User talk:Linsey Murdock/Species

Species names
You said to let you know if we have any specific species questions, so here's 10 of them if/when you have the time. =)

Does ArenaNet have a specific species name for the classification of creatures that...? I'm generally just looking for names that we can assume as canon with respect to Guild Wars lore, so that we don't have to come up with (or argue over) them ourselves. If any of these inclusion & exclusions don't seem to fit, please let me know (many of the delineations were determined from Edge of Extinction or disease testing/reports). Thanks! --Rezyk 07:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) ...includes: Creeping Carp, Irukandji, Scuttle Fish
 * but excludes: Leviathan Eye
 * 1) ...includes: Leviathan Mouth, The Impossible Sea Monster
 * but excludes: Scuttle Fish
 * 1) ...includes: Storm Kin, Wind Rider
 * but excludes: Dolyak Rider
 * 1) ...includes: Blood Drinker, Greater Blood Drinker, Rhythm Drinker
 * 2) ...includes: Abomination, Dead Thresher, Flesh Golem (Ring of Fire Islands), Melandru's Cursed
 * but excludes: creature summoned from Animate Flesh Golem
 * 1) ...includes: Tusked Howler, Ntouka Bird, Rampaging Ntouka
 * but excludes: Cobalt Mokele or Scytheclaw Behemoth, Steelfang Drake
 * 1) ...includes: Bound Assassin, Bound Kaichen, Doomed Ancient Kkraz, Shiro'ken Warrior
 * but excludes: Monk's Construct, spirits summoned by binding rituals
 * 1) ...includes: Veldt Beetle Lance, Bladed Dune Termite
 * but excludes: Veldt Nephila, Rock Beetle
 * 1) ...includes: Gedoss Windcutter, Skree Griffon
 * but excludes: Blessed Griffon
 * 1) ...includes: Damned Cleric, Executioner, Necrid Horseman, Zombie Warlock
 * but excludes: Grasping Ghoul, Skeleton Ranger, Wraith
 * What about Dhuum's Army? What is that called? The Terrorweb Dryders, Aatxes, and Phantoms seem to work together. What is their "team" called? Counciler 08:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, there are discussions at Talk:Species and User:Karlos/Species. Whet everyone seems to be looking for is the official names of species that aren't named in the manuals and don't have bounties or slaying weapons associated with them, as well as the subspecies / subtype / afficiation names for creatures which share a bounty or slaying weapon but won't trigger EoE on eachother or spread disease to eachother. -- Gordon Ecker 21:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, is there any difference between the creature types of golems and elementals? -- Gordon Ecker 21:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Grouping together Storm Kin, Wind Riders and Dolyak Riders is thoroughly bizarre to me. Dolyak Riders are members of the Stone Summit and the Storm Kin/Wind Riders are floaty tentacley eyeball things. Golems/Elementals is a little tricky. There are Golems that are Elementals and there are Golems that are not. There are also Elementals that are Golems and Elementals that are not.
 * Looks like I'll be taking all the species questions off of Emily's plate since she already has a lot there. Right now I don't have time to answer all of the questions here but I'll get right on it once I get home from work in a couple hours. We'll want to move any questions/discussion over to my talk page at that point I think - Linsey Murdock 00:30, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * They aren't really grouped together, but "rider", the current unofficial term for the floating eyeballs, is less than ideal because it could be used to refer to either "mounted creatures" or "members of the monster group which includes Storm Kin, Breeze Keepetrs etc.". -- Gordon Ecker 02:07, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps something more specific would be more appropriate so as to not cause this kind of confusion. For creatures that don't have any kind of official group/family/army name we would like to encourage you guys to get creative and come up with something. We might just use it! - Linsey Murdock 02:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Here are answers to your questions as best as I can give them. 1 & 2, I would call these all fish, but we do not have an official classification for them within the Guild Wars world. 3. There is no official classification for these within the Guild Wars world to be used as canon. Why not just go with "Floating Eyeball Tentacle Thingy" or the more D&D-esque "Beholder" for the unofficial name rather than "Rider" which is pretty ambiguous and not altogether accurate? 4. There is no official classification for these within the Guild Wars world to be used as canon. I've got nothing folks. 5. I would say that Abomination is a pretty darn good term for them but there is no official classification for these within the Guild Wars world to be used as canon. 6. This is kind of a mixed bag and one of those few examples of a random selection of monsters that realistically shouldn't be lumped together as being "related". There is no official classification for these within the Guild Wars world to be used as canon (becoming like a mantra, isn't it?). 7. These are Shiro'ken, including the Monk Construct. If EoE is not triggering on the Monk Construct when another Shiro'ken dies, then it is most likely a bug. 8. Insects, including Rock and Rain Beetles. The Nephila are Spiders. 9. Skree. 10. Undead, although more specifically Zombies. re: "Dhuum's Army" Terrorweb Dryders are Dryders, Aatxe are Nightmares and I'm not sure what you are referring to Phantoms as, could you be more specific? If there are creatures that should trigger EoE on a group but don't it is possible that it is a bug and should be documented as such. I'll help by pointing out which are bugs and which aren't as we go through these questions on a case by case basis. I know that you say you don't want to have to come up with/argue over the names yourselves, but the creature teams asks that we encourage you to do so in the cases that just don't have any kind of lore/in-game classifications. Get creative, they just might use them ;) I hope this stuff helps, I made User:Linsey_Murdock/Species for you guys to continue asking me questions without cluttering up Emily's talk. :D - Linsey Murdock 04:36, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow, thanks for the thorough answers -- it's more than I had hoped for, and should be a big help! I do still worry about us wiki users arguing too much over name-picking, but it should be much better with the extra input about aspects that can be considered official canon.
 * I'll double-check these when I have more time, but some possible discrepancy cases are:
 * The game appears to treat 1 & 2 as two different types with respect to disease transference -- the basic fishes distinct from the leviathan stuff. (The two groups also have their own distinctive trophy and salvage item drops, which leads one to expect two species.)
 * Yeah, the Profession's Constructs did not seem to suffer EoE from Shiro'ken Profession deaths.
 * --Rezyk 10:49, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not too surprised about 1 & 2 since they are sort of a mixed bag case. I personally would be inclined to call any of the fish-like creatures in the Jade Sea, fish, but we don't have an official term that could be used as canon. Is this classification work you are doing strictly for use with EoE or are you trying to just organizing the creatures of the world into families? If it's the former, it might be a bit tricky because of subsets within families but if it's the latter than it might be best in cases like this to come up with an overarching generic group identifier (like fish or beast) and then have subcategories which are more specific.
 * One note about trophy and salvage drops; I would not use those an as definitive indications of whether a species is related. Sure if they have the same drops, it's probably safe to say they are but if they have different drops, that is not always an indication that they are not related. John Hargrove has been known to give different trophy/salvage drops to creature types within the same family because we have art that is better suited to one particular creature type within the family rather than the whole family. It doesn't happen a lot but it does happen.
 * The Constructs issue is curious to me, I'm very inclined to say that is a bug but I'll investigate further. - Linsey Murdock 16:56, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * On the distinctions on 1 and 2 - I think that actually makes sense. I would say everything are fishes, but Leviathans aren't fishes (well...kinda). They were usually linked to either huge sea monsters (who weren't exactly fish) or to big sea animals such as whales, that are also not fish (no matter what the guy who wrote Mob Dick thinks >.>). Erasculio 00:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd like to know whether the Leviathan is a Wurm, the same species as the six Leviathan crustaceans or both. If they do share a species, we can just call all of them leviathans rather than something else such as levianthan fish, shellfish or crustaceans. -- Gordon Ecker 00:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The leviathan are a tricky group. I would say that the Leviathan is a type of Leviathan where as Leviathan Eye, Leviathan Mouth, etc appear to be animated pieces of another type of leviathan as indicated by their names. Even still, it would probably be best to categorize them all together as being parts of a leviathan (whether it be a whole one or pieces). - [[Image:Elementalist-icon-small.png]]Linsey talk 02:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok I take this one back, I talked with Curtis and the Leviathan Eye, Leviathan Mouth, etc should be consider fish but the Luxons believe they are controlled by the Leviathan and named them as such. Communication ftw - [[Image:Elementalist-icon-small.png]]Linsey talk 01:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess the question then is: Should we consider it a bug that disease doesn't transfer between the non-leviathan-named fish and the leviathan-named fish? --Rezyk 11:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The reasons for the classification work is really both.
 * Which creatures will EoE or disease each other. How much a deathbane mod would help in a particular farming spot. Whether or not smiting will do double damage to the boss of the mission. These are all potentially useful reference information that we want to have in some form (or figure out) for viewers, but there's so much info that it's hard to keep track of it all or present it cleanly if they aren't aligned with the given classifications.
 * Organizing creatures into families is pretty important to make navigation of the wiki easier (imagine if we just dumped all creatures into a single category). And from a lore aspect, it's often relevant extra information.
 * And between users, we might prioritize these differently. I kind of think this is why we ended up developing both a proposal with a flat species tree and one with arch-species and sub-species.
 * One thing I've been trying to figure out here is whether there are any groups that can't be handled well with a flat tree -- for example, if there were a bunch of demons that EoE each other (but not other demons) and don't have any fair name other than "demon". So far, the only difficult cases I've found are the ntouka+howler group (but maybe they really just shouldn't disease each other) and the beetle+termite group (but you've given me something that can work that out too). --Rezyk 01:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Here's some thoughts I have on these:
 * 1 & 2. The "Leviathan X" creatures have shells, and are more crustaceans than fish. Most of the other creatures in the region were concepted around fish and other swimming creatures.
 * 3. The wind riders and their kin are more like jellyfish or beholders. The only connection that these have to Dolyak Riders is that Wind Riders and Dolyak Riders both have Rider in their name.  Dolyak Riders should be classfied as Stone Summit dwarves, as they are simply dwarves mounted on large creatures called Dolyaks.  Wind Riders and Storm Kin should be in their own separate category.
 * 4. These are supposed to be somewhat batlike, with some innsect-like qualities added in. They're not really related to anything else in the world currently, so they could be classified however makes the most sense to you guys.
 * 5. Abominations works pretty good for these guys.
 * 6. All of these creatures are actually all in the same family internally, but it's more of a "local wildlife" family, and they're not really related lore-wise.
 * 7. All of these creatures, including the constructs in Sunjiang District, are creatures that Shiro has created and is controlling. They are all in the same family, so I don't see a reason to draw a distinction here.
 * 8. Spiders are arachnids, but they're grouped together with insects for things like the sunspear bounties. I could see arguments for either separating them into arachnids/insects, or combining both into an insect category.
 * 9. The Skree should be in their own category. The Skree griffon is based off of the griffins in Prophecies, but is not really related to them.
 * 10. These are all undead, but there really are several different types of undead. There are 4 sub-types of undead: skeletons, zombies, ghosts, and mummies, though zombies and mummies could possibly be combined. Fleshy undead would be zombies, skeletons without flesh would be skeletons, and incorporeal creatures would be ghosts or spirits.Andrew McLeod (Freyas) - ArenaNet creature designer 10:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the further insight. =) Hmm..crustaceans seems like a good name. --Rezyk 04:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Here's another one. Is there a term that ...
 * ... includes Tar Behemoths, Root Behemoths, Dune Burrowers, Crag Behemoths, Obsidian Behemoths and Obsidian Guardians
 * but excludes Behemoth Gravebanes and Scytheclaw Behemoths
 * Right now Rinkahl Monitors, Nightfall Behemoths and the Cobalt lizards are generally being indivudally classified as behemoths and cobalts collectively classified as reptiles or dinosaurs (although behemoths and cobalts don't spread disease between eachother). Also, are Plague Worms and Rock Borer Worms supposed to be the same species as the giant Wurms? -- Gordon Ecker 03:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * My thoughts on the Ntouka's and howlers is that they are all Megafauna, and could be grouped as such. Sort of Lions, elephants, Rhinos, Hippos etc. are not related biologically that close, but are all examples of Megafauna. Nietzsche 02:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The fact that Snow Wurms and Frost Larvae share the Worm models supports to the theory that Worms and Wurms are the same type of creatures. -- Gordon Ecker 03:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Phantoms
The term "Phantom" as an unofficial creature claffification covers the non-fleshy creatures which use the squid model (Phantom, Charged Blackness and Grasping Darkness) and the Underworld creatures which drop Phantom Residue (Banished Dream Riders, Smite Crawlers and Mindblade Spectres), as well as Greater Dream Riders and The Fury since they share the Banished Dream Rider model. There is some disagreement about whether Kraken Spawn, Zhu Hanuku and the Focus of Hanaku should be considered phantoms or Krakens because they are fleshy, and about whether ghosts and phantoms should be considered the same creature type. -- Gordon Ecker 06:25, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmmm interesting. Phantom is probably the best way to identify the first set of creatures, but I would not put the Kraken of the Jade Sea in that category. They would be best classified as Kraken regardless of using the same model. I think that ghosts and phantoms should be kept separate since Phantoms are always hostile while ghosts are often friendly. - Linsey Murdock 17:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Elementals and golems
Here's a speculative list of golems and elementals, excluding bosses. Does it look accurate to you? -- Gordon Ecker 23:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm going to have to ask about some of these but right off, I think that the Boulder Elemental, Hulking Stone Elemental, Ice Elemental, Ice Elemental Shard, Rock Ice, Sand Elemental, Stone Elemental, Stone Fury, Crystal Guardian, Crystal Spider are all elementals that are also Golems for now. After talking with the man o' species, we might want to just abolish the use of the category "golem" because it is pretty misleading when it comes to things like Flesh Golem and adopt the term "enchanted". If you guys would like to do that, we could simplify things by making "enchanted" be more like a state in which a creature is in. Then you would just have things that are "enchanted". Even the leviathans would fit into this as "enchanted fish". - [[Image:Elementalist-icon-small.png]]Linsey talk 01:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Currently, monoliths and the jade / Mursaat constructs are categorized as constructs, and I think that category would work for other artificial-looking creatures such as the enchanted in the crystal desert. -- Gordon Ecker 02:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I spoke with Jeff Grubb for a bit today about Golems and the Mursaat's Jade constructs. Construct as a type would work well as a category, then we can leave the word "golem" to a type of construct. This would probably cut down on the confusion surrounding "golem". Golems are constructs, so are the enchanted type creatures. It's a more generic term that could blanket more types of creatures as one of the arch-types. According to Jeff, elementals are summoned creatures as opposed to being a constructed creature like golems.

I see no necessity for identifying a creature as a "golem." Species wise, we care if the creature is a construct, affiliation wise, being a Golem adds nothing to our knowledge of a creature. I find the distinction between Construct and elemental a much more significant one. Can you expound on that, Linsey? What (in temrs on traits) separates an Elemental from a Construct. Or is there no different and it's simply Lore? --Karlos 22:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * According to Jeff, a construct is something that is "made" or "constructed" by something else. An Elemental is something that is "summoned". If you couldn't tell from the other stuff I've said, I totally agree that "Golem" shouldn't be a creature identifier. - [[Image:Elementalist-icon-small.png]]Linsey talk 21:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * So, just to confirm, in terms of traits (resistance to fire/slashing/blunt/...) there is no difference in traits between elementals and constructs? Or are these more decided on a creature by creature basis? --Karlos 22:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Creature by creature basis... - [[Image:Elementalist-icon-small.png]]Linsey talk 01:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Disclaimer
I put up a disclaimer. It didn't take long for me to realize that it is going to be really difficult to make sense of the way we store data for you guys in comparison to something that actually makes sense in the lore world. When it comes to the trickier questions, I'll be seeking the help of our species guy and perhaps our world designer but I wanted to let you know that sometimes the lore explanation might not sync up with the way we actually store the data.

If I may turn your attention to...
Can you please take a look at: User:Karlos/Species

Someone posted a link to this proposal earlier, but I would like to confirm that you have seen it and if so, I'd like to get your thoughts on it. I think it is the closest thing we have to understanding how you guys look at species categorization. I think that a proposal like Godron's that says "Carven Effigies are elementals and undead" is fundamentally incorrect. Carven effigies are elementals, period (which is why they do not take double holy damage), but they are affiliated politically wtih undead, and the bounty rewards for all undead and their affiliates. I think you touched on this when you tried to distinguish between Ghosts and Phantoms based on allegiance.

There are others who are trying to avoid an overall hierarchy like this and would rather classify things on a creature by creature basis. To what extent do you think an overall hierarchy helps/hurt. --Karlos 09:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * My table was really more of a theory than a proposal, and it's mostly based on other, existing theories, trophy drops, bounty results and Emily and Linsey's statements. By the way, I just did some testing with EoE which supports your affiliation theory, Carven Effigies trigger EoE against Sandstrom Crags and Shambling Mesas, but not against the undead. I was skeptical of the affiliation theory due to the holy damage arguement for Carven Effigies, as there's at least one undead boss that lacks the standard holy damage vurneribility, and the Phantoms in the Ring of Fire Islands are vulnerable to holy damage but are not undead. -- Gordon Ecker 21:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Determining a hierarchy seems like a good idea, but the problem is that the way we store species data can at times conflict with some of the lore in the world. Thus I don't think that EoE should be one of the major deciding factors, although it does help a lot. It's just that there will be exceptions in the way EoE works. Considering all the inconsistencies, I think it might be better to go on a case by case basis for final results. I just think it will be hard to determine a hierarchy that makes sense without having a ton of exceptions and it being all messy. - [[Image:Elementalist-icon-small.png]]Linsey talk 22:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd like you to expound on two points for me, if you can, Linsey:
 * a) The affiliation issue. You mentioned a simple "histile vs friendly" affiliation example of the spirits of the Underworld. However, is it true that there are bigger affiliation patterns in the game. For example, why the Outcasts will run around slaughtering everything in their way in the Jade Sea, or why that small group of Afflicted outside of Unwaking Waters on the Kurzick side will attack Wardens, Kirins and all. It's obvious to me that not all "hostiles" are "allies" of each other. So, how do we understand this issue?
 * b) With reagrds to the Underworld "nightmares" as you called them. Are you implying they are "nightmares" like Fog Nightmares and Azure Shadows, same species, or that "nightmare" is the name you give those servants of Dhuum? We have typically used the term "Nightmare" to refer to the shady monkeys with the long tails that pop-up all over the place and are non-fleshy (like Fog Nightmare, Dying Nightmare, Shadow Beast, ...). In the case of a Shadow Beast, it's species would be Nightmare and its affiliation would be Menzies or Shadow Army. Now are you saying that all those creepy monkeys are of the same species as Aatxe, Grasping Darknesses and Charged Blacknesses? Or is it that all those creepy monkeys are NOT of the same species themselves? We were relying on the graphical model + pop up syndrom + non-fleshiness to assume they are all one species. Is this incorrect? And if they are the same species, is is the same as the UW creatures that you called "Nightmares"?
 * --Karlos 22:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll get to the nightmare questions a bit later when I have time, for now let me address what you call affiliations. So, interactions between monsters are done on a case by case basis by the person spawning a map. It is true that things are not as cut and dry as "hostile or friendly". There are many different kinds of hostile and a few different kinds of friendly. There are friendlies that fight with you on the players team (ones on the party window and ones that are not) and there are noncombatants (ones with collision and ones without). There are even exceptions to that, like NPCs that don't fight with the player but can get attacked. When it comes to hostiles, things get much much messier. We can basically do whatever we want when it comes to monsters that fight each other. If one of the spawners was feeling a bit peckish and decides to make minotaurs "eat" aloe seeds in the map they are working on, they can do that and it doesn't mean that minotaurs everywhere will eat aloe seeds. So there are bound to be a crap ton of inconsistencies there. Sometimes we decide on sort of blanket rules like "Oni hate everyone" so we all spawn Oni on their own team and they attack everyone. If you were to start categorizing affiliations, it would need to be done on a case by case basis for the most part. - [[Image:Elementalist-icon-small.png]]Linsey talk 23:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Darn it...it would have been really nice to have a simpler model for that. --Rezyk 23:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Very very little is simple in the way we spawn things. You think it's frustrating to organize from the outside? Imagine what it's like on the inside... :P - [[Image:Elementalist-icon-small.png]]Linsey talk 00:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, so you just tell the spawner to do whatever he likes? I mean the outcasts are hostile to everyone from Boreas Seabed all the way down to Rhea's Crater... That's just luck? Just happened to be the same spawner? I'm a little disappointed, yes. :P --Karlos 01:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Like I said, we do discuss and determine rules for some armies for consistency, beyond that it's done at the discretion of the spawners. In your Outcasts example, it could be either scenario. At some point it could have been decided that Outcasts are hostile to everyone or it could have been the same person spawning all those areas and was something they decided to do. I'm pretty sure it was a blanket rule though. Just to clarify, Spawners = scripters = designers (ie I am all of those things), it's not like there is a separate team that once we finish designing the game we send it off to the scripting/spawning team and tell them to do whatever they want. It's all the same people. So yes, we sort of do what we want with our design... sorry to disappoint... - [[Image:Elementalist-icon-small.png]]Linsey talk 01:39, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I suppose that explains the time I saw Margonites turn on and kill one of those tablet creatures, even though they usually get along just fine...68.82.216.207 21:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)