User:Greener/Sandbox/Animals and Beasts

'tis only a scratch pad.
 * Note, I'm only creating this because I can't find the paper I was working on earlier

General

 * Infobox:
 * Affiliation may not always be possible. (Can lore used to satisfy this infobox slot if mechanics cannot be discovered?)
 * Type should fit mechanics as much as possible. Category:NPCs by type
 * Category:Creature types to hold the articles of each mechanic type
 * Other tags
 * Mainly to satisfy organization by lore, aka Category:Species <-- should be renamed?
 * Category:Species to hold the lore articles as well as the lore-type subcategories.

Greener's version (updated)

 * Using "Typeless" as a temporary catch-all while we wait for further details. It's a more inclusive word than Animal.
 * Using "beast" as a term for those affected by Monster Hunt
 * Avoiding the use of Category:Animals
 * 1) Ogre-type. Ettins, Yeti, Jotun = lore
 * 2) Gaki. May be a type of their own. Seem like social creatures, so not wildlife
 * 3) "Candy corn creature" may work as lore.
 * 4) Typeless. We'll have to ensure that where this is used, an appropriate Species or at least affiliation is given so that creatures are not without some categorization.
 * 5) Curious: Does Edge of Extinction only work by checking type? If true, then any Typeless affected by it must have a type, no?
 * 6) Plants are quite varied. Not sure if we need all of the currently used lore-separators
 * 7) Heket. All froggies are type-Heket. All EotN are species-Hylek, with affiliation appropriate to tribe (how else could they drop Juicy Heket Legs and still attack each other from a programmers side?).
 * 8) Incubi may share the same type as NPCs from other campaigns, but we would have no way to properly test.
 * 9) I doubt minions are affiliated with the undead, per the known use of the undead affiliation. They definitely share a type with other minions.

{| class="expandable" style="border: 0px solid silver; background: transparent; width: 100%;" cellpadding=3

Konig's comments
I'd rather not but it is currently done. As well as? It would seem silly to have both Wurm and Category:Wurms, for example, in Category:Species. Unless I'm misunderstanding.
 * "(Can lore used to satisfy this infobox slot if mechanics cannot be discovered?)"
 * "(Can lore used to satisfy this infobox slot if mechanics cannot be discovered?)"
 * "(Can lore used to satisfy this infobox slot if mechanics cannot be discovered?)"
 * "Category:Species to hold the lore articles as well as the lore-type subcategories."
 * I'm thinking that it would be best to have it like Creature types, rather NPCs by type.


 * 1) Agreed.
 * 2) Could be their own, as could any other that needs testing.
 * 3) "Candy corn creature" is a tricky one... needs testing. My thoughts on them below. Not really lore though.
 * 4) Could "Typeless" be given a category, and in turn a parameter setting, too?
 * 5) Hmmm, if EoE in in the area of multiple typeless... I'm curious if they'd be harmed by the others' deaths, or be unaffected. I'd presume the later, personally. Charr in Prophecies should be typeless so they'd be the ones to test.
 * 6) I vote remove the separators for plants which are used as affiliations - they were added, like for the elementals, just to fill in the blanks.
 * 7) Concurred. Should we make a page for Hylek (and the other tribes), akin to how it's done for the Tengu and Centaur pages?
 * 8) I think Incubi may be the same as Drinker which we're using an unofficial term for. Think that Vampire may also be of this type.
 * 9) Minion's types may merely be typeless, but their affiliation would be undead and they'd have that undead-affected-by-holy passive skill.

Konig's notes
These are pages which I'd like to test the type of. Some may be beast or typeless.
 * Figure out the difference, or lack of difference, between Beast and the non-charmable versions of charmable animals.
 * If no difference, put "Beast" as NPCs' types.
 * If difference, denote difference under type accordingly.
 * Affiliations may affect or be affected by findings - e.g., charr in Ascalon are not by type (supposedly), but by affiliation.
 * Species, should it be different than type, can easily be placed manually at the bottom instead of in infobox.


 * Core
 * Avatar - don't think this is a mechanical type, but it's at least in Category:Creature types; likely, imo, to be ghosts


 * Prophecies
 * Behemoth - may be beast?
 * Worm - may be wurm?
 * Enchanted armor - construct doesn't seem to be a mechanical term, from previous observations, so I'm thinking these may be typeless.
 * I'm curious, have the jade constructs been tested with EoE to be the same/different than mursaat?
 * Facet - may be ghost?
 * Griffon - hmmmm, these may be their own - but I'd like to test against a beast.


 * Factions
 * Vampire - Questionable... Suspect same as Gaki, and Drinker
 * Gaki - Questionable... Suspect same as Vampire, and Drinker
 * Celestial - perhaps they could be ghosts?
 * Drinker - Questionable... Suspect same as Gaki, and Vampire
 * Wallow to be thorough, these are least suspecting.


 * Eye of the North
 * Skelk - beast? typeless? skelk?
 * Enchanted weapon - hmmmmmm
 * }

Creature type, Affiliation, Species
Note: This is here to create a list and definitive definition for the three primary classifications of NPCs. Key:
 * "Confirmed" - Outright stated to be correct by a dev or mechanics.
 * "Unknown" - likely but not proven; will mostly contain unofficial terms
 * "Iffy" - unlikely and questionable
 * "Wrong" - self-explanatory

Creature type
See User_talk:Andrew_McLeod/Species

Affiliation
See User_talk:Andrew_McLeod/Species

Species
Lore classification of a species.