v0.31 Talk:Creature

Table

I'm currently expanding this table Cpad 10:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Great, please try to alphabetise it as you put things in though, as it will be harder to do so once it is fully populated. I would help, but I'm unsure how well having multiple people work on the same page at the same time would work. --Ramperkash 17:23, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Make it sortable. Also, you might want to consider making diff articles for diff "categories" of creatures, so one table isn't just unwieldy. Those categories would have to be pulled from the RAW files, something in-game concrete - perhaps by biome, where they are found.--Albedo 21:25, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

They are organised by biome in the raws and we could do a bunch of tables based on those delineations but they're not hard and fast e.g. stingrays are in the ocean file but only 1 of their 7 biome tags is for oceans the rest are for rivers and lakes. Also if anyone does want to help just post which of the raw files you want to do so we don't do the same thing twice and slot them in alphabetically when you're done.large mountain, fanciful, large ocean and domestic are complete and I'm currently working on large riverlake Cpad

One of the uses of this table is to answer the question "what should I expect where I landed?" Don't know if that's possible - would be nice if it were. (Possibly the job for other articles that do list creatures by biome).--Albedo 18:30, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Is everything in vanilla going to be listed here? Specifically should I add Olmman? --StrongAxe 15:34, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

The table is far too wide for a single screen on a 17" monitor - you may be trying to include too much. While "description" is nice, I (as a player) would far rather know if they have the Predator token - maybe lead with that in that column if/when they do? I strongly suggest losing the "juvenile" names column (almost pointless), and the "alignment" (since 99% are "neutral", adding those that aren't to the top of Notes, and changing that column title to "Alignment/Notes", so they'll be sortable to that end if desired. --Albedo 18:30, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

To that end, full tags like '[BIOME:OCEAN:TEMPERATE]' could easily be switched to a simple (and nicer to read) 'Temperate oceans.' --Retro 18:37, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. More work on this table needs to be held off until a global approach to "creatures" is determined - which get their own article, what info is useful, etc. (Otherwise, it's just more work for a later editor.) One suggestion has been made to break creatures down into their RAW categories (more or less) - "domestic animal", "subterranean", "tropical", etc - since any game map that's Tundra based won't care much about giant desert scorpions, etc.

That would also avoid the creature vs creatures problem - the first article needing a definition of what a "creature" is and a discussion of how to read the Creature Object Data (which needs to be included with any useful discussion of a creature!), and the second being comments on actual creatures themselves. One article on "Creature", and then separate tables for (roughly) each RAW file category.--Albedo 19:01, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd have to agree on how the page is being stretched way too far, especially in the biomes. I should add that, while I'm not one to enforce how people should add new creatures, I'd like to keep only biome information in the biome catagory and so on with all catagories. I ask that everyone should stop adding creatures until we sort out how we want to display the information. Edit: Also, if this page shows too many catagories I'd say we cut out the (in order of least to greatest importance) General Child Name, Notes, and Description catagories. This page shouldn't include so much detail that individual creature pages are almost useless, and I'll admit to going overboard on how much information is presented. Right now it is a pain to add creatures. Edit2: After giving it some thought I think I've come up with what might work. My idea is that there would be multiple tables placed under headlines in the article describing the type of creatures listed (Civilized Races, Megabeasts, etc.). The tables would include four categories describing the symbol, the name, where the creature is found (not necessarily biome tags), and alignment. We should discuss this further in the Template:CreatureCurrent table head article and make changes there until we're satisfied. --dUMBELLS 05:44, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

A key part of the value of a table is comparison. Right now, it's a jumble, with "Blacktip shark" next to "Blind cave ogre" - not the most useful. If we use the same header, but break up the listings into discrete sub-tables (basing those loosely from the RAW's), the diff tables becomes much more organic and functional at that level - "Domestic Animals", "Fresh Water", "Salt Water", "Underground", "Temperate", "Tropical", "Tundra" - maybe a couple others, we have a something that is much more useful. A TOC directs readers to the sub-sections, and we're good.

As for columns within the table(s), we should ask "What does this page want to offer that the individual creature articles won't/can't?" And again, I see that as: "immediate side-by-side comparison" - so we should only include things that are key for comparison, namely symbol, whether it's a predator/aggressive or not, "size" (if we can find that), whether it's a food source or not (some few won't be butcherable?), pet/mod value, perhaps some specifics on biome/alignment within the larger table category - and a final column slot for important notes (i.e. only something critical to know/be aware of, like fire-breathing or syndrome-causing or webbing, etc) - and that's it. If the Reader wants a description, if they want specifics, each listing will be a link to the article.--Albedo 06:44, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree, and I've made changes based on some of what you said. Edit further until you're satisfied. --dUMBELLS 14:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

This is not how I would have done it - but it rocks! Way to use the Discussion page, then take charge and Be Bold - Respect! Carry on...--Albedo 18:54, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

How scary is a creature?

They die easily to a moderately equipped and trained squad of dwarfs. 

Back in 40d, a creature's combat ability was largely determined by its size - bigger = scarier, and that was THE main consideration. Even with the randomness of combat, some statements like the above could be made (altho' the above is particularly vague even for such). Now... what do we have? I'm (think that I'm) seeing a "range" of sizes for a single creature:

[BODY_SIZE:0:0:10000]
[BODY_SIZE:1:0:50000]
[BODY_SIZE:2:0:100000] 

And for "attack damage", we see another spectrum of possibilities

[ATTACK:BITE:BODYPART:BY_CATEGORY:BEAK] 
  [ATTACK_SKILL:BITE]
  [ATTACK_VERB:bite:bites]
  [ATTACK_CONTACT_PERC:100]
  [ATTACK_PENETRATION_PERC:100]
  [ATTACK_FLAG_EDGE]  
  [ATTACK_PRIORITY:MAIN]
  [ATTACK_FLAG_CANLATCH] 
[ATTACK:SCRATCH:CHILD_TISSUE_LAYER_GROUP:BY_TYPE:STANCE:BY_CATEGORY:ALL:TALON]
  [ATTACK_SKILL:STANCE_STRIKE]
  [ATTACK_VERB:snatch at:snatches at]
  [ATTACK_CONTACT_PERC:100]
  [ATTACK_PENETRATION_PERC:100]
  [ATTACK_FLAG_EDGE]
  [ATTACK_PRIORITY:SECOND]
  [ATTACK_FLAG_WITH] 

(This is all for an elk bird, btw). Anyone make starting to make heads/tails of any of this yet?--Albedo 21:25, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Take a look at the annotated dwarf code here, anything that is not mentioned I have no clue about. To answer your question about size, the different body sizes mean how large the creature is at different times in it's life.--dUMBELLS 22:43, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Missing creatures

Where are Yetis? Large white Y.

Anyone can add missing creatures to the list, I encourage it. I will add the yeti though. --dUMBELLS 22:14, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

can whoever is expanding this point me to where I can help? Cpad 09:10, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The animalman races section still needs work, along with all the above ground sections and the subterranean cavern section. --dUMBELLS 22:54, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be better to replace pet value with multiply value since the former only comes into play when determining how happy pets make dwarves, whereas the latter pertains to how valuable meat, soap, leather and bones obtained from the creature will be.

also should the depth at which cavern creatures are found be included in notes?Cpad 11:29, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Noticed that Giant Desert Scorpion is missing. Will try to correct - Coaldiamond

Pet Value vs Multiply Value

We'll have to see about replacing pet value with multiply value, maybe we could include both? I do think that underground depth would be a good thing to add however. --dUMBELLS 22:45, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Hostile

Um, mountain goats are either entered wrong or the definition of hostile needs to be reworked. --Old Ancient 00:26, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

hostility is currently being entered based on the possession of the [LIKES_FIGHTING] and [LARGE_PREDATOR] tags.but that doesn't seem right since it leaves almost all cavern creatures as non-hostileCpad 01:53, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

There are a couple of non-hostile cavern creatures. Hostility is normally based on those two tags, but it should always say "Yes" if the creature kills dwarves on sight since that is what the reader is typically worried about. I did mess up on the mountain goat, thanks for correcting the mistake. --dUMBELLS 05:47, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

do mountain goats attack on sight? the mountain goat page needs fixing if they do If creatures that lack both those tags will attack on sight then the only way we're going to be able to determine hostility is through in-game experience Cpad 08:52, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

They do not attack on sight, it was a mistake I made because I had undead mountain goats on my map. Right now the mountain goat's entry and page are both correct. Edit: To address your point I'd say that we just determine the creature's hostility through the tags [LIKES_FIGHTING] and [LARGE_PREDATOR] and then if any creatures are not marked hostile when they should be (or vice versa) people who have experience with the creature can correct it. --dUMBELLS 18:30, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

people who have experience with the creature can correct it

No. "Observational experience" is not the preferred source of information for this Wiki. Use the RAW tokens first, and then, if personal observations seem to contradict those, discuss examples in a Talk section. One player's experiences do not create "fact", not in the sense this wiki wants to present it.

that doesn't seem right since it leaves almost all cavern creatures as non-hostile

There will be a diff between "hostile" and merely "a creature who attacks" (like carp in d40), and these tags define that diff. The default is "average" (no Token), which still attack, but at an "average" response level - that column should mark exceptionally hostile (and exceptionally passive/non-dangerous) creatures. Just because a creature is not a Predator/etc. doesn't mean it's "non-hostile".

Also, we should determine what the diff is between LIKES FIGHTING and PREDATOR - for that, observations (and possible experimentation in Arena mode) may be the only available source of information.

Lastly - PLEASE USE :'s TO INDENT/DISTINGUISH NEW COMMENTS. Thanks, --Albedo 23:19, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Every underground civ I came across in fortress mode was hostile. But after a failed attempt to catch them and the death of one of my dwarves, one of them became friendly. This is certainly a bug and may lead to a friendly civ (if they kill enough dwarves). --Niggy 14:25, 18 April 2010 (UTC)