Monster groups

Forums: Index > Planning Forum > Monster groups

Post

First Discussion Edit

Greetings! First, thanks for your recent contributions to the named monsters in the Vigilant: Final Destruction . I've moved some information around and tagged a few pages for deletion, and wanted to let you know why. The "Monster Groups" is not used to define an encounter, but rather a social grouping (such as a particular band of Gnolls). When there are multiple named monsters in an encounter, the standard procedure we have used is to put strategy information on one of the named monster's page (I picked Cadducian of Zek , since the three are roughly equal, but it is usually on the "primary" named if one exists) and then leave a short note in the strategy section of the other monsters pointing to the chosen one. If you have any questions on that or any other topics, please do not hesitate to reply here or ask for help on my talk page. =) -- lordebon 13:56, April 20, 2010 (UTC)

Hello

Lordebon is right about the Strat it should be at the article of the Main Named Monster of the Encounter, but Monster Groups are used to define an encounter of multiple nameds otherwise i wouldn't had started the 3 nameds in that way ;)

Sadly some Named Encounters don't use that way to define the group, but same Nameds do it like Category:Rwznak (Group) a group of 4 nameds. -- ( Talk ) 16:16, April 20, 2010 (UTC)

No, then Category:Rwznak (Group) is incorrect as well. Go on, take a look at Category:Monster Groups -- the whole point of it is not encounters but social grouping of mobs. The only instances I can see where monster groups have been used to define an encounter and not a general social group are ones that you added Chili, and I think they're incorrect. Also consider the definition of group in the template documentation: "group: Identifies a social grouping or association when no Faction applies." -- lordebon 16:23, April 20, 2010 (UTC)

First of all sorry that we use your talk page for this Conversation Kkwet

Social grouping is a little missleading for me. All Trolls are the Social Group Troll Group? no the link between them is the Race

Category:Balespring Harpies (Group) shows a group of a named and a monster (and i ain't started that one by the way)

Category:Gobblerock Clan (Group) group of 5 named and a few monsters and that one is really just that kind of social group without a faction relation.

Category:Brokentusk Orcs (Group) is actually faction related but it has group

When i look over the groups i find many ways of what group is used, and apart from what the definition of group in the template says it get's used for now actually and i don't mind that actually.

Also the Articles just say Association and the category says (Group) with means in the Terms a Group of Players or Monsters.

-- ( Talk ) 17:41, April 20, 2010 (UTC)

Let me try to clarify. Troll is a race. Whether you're a Brokenskull Troll or a Grobb Troll, you're still a troll. A social grouping is done when there isn't a specific faction for a social group. Regarding the examples you gave: Balespring harpies is fine. Both of them are Harpies (the race) and members of the Balespring social group, which isn't a faction. Gobblerock Clan is again fine -- there's no faction associated with Gobblegrock goblins, so they're a social group. Brokentusk Orcs is also fine, since it's a social group (the Brokentusks) that also belong to a larger, more encompassing faction. In some rare cases, it's OK to have a group of named also be a social group, like Category:Band of the Scarlet Witch (Group) . In game they all happen to be one encounter, but their social group arises from the fact that they are essentially a band of adventurers with a given name that appears in their 'purpose tag' below their names. Notice how all of those groups aren't just the names of one of the member, but are something more descriptive. That's why Category:Rwznak (Group) and the one for the 3 dogs in the Vig x2. There's no social grouping for them, they're just nameds that are linked together. Does this make sense as to why these do not (in my opinion) qualify as a social grouping? The group is like a clan or sub-race that is not already handled by a faction. -- lordebon 22:16, April 20, 2010 (UTC)

What makes them to a social group that an other encounter like Rwznak doesn't have?

Rwznak and his friends are a Social group of killers, they are not faction related but they are masters of different skills.

If you attack one of em all come, isn't that sozial? =) -- ( Talk ) 22:52, April 20, 2010 (UTC)

Attacking one and having them all come is an encounter, being an encounter has nothing to do with a social group. A social group has to have some other context: something like a shared name (eg Brokentusk) or purpose tag. In other words, there is something beyond things being an encounter that makes a social group (in fact, most social groups are multiple mobs, not just an single encounter). There's context to a social group, and a social group can be theoretically expanded were more mobs to be added. The band of the scarlet which for example, plays a large role in and (as I recall) is specifically mentioned in the quest for the zone in which they appear (Nek:3). The Vig x2 trio and the MMB quartet have zero context. They're nameds that come together. If somewhere else there was another (mob of Zek) that was the skeletal dog appearance then together they might form a "Hounds of Zek" social group or something, but as an encounter alone they're not really sufficient. And the MMB nameds are even worse -- they're just 4 different nameds, one of each archetype. There's no social group there. -- lordebon 00:04, April 21, 2010 (UTC)

I can confirm that the original intent of the social group for monsters was originally intended as Lordebon has stated. The intent was to tag the monsters that were clans, societal segments, not encounters. At the blush, I think this is the path we should should continue to take, as that was the intent from the start. Couldn't we work out an encounter grouping designator as well and have both? What would the pros or cons be of said compromise?-- Kodia 00:30, April 21, 2010 (UTC)

How about an additional parameter for the NamedInformation template, something along the lines of "Encounter Members" to list other members of the named encounter? It could be just a simple display field that lets the user format it. Then we'd have a nice way of listing what else comes in a named encounter (ie, another named, or 2 of Trash_mob_a). As a simple display, I don't think any categories for that would be necessary. -- lordebon 01:12, April 21, 2010 (UTC)

Let me start off with this: Groups suck. Always have been. If i could, I would remove them formally from our templates and the site. They were a loosly defined construct to fill in the gaps where well defined "factions" didnt exist (most often goblins, trolls and orcs I notice). They work great where they work, but fall apart very quickly (and badly) where they dont. Most of the groups we have seem "forced", and thats wheres these types of problems come from.:The annoying part is that we fill in gaps of "minor factions" with groups, but sometimes some "factions" make better groups then most groups, and we dont create group pages for things that are defined groups if a named faction exists. So things that should exist dont, and many extra things exist that really dont need to be.:Something to remember is that Norrath was built over many years, and across those years, many many MANY content writers and lore masters have weaved the elaborate tapestry of Norrath. All it took was 1 person to put a small group of goblins with the same prefix name in an certain area, and it went goes down hill.:Anything beyond factions listed on the faction page, that you can get a numerical standing in are just fluff/lore/fanon as far as I'm concerned. They have value in the same way that the various books/history/stories have, providing a rich environment, but can be completly ignored for the hard core.:I'm liking the idea of noting the social/linked mob information on the named/monster pages, but dont think we need such an elaborate category structure for the "groups" them like we have the now. -- Uberfuzzy 05:50, April 21, 2010 (UTC)

Take 2 Edit

This discussion kind of died off, but I'd like to bring it back up. What I propose is that rather than using monster groups for linked encounters we simply create a parameter in the NamedInformation template for linked nameds. I think this is a better way to handle multi-named encounters without having to make Monster Group categories (which are generally not used anymore and were am mess to start). Would there be any major objections to going to a simple "linked" parameter? -- lordebon 17:38, October 19, 2010 (UTC)

Ok, how can we get that sorted

Note: i didn't read all the notes again, but i think i remember what we need to clear up

1. Rename the parameter group to encounter or linked (encounter is more common term i would say)
2. The related Category changes from Group to Encounter
3. The Categories change from (Group), Monster Groups to (Encounter) and Encounters, Solo Encounter, Heroic Encounter, Epic x2 Encounter, Epic x3 Encounter, Epic x4 Encounter
4. Mobs that just share a name but don't come as encounter will loose there category but could gain a Disambig page to keep it for historical reasons if needed/wanted
5. the word that is showing changes from "Association" to "Encounter"

Let me know what you think about it. -- ( Talk ) 13:26, February 8, 2011 (UTC)

That's not the way I think we should handle it. The group parameter is depreciated -- it was used sometimes in the past and really shouldn't be used anymore and was never intended for grouping encounters. What I'd like to see is a new parameter, i.e. "encounter=" (Display as "Encounter Members:") that is basically unformatted that the extra mobs can be listed in. No categories for it because I really don't think they're necessary: a category is designed to expand/contract in size as more members are added or deleted. But encounters are basically fixed, all we need is something to say Soandso is linked in this encounter.

In other words:

1. Create a new parameter "encounter" for listing of other encounter members
2. Remove all encounter-list categories created under the old group parameter and place the members in the "encounter" parameter instead
3. Depreciate the group parameter by ensuring it's not in the preload and not in the sample call on the monster information pages.

The main point is the group parameter doesn't need to be removed from all the old (proper) uses of it. We just need a new text-only parameter that we can use to link to other encounter members and those don't need a category. -- lordebon 23:59, February 8, 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to keep the group parameter, ok some articles use it atm but many of them are encounters anyway and the other articles should get rid of it if they are not an encounter.

To avoid confusion should i use group or encounter parameter in a aritlce, i still just wanna get rid of the group parameter and just use the encounter parameter.

Wiki loves categories, so i would like to create a category but in a more general way at least.

Like Solo Encounter, Heroic Encounter, Epic x2 Encounter, Epic x3 Encounter, Epic x4 Encounter but not the soandso encounter category

-- ( Talk ) 10:33, February 9, 2011 (UTC)

I really don't see the point of the Epic x2 encounter and such. Mobs are already categorized into Epic x4 Named Monster and such. All the encounter parameter needs to be is a way to say and link to what mobs are linked with a named encounter. As for getting rid of the group parameter... okay, I'll go with that. They were a mess from the start and only got worse when people started decided encounters were groups too (which is what kicked off this whole thing). I still don't really see the need for more generic "encounter" categories when we already have the named categories by difficulty. This wiki overuses categories way too much in my book -- if the category doesn't have an obvious usefulness and uniqueness then I don't see the need for it. To me, these encounter categories don't meet the uniqueness or usefulness test. -- lordebon 15:57, February 9, 2011 (UTC)

The categories for encounter are nice if want a quick search for the spelling of a mob or named.

And the Monsters/nameds don't have that much categories like Equipment has

-- ( Talk ) 16:06, February 9, 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure how searching through all tiers of encounters of a specific difficulty would be faster than searching through the existing tier-specific difficulty categories, like Category:Tier 9 Epic x4 Named Monsters . Ideally we'd have more than just the two of us weighing in too, to get an idea of what consensus is rather than just two differing opinions. -- lordebon 16:13, February 9, 2011 (UTC)

I agree on the encounter categories: you can indeed link to individual mobs if you want as well as the whole encounter (look at use in macro's, like {{DroppedItem}} for ex. you can just use the :category: to refer to an encounter without the need to adjust them). The category will hold the mobs in the encounter and can in its turn can be categorized itself by things like solo/heroic/epic/tierx/zone encounters. What is the reason no one started using them yet? Do I have permission to create them or we need an ultimate agreement including name convention and usage? -- Shaddock79 17:30, September 16, 2011 (UTC)

I wanna get rid of Monster groups no use just historical before factions got added, it was just mobs with the same name .. no reason to keep it.

What do we need to know about encounters?

1. Zone: the mobs say the zone allready but could add the info
2. Patch: if we add the info then in all ways
3. Difficulty: heroic mobs can come with epic so no need to add that
4. Name: Name of the mobs and nameds
5. Dropped Items: Encounters have a shared loot table

Monsters and Nameds can link via "encounter" to the encounter, if the encounter is used then don't show dropped items show instead see Dropped items at (link to encounter)

The Encounter page could be a article that shows the related information (like Zone, Patch, Difficulty, names, Dropped Items) and 1 Basic Category like (Encounters)

We should sort that really at some point the sooner the better i think. -- ( Talk ) 12:33, November 30, 2011 (UTC)

Time for Action Edit

The time has come to make the move and start making changes. My proposal is to follow the "KISS" principle: scrap monster groups entirely and add a simple encounter field for users to manually link mobs that are part of a named encounter. The named template has been experimentally updated in my dev template and an example put up in my Sandbox . Unless there are any major objections, this will go live after the new year. There is simply no need for categories for each encounter; categories are designed for large numbers of objects in a heirarchy, whereas encounters in EQ2 are 3, maybe 4 named max. If we want to add a generic category for encounters that is something we can talk about, but at the moment I think that is also unnecessary and isn't particularly important to the main purpose of this cleanup. -- lordebon 18:52, December 26, 2011 (UTC)

Looks good. One small note is when I refer to an encounter on another page or in a template, I don't want to specify all mobs there ( aka. "drops by [[mob A]] and [[mob B]] and [[mob C]]" ) but prefer one single link to it (and not to only one of the mobs). Also, there is not always one mob in the encounter that can be pointed out as the "main mob".

So in the suggested approach, my view is to create a page with the template that has a name for the -encounter- (not necessarily the name of one of the mobs in it) and have -all- the mobs in the encounter listed in the "encounter" parameter.

This way, we don't need to pick one of the mobs to link to, but just link to a page that stands for the whole encounter and could even have the shared loot table in that one place without the need for an additional template for it. The pages for the monsters themselves would need very little information (basically only when is specifically for that one mob and not encounter related.. race, level etc, maybe an image) and a way that links it to the encounter page it is a part of. -- Shaddock79 10:26, December 27, 2011 (UTC)

Considering how few relevant encounters there are, I really just don't see the value in creating an entirely new template for encounters. You also have to consider that the majority of relevant encounters do have a "primary" named in some fashion or other; in cases where there isn't a primary named, it's no different picking one named and having the other point to it for strategy information that it is having to go from a named page to an encounter page. In fact, since one named would already be the correct page, having it split out to an encounter would be less efficient.

If you are dead-set on an encounter page, you're welcome to work up a template for it and we can see which is preferred, I just don't see the need for the amount of work when all that is really needed is a simple change. -- lordebon 02:03, December 29, 2011 (UTC)

What bothers me is having information that is shared among multiple monsters only on the page that has the name of one of them. Nothing would indicate that the page represents multiple mobs before the user has it on the screen (for links and in searching) I think I share my view on it with a lot of things Chillispike mentioned in the discussion. And making such a template (which would be more or less a stripped version of NamedInformation, with only 5 parameters) is imo kind of a workaround for not having to use a category to bundle the nameds.

When there IS a "main mob", the approach you suggested would be perfect and it will be clear to the user what name to search for/link to, but I see a growing number (esp. in raids) of multi-named encounters - and in that case, there is no clear "entry point" for searching or linking the encounter)

I think accessibility is more important than efficiency here and I would gladly make a prototype for such a template, but I don't have the skills (yet) to code it, even though it would be a stripped down version of an existing one. (But to give you an idea what I have in mind, I made a hard coded (ex/s)ample page in User:Shaddock79/Sandbox .)

I understand the desire for accessibility, as that is what I am striving for. Consider a hypothetical encounter with three named; Warmaster Alpha, Arch-Mage Beta, and Nightkeeper Gamma. There are two general possibilities: one of the named, say Warmaster Alpha, is the clear "main" named, or all three are roughly equal and thus there is no main named.

Now consider a user coming to search for information on the encounter. If there is a clear main named and a user recognizes it, they'll search for that named. If there isn't a clear main named, the user is probably going to search for any one of the three named.

• If we just pick a single named to host the information, users will find it on the first search 100% of the time in the "main named" case and 33% of the time in the shared name case.
• If we move the information to a separate encounter page, users will have to click through to another page 100% of the time in both cases rather than ever ending up at it directly.

To me, that alone speaks that keeping it on a named page means more people end up at the right spot on the first time. It also means less pages on the wiki that have to be kept up. For encounters, you also have the issue of having to come up with a non-standard name for it (e.g., "The Three Sages," which is something players come up with rather than coming from the game itself).

What we really need at this point is some other input (from other contributors), but it's notoriously difficult to get folks to speak up to reach a consensus here. -- lordebon 23:39, December 29, 2011 (UTC)

I agree, we need more opinions from both users and contributers.

One thing to note is I think that if there is a main named, other nameds can be treated like "adds" (if they even need mentioning at all) and there is no shared loot table. (this will cover the majority of encounters as you already said). IMO, the "alternate named encounter entry page" (maybe like monsterinfo with a parameter "isencounter=y") would be nice to create in addition of the nameds in it -only- for the encounters with no main named. (some of those names are even stated in the game like that (like in flawless/shorthanded achievement names))

Using different approaches for encounters with and without a main named may look inconsistent, but I think it provides the best accessibility.-- Shaddock79 15:00, January 8, 2012 (UTC)

OK, What about bringing this to the common contributor's attention? Can we place a link on the main page maybe? We do really need their opinions.-- Shaddock79 18:33, February 17, 2012 (UTC)

Getting people to actually post an opinion has proved almost impossible. However, there is a poll function that we could enable in order to get responses that might work, since there's little actual work for them involved.

To use that we'll need to settle on. They key difference at this point is whether to have a separate encounter page or simply use one of the existing named as a "primary" named and consider others secondary with links to the primary named's page. In both cases there will be no categories, only linking between the entities. I think in either case we have to use the same system for both for consistency.

So, what I'm thinking of is this: create sample versions of each system and then create a poll page where users look at both and decide which they prefer. -- lordebon 18:12, February 19, 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like a good plan to me. I think we already have kind of sample versions of both systems ( User:Lordebon/Sandbox and User:Shaddock79/Sandbox ) .. and if we use the system I suggested, it will only be for encounters where there's no 'main' named (in case others are clearly 'adds' they can just be mentioned in the strategy section)-- Shaddock79 22:43, April 12, 2012 (UTC)