Monster Overhaul
Tue, 08/18/2015 - 13:50
In lieu of recent edits and improvements regarding materials, we have the opportunity to improve monster pages. At first, we were just going to fix their loot drop tables to be correct, but why not "give it our all?" We would arrange the pages to be in a standard format (ToC on the left with an infobox on the right) as well as improving ease of data entry for individual monsters. The infobox would be a little more involved and easier to glance at for information than the current "monsterfamily" template. We hope. Instead of having a giant subsection devoted to major entities such as Margrel, this information would be moved to its own page - while still getting a mention on their species page, of course. The rest would be quite similar.
A point of debate is to use shield defensive icons or the current damage icons in the MonsterInfo template on the top right. Using shields makes more sense, imo, but the wording might be a little strange. I think we should use words instead of the yellow up/down arrows and neutral sign, because we do not see these symbols in-game.
Another point of debate is the usage of show/hides. Should they be used at all? I like how they hide repetitive information, or information that many users already know, while still being there for new users.
We will be polishing templates and making a demo page in the talk page of the Mecha Knight. Compare it to the actual Mecha Knight page. If you see any major issues while we are working on it, please do not edit the page - post here about it instead. If we like that page format, we will push changes through AFTER we finish materials. One huge project at a time!
Fri, 08/21/2015 - 18:23
#2
Swords and up-close battle with mecha-knights works well for me
If your sword can quickly knock them down, a sword combo can be an effective way to take them out.
(I use a Calibur type sword, and it's very effective against Mecha Knights. Just run up to them, knock them down with a sword combo, and kill them.)
(Just adding onto Altmetal saying "I wouldn't disadvise using swords vs knights")
Fri, 08/21/2015 - 20:35
#3
Okay
Let's focus on the big picture here. The monster strategy is a very small part of the project, and is a section of opinion, we can add/subtract to it as we please.
Fri, 08/28/2015 - 13:03
#4
Whew
Man, one thing I'm for sure looking forward to is having individual ToC sections for these things instead of hidden headers. It's been a hassle fixing the mat drops so far.
We're doing this in phases. Fix the material drops first (retains old format), then gradually overhaul the monster pages in general. It is more important to get correct information published first. Will be adding this note to relevant pages after lunch.
Speaking of which, it's important to make sure the correct information we publish is truly correct.
Please check monster pages for error. In particular:
*Blast Cubes (same drop table as normal jelly cube? we think so)
*C42 slime critters (data shows they drop both poison and fire materials, could use confirmation)
*Rocket Puppy (do they drop fire mat? we think not)
*Bombies and Deadnaughts (regarding depth vs. location, prestige starting floors are important here)
*Gremlins (especially toxic mortafire - are they poison dropping monsters? We have reports of a toxic core. More data appreciated)
Research is ongoing for:
*Toxilargo
*Battlepods (Snarbylord is doing some research for this)
Sat, 08/29/2015 - 08:10
#5
Crowns from monsters and drop confirmations
Do you think we should put the crowns from monsters anywhere on the pages?
If you look on my user page (Snarbylord), you can see I'm recording the crown drops I get from monsters.
This will take a lot more information and time to complete, but once it is finally done, do you think we should put it there?
-----
I'll check the Toxilargo now.
Any levels you know where you're likely to encounter (large amounts of) Rocket Puppies?
When the daily danger mission is Compound 42 I'll check the Toxoils, but I can't reach the Giant Toxoil yet, you'll need someone else to check that.
I won't be checking any other monsters though (for now, at least). (That also means Battlepods, not going to be running those except when the daily combat prestige is Assault on Machine Shop 13)
Sat, 08/29/2015 - 14:56
#6
Well...
Crown information seems to be highly variable (difficulty levels for one) and influenced by the area (danger rooms for example). I wouldn't put crown information on individual monster pages. Unless you do find a pattern, well then, yes we should. It's interesting research, a place I can think for it to go would be in a guide about monster slaying + crowns.
Rocket puppies...Construct arenas have a chance to spawn a horrific cluster of them, OCH and Scarlet Fortress:Grim Gallery have guaranteed spawns.
Sun, 08/30/2015 - 02:47
#7
toxiclargo
Out of 10 encounters - I just did 8 runs, a guildmate joined in for 2 - the slime dropped green shard 2x, a waste module and a gel drop (6x no material).
Sun, 08/30/2015 - 06:00
#8
later that day...
2 shadowplay runs, 4 toxic mortafires, zero mat drops, /sigh
Sun, 08/30/2015 - 09:45
#9
Stingy Sillies
I have added provided data, thank you.
Sun, 09/06/2015 - 16:58
#10
Thoughts
While we are thinking about monsters, it would be prudent to spruce up everything we can, as we did with the mission page and mission lists. Please check out the sandbox and consider the list there and proposed changes above the list. This is about providing clarity and ease of information access (as well as visual exposure) to players, in addition to something that's easier for editors to update. This usually means compressing things via templates or page merges instead of having a bunch of different pages/lists to update.
"Class" is a very old but sort of opinionated method of organization, but I have found it to be very useful regarding turrets and so on. There are certain release notes that use these terms (such as "elite," "drone," and "mini,") so they are official to an extent. We'll just have to be careful.
We are working hard on improving various other things around the wiki, and the monster overhaul is a huge project that takes lower priority than our current Mission Page and Acquisition projects, simply because we have momentum for these two projects right now. So, the monster stuff is a project for way down the road - that being said, any inspiring thoughts about how we should go about it should be discussed.
Sun, 09/06/2015 - 17:44
#11
...
First - I think there should just be 1 image for each monster, not for each tier. Just the T3 version?
Second - I'm giving a full NO to changing the Monster page, though go ahead with merging the Monster Classification and Visual Encyclopedia/creature pages.
Sun, 09/06/2015 - 19:16
#12
Erm
There are clearly distinct versions of monsters per tier, so we have to show each tier's picture. Otherwise it's incredibly confusing for new players. The list is also sortable by tier, so players can learn there's distinct differences between monsters. This seems to be confusing for certain beasts, with players thinking alpha wolvers are upper tier, and so on.
Why no to modifying the monster page? The classification information should really be included in it. A lot of players are completely unaware there's even a classification system.
Sun, 09/06/2015 - 21:13
#13
Yeah, new players could be confused.
The monster page is really helpful sometimes, with all the monster names and families together with each-other without any other unnecessary information, which can just be found in the separate monster pages. It's much better in my opinion to have a list with links like that instead of all that information being thrown all over the place when, as I mentioned before, it can just be found in the separate monster pages.
-----
Separate the Alpha Wolvers from the Wolvers (separate page for them), or no?
Sun, 09/06/2015 - 22:24
#14
classes
I've never heard anyone mention the "grunt" and "brute" classes. I've heard "elite" used, but only by Three Rings to describe mecha knights and greavers, while explaining the buffing of the latter. It all sounds like one player's opinion to me. So I vote against classes.
Mon, 09/07/2015 - 00:58
#15
^
I also think that classes shouldn't be on the monster pages.
Mon, 09/07/2015 - 09:28
#16
Hmm
I have an idea for a better list regarding the tier and repetitive name issue.
We have to include class, even if the majority of it seems to be colloquial. It's extremely useful information.
Here are the terms I've seen used in release notes (so it's not "all" player opinion, hence needing to be careful, but also needing to implement it better):
-"Drone" (also uses the phrase "a new class"): 2011-12-19
-"Mini" (also uses the phrase "a new class"): 2013-04-10
-"Elite" (also uses the phrase "reclassified"): 2013-05-01
When I was a new player, this classification really helped regarding connecting everything. For example, I could expect a turret for most, but not all monster families. If it's that bothersome, we can ask support about official terms for other classes.
I think it would be prudent to link to the article on the main monster page, as part of a minor reword of the top. It's always bothered me that it's written that way, when many "monsters" are our allies. They're not always "terrible." And why does it use the word "halls."
As far as having class on individual pages, it would just be in the infobox, as it is on the mecha knight's potential new format page, and allow players to get to other creatures with (EDIT: potentially very or only slightly) similar behavior, while family lets players get to other creatures with similar defenses.
Mon, 09/07/2015 - 09:30
#17
response
We have to include class, even if the majority of it seems to be colloquial. It's extremely useful information.
I strongly disagree. But maybe I would understand your viewpoint better if you would list all of the classes that exist (in your view). Apparently turrets are one of them, but they do not appear in the sandbox page linked.
Mon, 09/07/2015 - 10:14
#18
Bopp
I won't list all the classes that exist in my view, as that is unprofessional and inappropriate for a wiki. What I have done is cited staff use of three terms. These are terms that are extremely useful and the rest (if any) simply need clarification from staff. We cannot pretend they don't exist, or are user-only terms. This is as "official" as it gets, though one could argue against it based on staff use of "reskin" vs "clone," there is still a very evident underlying organization system.
The goal here is to emphasize the very similar (sometimes not as similar as others, such as rocket puppy projectiles vs. the other turrets, or entirely different but still brutal tactics of elites) behavior of ..."classes"....across monsters in the well established monster families.
As noted in the sandbox page, the list is incomplete and a WiP. I've only mentioned "turret" here on the forums (and it is on the monster classification page, as well as mentioned by Nick here, but the post does not specifically use the term "class").
What I'm going to do now, as proposed before and seemingly ignored, is ask support for the rest.
EDIT: I've submitted the request, now, we wait.
EDIT: here's a link to the classification page, in case it was missed in the sandbox and a cause of confusion. It needs a lot of work, hence, my mention of the need for us to be "careful." So I've done the best thing I think we can do, and that's ask support for clarification on this, at best, semi-official organization system.
Mon, 09/07/2015 - 10:33
#19
To clarify, I meant that the class column shouldn't be on the the main monster pages, but should be fine for the individual monster pages.
Is the class info useful? I'm not sure, but I personally didn't know about it for a long time, until I randomly got to that page, so having it along with the monsters could help.
Mon, 09/07/2015 - 11:36
#20
Dracora-Speaking
Yes, you have cited staff use of three terms. I was not objecting to those (although it's not clear to me what is elite, other than mecha knight and greaver). In post #14 I specifically objected to brute and grunt. Now I see that there are many more classes intended.
If it ever gained prominence, we should expect endless arguments over the details of this classification. For example, based on questions and complaints I've seen over the years, my sense is that most players regard devilites as harder than gremlin scorchers. For another example, our current Boss page wildly disagrees about the distinction between boss and mini-boss.
It would be easier if the classification stuck to objective facts, such as (1) being explicitly mentioned by the staff, or (2) amounts of health/defense.
Mon, 09/07/2015 - 11:46
#21
Indeed.
It would be much easier. Support says it will take some time to formulate a reply (either to me and/or the forums), so, let's hope for something solid!
In the end (I hope) we will have an organization system for general strategy/tactics/battle behavior (class), status (status), type (species? nah. examples are wolver, spookat with their status and "class" variants), and defenses (family).
Tue, 09/15/2015 - 14:41
#22
Minor steps forward
So, while working on missions (and areas), I noticed that it's quite annoying to keep listing monsters consistently with all the status icons and linking directly or through redirects.
I figured since we're going to have the "monster" template space free eventually (using "MonstrousProfile" instead), why not just make it usable as a linking template now and save some trouble? I have moved the content of "Template:Monster" to "Template:MonsterTemporary" to make space for the template to be used. This way, when we're implementing MonstrousProfile, we can still use "what links here" on MonsterTemporary to keep track of progress and see what's left to do regarding the display.
So right now I'll be adding the appropriate outputs to the Monster template so it can be used to quickly and consistently link an entity, similar to other navigational "linking templates."
This is just an update of progress, in case people saw the edits and wanted more details.
Updating this usage of the monster template in the future should be a snap. It will also let us easily update any uniform changes the game makes to a particular monster's ability to, say, inflict stun or not.
EDIT: Template:Monster is now populated as a linking template, and is working extremely well so far. Feel free to implement in place of current linking on any relevant pages, and please use from now on to save yourself a lot of headache! Template should be easy to edit if you find any mistakes - go ahead and fix them as you find them.
Thu, 09/17/2015 - 15:07
#23
Regarding "class"
Support says:
Greetings, Thank you for patience while we looked into this. After discussions, we have come to the conclusion that there is no official monster classification as the one you mention. The division outlined in the page you have linked is as good as any, but it should be made clear that it's based on player's deductions and not an official stance. I'd recommend not spending a lot of time in this area!
The pages I linked to were the same as the ones in this forum (the "official monster classification I mentioned" was a request for a "a staff list of monster classes" which they seem to use, similar to how they have their own internal terms such as "bomb bundle" and "power scanner"):
-"Drone" (also uses the phrase "a new class"): 2011-12-19
-"Mini" (also uses the phrase "a new class"): 2013-04-10
-"Elite" (also uses the phrase "reclassified"): 2013-05-01
-"Turret" (the term "class" not used): Node 22053 (Admin)
Conclusion:
We should use the opinion or opinion/small tag whenever class is mentioned. On the classification page, we should mention that it is not "official," and simply terminology used loosely by players (as well as staff on occasion) to describe the monster's general behavior/what players should expect when facing a new unit, or changes to current units. We could have some fun simplifying the current classification list, but as support has said, not spend a lot of time in this area. Many of us feel that it's important information (and I still strongly do), just because it isn't "official" (published in-game = official, I'm pretty sure) doesn't mean it's not useful. Imagine a new user wondering...do fiends or beasts etc. have a turret class? With a sortable list such as the one in the sandbox, they could find out instantly, and this could lead to more wonderful suggestions such as this one. Currently, they'd have to look at every article under the "fiend" or "beast" family on the main monster page, or simply know by experience.
As to whether or not to use "unofficial" information, we already have a lot of this sort of thing around the mainspace/non-guide wiki. An example would be describing monster attacks.
Or we could not include "classification" at all. I'm thinking this would be a bad choice, as staff has certainly not said "don't include it." To me, this is the same sort of information as "Combat Style" on the current bomb/handgun/sword pages, which seems to be immensely appreciated.
Thu, 09/17/2015 - 19:01
#24
if it were really good
My objections to such classification would be softened if the classification were really good. The current classification is not. For example, according to its criteria, devilites are turrets, although it does not list them as such.
Thu, 09/17/2015 - 19:45
#25
:P
Yes, it certainly needs an "overhaul." I will be unable to contribute significantly to this project in the near future due to its lower priority compared to other projects, and I will be on vacation starting on the 22nd for a month and a half, ish, and extremely likely unable to edit. I would love to see some ideas in relation to support's response, and possibly implementation if people feel that the monster template is ready to go by the time I get back (I think it is, just each page needs monsterinfo and a top section rework as well), no pressure tho - this is all fun volunteer time.
Tue, 12/01/2015 - 00:57
#26
:|
IDK how I (and support) missed this. I mean it's even linked to on the page, sheesh. Major facepalm. This comment is just a heads-up, not focusing on this project ATM (will soon, hopefully), but there's a very solid admin post.
Tue, 12/01/2015 - 10:02
#27
cool
That's a great post to find. And let me point out that Nick's other posts in that thread are highly relevant too.
I like the new look, although I always seem to. I'm easily entertained. :3
The pic on the top with the common stuff is a good touch.
A sidenote for the strategy part:
I wouldn't disadvise using swords vs knights, brandish-spam, and sending them flying with the DA's knockback has worked fine for me.
Driver and Grim Repeater charges, too.