Difference between revisions of "Talk:Boss-monsters"

From GodWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m (→‎Boss "Class" vs. "Level": Wait... is it just Dungeon bosses with predictable ability counts?)
Line 187: Line 187:
  
 
There's a further question related to all this as to whether bosses deserve their own infobox template, or whether {{tl|monster}} should be expanded a little? Perhaps to have a {{para|boss-type}} which might auto-categorise it, and change the header from <code>[[:Category:Monsters|Monsters]] of Godville</code> to <code>[[:Category:Boss-Monsters|Boss-Monsters]] of Godville</code>, and invoke the aforementioned templates within a <code>Boss Type:</code> row in the infobox. --[[User:Djonni|Djonni]] ([[User talk:Djonni|talk]]) 19:31, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 
There's a further question related to all this as to whether bosses deserve their own infobox template, or whether {{tl|monster}} should be expanded a little? Perhaps to have a {{para|boss-type}} which might auto-categorise it, and change the header from <code>[[:Category:Monsters|Monsters]] of Godville</code> to <code>[[:Category:Boss-Monsters|Boss-Monsters]] of Godville</code>, and invoke the aforementioned templates within a <code>Boss Type:</code> row in the infobox. --[[User:Djonni|Djonni]] ([[User talk:Djonni|talk]]) 19:31, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 +
 +
:: So dungeon monsters for certain always have a certain amount of abilities and can be classified as that. I admit it's been so long since I've fought any mini-quest/personal bosses or dig bosses that I can't confirm, but I THINK those are randomized... or maybe those also have those own divisions and I never noticed. (All I know is a 3ab above-ground monster only counts as having the same power as a 2ab for lab monsters.) Sorry for kinda barging in here with my random thoughts by the way.  -- [[User:Enzuna|Enzuna]] ([[User talk:Enzuna|talk]]) 20:23, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Revision as of 20:23, 24 August 2018

What should the wiki call the underground boss-monsters? Are there any other ideas besides "underground boss-monsters"? I tried searching for an "official" name and couldn't find anything. The best I can think of is to call the two classes of Boss-Monsters as "Mini-Quest" and "Underground." Since I can't find anything official, I'm pretty flexible with whatever you guys suggest. Let me know if ya'll agree or disagree and I'll go forward with changing the navbox. Here is a draft:

Boss-Monsters
Mini-Quest Ancient DemonDrowned CaptainKu Klux ClownLevel BossMad ClownVegan CannibalWherewolf
Underground Alpha MoleGiga ByterMolesaurusSquirmisherTerracotta Worrier

--BlueStapler 20:31, 23 October 2012 (BST)


aha! looking good! Was hoping you'd get around to that. I called them underground boss-monsters because there's no official name for them, you find them underground and it sounds better than 'boss-monsters-found-by-digging'. I suppose that if we categorize the others as 'mini-quest' boss-monsters, the template should probably then say 'digging' boss-monsters or something similar to make it more consistent. I think the wiki has needed a separate page on digging anyway for a while, since people have produced varying guides on the forum and there's a lot of info on it as a result. --Spode 21:50, 23 October 2012 (BST)


Definitely liking the navbox, and it works well for mobile-screen navigation as arranged. Perfect spacing. As far as the name... Hmm. I believe Google was translating the Russian equivalent as "Titans," so we could go with something artsy/pretentious like "Subterranean Titans" or "Earth-Bound Bosses" if you wanted. Something like "Earthshakers" would have my vote. End of two cents. SourceRunner 18:06, 23 October 2012 (EST)


Hi guys, here's version 2. I think Spode is right about naming the underground boss-monsters "digging". SourceRunner, I like your names, but they're a little bit long and too flashy. I think the wiki should be more about documenting the game instead of putting interesting names. I also went and changed the template. If changing it is bad, just revert it.

Boss-Monsters
Mini-Quest Ancient DemonDrowned CaptainKu Klux ClownLevel BossMad ClownVegan CannibalWherewolf
Digging AlpacalypseAlpha MoleGiga ByterHeromnivoreMolesaurusSquirmisherTerracotta Worrier


--BlueStapler 01:10, 30 October 2012 (GMT)


I activated an ACME monster trap and fought an Archnemesis. --BlueStapler 18:08, 30 December 2012 (GMT)

Then you'll need a new category in the navbox no? How about 'Mystery Box' or 'Activatable Artifact'. I prefer the former myself because it's shorter [,a bit more catchier] and more technically correct. Go with what you think is best and most consistent with the other two categories though. --Spode 22:45, 5 January 2013 (GMT)


I changed Tubercolossus Hulking to 184%. Five heroes' max hp totaled 1776, Tubercolossus was 3264. --Asddgghkl 20:17, 16 November 2013‎ (GMT)


With an aura of hunting, my hero encountered a Broadbandit (483 hp), a Cholestroll (hulking with 791 hp), and I think an Archnemesis, but I could be mistaken on that third name. My hero currently has 416 hp. --BlueStapler (talk) 02:01, 11 February 2014 (GMT)

Note that ACME monster trap bosses have more HP compared to the hero than random encounter aboveground bosses.

--User:Jimbob64

New starting entry!

00:02 When I stuck my shovel in the ground, a jet of steam shot out. A crevice is widening and my shovel is glowing blue.

--User:Syrocco

okay, this is silly

My edit was reverted, but do we REALLY need the list of "starting to dig" entries anymore? They all seem very obvious to me and there are tons of them - it's just taking up space on the page. Once you've seen what a boss dig looks like you can spot it from a mile away. Instead of reverting edits that make the page more easy to read perhaps people should look into adding the names of all the new boss monsters we have now.

Response: Enzuna, as an effort to compromise, I put the "starting to dig" entries into a collapsed table. I believe that with the implementation of dungeons and other stuff, the starting to dig entries aren't as useful to most players. However, there are still many new players, particularly those without a temple, that would greatly benefit from the "starting to dig" entry information. So, again as a compromise, I put the information into a collapseable table that doesn't take up much space, but retains the information. Perhaps, in the future, someone could create an entire page devoted to digging boss-monsters and then move all the relevant information there (note that Spode more or less proposed this back in 2012). Until then, I say let's not entirely delete the entries. Everyone else, feel free to chime in if you have another other ideas. BlueStapler (talk) 23:46, 2 December 2017 (UTC)


dungeon boss classes should change

Did a little spading on my own because I was afraid the dungeon boss monster list is well past its prime. Went through 131 dungeon logs and tallied the number of skills per boss.

Results:

1 skill (class A) Bagstabber Bluffalo Boozerker Catastroflea Cementalist Dungeon Sweeper Escargolem Flowsnake Hypnogriff Keyborg Minotourist Nachomancer Optimystic Plundertaker Quasidodo Salsamander Scaretaker Shyborg Sighborg Telepony Turmerisk

2 skill (class B) Aftermoth Appetitan Archetypo Blamethrower Buzzkiller Detrimentalist Exoskeletor Flashmobster Gastronaut Glitch Doctor Grimelord Hazmatador Hellevangelist Killdebeest Magnum Octopus Omnipoet Tombcat Underminer Uranium Slug Warmongrel

3 skill (class C) Afterlifeguard Bosstradamus Difficultist Ducktator Dungeon Keeper Flawyer Godbuster Hangoverlord Hyperbully Megahurtz Obscentinel Oxydjinn Satyrant Shamaniac Thug-of-War Tinkerhell Tubercolossus

Conclusion: a number of bosses in the dungeon boss grid are marked in the wrong class. Anyone willing to revise?

Love, Brihtnoth edit: yours truly didn't get an Adminotaur, and got an Appetitan right after finishing up

Boss "Class" vs. "Level"

So, at various places in the wiki (including this article, and the List of Monsters) boss monsters are divided into three classes: A, B, and C. But {{Navboxbosses}} divides them into three levels: 1, 2, and 3.

Are these the same thing? Is it Level 1 == Class A; Level 2 == Class B; Level 3 == Class C? If so, can we decide on one terminology and use it everywhere? -- FeRDNYC (talk) 09:01, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, this annoys me too. Level 1 == Class A etc, yeah. I've been meaning to change the classes around to levels. The levels system makes much more sense, since it corresponds to the number of abilities on the boss. It doesn't need explanation like the classes do.
There's also a shorthand often used by some players that is worth describing, perhaps even using: 1*, 2*, and TB (Treasure Boss, 3 abilities). --Djonni (talk) 09:44, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
The only potential issue I can think of with using the "Level" terminology would be if the dungeons themselves have, or ever might have, levels. (Which do tend to be a fairly common feature in RPG/adventure/exploration type dungeons.) Talking about "The Level 3 Minotourist on level 2" isn't impenetrably confusing or anything, but it wouldn't be ideal.
Of course, there's nothing to say we can't split the difference and go with "Class 1", Class 2", etc. It sounds like the letter designations are both completely arbitrary and not generally used in practice, whereas the numbers are already in use. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 14:55, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
🤔 It had truly never occurred to me that dungeons might expand. If it's worth worrying about as a hypothetical, I'm not so sure.
That said, the practical difference between using Level and Class is pretty negligible, and is as simple as changing A/B/C to 1/2/3. I don't see why "Class 1" isn't as equivalently good as "Level 1". --Djonni (talk) 12:46, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
So it's confusing because level 3 here is considered class A on the List of Monsters. Frankly I've always used 1*, 2*, and TB (non-migration dungeons of course) or the 1ab, 2ab, 3ab designation some people give. Maybe 1ab, 2ab, 3ab etc would be the most obvious? -- Enzuna (talk) 23:11, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
That's a good point. The simple and literal description "1 Ability", "2 Ability" etc is pretty much as effective in my mind as "Level 1" etc, just a touch longer. And GodEnzuna  makes another good point about the TB label not being accurate in all dungeon types.
I'm pretty torn between Level N vs N Ability as a naming convention. For either, the notation in table columns can simply be the number (1, 2 or 3) and it's just about which way we prefer to see it in text and in infoboxes. --Djonni (talk) 11:48, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Ooh, Enzuna's quite correct, I had it backwards — it's Level 1 == Class C, and so on. (Which also means that it's only sheer luck that my addition of Archetypo to List of Monsters didn't mis-class it, because it happened to be Class B.)
Well, yeah, that makes it even more confusing. I get why "Level 3" would be considered "Class A" (and why "Class A" would be the highest, not lowest, class), but damn if it isn't still unintuitive and guaranteed to screw people up as long as we mix both terms. I'd really like to settle on and implement a plan for this, to stave off future confusion.
My two goals on this would be:
  1. To have a single, consistent way of referring to the different subgroups of bosses, both long- and short-form. While it's somewhat true that we can just use a number (or letter) in table columns (making the shortest "short-form" designation simply that number or letter), there's still the question of what the header for that column should be (consistently, everywhere).

    Do we want to label it "Level", "Class", or "Abilities"? Or something else entirely? (And do we then abbreviate that, for e.g. {{Navboxbosses}}? "Lv."? "Cl."? "Abil.? "Type"?)

    I think that's as important as how we discuss the groupings in long-form prose, where we might write out "1-ability boss" or whatever.

  2. To save people typing. The reason designations like 1*, 2*, TB, 1ab, 2ab, 3ab come about is that it's tedious to write something like "1-ability boss" repeatedly. Writing (or even pasting!) "Dungeon Boss, Class A" over and over again in List of Monsters is tedious enough to contemplate, writing out a term like that repeatedly in prose would be even worse.

    But this is an area where templates can help us, by doing what they're designed to do! What I would propose is this:

  1. We have templates {{1ab}}, {{2ab}}, and {{3ab}} that expand to whatever text we decide the terminology should be, long-form, just the way it would be inserted into prose. (The templates even give us the option to revisit that choice later, or to tweak it, and have the fixes appear everywhere at once.)
  2. We encourage anyone writing about dungeon bosses to use those shortcuts in their text, instead of spelling out the term. Just drop it right in there the way you'd naturally say something more wordy, e.g.

    "The Afterlifeguard is a {{1ab}} known for wearing a really hot red swimsuit and holding a red rescue can."

    ...which might expand to...

    "The Afterlifeguard is a 1-Ability Dungeon Boss-Monster known for wearing a really hot red swimsuit and holding a red rescue can."

    Maybe some of those terms are linked, maybe they aren't. Maybe the text changes. They shouldn't worry about it too much.

  3. All of the "Dungeon Boss, Class A" entries in List of Monsters get search-and-replaced with {{3ab}}, Class B => {{2ab}} and Class C => {{1ab}}.
  4. We migrate to just using the corresponding number, in table columns, and come up with a standard header label to use with those columns of numbers.
  5. We completely banish the letter designations from the Wiki, replacing them with either numbers-in-a-column table entries or instances of {{1ab}} and friends.
(I would've proposed also supplying {{1*}} and etc. templates, but even if it somehow doesn't blow up horribly I think trying to use an asterisk in a template name would be asking for trouble. So, that shorthand form sabotaged itself by using special characters best avoided in code.) -- FeRDNYC (talk) 18:21, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I think the creation of a set of templates is an excellent idea, with reservations.

I've been thinking a little more about the designation of "1-ability" etc. And I have to admit, I am pretty ignorant about underground boss-monsters and aboveground boss-monsters. I'm going to start digging and activating monster items more to figure a few things out (I did so today and encountered an aboveground boss not on this page at all, so I think it's worthwhile). Someone who frequently digs and activates relevant items could probably answer this:

  • Are dungeon bosses the only ones where the boss name predicts the number of abilities? Today for example I encountered a Megaphony with 2 abilities. I had only expected one ability on an aboveground boss.

You can probably see where I'm going with that question, though: do the other Boss categories also merit ability-related data?

Now, if it proves that under- and above-ground bosses also fall into predictable ability groups, I think that simply {{1ab}} etc suddenly becomes inadequate in identifying the specific boss type, right? It might need to be something like {{dungeon1}}, {{above1}}, etc.

There's a further question related to all this as to whether bosses deserve their own infobox template, or whether {{monster}} should be expanded a little? Perhaps to have a |boss-type= which might auto-categorise it, and change the header from Monsters of Godville to Boss-Monsters of Godville, and invoke the aforementioned templates within a Boss Type: row in the infobox. --Djonni (talk) 19:31, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

So dungeon monsters for certain always have a certain amount of abilities and can be classified as that. I admit it's been so long since I've fought any mini-quest/personal bosses or dig bosses that I can't confirm, but I THINK those are randomized... or maybe those also have those own divisions and I never noticed. (All I know is a 3ab above-ground monster only counts as having the same power as a 2ab for lab monsters.) Sorry for kinda barging in here with my random thoughts by the way. -- Enzuna (talk) 20:23, 24 August 2018 (UTC)