and Combat Level? And if there is not a difference, can we list creatures and combatant NPCs Combat Levels instead of a Natural Level? For example, a Bol and it's varients, I've seen as lot as like CL29 and as high as CL82, but when I look on the page, the highest Natural Level I see is Natural Level 43. Maybe list it as CL 43-82, if that species goes that high? --M.A.X. 00:54, 2 Oct 2005 (CEST)
- The natural level is the combat level the creature or NPC would have if you found them out in the wild. The different CL's occur when they are generated by missions, which will inflate their CL's to around the group's current CL. Figuring out the true range a creature could be generated from missions, or even if it can be mission generated, would be a lot of work. But if someone wants to put the time into it, I'd be all for a range of CL's in parentheses behind the natural combat level. Also, we could change the template to "Natural CL:" instead of Natural Level, if that's less confusing.--Tandalo 18:17, 2 Oct 2005 (CEST)
[edit] Request for comments?
Would anyone mind if I removed the RFC tag? --M.A.X. 21:23, 9 March 2006 (CET)