Template talk:Navbox Bestiary

From Path of Exile Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This talk page is for discussing Template:Navbox Bestiary.

  • Sign your posts using four tildes (~~~~)
  • Start a new topic at the bottom under a ==level 2 heading==
  • Indent replies using colons (:)
  • Keep it civil
  • Assume good faith
  • Don't remove past discussions

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)
I ended up calling the category page for Sand Spitter just Spitter. This way, the type has its own name. In most cases I'm just remodeling the old pages with tables and putting links to the individual names. When we get to the individual pages, going from the links on each type page will make it easy to see what pages have/haven't been made yet, and you can start the page with a single click :3 ----FootHands (talk) 08:50, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Before I make the type pages for Skeletons, Should I have a page 'Skeleton' that links to Skeleton Warrior, Skeleton Archer, and Skeleton Mage? Should I forget 'Skeleton' and just make the three type pages? Should I just combine all of them on one page and divide Warriors, Archers, and Mages with headers? Should I just lump them all together? I'm not sure how to proceed here. -FootHands (talk) 08:58, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


Start with one page with 3 subsections maybe, it can always be split later. Also, I like the new layout on the ones you've done, but I'd suggest the table have a separate row for differnt areas, so for zombie 2 rows for Dripping Dead. --Qetuth-(talk) 09:08, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I'd probably also go without the extra blank lines - they look a little weird to me. --Qetuth-(talk) 09:18, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

oooh, your comment just smooshed my comment. I can take out the blank lines, but it 'really' bothers me when the header is indented or the section is jostled by the picture. I'll def get rid of the dividers, I just thought it looked really cluttered. And I'll redivide the same-named creeps, thanks for the feedback! FootHands (talk) 09:22, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
better? FootHands (talk) 09:27, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Looks good! I don't like section headings being indented either, might be better to have them on the right in some cases. --Qetuth-(talk) 09:53, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Was this what you were thinking for the Skeleton page? I've got some obligations to take care of, but I've got the warrior data on a notepad and i'll format it in when I'm back. Is there a page somewhere with skeletal mages, or do we have no such data yet? FootHands (talk) 10:13, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

So I did a bit of datamining last night. All somewhat legal. I found a lot of fun .dat files in the data section. Among them was the MonsterScalingByLevel.dat (which I can't seem to access right now but I'm working on it) which, along with some other things, points to monsters having a basic value that is in fact scaled by level. Not entirely conclusive by itself, but with the stuff I found in MonsterTypes.dat and in MonsterVarieties.dat I think I can make several conclusions with a large degree of certainty:

  • monsters are indeed based off one static type that is iterated upon. Some exceptions are the Kiweth (the real name for the birdmen) which are listed as Kiweth and KiwethCoves and almost all the various skeletons. Also the bandit bosses change from difficulty to difficulty. No clue why.
  • "resists lighting" or whatnot for a spider is not always the same as "resists lightning" for another monster. I found all their values though, so that's good. They're all in MonsterTypes.dat if anyone wants to see for themselves.
  • I also found minimum and maximum attack ranges. What unit they're in I've got no idea.
  • I also found values for the minions you can raise.
  • There's a bunch more that I haven't been able to figure out but am trying to do. I'll start putting data in right now.

Nocticate (talk) 16:33, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to peek into that and see if there's any information in there that'll help me make type pages. Nice find! (Vini, does this count as 'submitting copyrighted work'? I don't wanna get in trubs) FootHands (talk) 16:47, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
So I've got some links for anyone who wants to help out with this, not just you. this is the download for the program that lets you view .ggpk files, so download that and install it. Use VisualGGPK (the executable) to open up your content.ggpk in your game files (C:\Program Files (x86)\Grinding Gear Games\Path of Exile\content.ggpk) and let it do work. Once it's done, open up the Root with the little arrow bit and the next empty heading as well, and then go into Data. The bit that has the Index0 corresponds to the offset value of the monster's ID (not the same as its in-game name, sadly; this is where a bit of guessing comes in handy). The three files we'll be dealing with are DefaultMonsterStats.dat, MonsterTypes.dat, and MonsterVarieties.dat. I've done most of my research on MonsterTypes.dat, and here that is: Index0 corresponds to the offset value of the monster's ID in the lower table. Unknown0, Unknown1, Unknown2, and Unknown3 correspond to Fire, Cold, Lightning, and Chaos resistances, respectively. Unknown4 is baffling to me but is only anything besides 100 in two cases: 120 for the Dexintbanditboss who is Kraityn and 500 for TestSpawn. We'll ignore it since we haven't got a clue what it is and it doesn't seem to matter very much. Flag0 signifies whether it's friendly or not. The other columns, I have no ideas as of yet.
For MonsterVarieties.dat, there is a continuation of the link between the MonsterTypeIndex (as it is named here) and the offset value.
For DefaultMonsterStats.dat, you're on your own, honey.

Nocticate (talk) 21:46, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Also, I've started getting more images for the new pages. I'm using this puush album so if someone wants to work on selecting and editing those while I'm getting more, that'd be great.
Nocticate (talk) 22:16, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
First, I don't have one of these confangled whooswhatsity bamboozling puush accounts, so I can't help you (sad foothands). That being said, does anyone want to volunteer to start working out a layout for the individual monster pages? Or do my poor little handfeet have to learn to type faster? FootHands (talk) 08:41, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Data Files

Thought I'd put this in a separate section so it didn't get lost in the above conversation:

In Monstertypes:

  • Unknown0: Fire res. 0-75
  • Unknown1: Cold res. 0-75
  • Unknown2: Lightning res. 0-80
  • Unknown3: Chaos res. 0-50
  • Flag0: true if allied, false if enemy
  • Unknown4: Unknown, all values 100 except a couple, probably irrelevant (the two that aren't 100 are both Kraityn, game and map versions FootHands (talk) 14:35, 15 November 2013 (UTC))
  • Unknown5: ??? 0-120, seems focused on str based mobs. Could be armour, or strength (as bonus for hp/damage/etc)
  • Unknown6: ??? 0-100, seems focused on dex based mobs. Evasion or dex bonus maybe?
  • Unknown7: Energy Shield? 0 for none, 50-100 for ES monsters, 150 for axiscastermapboss and 2080 for ExileWitch2. Could it be ES as % of HP? (I bet it's mana. Check Hailrake. In normal he can cast like 4-6 ice spears before he runs out of mana FootHands (talk) 14:35, 15 November 2013 (UTC))

I would call the 3 above this Strength, Dexterity and Intelligence respectively. We know that the maximum armour on monsters is ~1000, so having the max in the data file as 120 can't be right. I would guess as a similar max for evasion seeing as those are often equatable on gear. Would make sense for an intelligence stat to come after that, especially since it has a similar maximum (ignoring ExileWitch2, there are 3 witches in the data file and 2 in game, I bet this one isn't in game). I know this is a lot of assumptions, but it makes sense to me. CosmicChopsticks (talk) 02:22, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

  • Unknown8: ??? 0-50 I can't say why but feels like it could be block chance (Is this number only on the shield bearing bandits and blackguards? FootHands (talk) 14:35, 15 November 2013 (UTC))
  • Unknown9: ??? 0-3 no idea
  • Unknown10: ??? Range 34-11810, every monster has a unique number, but similar monsters grouped in order. Could map gfx or sfx? (the ranges for graphics and effects are really high to avoid conflicts when calling them to other databases. I think graphics call ID's are like.. 8, 160, and then huge numbers 30k+ FootHands (talk) 14:35, 15 November 2013 (UTC))

In MonsterVarieties (too many columns to list all):

  • Unknown41: Displayed monster name
  • Object size: range 1-4, we could use this to classify monsters as small-large perhaps?
  • MinimumAttackDistance and MaximumAttackDistance: The max range for ranged attacked could also be worth noting.
  • Unknown3: 0 for totems, 7 for zombies, higher for everything else, looks like it could be walkspeed. (the speed for a rhoa is like 387, according to the effects, and cannibals chasing a player go like ~400, I feel like 7 isn't a realistic move speed even for zombies. FootHands (talk) 14:35, 15 November 2013 (UTC))

MonsterPacks looks like it determines how big spawn groups are:

  • Unknown1 is area number
  • Unknown3 and 4 look to be min-max additional monsters

Please feel free to update the above with anything else you can figure out. --Qetuth-(talk) 13:12, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Going by something GGG_Neon said (which is referenced on the armor page in the wiki) the maximum armor that a monster can have (or could have when that was said) was 980 or so. While that isn't exactly confirming anything, I think that we've at least got to take that as a ballpark range. Typical armor ratings for tankier players pre-maps range up to 10,000. Plus, given how armor works, that would make most armor largely irrelevant by the time normal is over given how it works.
Nocticate (talk) 21:02, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
The problem is that what we are seeing is almost certainly values pre-level-scaling. Especially since monsters don't have 3 data lines for the 3 difficulty levels. Which means any range of numbers could potentially be a 'multiplier on regular stat/level table' to be providing high, medium, low armor or evasion or life compared to other monsters. The ES column (if I'm right about that) could only be picked because it is so clear which monsters have ES and which don't, as I can guarantee some of those have more than 100 points of ES. --Qetuth-(talk) 23:55, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
that would make a ton of sense and was, I believe, originally one of the things I was looking for. I guess now we just have to find base HP values to make everything complete. Hell, lowest HP mobs seem to be (at least from my general impressions... you know what? Is splash reduced by armor? that would be an easy way to determine lowest HP monsters: how fast in comparison main target goes down with other mobs (assuming we know armor value).
I really don't think the armor and evasion scaling is gonna be straightforward... I can't imagine it being multiplicative and therefore some mobs having 0 armor even in merciless.
Nocticate (talk) 06:23, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Why not? Most characters have 0 or close to it of one of the 3 defences at high levels. Though preferably not more than one. I would expect that all physical damage, but not physical degeneration, is reduced by armour, whether its caused by splash or not. Finding exact life values in game I think will come easiest from elemental damage in something they don't resist. Preferably on a character who can't crit. Repeated applications of low level cold spells could be one solution, another could be Avatar of Fire. And we need life before we can find armour. --Qetuth-(talk) 08:22, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
have you guys noticed the section 'DefaultMonsterStats'? I think it has the life/mana/defenses information we're looking for, judging by the values. FootHands (talk) 11:22, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Just found another thing called, uh 'Game Constants' which contains data for 'MonsterImprovementPerLevel' and stuff. FootHands (talk) 11:27, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Dear RNGesus. I have found something in MonsterVarieties... ID# 128408 calls data for... AlbinoRhoa. BUM BUM BUM FootHands (talk) 11:44, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
I tossed some observations/questions in your data posty thinger. FootHands (talk) 14:35, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
That's nothing, there's a fishingrod drop pool category as well. :D
But seriously, you might be right about the game constants. Do you mind putting the CSV onto google drive and setting it public so that everyone can see and work on it without having to necessarily have the unpacked GGPK file? And by everyone I mainly mean me. Not on a computer that can do that right now. tough life I got here. I think the easiest way to determine health values is probably with Righteous Fire since it does a constant value that can be easily determined. The problem with most sources of damage is that they're a range of damage, making it very difficult to calculate exact health values. Nocticate (talk) 16:53, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
I can google drive these things for everyone and link it here, i think righteous fire is a terrible idea, since it updates damage by tick and will be really hard to pin down the damage dealt FootHands (talk) 07:24, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
??? I don't think it does. It's always a portion of maximum health and maximum energy shield and the spell damage increase is constant. I can't really see a reason why it would be wonky. It deals the same amount of damage each time and it deals it once per second. Simple enough imo. Nocticate (talk) 13:55, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
ALL HAIL FOOTHANDS, GREATEST OF THE GREAT. I did a little searching into the defaultmonsterstats.dat and found a few things out. First, Unknown4 is the experience value. That's useful. Unknown5 is at least related to the difficulty, it might be something else though. I'm pretty sure Unknown3 is health. Index0 refers to the offset in the below table. What's really interesting is that [i]not all monsters are represented on there[/i]. That doesn't make me happy, but it's true. Example: for level 36 (offset 270) the only monster represented is a Rhoa, it seems. Stay tuned for more data. Nocticate (talk) 23:12, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I started looking through these files and there's some cool stuff, mostly unused artwork (check the Flasks folder) and removed/unfinished(?) skills like Snipe and Backstab. (And some custom developer-only uniques...) There's also a lot of information about the skills, and I'm hoping to find the actual radius numbers for aoe skills. If I come up with anything for monsters I'll let you know. Magnanimous2 (talk) 09:49, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

So I'd just like to drop a line here stating that me and Chriskang have figured out the xp values and the mob type multipliers and what not for all mobs. Most of the talking about it occurred on his talk page here and the current draft of of the values is at Monster Experience. His talk page has the google doc that has most of my in game testing that lead to us finding the base xp values, the monster type multipliers, and also what the multipliers where for magic and rare monsters. The plan is to look at being able to extract the rest of the monster values from the .dat files, which may or may not end up requiring in game data collection. Later the tables will contain more then just the xp values for the monsters and when that happens any talk about monster values on Chriskang's talk page will probably be shifted over onto the monster values talk page. Side note I fail for not realizing this page exists until just now... a lot of this page would of made it easier. Ebonmourn (talk) 20:19, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Bestiary as a whole

Alright, I guess this was gonna have to happen some day but why not now since there's a general spirit of industriousness. I feel like just having the Bestiary navbox being the front page of the Bestiary isn't really what we should be projecting. IMO there needs to be links to the monster affixes, nemesis mods, monster levels, unique mobs, et cetera, along with a suitable introduction to the monsters of Wraeclast. This can also be somewhere that we can store information about general monster mechanics and behavior, if we can uncover significant information about those. For example, something people probably know on some level but may not have cogitated is that if a monster cannot path to you, it will resume neutral behavior instead of just crowding more around you, making an effective limit to the number of monsters you can fight at once. Stuff like that (or it could get its own separate page) could make the Bestiary a more comprehensive and useful place. Nocticate (talk) 21:02, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree, although Bestiary is an odd name for that page - why not have the same page on Monsters instead? --Qetuth-(talk) 23:48, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

monster organization

So, this is a bit of a problem. I don't feel like organizing the types (skeletons, skeleton archmages, undying, etc.) by act is really helpful at this point. Many of the types exist across multiple acts, especially the skeleton varieties, zombies, and spiders. I don't really see a simple way to solve this especially given that some monster families only exist in a single act, like the various Undying (whose page still doesn't exist... I'll give that a shot in a bit). Also putting in a plug for thisthread on the forums, it's super helpful even though it doesn't include monster attributes because it includes where they are, which is SO helpful with tracking them down. Nocticate (talk) 01:48, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

An approximate count of the monster type overlap:
  • Act 1 only: 6
  • Act 2 only: 7
  • Act 3 only: 9
  • Act 1 & 2: 2
  • Act 1 & 3: 3
  • Act 2 & 3: 4
  • All 3 acts: 2
I think the main navbox should just use alphabetical or order of appearance, but the Monsters page could have lists of what types appear in what acts. --Qetuth-(talk) 22:46, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
I agree, I think organising by act isn't of any real use by this point, a simply alphabetical list by type would be the most useful. Iamacyborg (talk) 22:54, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
I have thrown together a suggested navbox layout at Qetuth/Navbox Bestiary. I think the current one looks a bit too cluttered so have tried to address that also. --Qetuth-(talk) 05:22, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
I almost feel that we don't even need the list of uniques in there, since they are just modified versions of monsters that are already listed. In my opinion it would be easier to just have the base monster types and the bosses. CosmicChopsticks (talk) 14:29, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Some are different and dangerous enough that I don't feel it's really correct to merge them (unless they get a significant portion of the page to themselves with a redirect linking to it, especially in the case of the more dangerous uniques like Caliga who deserve a blurb talking about their dangers and strategies to defeat them). Kole is another reason. He's a unique Brute. The other two Brutes are... Hillock and Brutus. Not super sure what we do there. I do agree that it's probably better not to have all the uniques on one page just mashed together. It limits our options for what we can do with them as a whole. Nocticate (talk) 18:33, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
I definitely agree that the uniques should have a page each, but I don't think it's necessary to list each one in the Navbox.CosmicChopsticks (talk) 18:45, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Maybe simply a link to a page page that lists all the uniques in an act, that itself links to individual unique bosses? Iamacyborg (talk) 20:46, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Where would you suggest linking them from? A link to them on the page for the monster they're based off of together with a page for unique monsters that serves as a catalogue for the uniques (that IS linked from the navbox) is the best option I can think of off the top of my head. I dunno, I'm not even certain that uniques are really important enough to warrant putting them front and center. Only the few that are absolutely necessary for quests that aren't bosses (Hailrake, The Deep Dweller, Kadavrus, Fairgraves, The Great White Beast, Guard Captain, Captain Arteri, the Imperator/Compulsor/Draconarius from Dominus and the 3 miscreations) should really be on there. Holy shit, that made me realize how functionally useless killing Geofri, Fidelitas, and The Conquerer Worm (to name a few that I seriously thought were necessary to the quest chain) really was. They should do a rework on unique monsters. Most of them don't even seem that threatening. I found Kole to be the most threatening mob in most of Cruel. I wish more uniques gave that sort of experience. Nocticate (talk) 21:00, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Maybe a category page which lists unique monsters from a certain act? Do we even have those yet? We should. I agree with your points about only putting those on there that are related to quests, the rest can be linked to with the aforementioned category page. Iamacyborg (talk) 21:09, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
It's a tough balance to make the pages easy enough to find if you need to, but not allowing too much clutter. There is already a page listing all unique monsters, but most of the information in it is being made redundant as individual pages for each one are created. I would suggest removing most information there, and leave it as just a list of uniques, sorted by act and subdivided by zone. That page could probably be linked from this Navbox, or maybe just the Bestiary/Monsters page. They should also be linked from the page of the monster group, but there doesn't seem to be any consensus as to where they should be included on those pages. My thinking is to include them in the table with the rest of the variations, but that's another discussion. CosmicChopsticks (talk) 21:21, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Oh, a thought while throwing the above together: Is any more discussion needed on what to call groups and how broad the groups should be? I found I had to stop and think what was meant when I got to "beast" and "carrion" - are these the right general names or just specific subtype names? I also thought all 3 types of bug (carrion) and bandit could go on a page just like skeletons. Also, Fetid Maw is a single version name, isn't it? Should that be the type name? --Qetuth-(talk) 05:28, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
We're kinda playing this all by ear, really. I think for monsters without other variations that you just put them in a type page in case their genus or type gets expanded in a future update. Just in case. Nocticate (talk) 18:33, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Nocticate's suggestion. Iamacyborg (talk) 20:46, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

To continue this discussion: I think Qetuth's bestiary looks fine, although I'd prefer the current format being changed to have only those monster types. I agree that Skeletons should all count as one type since that really simplifies things. Also, is the consensus still one page per monster? Magnanimous2 (talk) 03:20, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes and yes as far as I can see. Unless anyone can give a good reason to do it otherwise? Iamacyborg (talk) 15:45, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Sounds good; I'll start getting screenshots and making pages for the rest of the monsters. Magnanimous2 (talk) 19:28, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

So, according to the game file, we have the following hierarchy of "monster tags":
  • beast
    • mammal
    • reptile
    • insect
    • spider
  • humanoid
    • human
  • construct
    • earth elemental
      • stone construct
    • water elemental
  • undead
    • skeleton
    • zombie
  • ghost
  • demon
    • undying
Then, each "monster type" has one or more "tag".
For example:
  • Totems are constructs
  • Bandits are humans
  • Goatmen are both mammals and humanoids
  • Fairgraves and his crew in act 1 are both skeletons and ghosts
Finally each monster has one (and only one) type:
  • Kraityn's Aspirants are bandits
  • Bearded Shamans are goatmen
I think it's important to document precisely these tags and monster types because that's the values used by game mechanics. For example, when a high-level map is inhabited by Humanoids it means that it contains only monsters with the "humanoid" tag.
I can extract the tags and types for all monsters or maybe even create the pages automatically with a wikibot.
May I have your opinions on this, please? Chriskang (talk) 13:13, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Using all that data absolutely makes sense. Would the bot be able to populate a given template? That would probably be the best way to do this. Iamacyborg (talk) 13:34, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, a bot can populate a template. I haven't been using one for years though. I'll need a few days/weeks to set it up again. Chriskang (talk) 15:30, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Updating Navbox layout

Another discussion about updating the Navbox. With the larger numbers of uniques we now have, I think the navbox is too big and cluttered to be useful on every monster page. I think the better option would be a navbox with just monster types in a single list, plus links to a uniques/bosses list page, and other relevant pages lke monster affixes. This would take the links in the navbox down to around 40, from over 100. The pages for unique monsters could then also have a second "Uniques" navbox underneath with the list of uniques (or perhaps one navbox per act).

In an unrelated issue, does anyone know an overall type name for Murk Fiend/Fetid Maw/Spinesnap? --Qetuth-(talk) 00:45, 11 September 2014 (UTC)