Talk:Creatures

And on a related note, here's the other icons (some creatures, some quest items that might be repurposed) I have in case they are of use in the future:

To give a new name right click on image and save with new name, then reupload.

---

Glad you pointed that out, I'd made an icon extractor while doing the creature icons and it wasn't until later when I was working on the weapons for the rare icons that I figured out how to get the outlining to work right so some of these are missing that, so I went back and redid several of them (like the drudge, they look a lot better now).--Tlosk 08:43, 24 June 2008 (CDT)

---

I like the modified shadow and virindi icons, good work.

I still don't think the Gibbering icon works for the drudge though, even with the modified arm. It still has the sclavus torso and it looks very hunchbacked.

I don't think it would hurt to have the mask/head icon for some creatures. Many creatures are humanoid and all have very similar silhouettes but distinct faces. I think the following creatures could use the mask icon for their creature icon: Banderling (using new mask icon), Burun, drudge, fiun, Mosswart (new mask icon), Ruschk, Skeleton, Undead. More thoughts:

Burun
If possible, this icon might look better with the black outline around it. The legs sort of get lost. Another option would be to use the Burun King pack doll model, or the ruuk mask/head model.

Drudge
I'd go with the old icon or the mask/head icon. The old icon is in the very distinct drudge pose, so the head isn't that important. But if you want more detail I'd go with the mask. The Gibbering thing doesn't work IMO.

Simulacrum
You could actually use the Harker's Head icon here, since he is one.

--An Adventurer 22:09, 23 June 2008 (CDT)

---

All virindi have the same silhouette, I'll change the icon so that it is smooth and not ragged, so it's more "representative" from a lore persepective. I thought about using masks for the icons when I was making them, but since many do not have one I thought it would be better to have most being creature (I tried making several iterations of chittick but none were recognizable so I just went with the head. If you had a single image to represent humanity would it be man or woman? I don't see having one member of a group obviating the existence of distinct varieties within the group. Some dogs are more "dog like" than the dogs closest genetically to the dog premogenitor. --Tlosk 20:49, 23 June 2008 (CDT)

---

There is a "correct" or "incorrect" as far as the lore is concerned. Virindi-Altered Shadow should not be the icon for all Shadows in general, Shadow-touched Virindi should not be the icon for all Virindi in general.

More thoughts on icons:
Drudge - The Gibbering icon would actually make a good icon for the misc creature class, since I believe is would be under that class, and also its an odd combination of several creatures.
Golem - Doesn't really matter what icon is used, but I think the old icon is clearly recognizable as a golem, and also I do not think a majority of the golems use the crystalline model. A Majority use the earth/stone/ore model.
Undead - Another reason to stick with old icon: the marionette icon is a modified version of it.
Virindi - The old icon does suck, but for lore reasons I would not use the shadow-touched icon as the generic virindi icon. Perhaps just a virindi mask icon with the creature icon background.

In fact, the creature head/mask icon pasted on to the creature background could probably work as better icons for the drudge, banderling, mosswart, undead, shadow, virindi, and a whole bunch of other creatures. I see we already use the chittick mask icon for that creature.

--An Adventurer 20:33, 23 June 2008 (CDT)

---

I'm going to change the crystal, golem, and virindi back and compromising on the shadow (umbris model). Several of the icons don't exist as such and had to be created or co-opted, my goal was primarily accurate representation (when you look at it you know what it is). And technically there's no "correct" or "incorrect", these icons appear nowhere in game associated directly with creatures themselves. --Tlosk 20:22, 23 June 2008 (CDT)

---

I just saw that the icons were incorrect so I updated them.

Crystal - I just used the icon that was in the portal.dat next to the shadow icon. This is the icon that was actually used according to the label in PortalOpus, but it doesn't make much difference.

Doll - previous icon was for Harker's head, which was not correct.

Drudge - previous icon was for The Gibbering, you could see its sclavus torso and banderling arm.

Golem - previous icon was a diamond golem, I changed it to the generic golem icon that has always been used.

Shadow - previous icon was of the virindi-altered shadows, which I thought felt wrong to use as the label for shadows.

Undead - previous icon was the undead butler. the suit in the icon isn't very undead-like.

Virindi - previous icon was of the shadow-touched virindi. Like with shadows, I thought it felt wrong to use this as the label for all virindi.

--An Adventurer 20:07, 23 June 2008 (CDT)

---

I strongly prefer modern icons as opposed to original icons that no longer look like what they represent due to model updates. With the exception of the Doll and Shadow icons (I consciously chose the shadow variant because it is more readily recognizable as a shadow, but I could see that one going either way, or if we at some point broke them down into subgroups as with the tumeroks and lugians), what reason would you give for reverting to the old icons? --Tlosk 19:57, 23 June 2008 (CDT)

---

I added them back and extracted creature icons and gave them all a uniform backing and added them to the table. You think it would be a good idea to move the elementals from parenthetical to how they're listed in game? That is, from Elemental (Fire) to Fire Elemental?----Tlosk 17:45, 3 May 2008 (CDT)Tlosk 05:42, 24 March 2008 (CDT)

---

Hea Tumerok, Aun Tumerok, Tumerok, Gotrok Lugian, Lugian, and Elemental vs. the various types are all unique creature classes displayed on the creature panel. The Hea/Aun/Regular is important because of the tumerok slayer on the assault weapons, the NPC even says they will not work on Aun and Hea. The elemental types are imporant for isparian weapons. A fire isparian weapon is frost elemental slayer, frost weapon is fire elemental slayer, etc, and Prismatic is just plain Elemental slayer, which is for dual elementals and the harbinger. The Gotrok/Lugian classes have no slayers, but "Lugian" are passive creatures (except for new ones on ToD) and gotrok are aggressive. I think we need to keep every major creature class separate.

--An Adventurer 19:52, 23 March 2008 (CDT)

---

Now that the Aerbax arc is finished and no other new classes were introduced (as was the earlier concern) I changed Paradox-Touched back to what it's listed as in game, Paradox Olthoi. Given the true class difference (Olthoi Slayer weapons don't work on them) unlike the softer distinction of the Hea and Aun or the Gotrok I think it should be justified. Also there's several variants for the knath, so I consolidated on what is listed in game (Knathtead). I also consolidated the elementals and added robust cross linking (they are still separate but just Elemental listed in the table). The separate classes were only really distinguished very early in the game (almost all later additions were just plain Elemental) and there aren't many exemplars, not enough to justify discrete links in the table (especially given their unwieldy names, and since Elemental would be the natural first place to look anyways).--Tlosk 17:57, 23 March 2008 (CDT)

---

I removed the apparition and empyrean classes, added Gotrok, and put in a link to the new misc. creature class page.

--An Adventurer 23:53, 17 March 2008 (CDT)

---

any reason why was everything pluralized?

Because Gouru wanted to? :) Perhaps to more correct, there is more then one tusker in AC.

A lot of the plural names are not correct. These creatures are the same word singular and plural: Burun (and classes), chittick, carenzi, Mukkir, Niffis, Olthoi, Ruschk, Siraluun, Slithis, Ursuin, and Virindi

The Human groups Raven Hand, Tanada, and Zharalim are not creatures, but groups, and dont need to be pluralized. The Word Undead is plural, along with the three groups below it.

And Sclavus is Sclavi, not Sclavuses...

---

nevermind, I see there is a forum now, and Gouru posted an explanation:

The posting of the monster 'Skeleton' I realized would have clashing page names as the monster class and monster itself had the same name.

I considered a couple solutions, but in the end decided to use the plural form of the name for class names, with the monster name itself being the singular.

I did a mass cleanup of the monster section to implement this change, and modified the template to match.

I think you should change them back, or at least, correct the plural names. As far as I know there are very few creatures that even share the name of their creature type: skeleton, undead, cow, and maybe a ghost. And these few cases could be dealt with by simply titling the entry Skeleton (creature)

Gouru 20:43, 12 October 2007 (CDT) I don't mind changing them back, but my only issue with the 'Skeleton (creature) solution is that it shows up as the Page Title as well. Can a page be created that has a different display name than it's regular name? I'd really much prefer for the display to say simple 'Skeleton' whether we are talking about the group or the creature.

Well this is just my opinion, but I think Skeleton (creature) is a better solution than pluralizing everything. The only other creatures are cows and undead. For Cows, the two entries can be Cow (black) and Cow (Brown) so that takes care of that. For Undead, I think the creature category could be changed to "The Undead" - my idea would be that none of the creature entries would be under this category directly anyways, instead they would be under Dericost, Falatacot, and Mu-Miyah. For Skeleton, That could just be the only creature category that is pluralized.

Gouru 21:46, 12 October 2007 (CDT) You talked me into it, it's changed back.

--William the Bat 02:21, 13 October 2007 (CDT) I've found the singular form for pages works better. You can always drop an s after the double close bracket and the wikki will automatcally display the plural form corectly (e.g. Lugians), as long as it's not a weird form like Niffi (Niffises? Niffini? Niffii?)

--An Adventurer 20:35, 16 November 2007 (CST) I removed the subsections from the creature categories. My idea was to list the stats on those pages alone, for example, there would be no stats on the "human" page, only on the various factions. I've decided a better idea is to add the race/faction/breed as a category on the stats table of the monsters that need it.

--Sanguis 15:07, 29 January 2008 (CST) Bearing that in mind, I removed Gotrok lugians as they are just a faction of lugians as a whole.

--An Adventurer 15:23, 29 January 2008 (CST) No Gotrok Lugian is a unique creature class

--An Adventurer 22:31, 29 January 2008 (CST) I believe we should add a Miscellaneous creature class, for creatures where they are the only member of that class. examples would be the new apparition class with the ghost olthoi, BZ being "Hopeslayer" class, the dark sarcophagus, and others I'm sure. Thoughts?

--Tlosk 07:14, 27 February 2008 (CST) Yes, the Misc class would be useful, I've come across some that are actually listed as "Unknown" in game. I didn't find this already implemented so I'm putting them under a "Miscellaneous Creature Class" category instead of their listed class (just "Misc" probably wouldn't be inherently descriptive in the way that "Rat" or "Golem" is).

Also I've added links to the autogenerated indices, I realize this isn't as clean as the table formatted pages, but until the user generated lists are completed it helps I think to have all currently available pages easily accessible.