Category talk:Bestiary/Archive 2

Notorious Monsters in Family Revamp?
Proposed revamp:

==Notorious Monsters in Family==

Looks good, though maybe regular NMs should have Standard: Lottery Spawn, Standard: Timer, Standard: Forced Pop next to them, just as BCNM, Quest, etc is next to others. --zoogelio-forgot-his-password 13:01, 16 February 2007 (EST)


 * Agreed. Standard: Lottery Spawn, Standard: Timed Spawn, Standard: Forced Spawn. --Gahoo 13:13, 16 February 2007 (EST)

Different colors? --Gahoo 12:33, 17 February 2007 (EST)

The dull gold color does look nice, though since all the entries of monster: location: information on their individual pages are in standard monster blue or NM red (or garrison green, etc), I recommend keeping NMs red. However, keep this gold color in mind for another type of monster (Event only creatures?, though gray boxes may be better for those and defunct monsters). It is very nice on the eyes. Hmm, but then again, it is on the Category: monster family page. So, I'd recommend getting other people's opinions since I can go either way on the gold box. --zoogelio-forgot-his-password 17:57, 17 February 2007 (EST)
 * Yeah the gold is growing on me. I would almost rather change the NM pages to the gold. --Gahoo 11:12, 21 February 2007 (EST)
 * I like the gold color. Maybe it could be used on stuff like Dynamis/Limbus/Salvage/BCNM/ENM/ISNM mobs or maybe for HNMs? --Joped 13:29, 21 February 2007 (EST)
 * Question: What about stuff like Poroggo Madames? There's a whole bunch, and I doubt they're each going to get their own page like the Ix'aerns (well, they might). Do we just put "Salvage: Zhayolm Remnants" as their spawn condition and "Varies"/"Various" as their notable drops? --Joped 12:40, 23 February 2007 (EST)


 * I am not sure that BCNM mobs should even go here. I think maybe it should be limited to "normal" NMs.  I.e. no BCNM/KSNM/ISNM, no dynamis, no assault, no limbus, no salvage. --Gahoo 12:52, 23 February 2007 (EST)
 * I'd agree with that. I think it's a bit redundant and for BC mobs, pointless. --Techno 14:08, 23 February 2007 (EST)


 * So "Notorious Monsters in Family" will no longer list Mission/Quest/Assault/BCNM/ENM/ISNM/Dynamis/Limbus/Salvage NMs? What about Garrison/EF/Besieged? --Joped 14:58, 23 February 2007 (EST)


 * No Garrison/EF/Besieged (except those that spawn on their own in theire respective zones) either. --Gahoo 15:02, 23 February 2007 (EST)


 * What about quest NMs? I think they would fall under the same guidelines.  --Techno 16:23, 23 February 2007 (EST)


 * How about - don't list them if they don't drop anything. So yes, spawned quest NMs which you kill just for killing, Sturmtiger for example, would not be listed, but something that you kill for an item for a quest, Nue for example, would be listed. --Gahoo 16:48, 23 February 2007 (EST)


 * Or how about arranging them alphabetically in the table by type, so A-Z for Standard NMs, then A-Z for everything else or A-Z for BCNMs/ENMs/ISNMs, then A-Z for Dynamis, then Garrison/Exped. Force, etc? --zoogelio-forgot-his-password 17:55, 23 February 2007 (EST)


 * I think this would be way way too long on many pages, especially beastmen categories. --Gahoo 17:58, 23 February 2007 (EST)


 * Saw Chigoes page. What I really want to aviod are those Mission/EF/Assault/BCNM/ENM/ISNM/Dynamis/Limbus/Salvage mobs.  I would rather not see the Big Bird page taken up with Titanis Max, Titanis Xax, Titanis Jax and Titanis Dax or all of the assault mobs.  I don't see how that is helpful.  I guess I am ok with these quest mobs - but it's just a hard ilne to draw. --Gahoo 18:12, 6 March 2007 (EST)


 * Maybe keep standard NMs in a table, then below do something like:

Quest NMs: Name 1, Name 2, Name 3

Mission NMs: Name 1, Name 2, etc

Battlefield NMs: Name 1 (ENM), Name 2 (BCNM), etc

Other NMs: Name 1 (Garrison), Name 2 (Expeditionary Force), Name 3 (Event NM)

That would differentiate between types and keep the table to "standard" NMs. BTW, looking at Uragnite page, I think fished up NMs should be counted as standard NMs. There are only a handful of Fished NMs. Asterisks should be placed next to certain Quest NMs, like the ones that remain up and aren't popped via "???"s (Korroloka Leech is one, I believe there are a few others). --zoogelio-forgot-his-password 18:46, 6 March 2007 (EST)


 * I still disagree with any NMs other than any other than standard, just for fun NMs being in the table. If we make an exception for quest mobs then we may as well start making exceptions for missions, besieged, etc.  People aren't going to care about the other NMs anyway.  Users probably won't reach the NM articles via this route, rather by going through the mission/quest page.  The information won't really be incredibly valuable since it won't matter to 99% of the people that view it and it will detract from the ones they will really want to look at.  Draw the line where there's a definitive difference, with the standard NMs.  This needs to get resolved.  Eleri is going through adding all NMs to some categories and now I'm finding out that my work (which I thought had been cleared with the admins weeks ago) has been edited.  I was going to try to make some major progress on this during the update today, but now I feel I have to wait until the issue is settled.  I'm a little unhappy about it.  I thought we had this decided.  --Techno 11:18, 7 March 2007 (EST)

Sorry Techno - I agree with you though. The problem is that in some categories (Chigoes) listing only "normal" NMs seems ODD because there are none listed and of course there are chigoe NMs, while on others (Beastmen especially, but the above Big Bird example too) there would be too many to list everything. So a middle ground could be nice. Taking Crabs as an example:

==Existing Chart Showing Everything==

==Zoogelio's Recommendation in Practice (center align bottom)==

==Zoogelio's Recommendation in Practice (left align bottom)==

I like the compromise solution a lot. (Not sure whether left or center align is better). --Gahoo 13:10, 7 March 2007 (EST)

Are all fished up monsters NMs or only some? I know there are some fished up monsters that are full NMs and the rest are just like regular monsters, but do those regular ones have the NM flag? The format looks good though. --zoogelio-forgot-his-password 18:27, 7 March 2007 (EST)

Resolution: Use the above "Zoogelio's Recommendation in Practice (left align bottom)"

This is just a blank table for me to use for copy/pasting convenience. --Techno 12:01, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Monsters in Family?
Someone is going about adding a "Monsters in Family" table. Was this OK'd by several people? --Joped 22:42, 7 March 2007 (EST)


 * link. --Gahoo 22:45, 7 March 2007 (EST)


 * I guess that makes sense, easier to navigate. Just thought some might find it useless having a NM chart, regular mob chart, and then stuff under the category.

Also, how about the new monsters? It seems the Mamool Ja knights (Mamools riding wivres) should go under Mamool Ja, wivres under their own category, those enhanced Trolls under Trolls, and those qutrubots/acroliths... not sure. Dunno if there's more new mobs, haven't been able to play since I downloaded the update. --Joped 22:50, 7 March 2007 (EST)

BCNM / Dynamis / Salvage / Limbus / Assault
Wasn't it decided that no NMs from the aforementioned categories will be included in the Notorious Monsters in Family table? A bunch of the ones from Nyzul Isle just got added today. --Divisortheory 11:51, 9 March 2007 (EST)

Salvage stuff were still there, and those pages don't have charts yet. But I did forget~ --Joped 11:56, 9 March 2007 (EST)

I have started to update some of the NM charts based on Zoog's suggestion. Personally I think they look great and this is a very nice compromise of space vs. information. What I have come across however is a possible discrepancy on Limbus mobs vs. Dynamis mobs (and possibly Assault/Salvage). Are these all considered NMs? By that I mean do they all con impossible to gauge? Is that the only qualification? Seems arbitrary that Troglodyte Dhalmel from Limbus is identified as an NM, but Nightmare Dhalmel from Dynamis is not. Is there a reason for this?

Let's take them individually.


 * Limbus - I've never done this. All NMs?
 * Dynamis - I've never done this. All NMs?
 * Assault - Some are certainly not NMs (Leujaoam Worm) while some con as ITG (Mineral Worm in Assault Mission - Orichalcum Survey).
 * Salvage - I've never done this. All NMs?
 * Battlefields - I know some mobs are charmable (Cottontail) - not sure what they con. Seems like all of these should be added in table at bottom.
 * Quest/Missions - Most if not all quest/mission spawns are NMs I believe. Seems like all of these should be added in table at bottom.

--Gahoo 09:52, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I don't think that /checking as ITG should be what defines a NM. Power compared to anything else in that battlefield/whatever is something to consider, and size compared to other monsters of that type is a big thing. Prominence, I guess. --Joped 11:58, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Maybe, but, as a starting proposition:
 * 1) Do all Limbus mobs con ITG?
 * 2) Do all Dynamis mobs con ITG?
 * 3) Do all Salvage mobs con ITG?
 * --Gahoo 12:07, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

All Monsters Having Jobs
I have some problems with this. I don't think that all/most non-beastmen have jobs. I say that because in the example given, crabs do not cast paladin magic. Rather, I would say monsters with non-obvious jobs have jobs like "crab" or "worm," and "Defense Bonus" is part of the crab "job". However, some do indeed have jobs, such mandragora, a lot of undead, and a lot of BLM monsters (excluding worms, I'd say). --Joped 18:20, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

I agree, most monsters don't display the set of Job traits we would consider one of the 18 Jobs. It seems Beastmen obviously all have Jobs and many (most?) NMs have Jobs regardless if they are animals or Beastmen. I know on some of the "unemployed" monsters, some people have been deleting the Job: line, but I think it should remain with the listing being Job: None or Job: N/A. I think at some point, there should be a massive haul through the bestiary to list all jobless monsters as None or N/A and make sure any that lack Job: lines have them put in.

And I think a lot of monsters are BLMs by technicality not by entirety because most monsters with an elemental base tend to use a barrage of spells from their element (e.g. Snow Devil). Kirin is a SMN because he uses Astral Flow, though he uses a barrage of Earth magic associated with BLMs. In the cases of monsters with elemental magic, I think calling them BLMs is okay unless they show some other Job trait (like Kirin's Astral Flow), in which case, just list the Job they have the traits from. --zoogelio-forgot-his-password 18:57, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Another way of determining if they are truely BLMs: I would say that if they cast spells of a single element, but those spells can all be obtained in 1 job (usually BLM), they are a BLM. An example of this would be bhoot (bhoots?). However, if they cast virtually every spell of that element, then they are not that job (usually BLM) unless they display other abilities of that job, such as Magic Attack Bonus, high INT, or Manafont. Good examples of casting most spells of a single element would be magic-casting bombs (such as Aerial Torpedoes), the Shijen, the Jailers, and greater wyrms. --Joped 10:30, 3 April 2007 (EDT)