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: [1]. 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 Category:Undeads and Category:Human-Like Monsters — Baruk | talk | contributions 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...
- -- ¬¬ Lord de los Druidas ¬¬ * Talk * ¤ Contributions ¤ *** 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:
- 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.
- 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?
- 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?
- 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.
There are two problems that must be overcome before making this change:
- Some creature sprites actually are 32px, so forcing a larger image will distort those pictures.
- 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 † Talk † χρισtoς αnεσtη, αληθως αnεσtη -- 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.
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 † Talk † χρισtoς αnεσtη, αληθως αnεσtη -- 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.
Just great.
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 † Talk † χρισtoς αnεσtη, αληθως αnεσtη -- 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
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 † Talk † -- 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?
¿ DisÅstér Móntêiro ¤ Tãlk ¤ ¿
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
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Digan (talk • contribs). Remember to sign your comments!
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 † Talk † -- 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 † Talk † -- 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)
What about the breakdown I have for the groups? I more or less randomly picked where to make the breaks. With the current number of creatures in TibiaWiki, these groups would sorta contain the same number of creatures, and there would be some room for expansion as more creatures are added to the game.
-- Braccae tuae aperiuntur
-- Whitelaces † Talk † -- 13:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I really like the creature lists with all creatures on one page. It would be even better with DPL, because then we had to load the page only once and could sort it by different criteria. Maybe my proposal on your Talk-Page would solve the problem that the pages are too long.
Lafajev 22:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Now that this issue is sorted out, wouldn't be good to change the list to DPL? Its kinda strange to have 5~ lists of creatures, each one sorted by one factor.
-- † Pudd Knight † Talk Contribs -- 13:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I think this list should stay the way it is. This page is not just a list of creatures, but provides more of an organization/taxonomy, which is a great part of the roleplaying of the game.
Instead, I think that we should just replace all of the "List of Creatures by X" pages with one DPL (if it will work).
-- Obesa cantavit
-- Whitelaces † Talk † -- 13:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
As soon as I can preview a full DPL list of creatures, I'll go ahead and make the change, but at the moment, it still won't render. I'm guessing that the template change just needs to finish propagating to all of the creature pages. I'll keep trying at least daily.
-- Caesar si viveret, ad remum dareris.
-- Whitelaces † Talk † -- 13:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
---
Now that monsters have resistances(and weaknesses), maybe a good thing to add would be a percentage of how much they resist(or are weak) to the kind of damage. I know for example that Destroyers take 7 damage from small fire fields that would normally do 10 damage, so in the list of resistances, we would perhaps add (30%) after the listing of fire. Would work the same for weaknesses too, could be checked by repeated testing with area spells hitting monsters at the same time that are strong to/normal/weak to certain damage types.
Fire Assassin 01:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeti - mammal, humanoid or hybrid?[]
Where in hell would this creature fit in? I'm confused.
Art Featherpitch 16:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
New Creatures[]
- new monster: bog raiders
- new monster: charged energy elementals
- new monster: cockroaches
- new monster: dwarf miners
- new monster: earth elementals
- new monster: energy elementals
- new monster: energy overlords
- new monster: goblin assassins
- new monster: goblin scavengers
- new monster: grim reapers
- new monster: massive earth elementals
- new monster: massive energy elementals
- new monster: overcharged energy elements
- new monster: players
- new monster: sea serpents
- new monster: skeleton warriors
- new monster: slick water elementals
- new monster: the count
- new monster: ungreez
- new monster: wisps
- new monster: wyrms
- new monster: young sea serpents
- new monster: the weakened count
- new monster: blazing fire elementals
- new monster: blistering fire elementals
- new monster: jagged earth elementals
- new monster: muddy earth elementals
- new monster: roaring water elementals
- new monster: fire overlords
- new monster: annihilon
- new monster: arachir the ancient one
- new monster: deathspawns
- new monster: golgordan
- new monster: hellgorak
- new monster: latrivan
- new monster: madareth
- new monster: massive fire elementals
- new monster: ushuriel
- new monster: zugurosh
- new monster: high templar cobrass
- new monster: the big bad one
- new monster: xenia
- new monster: captain jones
- new monster: yaga the crone
- new monster: rotworm queens
- new monster: big boss trolliver
- new monster: zevelon duskbringer
- new monster: sir valorcrest
- new monster: rukor zad
- new monster: earth overlords
- new monster: grandfather tridian
- new monster: the old whopper
- new monster: smuggler baron silvertoe
- new monster: ice overlords
- new monster: foreman kneebiter
Erig 06:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
"Players"? I guess that's not a real creature.
Art Featherpitch 06:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
- new monster: hairman the huge
- new monster: dreadbeasts
- new monster: hell holes
- new monster: warlord ruzad
- new monster: diblis the fair
- new monster: barbaria
- new monster: the frog prince
- new monster: eyes of the seven
- new monster: gravelord oshuran
Erig 05:54, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- new monster: lord of the elements
- new monster: stonecracker
- new monster: zarabustor
Erig 07:59, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Why don't we make a "List of Creatures for Freebies" and a "List of Creatures for Premmiums only" or something like that? Kinight 01:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I whas tinking if it is relevant to add to the wiki that creatures use the armor they carry (use a Burst Arrow on 9 valkeries and you can know wich one is wearing plate or chain armor and burst arrows always hit the same unless monster is carring some kind of equip) and that creatures has skills (a slime that bloods a target alot raise his skills making it harder to be blocked by humans, this when people trained a slime). Am sure theres other stuff about creatures that can be said but where can you say thats stuff? Hmm maybe in the you know page? Any sugestions?
Kwigon the sharpshooter 14:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't think assumptions should be here, one can say "Wild warriors hit 10% less if you're wearing pink shoes", they aren't confirmed and they give people false beliefs. Just my opinion though.
However, the slimes hitting more over time is a common belief, I would suggest adding it to the Training page (since it doesn't really matter much if you aren't going to train) but write it in a way the reader will understand that it's unconfirmed information. -- Sixorish 15:11, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Well abouth the monsters geting skill I posted in proposals boards asking people abouth if this whas a mith or real and after 3 pages I ended beliving that monsters get more skill with time (they don't get stronger like they used in the old times when you could train a spider to hit 100, theres old client pics from when you could wear amulet of life) but they will break your shielding and hit your armor easyer. I tested this after blocking a slime with a total armor of 25 and dwarven shield on a lv 15 char, the slime hit me 15 and 20 and i could blockand armor block most of the hits (I can survive if I get hit by 2 slimes in a corner), then did the same on a slime that a player whas useing for training like 6 hours, guess what the slime hit me 50 to 70 almost (if not) each turn (like if I where not using shield or my shielding skill where 10).
Now abouth monsters using the loot they carry you can test it by:
1-training: (you will see that a monsters that dies leaving a chain armor or other equip lasted you more than the rest of the same monsters monsters you trained on.
2-Shooting explosion rune or burst arrow: on creatures that carry armors. The ones with armors, helmets or legs will get hit less than the rest, if you shoot a burst arrow on 9 slimes (they never use loot) you will always hit them the same cause they have no loot to wear but this dont hapen when a monster is wearing loot.
So I whas thinking adding the skill stuff on the training page and the monsters wearing stuff to the did you know page. What you people think?
Kwigon the sharpshooter 08:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Another list of creatures[]
why we dont make a list of creatures for premium account players and another for free account players? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by starygurl (talk • contribs). Remember to sign your comments!
There already is a List of Creatures in Free Account Areas, it wouldn't harm to make one also for premium areas although I can see some updating problems about it. How would you suggest a list should be such as this, by strength or alphabetically? Beejay 08:15, June 4, 2010 (UTC)
i think is better to sort them by strength so people can see what they can kill at their level. thats my opinion.
beejay do you mind if i do the list? i want to try my skills :)
Starygurl 00:28, June 5, 2010 (UTC)
Practice makes perfect, if you want to do it then do it. :) Beejay 10:52, June 5, 2010 (UTC)
wtf is a Teleskor`?
noticed on Aurea's kill stats Bitter Soul 01:28, July 17, 2010 (UTC)
Teleskor is a new Rookgaard skeleton boss, just added it. --DM ><((°> Contribs <°))>< talk to me 02:46, July 17, 2010 (UTC)
Lists of Creatures sorted by damage type they DO...?[]
Hiho, would it be possible to create lists of creatures sorted by the Type of Damage they DO? I would find this quite helpful eg. when I want to see if I need a certain protection in some spots. Like: Against which monsters would I need Ice Protection items at all...? Maybe we could also get a summary list of all creatures in table format with columns like:
Creature name - dmg type A - dmg type B - dmg type C...
and then a symbol or cross in every dmg type colum for every kind of dmg the creature does. Then I could sort the table by dmg type and see which creatures do eg. energy or death dmg. but at the same time see if they do something else which I should take into consideration when choosing my eq to hunt in their areas (eg. it is not so wise to use terra set in areas of creatures which do fire dmg as well; this is an issue which I would like to see at a glance...)
Could you take care of creating such lists? =]
Barathorn 15:39, August 4, 2010 (UTC)
Do you want a sortable table for the attacks of creatures similar to the lists in Ice Damage#Creatures or List of Pushable Creatures? (e.g. by element or one large list) It is possible to do, but in my opinion, whether it will be worth doing is another thing. Taking Ancient Scarab for example, as you can see, there are numerous parameters needed for each element in order to make the tables possible. I could see there being parameters added such as "| icedamage = ?" etc. for each element, which would show on the page as something like "this creature does physical, life drain, fire and poison attacks". It could then be listed along with the other lists under Ice Damage.
However, while I think it would be a nice idea, I also don't really see it as necessary for the work needed inorder to do it. For me, if there is an ice creature, it tells me that it is likely to do ice damage, if I want to know more about what that creature can do, then I will have a look at its page. So as all the mentioned information can already be found, I don't really see the point.
About the part where you said you should take into consideration which equipment to be worn, for example, when hunting earth damaging creatures in areas of ones which do fire damage also. Well, the table wouldn't also list creatures as found in x area so that information would still need to be manually searched, in that sense the creatures would be listed together on such a hunting page and it just seems to me that it would be more convenient to find the wanted information like that. Also, if this information was wanted on a single page, rather than only listed as the element, then it would be a large page which would also take a rather long time to load. For those with a slow internet connection, it would take a long time to load such a page.
Therefore, I don't really see it as something necessary as that information can already be found. So, even though I can see such a thing being done and added to TibiaWiki, I would say this would be set as a low priority job. It may be worth listing your idea on TibiaWiki:Requested articles. Beejay 18:28, August 4, 2010 (UTC)
Hello Beejay :)
Well, this "complete list in table format" was just an additional idea, but generally I would already be happy with a page for each damage type, like: Creatures which do Death Damage, Creatures which do Drown Damage, Creatures which do Ice damage etc. When I look on pages like "Death Damage" I get lists offered for Creatures weak/neutral/strong/immune to death, so why cant I also get a list of Creatures which do Death damage there? You have already done this nice list about Creatures that cause drunkenness and Creatures that can become Invisible, so why not also create these lists for Creatures that paralyze you, Creatures that Curse you etc.
Same for all other kinds of damage. I have eg. no clue which monsters all do Death damage or which monsters do Drown Damage (why cant I get info at a glace for which creatures it consequently would be wise to wear Helmet of the Deep for example? Or Kosheis Amulet? Or if it is really worth for my Druid to get full Glacier Set? If I could see a complete list of creatures which do Ice damage I could tell right away how likely I will hunt them or not).
If I would follow your reason, I could also say like: if there is an insect-type monster it might most probably be immune to Poison/Earth so why bother making a list of creatures immune to Earth... x-D ... but you guys have ofc done such a list, so I cant really see what kept you from providing the Creatures by inflicted dmg type lists long ago... ;-)
So I am hoping I might find these lists on the respective Damage Type pages soon... maybe it is less workload if you just have to list creatures under one dmg type =]
And I take the opportunity for a general warm Thank You for all the work which the Tibia Wiki team has already done and is still doing every day. Like the Mapper function - just great!!! Thanks a LOT for that !! :D
Barathorn 21:48, August 4, 2010 (UTC)
Ah, now I see it can be done like this too! :) Problem is however, this will not work so effectively as desired. Drunkeness and Invisibility are found through those words in the parameter, abilities. Many of the creature's attacks for such creatures as Ice Golem actually direct to their attack, such as Ice Missile. Therefore, it will not be picked up by the DPL and will not show up on the page. If you copy the DPL from one of those pages and put it on the page Ice Damage and preview, you will see what I mean. Funny thing is Ice Golem appears in the list of "Templates used in this preview:" unfortunately I am not too familar with codes so I don't know if there would be a way to work around that.
So the way as I can see it, there are four ways of making it possible to make pages as you desire. The first, would be as I said before and make several extra parameters which would list similar to the strengths and weaknesses like "this creature uses x, x and x attacks". The second, would be to change the creature attacks to direct to its element, however, I think this would be counter-productive as this would give less information about the actual attacks. The third, would be to compile a list manually which would need updating each time and would mean a lot of work to gather the information and when new creatures are added e.g. through updates. Usually, these kinds of pages get quite outdated. The last idea I can see would also require a massive ammount work and would remove the parameter abilites, such a change like this has had many disagreements in the past (look at Talk:Damage Modifiers for creature resistance/weaknesses) and would require a community decision first.
The example I used was a rather obvious one, I agree there. But I would say that the probable reason it has not been done before, is due to the big change which could be done, would require a massive adjustment to the creature pages and codes and like I said, a community decision is needed for big changes. About the Damage Modifiers which I mentioned, the majority of the people who voted on the poll about it, made it clear that the change was disliked, even though it did make lists like Ice Damage/Weak possible.
So I guess what I should have said instead of babbling, is that what you would like done needs the changes made to the template and/or creature pages inorder to be effect and list all creatures. Until some decision is made about it, you would have to simply look up the creatures you are going to hunt and go from there. Beejay 00:28, August 5, 2010 (UTC)
Does anyone else think it would be useful to list on creature pages what kind of magic fields they will or will not cross? I know I'd use it.... There are lots of stronger monsters that resist certain damage but still will not cross those types of fields.
Fire Assassin 04:06, November 10, 2010 (UTC)
Fire/energy/poison fields[]
Let's write in creature description if they can go over fire/energy/poison/ waves.
For example : war golem can go over energy wall but it isnt immune. hellspawn can't and it's strong to
Implementation dates[]
These creatures are the ones I couldn't pin down to a certain update:
|
• (Put in a spoiler to decrease ridiculousness of page length)<spoiler linktext=" (toc +/-)" linkstyle="cursor:pointer; font-size: xx-small;" contentstyle="font-size: xx-small; padding-left: 5px;" hidewarning="hidewarning">Bug |
If anyone knows where these creatures belong, please let me know, or even add it yourself.
Art Featherpitch (talk) 03:04, July 31, 2012 (UTC)
DPL failure?[]
Something's up with the DPL lists on all the creature class pages. I'm not sure what needs to be fixed.
Art Featherpitch (talk) 13:36, March 2, 2013 (UTC)
I noticed TibiaWiki went down the other day, I think wikia have been messing around so I guess it will sort itself out with a little time. Beejay (talk) 13:56, March 2, 2013 (UTC)
See http://tibia.wikia.com/wiki/Special:Version, DPL is not listed there anymore. I have contacted Wikia. -- Bennie (talk ~ fellows) 16:52, March 2, 2013 (UTC)
Reply from Wikia.
For that last several hours, we’ve been experiencing technical issues that have been causing JavaScript not to load on Wikia. This may have affected your ability to edit, as well as do things such as view images, use chat, and load comments. We are also encountering general site loading issues, as well as issues with Dynamic Page List (DPL). Our engineers are currently working to make sure this issue is fully resolved.
-- Bennie (talk ~ fellows) 18:56, March 2, 2013 (UTC)
Creature est. max damage per turn[]
Creature est. max damage[]
I noticed the est. max damage per turn for many creatures is simply all their ablilities combined, yet I think it's impossible for a creature to use more than 2 abilities per turn, just like players. It is true that creatures can use them at pretty much the exact same time, but not more than 2 is it? If it's not, we have to change the est. max damage to their 2 strongest ablilities combined. Melee is an ability too, so keep that in mind.
KurtFurious (talk) 11:09, February 4, 2014 (UTC)
While it's true that most creatures have only been observed using 2 abilities per turn, some creatures such as Sea Serpents and Hydras have been seen shooting 2 waves at the same time (plus melee). Whether this is an ability restricted to only a few creatures is debatable.
Art Featherpitch (talk) 14:39, February 4, 2014 (UTC)
Alright, I'll keep an eye open to those creatures in particular. I gotta say I'm a bit skeptic, but I guess I'll find out sometime. Anyway maybe we should change the est max damage values to the 3 strongest abilities combined? Or even more spesific, we add the 2 strongest ablilities from creatures we know only use 2 in one turn at max, and 3 for creatures such as the serpent spawn and hydra? I guess it requires some observation before we make any changed though.
KurtFurious (talk) 21:57, February 4, 2014 (UTC)
I remember an article a while back to do with creature adjustments and those such as a Dragon's attack combos were changed so they could no longer do fireball and firewave at the same time. But this only seemed to apply to weaker creatures as I believe they left some such as Dragon Lords alone? Beejay (talk) 19:07, February 5, 2014 (UTC)
That could be true, I've actually been hunting some serpent spawns and I believe I saw it doing a wave, melee and paralyze bomb in one turn... Then again, I was pretty tired. I'll do some more hunting.
KurtFurious (talk) 22:36, February 9, 2014 (UTC)
Summon Categories[]
I was thinking about adding two new categories to creatures: 'Creatures That Summon' (for e.g. Giant Spider) and 'Summoned by Creatures' (for e.g. Poison Spider). Also, I have just finished working on a list of creatures which would then be categorised as such and wanted to add this as a list to the Summoned Creature page under a new header. This list would work the same as the list below, but then with the 'loot' column replaced with a 'summoned by' column (this would require a new template). What do you guys think?
| Poison Spider |  |
22 | 26 | 270/-- |
|
-- Wouterboy (talk) 11:39, March 17, 2014 (UTC)
How do you suggest such categories be applied? Maybe 2 parameters to the infobox? And do you have any practical use in mind? -- Sixorish (talk) 12:45, March 17, 2014 (UTC)
Two parameters, something like: 'summons: yes/no' and 'issummoned: yes/no'. As for its use: I think that the more Tibia-related info this Wiki has, the better, and summons are quite important at times. -- Wouterboy (talk) 19:41, March 17, 2014 (UTC)
I would support a "summonedby" parameter which contained a list of creatures if we would agree to display it on the creature page itself.
As for "summons", as either yes/no or a list of monsters: I don't like repeating information. We have this information in the ability parameter, and if we removed them from the ability parameter it raises even more complications because some summoning abilities are "different" which the new parameter would have to support. -- Sixorish (talk) 12:37, March 18, 2014 (UTC)
Maybe this should be taken to Talk:Administrator Team to get more attention. -- Sixorish (talk) 02:20, March 21, 2014 (UTC)
Categorisation[]
Any reason why e.g. Corym are counted as Humanoids whereas e.g. Deeplings are not? -- Wouterboy (talk) 14:59, June 5, 2015 (UTC)