FANDOM


Levels are inaccurate and should be removed

On many hunting places "minimum levels" are kinda different. Hunting places have lots of different parts, with lots of different monsters. It is not told what monsters the levels are for.

Let us take Hero Cave (not on page) as example. To kill some of the easiest monster level 8 would be enough (especially with higher level friends). To hunt on deeper floors, level 30-50 would be enough. To kill all monsters (in team), level 50-70 would be needed. To solo all monsters with profit, level should be even 200. So, what is put as minimum level? 8 or 200?

Look for example to Ankhramum dragon lairs. Minimum level for paladin has been 25, then somebody has added "70 recommend". Nowhere it is said if level 25 is for soloing all, or is level 70 is minimum for hunting all in team. Pits of Inferno has levels for soloing at PoI dragon lair, but somebody has added supplies that would be needed to hunt at actual quest areas.

I am proposing that this page should only list all hunting places in alphabetical order, and hunting guides, including levels, should be shown only on that page. For example Mintwallin page has good hunting guide, which lists all vocations, tells levels for solo, team hunt, most important spawns, and even supplies needed. That is what every hunting place-page should include. --Ville-v 01:34, 2 April 2007 (PDT)


Page is great idea

This page is a great idea. Maybe it would be cool to include "Approx. experience per hour" "Approx. mana/rune spend per hour" "Approx. loot value per hour"

Just an idea, what do you think?

I'll be contributing to this page with info on Ramoa (Bonebeast island) later on.

Ryek Azagoth 09:07, 3 November 2006 (PST)


It would be great if that kind of information was possible, but there are too many variables. If someone posted their exp/hr... it would only be accurate for maybe 1/3 of all players or gameworlds, probably less.

The primary things that affect exp/hr and cost/hr for a given hunting place are (1) respawn time, (2) speed player can kill creatures and leave the area, (3) cost per attack/damage they can cause per attack.

I have tried, and I have not found ANY good way to even estimate these values for them to be useful for more than a small group of players/gameworlds.

I'm sure that there are people out there with some ideas, but I can't think of any possible way to make these values useful for the entire tibia community.

-- WhitelacesTalk † χρισtoς αnεσtη, αληθως αnεσtη -- 13:04, 3 November 2006 (PST)

Why not make a ranking system? So all the 2's for instance would be high cost high Exp. 1's would be low cost high exp. 3 Medium cost high exp, 4 medium cost medium exp, or something to that effect. or a colour coding system... Some way of ranking at least.
Craggles

That would probably work, but how would you judge "high cost" or "low cost"? What a level 10 considers to be "high cost" would be super-cheap for a level 25 or higher, and there would be even more difference as you talk about higher levels.

Respawn time is certainly dependant upon number of players online, but creature density can counteract the respawn time to some degree. This also depends on the exp that each creature will give.

I still think we could not accomodate how complicated the issue is, but you may be onto something there, Craggles.

I would suggest separating cost, exp, loot... instead of having 1=high cost/high exp... have "high-cost" and a separate "high/med/low exp", etc.

Keep in mind that cost would depend almost 100% on what method they use to attack, and how much damage they can do with that attack (knights spend nothing to use melee weapons, for example, but mages spend mana and/or runes to attack).

-- WhitelacesTalk † χρισtoς αnεσtη, αληθως αnεσtη -- 13:41, 3 November 2006 (PST)

Double info, new standard

I thought that we don't work accurate on this page. I took elvenbane to explain an example how it could be work better:


Advice level:
Knights: level 25-35 (Tip: Open dead bodies of monsters for forgotten loot.)
Paladins: level 20-30
Mages: level 19-35 (Tip: Use Great Fireballs.)


In this method we show better which level is good to hunt there and the real info such as location and monsters you can see on the page of the place itself and not here. If nobody is against it we can change every hunting place on the hunting places page to this new standard.

Bennie 30 December 2006 13:07 (CEST)


Since nobody posted against it I'll start to move everything to the new standard


Bennie 1 Januari 2006 11:49 (CEST)


It should be "Advice level or skills" instead "Advice level" because when you are paladin or knight, skills matter most. Also, there should be just minimum level, not maximum. Ville-v 05:01, 1 January 2007 (PST)


Warning about lvl

Ty very much...


About the hellgate info, it says level 30 for mages, does this include or not include elder beholders?
.:: Grady -=- Contribs -=- Talk ::. 00:15, 14 January 2007 (PST)

While the creatures were being blocked by a 100 knight, at level 27, Magic Level 38 sorcerer i could easily kill most things in hellgate but i still got spam from [Elder Beholder]]s when too close. If a 30 mage is soloing hellgate the open areas are the worst and not very cost effective. Each building structure inside is not bad since you can go up/down stairs. This of course depends on the mage but there are some free floating elders that definitely will cause problems for even a 35 mage if there are many creatures about besides. --DM ><((°> Contribs <°))>< talk to me 18:36, 17 April 2006 (CDT) 13:40, 14 January 2007 (PST)

Inaccurate

i think these levels are extremely low. For example the dragon lair which has dragon lords. You need to be a much higher level than 28 to kill dragon lords.

Organising

alphabetical ordering seems poor and innacurate to my eyes

I think we should divide the areas into cities

would do much better... what doi you think of it?

if there is no answer I'll do it anyway

hugs,
 Nagatho Goldenflag 
 Talk   Contributions  07:01, 1 February 2007 (PST)


It may be a good Idea to me, go ahead :P But maybe we should also have a link like on the questpage with an alphabetic ordering. I'll take care of it and if I don't you may finish it.

 Wie niet slim is moet slim zijn
^^  º Bennie º  ¤ Talk ¤  ^^ 10:22, 1 February 2007 (PST)

Many hunting places are far from cities, doesn't seem good way to order for me. --Ville-v 03:25, 4 February 2007 (PST)


I am pretty indifferent about the organization of this page, but I think Ville-v is right... most hunting areas aren't really near a specific city.... Orc Fort, for example..... some people would say "Carlin", since the amazon NPC in femor hills says they raid carlin... but it's actually closer to Ab'Denriel and Venore than it is to Carlin. Same with POH or POI... Thais? Venore?... but many people get there from the Dwarven Bridge, coming from Femor hills or Kaz.

Just something to consider as you guys work out how to organize this page.

-- Da mihi sis crustum Etruscum cum omnibus in eo
--  Whitelaces †  Talk †  -- 07:00, 5 February 2007 (PST)


well, I dfo agree there are some areas which do not really belong to a city, but I see no other way to make it look more organised

I didn't start organising it yet as I'm waiting for more opinions/ideas anyways hugs,
 Nagatho Goldenflag 
 Talk   Contributions  07:59, 5 February 2007 (PST)

If i recall correctly some other things in the wiki may be organised along the lines of the houses-cities connection. Houses in Femor Hills and Outlaw Camp belong to Kazordoon so should the local hunting areas. Ice Islands houses belong to Carlin, as well as hunting areas. Then other iffy things can go by logic. The northern Amazon Camp makes more sense to go with the city of women then of elves. Elvenbane is closer to Ab'Dendriel and has some elves in it. Ulderek's Rock is closest to Venore. If there are more questionable ones then ask in the talk page and discuss. I think, like it was mentioned above, it could be good to have two separate articles of Hunting Places, by location and alphabetical, similar to the creature page and divisions. --DM ><((°> Contribs <°))>< talk to me 18:36, 17 April 2006 (CDT) 18:34, 6 February 2007 (PST)

The page says that you have to be about level 30 to hunt in shadowthorn, but i've hunted there since i was level 16 (mostly elves and lonely elf scouts), shouldn't we put that in?
--Delatus 08:27, 2 May 2007 (PDT)

Instead haveing a single hunting grounds page why not have level ranges pages for instance Sorceror's level 20-30 then advice - different stratergies. Effective use of the vocation and hunting area's what runes to take. This whole section is far bigger than a single page. We (as I mentioned)could intergrate a ranking system vocation and level specific. We could use a table for saying the primary attack i.e. primary attack gfb would require 4 bp's of gfb an hour and 1 bp of mana fluids. The main thing we'd then to do if put it all in an easy to manage table as most other stuff is. We could add some do's and don'ts aswell



There are only a limited amount of stratergies in tibia so we could have references to pages involving them - or even specific pages. We could have cross over points where a knight would work efficiently with a mage - perhaps hydras. the a couple of different stratergies with screenshots. Excuse the mad typing but I was in a rush and had alot of ideas.

Craggles
[Random::Chat::Guild::Contributions::Tibicam Profile]


List with infobox

Can you guys give your opinion about the new list template/infobox thing (added as a test to venore hunting places). By adding a list some valuable info will be lost, at least if it's not included in the template. There is only one skills parameter right now, instead of separate for paladins and knights. Also, there is only one level parameter, instead of separate for vocations. Let's brainstorm about a solution ;) ^^ Bennie (talk ~ fellows) ^^ 18:32, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


Well, I personally think that the look is a little too similar to the already active infoboxes, the current infoboxes are suppose to be kept within the box, e.g they don't have "notes" outside of the template, but adding it inside the template would make it extremely large and (honestly) quite ugly. Also, the profit would highly depend on many factors, like vocation, level, gaming skill, luck (e.g the attack/defense system involves a lot of chance), etc. but other than that, it's OK for an overview -- Sixorish 22:38, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


I think it would be better along the lines of Template:Geography where it is small and off in the top right corner. Then have the main info content below in paragraph form.
--DM ><((°> Contribs <°))>< talk to me 05:45, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


Thanks for your feedback! About the profit, it's true it is hard to determine. Like the value of items, which varies from world to world, it will be hard to say. Still, I think it is something people want to know, depending on the profit they will hunt somewhere or not. @what DM said, that was what I intended first, but I failed to make the template correctly. The main problem was OR the creature lists could only start below the infobox OR they would have to be cropped, made less wide, to fit beside the infobox. If you know a way to make it work, I would prefer that of course. ^^ Bennie (talk ~ fellows) ^^ 09:40, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


Ok, after an evening of struggling (xD) I tried some new things, the template looks now much like the Geography template (applied on all Venore hunting places like Venore Dragon Lair). Some additional feedback would be awesome, should I continue with this idea, or does it looks crap? Maybe I should also add this in consideration (my intentions): I want to have the level/skills info on the Hunting Places also available on each separate Hunting Place page. In addition, I want all info on the Hunting Places page be kept, but easier to overview by putting them in infobox lists. ^^ Bennie (talk ~ fellows) ^^ 20:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


Width can be reduced a little I think. If this is widely used, in order to use the list template efficiently we will need to ensure there aren't whitespaces outside of noinclude tags. Also, some pages with little text will have the list tables "floating" over the template, (which can be fixed with {{clear}}) -- Sixorish 23:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

also, the map in the template here is making the text above it look a little odd. I think it should be centered.. -- Sixorish 23:25, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


Ok, ok, sounds good. The {{clear}} template is very useful indeed. You mean all the text should be centered, or only the profit line? For all pages, or only for the amazon camp? ^^ Bennie (talk ~ fellows) ^^ 06:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


Any hunting place with a map, which should be more or less all of them. I edited the template to give an example, see Amazon Camp (Venore), it's centered as one column, instead of separated in to two (I assume profit is intended to be a short note). Another thing is the skills table nested inside, should they have columns separating them? To give an example..

Knights:1025/25
Paladins:1025/20
Mages:1025

or...

Knights: Level 10, 25/25
Paladins: Level 10, 25/20
Mages: Level 10, 25

(the above can also be applied without tables):

Knights: Level 10, 25/25
Paladins: Level 10, 25/20
Mages: Level 10, 25

-- Sixorish 06:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


Ok, I understand your point, centering in one td instead of 2 tds might be better. Well, those column separating is an element I kept, while copying from other infobox templates. It is not necessary of course, but I think it looks better when e.g. the skills are places exactly above each other, which can be done easier with separated columns (I think). Also, the optional skill for mages would of course not be melee or distance, but magic level. In the way the info is now presented, this is hard to determine (so I'm still thinking of a bit other thing). ^^ Bennie (talk ~ fellows) ^^ 06:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


I agree that it would be neater to have them under the same column, the width of the table is the problem I think,

Knights:2525/25
Paladins:2525/20
Mages:2515

or perhaps

Knights:25with25/25
Paladins:25with25/20
Mages:25with15

(or 'with ML' etc...) -- Sixorish 10:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


Ok, I think this is something which can be adjusted respectively easy, so I want to continue introduce the template on another few pages to look if any other problems are encountered. ^^ Bennie (talk ~ fellows) ^^ 14:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


I think the last table Six made is best. I was also wondering if it would be a good idea to include the types of element encountered at a hunting place or best element to bring (i.e. Venore Dragon Lair has creatures immune/strong to fire, energy, and earth. Bring ice weapons/spells). This can of course be read in most articles or determined from the creatures there, but it could be helpful - except for pages with creatures of every type. --DM ><((°> Contribs <°))>< talk to me 01:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


Ok, we'll do something like that. The types of element encountered? If a cave has only dragons or something that could be useful, but like elvenbane, all types of creatures. I don't really see this fitting in the infobox, but if you think otherwise propose something. Maybe just adding such info in the article is enough? ^^ Bennie (talk ~ fellows) ^^ 06:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


Should exp and loot gains be rated compared to the recommended level? Seems obvious to me, but I'm not as clever as I think I am ;-) Miltonr 01:00, 8 June 2009 (UTC)Miltonr


Yes, I guess so. ^^ Bennie (talk ~ fellows) ^^ 06:46, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


I can't think of how to implement that without making some of the templates unnecessarily complex. Some of the tombs have 3 additional boxes for each floor; then adding exp and loot for those as well would make them monstrous. Plus we scarcely have enough data to find exp and loot for just 1 box per page, more is ambitious.
Craggles
Random::Chat::Contributions::Tibicam Profile

New Star System

Any gripes, concerns or ideas with my star rating system?
Craggles
Random::Chat::Contributions::Tibicam Profile
01:16, January 21, 2010 (UTC)


I like it, though I think as with the old system, we have no criteria to meet for n stars. I think we should build an editor reference table for each 5-10 level increment which details what the minimum is expected for 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 star ratings. -- Sixorish 06:26, January 21, 2010 (UTC)


So one star is very bad experience and 5 stars very good? It looks kinda good, maybe the star image should link to experience/level instead of to the image file? With {{Ilink}} template? I still think it would be totally awesome to get exact numbers like 30k/hour. I wouldn't mind testing this by hunting in a lot of different places myself, but the problem is the number varies very much depending on how fast you kill the monsters etc. So maybe numbers are still possible with a small range, like 25-30k/hour (actually the template needs no change for this). Criteria, like sixorish says is also a good idea! ^^ Bennie (talk ~ fellows) ^^ 07:15, January 21, 2010 (UTC)


Bennie: I've made it so on the actual page you can still enter an exact value Okolnir, as with list forms scanning over lots of sortable data is easier when there's some commonality. In this case the stars clearly show the better areas as a general outline; this outline I feel is the key to a good all encompassing table. On each page the details are key - which is why you can still enter exact data.
Sixorish: I agree. In which case we could then link those stars to the reference page.


Craggles
Random::Chat::Contributions::Tibicam Profile
12:41, January 21, 2010 (UTC)

Implemented?

I've started adding the implementation date for the hunting places, but there are several instances where I'm not sure when a place was implemented (mostly very old ones, but also Tiquanda's tortoise and dwarf caves, neither of which seem to be mentioned on any update page). Could use some help here.
Art Featherpitch (talk) 21:33, July 26, 2012 (UTC)
Edit: I managed to find a hint that the dwarf cave was added in 8.2.
Art Featherpitch (talk) 21:38, July 26, 2012 (UTC)

Well, good luck, its a mean undertaking. I'll help as best I can.
Craggles ಠ_ಠ TalkContribs 21:52, July 26, 2012 (UTC)

Here's another "great" discovery: Darashia was implemented in a "Server update" betwen 6.61 and 7.0, and seemingly lacks a version number. Not sure how to deal with this.
Art Featherpitch (talk) 22:02, July 26, 2012 (UTC)

Local Hunting Places.

Hello!

First post on this Wiki, I just noticed that the local hunting places for different places (Svargrond, Ankrahmun, Kazordoon etc.) Doesn't show. The list loads, and then when the page is done loading, the list just disappears. Since I don't think putting this text on every Talk:<Location> page would be a smart move, I'm submitting this here in hopes that a mod/admin can look into this issue.


The list I refer to is the scrolldown menu, located next to the Local Quests menu. I'll submit a screenshot if someone needs it to find the place I'm talking about.

I am currently using Opera, if that helps, but I have the same issue on Firefox and Internet Explorer.

Cheers!

Cynicalter (talk) 19:49, August 8, 2012 (UTC)


I see what you mean. This appears to be an issue with the Wikia skin. See: Wikia and Monobook.

I can see this problem where the Local Hunting Places list disappears when I use Chrome, but it doesn't disappear for me with Firefox (both up to date). I will forward this conversation to someone who will know better than me, thank you! Beejay (talk) 17:35, August 10, 2012 (UTC)

That is riddiculous, why would the dpl list is up and vanish like that...
Craggles ಠ_ಠ TalkContribs 17:49, August 10, 2012 (UTC)

@Beejay

Thanks, glad to be of service :)

User:Cynicalter 18:05, August 10, 2012 (UTC)

Warning

Shouldn't we remove the warning at the top of the page, I don't think many people are leaving Rookgaard higher than level 8 anymore. If they do, they are such oldschool players they probably understand the consequences. -- Bennie (talk ~ fellows) 18:32, April 17, 2016 (UTC)


You're right, warning should be removed. In fact, you can only leave Rookgaard on level 8 or 9, not higher than that. This warning lost its importance 6 years ago.

Hunter of Dragoes (Talk · Contribs · Admins) - 18:53, April 17, 2016 (UTC)

Table problems

Hey, Kirkburn from Wikia Support here.

A visitor let us know the Hunting Places table has stopped displaying much of the data recently (within the last week or so), and refreshing the page content is not bringing it back. Did one of the templates get changed, causing this to stop showing info correctly?

If, after giving it a look, you think this may be due to something on Wikia's side, please do let us know via Special:Contact/bug. -- Kirkburn (talk) @fandom 15:58, August 10, 2016 (UTC)


Thanks for forwarding Kirkburn, I fixed it. It was caused by all content pages getting a different template call, from {{Infobox_Hunt to {{Infobox Hunt. -- Bennie (talk ~ fellows) 18:11, August 20, 2016 (UTC)


Gosh, I only just noticed your reply - I'm glad you were able to spot and fix the issue! :) Kirkburn (talk) @fandom 19:25, September 6, 2016 (UTC)