Talk:Monster Types

From TheKolWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Zones with only one Monster Type

From the page for the Cold element:

The following are cold monsters and usually deal cold damage:

Note the "All monsters in..." part. Perhaps this page should do something similar? Some monster types can only be found in one zone - usually where they are the only monster type - 'Constellations' for example. This may merit special mention --PIHBFTW 14:33, 1 August 2011 (CEST)

Monster Type Discrepancies

The crimbo paste mentions elves in it's description, but Space elves from the domed cities don't seem to qualify as elves for some reason. That's the reason I changed it from Elves to Crimbo type. --Serin 14:50, 1 August 2011 (CEST)

23 types

I think if we can determine the undetermined types(Off topic: Gooey might be humanoids) we have 23 different types..

  • 1 Beasts
  • 2 Bosses
  • 3 Bugs
  • 4 Constellations
  • 5 Crimbo
  • 6 Demons
  • 7 Elemental
  • 8 Fish
  • 9 Goblins
  • 10 Hippies
  • 11 Hobos
  • 12 Indescribable Horrors
  • 13 Mer-Kin
  • 14 Objects
  • 15 Orcs
  • 16 Penguins
  • 17 Pirates
  • 18 Plants
  • 19 Slimes
  • 20 Undead
  • 21 ?Strange
  • 22 ?Gooey (Humanoids?)
  • 23 ?Greasy (Miscellaneous?)

--Serin 15:03, 1 August 2011 (CEST)

It's looking like gooey is humans (that aren't pirates, hippies, etc.), greasy is miscellaneous humanoids.--Quackosaur 17:51, 1 August 2011 (CEST)

Greasy is probably what D&D called monstrous humanoids. --Starwed 18:12, 1 August 2011 (CEST)

Categories

In the long run, we won't want to list monsters like this -- we'll add categories to each monster page (probably via data/template magic) and just provide links to those. --Starwed 18:05, 1 August 2011 (CEST)

  • For anyone not noticing, this is currently underway. Though it won't hurt for now if you continue to edit the page with your new findings. It makes for a handy way of adding the necessary info to the data pages. If you're comfortable with data pages, you can edit them yourselves. We've not added supporting documentation for this stuff to the relevant pages, though, so you'd have to do some detective work or looking at already updated data pages to see how. --Flargen 05:52, 7 August 2011 (CEST)

Infernal Seals

I see several of the Infernal Seals are marked as demonic paste material. That seems so wrong. I can put a Brimstone Bludgeon in my Disembodied Hand and it is totally ineffective at clubbing seals. The boots should not be able to stop them. --Club (#66669) (Talk) 08:04, 5 August 2011 (CEST)

  • One difference is that the stomping boots are executed through a skill, and so the action is directly attached to you, not the familiar. And if you've never once thought of boots as clubs, then you've been fortunate not to date any violent women (or men, as the case may be). --Flargen 08:28, 5 August 2011 (CEST)
    • I reported this as a bug and was told it was working as designed. I do notice that an ancient protector spirit only takes a single point of damage from Release the Boots, so clearly there is some in-game precedent for them not doing "massive damage", as I have seen them do on all the no-paste monsters I've so far tried. --Club (#66669) (Talk) 08:42, 6 August 2011 (CEST)
      • Yeah, it's called they're immune to physical damage. The penguin goodfella gets completely shafted against the spirits, too, and he even has elemental attacks in his repertoire. I've asked many times for them to give the penguin the pumpkin bucket fix, but no. --Flargen 10:53, 6 August 2011 (CEST)

Unsquishables

The list of monsters that can't be squished seems to be the same list that can't be CLEESHed (minus sea creatures). —Yendor 09:41, 8 August 2011 (CEST)

  • That would explain the strange unsquishableness of the apathetic lizardman. I just tested on a frog: unsquishabable. I think you found the pattern. --Club (#66669) (Talk) 19:55, 8 August 2011 (CEST)
    • What should the phylum name be for these creatures? "Special"? We need to start checking them off the Monsters Needing Phylum list. --Turing 19:12, 11 August 2011 (CEST)
      • There are at least two phylums: amphibian (eg, CLEESHed monsters and amphibian CLEESH resistant like mr apathetic) and specials, which includes bosses, ultrarares, and one-timers like Carbuncle Top. There's a good argument to be made that all of the specials have a proper phylum, but that squishing doesn't reveal it. So the special category could be called undetermined, too. --Club (#66669) (Talk) 20:48, 11 August 2011 (CEST)
      • I think it would depend on whether phylum simply describes which paste a monster will drop or what type of monster it is. Since the only way to determine "type" at this point is through which paste a monster drops, this is probably a distinction without difference but would be something worth settling on now. I'm inclined to support leaving the unsquishables unclassified for now because "Special" wouldn't describe an actual type but a game mechanic. After all, common sense dictates that many of the unsquishables would be categorized as existing types were it not for the distinction that unites them.--Quackosaur 20:50, 11 August 2011 (CEST)
        • Cleesh, slime hates it, +damage vs. lions, and +damage vs. hobos are conceivably all ways of detecting phlyum that pre-date the boots. --Flargen 04:05, 25 August 2011 (CEST)

Some data from the vampire fangs humanoid(?) hypnotizing ability: Safari Jack was hypnotize-able, and so was Stella the Turtle Poacher. But Stella's Demonic Turtle Poacher version was not. Implies the former 2 are humans, the latter not? --Laerjael 08:23, 4 October 2011 (CEST)

Deletion of manual list

Since the combat template now auto-categorizes monsters based on type, there's no real need to keep the manual version of this list. I've deleted it as a result.--Toffile 19:44, 14 August 2011 (CEST)


Manuel Phylums

Since Manuel now reports the phylum of monsters, it occurs to me that having different phylum names on this wiki is confusing. It is particularly confusing since Manuel will tell players that a dwarf is a humanoid, but the wiki will show a list of humanoids that do not include dwarves. Exposing this information to the player changes things. Shouldn't the wiki switch over to using the correct in-game names for monster phyla? On this page we could have a table showing what the phyla used to be before Manuel taught us the truth, but other pages should be changed to be correct. --Bale (talk) 08:48, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

  • The humanoid things, yes, we should. Other than that "dude" is dumb. Construct is also dumb. As a noun it refers to concepts, which these monsters are not (unless we're getting meta, which would at least be justifiable in this game, but then everything would be a construct), and in fantasy games it refers to (magically) animate non-living things. Which is not always the case. So I still think Object is the superior classification. Incorrect from the game designer perspective, but correct from the actually-makes-a-lick-of-sense-in-my-perspective perspective. --Flargen (talk) 14:32, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
    • I was also expecting "Crimbo Spirit" to be superior to "Elf", under the expectation that things like reindeer (or other non-elves) would be in that phylum. To my understanding we don't have any not-obviously-an-elf crimbo monsters with unidentified phylum that we could actually test this on, though. --Flargen (talk) 17:28, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
  • It doesn't matter if we think that Jick's phylums are dumb. They are still the official information that the game reports to the player. If we're going to make the wiki inconsistent with the game just because the game is dumb, then the wiki is editorializing instead of reporting. For goodness sake, the wiki is now using the term "stagger" and that isn't even reported in the game like phylums are. --Bale (talk) 08:51, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

The players came up with phylums because they hadn't been named in game and the wiki used them because we had to put something down, but the wiki is primarily here to report official canon over player matter. the player given name should be noted here but thats all, the wiki should be using official names. Also isn't phylum dumb? The classifications are nothing like phylums, they are closer to orders in taxonomy, ie primates etc. Discordance (talk) 23:52, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

  • And the wikis use of humanoid for a different phylum other than the official humanoid category is awful (albeit historical), using nicknames is bad enough but contradicting the game is deeply wrong and confusing. Discordance (talk) 00:00, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
    • We're waiting on quietust to return so we can standardize the monster pages (which includes factchecking them with manuel) — Cool12309 (talk) 00:21, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
  • It's actually category, not phylum, according to Jick. So we could totally have a Category:Categories page, and we could have a debate on if there should be a category that lists all (other) wiki categories, and how we should name the pages to deal with the naming conflict. On an aside, not all elves are elves, so how is that even a sensical category? But, yeah, do it as the game does it. --Flargen (talk) 03:25, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
    • It is not called "categories" in game so it doesn't need to be called that on the wiki. There's a huge difference between information available in the game and information from a radio show. Also Jick has even said he likes the player terminology of "phylum" although I'm not certain that is relevant. --Bale (talk) 05:40, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
      • imnsho "Category:Category" is somewhere we really shouldn't go. it's not called that in-game, so i think we're ok with phylum. we could even ask jick to update the game to use phylum but that's probably a thousand steps too far. updating our guesses to match the manuel names is a splendid idea, though, and getting Quietust to bot the updating even better. i'd do it myself, of course, if it wasn't for these pesky kids. --Evilkolbot (talk) 11:38, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
        • Why would we end up with cat:cat? Your top level category would be cat:Monster Categories containing cat:Dude etc. Discordance (talk) 19:38, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I am slowly working on a manuel bot for my own use, I also borrowed the kolwiki data page design and reworked it for another wiki, and have a little experience with wikibots. If Quietust doesn't show up soon my own bot might well be ready to go (talking maybe a month depending on how hard I work on it). I will report back if I get something together. Discordance (talk) 19:38, 5 June 2013 (UTC)