- v50 information can now be added to pages in the main namespace. v0.47 information can still be found in the DF2014 namespace. See here for more details on the new versioning policy.
- Use this page to report any issues related to the migration.
Difference between revisions of "40d Talk:Creatures"
| Line 118: | Line 118: | ||
|} | |} | ||
--[[User:SeiferTim|SeiferTim]] 04:50, 8 March 2008 (EST) | --[[User:SeiferTim|SeiferTim]] 04:50, 8 March 2008 (EST) | ||
| + | :Perhaps it would be easier to automatically convert the raw data to wikitext than do this all by hand. That way we can avoid errors like listing dogs as benign. If you tell me what creature properties and format you want, I can start doing that. Although if you really prefer doing it by hand, I guess that's fine, too. [[User:VengefulDonut|VengefulDonut]] 11:48, 9 March 2008 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 15:48, 9 March 2008
Here kitty!
What are the triggers for semi- and megabeasts? Is there any way to encourage them? Runspotrun 16:47, 11 November 2007 (EST)
- Pretty sure semimegabeasts don't attack in fortress mode. Don't know what triggers megabeasts in this version. On my current fort, I saw my first (a hydra) after 100 pop, don't know if that's the trigger or if it was just a coincidence.
- Megabeasts used to attack based on your total fortress value. Semi-megabeasts are found in caves and such. --Nitem4re 17:23, 13 November 2007 (EST)
Reason for ordering?
Is there any particular reason why these aren't alphabetised? --Nunix 17:20, 5 March 2008 (EST)
- You could put each group of creatures into a table, such as:
| Name | Biome |
|---|---|
| Dog | Common domestic |
| Rhesus macaque | Temperate shrubland, Temperate savanna, Temperate grassland |
If this is acceptable, I can begin changing them to use this format (perhaps a template would be useful?). --SeiferTim 13:53, 7 March 2008 (EST)
Page Cleanup
Okay, so I've begun a mission to clean up the creatures page. So far, I made a couple of templates for the sortable table, and I've started converting the currently existing lists into tables. Phase II will be to alphabetize the tables. Would it make sense to change the way the creatures are categorized? It seems less helpful (at least to me) to have them grouped by Neutral, Benign, Evil, etc, then to group them by type or biome?
For example, would it be better to have the table look like this:
Natural
| Symbol | Name | Type | Size | Biome | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Dog | Benign | 5 | None | |
|
Large rat | Neutral | 4 | Chasm |
Aquatic
| Symbol | Name | Type | Size | Biome | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Coelacanth | Benign | 6 | Tropical ocean | |
|
Eel, conger | Benign | 7 | Arctic ocean, Temperate ocean |
Amphibious
| Symbol | Name | Type | Size | Biome | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Cave crocodile | Predator | 10 | Subterranean water | |
|
Frogman | Predator | 5 | Subterranean water |
--SeiferTim 04:50, 8 March 2008 (EST)
- Perhaps it would be easier to automatically convert the raw data to wikitext than do this all by hand. That way we can avoid errors like listing dogs as benign. If you tell me what creature properties and format you want, I can start doing that. Although if you really prefer doing it by hand, I guess that's fine, too. VengefulDonut 11:48, 9 March 2008 (EDT)