Talk:Creature

Split list from definition

May I suggest to move this article to Creature list or List of creatures and start a new definition article instead? For a long list like this it is "cleaner" to keep the list separate from the definition. I'll split / move tomorrow, unless anybody objects. --Tetris L 02:40, 12 February 2007 (PST)

Sounds like a good idea, although I'd prefer list of creature types. -- Gordon Ecker 06:43, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

/agree with Gordon. Armond 00:05, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

Creature level...

Are you guys even READING the section on article level? Have you looked at your heroes' armor? What the heck are you guys doing?

If you read what I actually wrote, it speaks of creature level from 1 to 20 (that's what I have data on from Koss to Sousuke) it does not reference creature of level 0 because I have no idea if they have 0 AL or a lower threshold.

Here is my source... If you open your inventory, and then load up your different heroes, you will see their armor is as follows:

• Warriors and paragons is 23-80 based on level.
• Rangers, Dervishes and Assassins, 10-70 (yes 10, not 13, I know 13 would make a LOT more sense)
• Casters are 3-60

So, I am going to change it for the last time to what I originally wrote, which is based on hero armor, and if you wish to challenge that, or change it, please post screen shots or research.

This means, if you wish to change ranger armor to 13-70, please either test it on a level 1 ranger character, or verify with Andrew that the 10-70 in-game number is a mistake.

This also means if you wish to change the formula to start from level 0, you have to prove that level 0 warriors have a base armor of 20 and level 0 rangers have a base armor of 10. Unless and until you guys do that, leave the values in the article alone because they are based on direct copying from the game, not some reasoning specific to Karlos. --Karlos 05:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Karlos, the formula as stated does not provide the results noted on armor. Non of the ones you provided do. The first one would give level 1 warriors 20, not 23 AL. The current one would give them 22, not 23. At level 20, the wrrior would have 77, not 80. The same goes for spellcasters, with 20 less.. Neither of yours provide the observed outcome. Admitedly, none of them, including mine, will provide the 10 at L1 and 70 at L20. Which is why I assumed it's an error, as the standard formula provides 13 and 70. Backsword 10:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Note: Don't want a revert war, please revert yourself. Backsword 10:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The formula does, you're just misreading it. I put the brackets to make it more obvious. The warrior formula (based on Koss) is 23 + 3 x (level -1) so, at level 1 he has 23, at level 20 he has 80 and it works for all in between.

You're misreading where the -1 gets applied. I put the brackets to help you process it like a PC. :P And no, I have no intetion of reverting myself because the formula "20 + 3 x level" is assuming a level 0 creature has 20 AL, somethingwe do NOT know eight now. --Karlos 22:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

"20 + 3 x level" is mathematically identical to "23 + 3 x (level -1)". Including the statement that it is 20 for level 0. So I (and all non-mathematically challenged gww users) dont give a charr hide about which one is used. PS: The brackets ARE needed. --Your math teacher, err Xeeron 22:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Not to repeat what Xeeron wrote, but math is hardly a matter of opinion. The one you list above is just a more convoluted version of ours. Perhaps that is easier to see if you think about it as 20 + 3 +3 * (Clvl -1). Backsword

I think the current formula in the article is misleading, as most users have the opinion, IME, that the extra armor of a Warrior is 20, not 23, and thus will use that value, getting the wrong result. Backsword 13:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Skills

I've been noticing for quite a while now that no npc has more than 7 skill(Aside from heros). Does this have any real relivence? I can't see why anet wouldnt give all monsters 8 skills. It seems that the last skill slot use reserved for some sort of pve-only ai or something of the sort. Anyone else have ideas? --Lou-Saydus 18:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The henchman Panaku has 8 skills, and a bunch of others do during the last factions mission (yay Celestial skills). - HeWhoIsPale 19:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

well besides henchies of course, but since eotn there are a few monsters with 8 skills now. guess it was just anet being lazy! :O --Lou-Saydus 00:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow, major bump. — ク Eloc 貢 04:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Remember that you can't see many moster skills. The bar might well be full without you ever noticing many of the skills. Backsword 04:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Specifically, you can't see passive, constantly active skills unless they deal damage. -- Gordon Ecker 08:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Sanity Tormentor 10. Manifold 16:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Page Cleanup

I started this discussion on the main copyedit page, but it seems to me that this page is in need of a little re-write/cleanup. It seems that we are using some terms slightly differently here compared to other areas of the wiki. For example, charmable animals (which would included spiders, warthogs, lions, etc) are listed under core, but Core really refers to things that are accessible from any campaign. I know that charmable animals in general are accessible in all campaigns, but White Moas are only in EoTN and lions are only in NF...It seems a little silly to not have them listed individually when we (and by "we" I mean all of you) have gone to the trouble to list all the areas that wurms, forgotten, etc exist.

So, I suggest that we reorganize this page to only list creatures where they exist and to make a double entry where needed (for example listing things similarly to how "centaurs" are listed). I know it seems like a silly change to suggest, but I hope that it would make things easier to find when needed since you would not need to know the species to find a creature.

I would be happy to put something together but it may take me a little while. If anyone else wants to or sees a major flaw in my proposal, please speak up.--Louai 17:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it needs to be cleaned up, and I have some ideas, but would need to see how the move debate in Family and Army resolves first. -- ab.er.rant 09:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

late answer huh. But yeah, I've been thinking about this too. I had a list of values that are stored for each creature in mind. Backsword 13:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Monster Weapons

I recently figured out that some undead archers randomly steal health with attacks. The amount and icon suggest that the specific undead wielded a vampiric weapon. Strange enough there always dropped a vampiric weapon in that group. However, I couldn't find out if it was the one with th health stealing effect. Might this be a hint that monsters wield the weapons they drop? Noctarch 22:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

yeah, i think you are right. i noticed the same with several creatures, e.g. a Shiverpeak Warrior once ago as well. But i'd rather say that it is possible that monsters might drop the weapons they wield. (E.g. a Grawl with an The Ice Breaker doesn't always drop one) —ZerphaThe Improver 12:22, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, monsters have (for a long time) held vampiric weapons and, when killed, dropped them. This has been tested extensively with 55s at Cursed Lands and various other areas. -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 12:58, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I wonder why it never has been recorded. And it's still this way, I think. Ɲoɕʈɋɽɕɧ 14:13, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Could it be the same for creatures that, say, drop weapons with elemental damage prefixes? Paddymew 06:28, 10 May 2009 (UTC)::

Hm, has it ever been tested and determined, one way or another, if monsters use the runes and insignia that they drop?

They often drop insignia which they cannot use, so I would say they do not. Vili 点 03:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Was using firestorm in The Catacombs and it was hitting two Raging Cadavers. One was taking 10 dmg a hit and the other 9. Checked the lvl and they were the same. Once i killed them off the one taking only 9 dmg droped a 5ar shield. Unfortunetly it was behind a wall so i could not see if he was infact wielding the same skin before dieing, nor did i think to look before his body disapeared. Not only do they wield the weapon + stats, same probably applies to the offhand (which i have noted on skale and smite crawlers aswell just never knew about the stats). Justice 23:08, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Monsters have plain white armor and weapons. Shields on some monster types vary by a few AR, and some don't. I've never seen a monster with a vampiric mod outside of Nebo Terrace undead, and even then it's exceedingly rare and obviously works differently than a human's vampiric weapon would, since they don't degen, which may suggest it's a different mechanism. Manifold 00:19, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Speculation

IMO we should remove speculative armies / affiliations such as Xunlai, Mo Zing and Obsidian Flame from the list. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 02:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Not such a good idea, IMO. Leave the induvidual cases to normal wikiediting, but in general it is no more than the rest of the wiki: our best knowledge, but no guranteed truth. Backsword 03:49, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

We know that every region and elite area has at least one army for miscellaneous NPCs (I'm not sure if we got an answer on whether there are separate armies for friendly and hostile NPCs or only a single army). IMO it's implausible that they'd create a separate army for a group consisting entirely of non-combatants such as the Xunlai Guild or an organization with a henchman and two quest-specific combatants such as the Obsidian Flame. The Oddbodies are more plausible as an army, as there's half a dozen of them and they're involved in four quests, so it may have been practical to code a separate army for them in order to benefit from army-based triggers. Maybe removing all speculative armies / affiliations from the list is excessive, but I think we should at least trim out the less plausible ones. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 05:37, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Certainly, that's what I mean by induvidual cases. I'd say Mo Zing is a better case than Xunlai, since Xunlai's are everywhere and thus less likely to be in a regional grouping. (I do remember Andrew being rather clear there are two groups per region, using Ascalon as an example). Backsword 06:10, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, they're a better case than the Xunlai, but, IMO, they aren't nearly as good a case as the Oddbodies. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 06:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Types

Are nature rituals and communing spirits creatures? --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Hubbard (talk).Hubbard 18:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

<sarcasm>Nature rituals are skills</sarcasm>. Seriously though, spirits are creatures, they have levels and health bars, and can be targeted with skills. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 06:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

creature stats

Maybe i just never found the page, but if it doesn't exist can we start a page with other statistics of creatures? for example how much health a creature has, and how it is multiplied or what in HM? even just a general idea would be nice since obviously taking in every creatures health would be a long task, but even just a general idea would be a nice addition. Materia user 19:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I've done a bit of research into the subject: User:Manifold/Enemy_Health. It's almost always just (20*(level-1))+100 Manifold 00:14, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Average DPS against AR Levels?

Could be useful to collect data from in game as to what the average damage is on each AR level and then have a table calculate the average, perhaps have polls for users to add their data. Have seen similar things to this on other Wikis usually involving drop rarity and effectiveness of XXXX ability, usually has some behind-the-scene scripting to make sure people aren't posting ridiculous figures Darke 23:10, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

As an afterthought, show figures against level 20 characters only, due to the damage increaser/decreasers of levels, and have two figures, NM and HM. Darke 23:13, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Spirits

Why aren't spirits treated as creatures? -- Magic Talk 16:19, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Soul Reaping at one point. i think.--Neil2250 16:22, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I remember that. Back when spirits gave necros full energy upon death. Seems like a stupid fix to me.. but that's Arena.net for you I guess. ; \ Found out earlier when my monk used Healing Ring and Xandra's spirits weren't healed. -- Magic Talk 18:29, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Energy denial?

I was trying to test monster AI on Chiossen, Soothing Breeze in Turai's procession. I can use Esurge, Ether Lord and Energy Tap to easily reduce its energy to 0 (indicated by reduced damage from esurge) but he can still cast glimmer of light immediately after I drain all its energy (between copies of esurge). Arcane Languor on the other hand seems to make it stop casting spells. So are the boss energy pools work differently or is there some other mechanism I am missing? This test was done in Normal mode. K61824 21:44, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, I never tested Ntouka Birds, but I'd assume they have 40 or 50 energy. I think the couple bosses I tested had the same energy pools as their base creatures. It should take 3 seconds to go from 0 to 5 with 5 pips of energy regen, so that's quite odd. When I was testing energy I had to make sure I cast aneurysm immediately after two heroes used something like Energy Drain as simultaneously as possible while the creature was hexed with malaise, the old panic, and such. It seemed harder than it should be to catch them at that 0 moment, so I suppose it's possible creatures have more regen than previously thought. Due to the relative lack of energy degen hexes (Panic was great for this), and the issues involved in getting heroes to cast them over and over while not hurting an isolated creature, it's hard to test. Manifold 22:22, 17 June 2011 (UTC)