Template talk:Navbox Bestiary

Hello! Isnt Fidelitas also to consider as a Boss instead of a 'simply' Unique? She's related to a quest, even if its not neccessary to kill her to solve it. Beside this, I corrected the order of the act 2 uniques by their appearing (the archbishop was listed between the three monsters from chamber of sins before) --Mr.Cee (talk) 13:49, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

7Soul and I were talking about that recently and we both agreed that because they're not strictly necessary to kill for the main quest, they shouldn't be counted as bosses. http://en.pathofexilewiki.com/wiki/Talk:Bosses Iamacyborg (talk) 14:41, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

okay, so I do the same at my adaption --Mr.Cee (talk) 19:07, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Skeleton is listed twice, once in act 1 and again in act 2. Should monsters that appear in multiple acts be listed multiple times? Or just the first act they appear in?

I was also wondering if it would be preferred if skeletons were split into 3 pages, one for melee, one for bow and one for mage?

Lastly, I just added the "birdman" page for the new monster that appears in the coves and the imperial gardens. Is a general page title like birdman preferred that covers all the variations, or is the name of the first encountered monster of that type preferred? (Example: Zombie Page used the general name Zombie instead of Hungry Dead vs Sand Spitter which names the first variation encountered) CrowKnow (talk) 19:23, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

monster names + updates

First off, I feel like monsters should be listed separately based on what their type is, not just as iterations of a general type. While I think it's valuable to list monsters under a general type, it's not very productive to only have them as permutations. Especially since different versions don't always have the same type. People won't search "Birdman", they'll search "Ravenous Gull" (or just "Gull"). It's also confusing and counterproductive to only have Birdmen listed under Act 1 monsters when a variety of birdmen appears all the way in act 3.

Second, there are a lot of links that are either dead ends (most of the act 2 monsters) or just don't exist (a lot of the act 3 monsters, especially ALL the non-unique statues). Some are miscategorized (by the current metric, Devourers should actually be in Act 2 since they first appear there... it doesn't help that they have the same name in act 2 and act 3 even though they appear to have much higher stats in act 3). In fact, it would be apropos for some testing to be done to figure out how much resistance is given from the monster elemental resistance attributes. This is made difficult by the inherently variable nature of damage in this game, but it's certainly possible with some serious testing. Similar testing can be used to determine at least general values for monsters' attack damage ranges. Unfortunately I don't have the sort of high health gear necessary for this variety of testing. More testing can (and should) be done to determine what sort of health and armor values we're looking at for different monsters in all acts and difficulties. If there is a rational procession of health values depending on map level (which appears to be the case) and monsters all just simply have constant multipliers that are applied to the health value accorded to the level they are, that can also be determined (and would be a case for actually gathering monsters that appear in different places but have the same basic values, just different levels). Utilizing the increase in health (but not armor) from party play could be a way to test this. Also, stun duration is another way although timing that won't be easy.

Yeah, it's a lot of work. But things are kinda piss-poor right now in the Bestiary. I can do some of it but I can't do all of it; I need help. Nocticate (talk) 21:23, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm new to wiki's and I don't have the wealth to help too much with determining the attribute numbers but, I'd be willing to help however I can.CrowKnow (talk) 22:45, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree, the monsters section needs some serious work. I tried starting a discussion at Talk:Bestiary but I've been pretty busy since then. Once we have an idea of what pages should exist and what should be on them it'd be good to get started. I think we should start by leaving things on combined page for essentially identical monsters, but different pages for different monsters within the same category - eg put the statue archers of all names together and redirect other names, but on a separate page to other statues.

For collecting stats, resistance ranges can be tested by casting elemental weakness of various levels at them to see if they become vulnerable, stay resistant, or neither. I think this will leave us with a lot of "<30" or ">50" resistance listings, and no info for chaos, but it's a start. Damage dealt and hit points can be done with some careful testing at low levels, but is going to be more difficult the higher level you get. A lot of values will have to start off stating a range of possible values we can later refine. Once we have a good base of info like that, it may become possible to extrapolate armour, chaos resistance, the effect of blue groups mods, etc. --Qetuth-(talk) 04:39, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Can I suggest that we make an individual page for each monster, and a page for each monster type? Instead of having the Navbox be listed by Act (which doesn't make a whole lot of sense, in my opinion) we could list by monster type. We'd be able to summarize monsters by type on their type page (a table with type names, location, monster level, and mods) and then have each section on that table link directly to the monster page. We'd then also be able to link the monsters directly to the zone they're in through the World sections as well. If we especially wanted a list of monsters by area progression, we could append a special page by basically copy-pasting (or even just adding) the Zone Levels page. It's slightly more work to make this redundancy, but I think the different styles of information portrayal are worth the effort and I'm willing to put my shoulder to the wheel in putting these together. FootHands (talk) 07:32, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

That makes sense to me. —Vini (t|c) 07:41, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I have a feeling this isn't something that's gonna get done in one edit, so do you guys wanna split the work in advance so we're not duplicating work and stepping on each other's toes? (please glance at my stuff after it's done though, i'm human). We'll need a Navbox that lists by monster type (extra mile: indented sublists with specific monster links) and a main page with universal monster attributes and a table with the variants for each type. We'll also need a page for each specific monster (sand spitter, frost guardian, etc.) with as much monster specific data as we can accumulate (zones, levels, mentioned resists, abilities, damage type) and we should probably put each monster on a category for Zone (like monsters:Docks, monsters:The Climb) and a category for type (Skeleton, Shield Crab, Elemental). Is there anything else we need? I'll get going on modifying the type pages that are currently up and creating the pages for each individual monster. (Do we have pictures for every specific monster? Should we include a picture of the monster's top-screen health-bar and mods as well?) FootHands (talk) 07:56, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Having thought about it on the way home then read the above, I'm changing my position - a separate page for each specific monster (by name in most cases) is a good idea after all. I'll put my hand up to start building the empty category tree so new pages can be put straight into it. Monster by area, Monster by type/species are two schemes mentioned above, I'll start with those. --Qetuth-(talk) 08:15, 12 November 2013 (UTC)