Talk:Creatures

Wouldn't it be better to orden all creatures alphabetically? Its hard to find what you are looking for the way it is now. Also, there are alot of creatures that don't 100% belong in the category they are in and also alot that could fit into multiple categories. (LordLixen)

Ehm... I notice DM added the 'Talon Bug'. What is that? A poisonous monster? Never heard of it... (Borr, March 12th, 2005)

Ah. Found it:. I don't think this creature belongs on this page. (Borr, March 12th, 2005, 4 minutes later)

hehe, the talon bug was an old joke thing cip made. i guess it probably shouldn't be in the creature list, but think i mentioned it in Bug. I thought it was a cool thing, and i wasn't sure if Cip would put it back in again at some point. --DM 17:31, 16 Apr 2005 (EDT)

If you are mentioning the Talonbug you should mention the Excalibug too. :D

--Alreth 07:58, 18 Apr 2005 (EDT)

i assume you mean add excalibug to weapons not creatures?! if i find a ss i will link that to the talon bug, it was pretty funny :D --DM 11:42, 22 Apr 2005 (EDT)

wich category banshees belong to? cause they are both in the Undeads and Human-like Monsters  18:09, 28 Jun 2005 (EDT)


 * Seems that the categories for the monsters don't always work, as LordLixen said. I think it's ok without them. Oh and another thing, I wonder if the section about Source of Loot wouldn't look better on the loot page... -- Plenet 14:21, 21 Jul 2005 (EDT)


 * Seems that Makey added the new creatures... well.. i think we should wait till the update to add the new monsters... we only have info from rumors, some pics and...some tutors...
 * -- 20:44, 4 Aug 2005 (EDT)


 * yea, um, well for now i guess leave it and put in the info when as it cames and/or change/add names if necessary. On that note we could add unimplemented cities or items as well... just leave it for now --DM  ><((°>  Contribs <°))>< talk to me 08:04, 5 Aug 2005 (EDT)

Loot rarity - Do you all think we should specify how rare the loot are (like writing (rare) and (very rare) after the loot on a creature (like done on Wild Warrior))? I at least think it would be a quite good idea,and providing accurate information. --Tendanix 08:56, 11 December 2005 (CST)

Proposals 1. I suggest to create another category named 'Mechanic enemies' or something similar, and include the Throwers and Deathslicer. They are not really Magical creatures, are they?

2. It would be nice to keep also track of the history of monsters - which update were they implemented? --Borr 16:00, 31 January 2006 (CET)

Wow, very nice ideas. Here's my personal point of view on each:
 * 1) Loot rarity: I agree. It is probably pretty obvious on some things that they are "rare" drops, but it would be useful to know what creature to hunt, for example, if Dwarf Geomancers drop Boots of Haste (rare), and Necromancers drop Boots of Haste (very rare). I think it is probably not neccessary, but could be useful.
 * 2) On a little bit of a side note, how would we determine if a drop is "rare" or "very rare"? It would be easy to figure out if it is a "frequent" drop compared to a "rare" drop, but how specific do you think it should be?
 * 3) Proposal 1: I have noticed that, too. It does not seem entirely absurd that they be categorized as "Magic Creatures" since they use magical attacks, but they aren't truly creatures at all. I;m not sure that "Mechanical enemies" truly fits, either. Maybe something like Sentinels? Would other "creatures" be considered sentinels? Are there any other names that might be more appropriate?
 * 4) Proposal 2: I think this proposal would truly belong on the Updates page (Thanks Diggersmith, I've been thinking about making that page for a while now). I'm not sure it would be especially useful to put the update reference on the creature page. It would probably be appropriate to make a new page List of Creatures by Update (like List of Creatures by Experience Points), but I'm curious about how we would get the historical information about some creatures that have been around since very early on. Also, how would we handle creature changes, like when the speed of Giant Spiders was changed, or when they made Demons so much more difficult? Would the creature be listed under both updates? Just some things to think about, but I'm not opposed to the idea.

Images format
I think we should update the creature images database to 64x64 format, as many of the creatures can barely be recognized in the current 32x32 format. A good standard is the TibiaBR creatures database.

About the proposals made above:
 * The classification in common, semi-rare, rare and very rare is good anough.
 * Maybe the throwers could be names just "magical enemies" instead of the current category or mechanical enemies...
 * The other proposal (since which update each creature exists) depends on a revision of the creatures templates to be efficient, and it would be a nice extra info.

-- Feanturi / My Talk

There are two problems that must be overcome before making this change:


 * 1) Some creature sprites actually are 32px, so forcing a larger image will distort those pictures.
 * 2) Having pictures of different sizes will destroy the formatting of the lists, making the columns mis-matched and causing all pages that use these lists to look really bad and be harder to read.

There are ways to work around these problems, but I'm not sure it would be worth it. I see no problem with the way it is now.

There is an issue with some images (ones added since Erig made an update to the image manipulation for the wiki), where scaled images are not antialiased, and they look kinda weird, but the list is only intended to make the actual creature pages organized and easier to find.

My word on this issue is not law, that would defeat one of the primary benefits of having a wiki, but I don't think it would be worth the effort to make some of the images on the list a little easier to see.

If you want to go ahead and expend the effort, I won't stop you unless it makes things look really bad.

-- Whitelaces &dagger; Talk &dagger; &chi;&rho;&iota;&sigma;to&sigmaf; &alpha;n&epsilon;&sigma;t&eta;, &alpha;&lambda;&eta;&theta;&omega;&sigmaf; &alpha;n&epsilon;&sigma;t&eta; -- 08:01, 1 September 2006 (PDT)

I tried it once and it gone wrong so i just returned to how it was... But it can be done with a gif editor if all images 32x32 are resized to 64x64, not making them bigger, but making larger transparent borders. That would be a good solution, and i'll try to implement it in some hours, since i need first to get the edit program and work on many images before reediting the template to support 64x64 images.

-- Feanturi / My Talk

I don't like the idea of adding large transparent borders on all of the images. They are used in more places than just the lists.

A better solution would be to leave the images un-altered in the list (not force them to any specific dimensions), and just make the size of that table cell forced to the larger size.

Since I am concerned that you have already started altering images, I'll make the template changes, and I will likely revert any images anyone uploads with uneccessary transparent borders.

-- Whitelaces &dagger; Talk &dagger; &chi;&rho;&iota;&sigma;to&sigmaf; &alpha;n&epsilon;&sigma;t&eta;, &alpha;&lambda;&eta;&theta;&omega;&sigmaf; &alpha;n&epsilon;&sigma;t&eta; -- 10:55, 1 September 2006 (PDT)

I'm a newbie on this Wiki thing and i tried just to make the cell larger and it worked, but the other config at the template forces any image to a certian width (currently 32px). The problem i found was that all images should have the same width, as set at the template. If there's a way to make it flexible would be fine.

-- Feanturi / My Talk

Just great.

-- Feanturi / My Talk

Ordering
As Lord Lixen first proposed on this page, it may be best if we were to organize the catagories alphabetically. Any objections?

Sounds good to me. I think the current order started as an attempt to be some kind of logical order and organization. It obviously makes no sense anymore.

-- Whitelaces &dagger; Talk &dagger; &chi;&rho;&iota;&sigma;to&sigmaf; &alpha;n&epsilon;&sigma;t&eta;, &alpha;&lambda;&eta;&theta;&omega;&sigmaf; &alpha;n&epsilon;&sigma;t&eta; -- 07:32, 5 September 2006 (PDT)

Should the main categories (Animals, Bosses, Human-like, etc.) be listed in alphabetical order as well? I won't change them now as I would like everyone's opinion on this. Thanks ~ Uno time

Demons
User:Ville-v had modified the list of demons because he was disagree.He moved more creatures to other types. he opine that Destroyer, Fury, Hand_of_Cursed_Fate,and Juggernaut arent demons. i'm not sure. what do you think?

--User:Navar-- 07:32, 5 September 2006 (PDT)

if ya read the main tibia libary it does say they are demons :/

and

isnt a wyvern part of the dragon family? --Samurai Drifter 17:26, 3 January 2007 (PST)

Wyverns are not dragon, check Wikipedia, also did he discuss on that to make those changes? because that's very drastic

 GENOSONIC My Contributions Talk

see this plz Talk:Destroyer

--User:Navar-- 11:06, 5 january 2007 (PDT)

I think that when tibia.com says "demons" for these pages, they are actually referring to their disposition, not to their composition.

Based on the context and tone of the descriptions at tibia.com, it sounds to me like they are saying these creatures are "evil, cruel, self-centered, aggressive and strong".... not literally "demons."

--'' Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari? '' --  Whitelaces &dagger;  Talk &dagger; -- 05:41, 4 January 2007 (PST)

You have a point Whitelaces

My thought was the the ol' red demons we know and love are pure demons and now their "family" has come to surface since the update like the juggernuat, fury, plauge smith etc.

There a few your right about not realy being pure demon, but more or less created or became like that. like it says on the main tibia site , the hands of cursed fate, the destoryer and dark touturer

An idea, maybe to change the name of the demon catagory name on the big list there  to "demonic"  that probably would clear it all up probably :P

Now for the lil wyverns

Tho wyverns origanly being of lizard descent have pretty much become in a way simular to the dragon race, in the tibia world anyway

So their more or less a poison "dragon"

It doesnt seem fitting to put them with the lizardmen on the list, maybe put them in the orcs becuse the orcs had bred them from the lizards they came from.

Because from what I know and can and can figure out is the lizardmen were around before the orcs had done their breeding of the lizards to create the wyverns

But yet again the wyverns disconected them selfs from the orcs and arent quite controled by the them

So put them in with the animals catagory?

Or make a catagory for "reptiles" and put other reptiles in with it like cobras, snakes, crocodiles, turtles etc.

Whats your opinion about that?

--Samurai Drifter 20:45, 4 January 2007 (PST)

{xxxxxx];;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;/

idea
can i move all the not in game atm creatures to there own section, things like hacker, tibia bug, Mammoth. As i think it is moderatly misleading to have them listed were they are. Clearly it isnt useful information and only remains there for history etc or if the monster returns to game, so could we move them to a section a bit more outa the way (like there own heading "Not In Game) at the bottom of this list? &iquest;  Dis&Aring;st&eacute;r M&oacute;nt&ecirc;iro &#164;  T&atilde;lk &#164; &iquest; 01:35, 30 April 2007 (PDT)

spelling error
It's not "crustations", it's "crustaceans".

Elementals
Umm instead of how the current elementals are with gyro,pyro and such, shouldn't they be listed as The_Elements? Fire, Air, Tibia(Earth), Sula(water)?
 * I rather we list by the prefixes we're using now (personally I find it easier to understand). However, I believe the titles of the elements are important and I recommend that we do add them to the relevent pages i.e. hydro-elementals with sula. '''Craggles  [ Random::Chat::Guild::Contributions::Tibicam Profile ]

''' 17:36, 17 June 2007 (PDT)

Creature Placement
Hacker_(creature) should be placed in the shape shifter section

Sheep and Black_Sheep need to be added in Sheep_(type) section

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. This is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit link at the top. If you're not sure how editing works, check out editing help, or use the playground to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome.

-- ave, Caesar, morituri te salutant  --  Whitelaces &dagger;  Talk &dagger; -- 06:57, 25 June 2007 (PDT)

Idea to Improve Creature Lists
As many of you have noticed, there has been an issue with the various lists of creatures (list by experience, list by hit points, etc). The lists are too long to be rendered properly, and therefore, they are not usable.

I have an idea that may help to solve this issue. I propose that we add categories for ranges of experience and hit points. For example, there would be a category called "Creatures that give 100-499 experience" and other similar categories.

I have already figured a simple way to use the creature infobox to automatically categorize the creature pages, but I wanted to get some feedback before I implement it.

Adding these categories would allow us to easily break-up a couple of these huge lists into smaller, more usable pages that would load more quickly and be fully rendered. We could then use DPL to maintain the lists, removing the burden of updates from wiki users.

If no one has any objections or other ideas, I'm going to create these categories, and update the template to automatically categorize the creatures:


 * Creatures that give an unknown amount of experience
 * Creatures that give no experience
 * Creatures that give 1-49 experience
 * Creatures that give 50-99 experience
 * Creatures that give 100-199 experience
 * Creatures that give 200-499 experience
 * Creatures that give 500-999 experience
 * Creatures that give 1000-1999 experience
 * Creatures that give 2000 experience or more


 * Creatures that have an unknown number of hit points
 * Creatures that have no hit points
 * Creatures that have 1-49 hit points
 * Creatures that have 50-99 hit points
 * Creatures that have 100-199 hit points
 * Creatures that have 200-499 hit points
 * Creatures that have 500-999 hit points
 * Creatures that have 1000-1999 hit points
 * Creatures that have 2000 hit points or more

--'' Comme un cheveau sur la soupe. '' --  Whitelaces &dagger;  Talk &dagger; -- 15:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this is a good idea, and it is in accord with other pages in subdividing long pages. It can also be helpful just to simplify what creatures to look for when someone wishes to hunt creatures of a specific experience or hit point range. Good work, Whitelaces. --DM ><((°> Contribs <°))>< talk to me 17:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

That's a good idea. Every update there are more and more creatures, and loading/processing such huge page is troublesome. Since there are now more precise elements, there could be also lists by immunity, resistance and weakness for them. There are some pages like Category:Immune_to_* but they are useless now, and what is worst they are listing User: namespace entries. --wilk 18:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Ops, my fault, they are now in *_Damage pages. Sorry.

--wilk 18:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)