Guild Wars Wiki talk:Formatting/NPCs

Archive

---

• March - June 2007
• July - August 2007
• Sept - Dec 2007
• Jan - Dec 2008
• Jan - Dec 2009
• Jan - Dec 2010

Passive (invisible) monster skills

I think most or all enemies with Stun Immunity and Stun on Critical Hit have it listed under skills. But should the following be added?:

Undead sensitivity to Light to all Undead enemies

Burning Immunity, assuming this is the mechanism that prevents burning

Hard Mode Dungeon Boss not sure what this does or even if it's implemented

Lesser Hard Mode NPC Buff, Hard Mode NPC Buff probably not worth adding to every NPC

Rand's Attack, Selvetarm's Attack, Thommis's Attack I don't remember anything like this when I fought these, but perhaps someone remembers encountering these effects, perhaps in HM? Or perhaps they were never implemented. Manifold 20:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

For the top half, sure. Undead sensitiity is the only major one, that may cause issues. But it is beter to tell readers that this creatute takes double damage nd that one doesn't, rahter than tse creaures probabl take double damage wih is what we do now.

The bottom half sems to be done on spawn, and is never on anyskillbar, thus I don't think it agood idea to list thm in the kill section. We generally don't list skills a creature will probably be under the effectof. Perhps we should? Backsword 20:45, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Many creatures in high-level areas have less than 8 skills, because they have slots occupied with passive skills. If we are aware of those skills, and we know for sure that a skill slot is used up with a skill, I think that skill should go there. And it's easier and faster to see "Natural Resistance" in the list of skills that checking notes stating that this or that skill is an exception to the a rule of thumb. As for effects aplied to them that are not in their skill bar... I don't think they should go there. Maybe in the notes section, saying something like: "This monsters is always under the effect of <skill name>. For the natural resistance, undead sensitivity, stun immunity and stun on critical, it's easy to know they have them, so at least those should be noted. MithTalk 00:53, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

EoTN primary quest areas

The format of NPC's location sections where one does EoTN primary quests, such as Finding Gadd, Against the Charr and Warband of Brothers vary wildly.

Although these may not mechanically be missions, they have associated Zaishen Mission quests and serve much of the same function. This is why I'd like all NPCs that are part of these quests to be listed under the "Missions" section. In the case of underground areas that share space with a dungeon, such as WoB, it would not be listed as the dungeon (Cathedral of Flames in this case), but as the quest. Also, as being a Depths of Tyria area, rather than the above-ground geographic area (Charr Homelands in this case). Manifold 20:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

So you're looking to have Charr Effigy labelled with a Mission title for Warband of Brothers? Makes sense, as those repeatable primary quests are more similar to missions than locations. This could lead to a clearer separation of what is a dungeon instance and what is a mission instance of those areas, too. G R E E N E R 05:14, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

It's occurred to me that there's several non-repeatable primary quests too (it's been a while). I think for Finding Gadd, for instance, it wouldn't be necessary to add anything to the various undead creature's locations, as it is literally just Shards of Orr, and not a special Finding Gadd location. Inscribed Ettin's location would just be listed as Sparkfly Swamp (under locations, not missions) rather than Finding Gadd, as these non-repeatables don't have anything in common with missions and don't take place in altered areas. Manifold 20:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

So:

• Creatures spawned during non-repeatable primary quests get a Locations title, and a Quests title.
• Creatures spawned in the repeatable primary quest areas – such as Blood Washes Blood and Warband of Brothers – get a Missions title.

This would put them more in line with how the campaigns are treated. One potential issue is that people may think that those repeatable primary quests are missions. Personally, with the ZM treating them like missions, I see no reason to care about some potential fudging. Heck, who knows what the actual game mechanics are in this case. G R E E N E R 01:19, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

HM levels in WoC

So, Falconeye has been bold in creating a new convention for HM levels of Winds of Change enemies, but it seems that there are some concerns. So, I figured we should hash that out before we get too far along. For reference: Falconeye - 24 (26) [30]; alternative I've been using: 24 (26, 30). --JonTheMon 16:00, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

So the square one is just the HM lvl of the WoC foe? --File:User Chieftain Alex Chieftain Signature.pngChieftain Alex 16:04, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Arguably, there are two types of foes, those in WoC and those in Factions. Other conventions are:

• Factions (F-HM) / WoC (WoC-HM), e.g. 15 (18) / 20 (24)
• Factions/WoC (Factions-HM/WoC-HM), e.g. 15/20 (18/24)

Unless test krewe members can tell us about part 3, we shouldn't assume that WoC levels will follow the same rules. 75.36.176.10 16:29, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Falconeye didn't start that - I did, when The Villainy of Galrath (Hard mode) came out. And it was accepted without argument. The system goes like this:

• "Bare" numbers are normal mode levels
• Paranetheses numbers are hard mode levels
• Bracketed numbers are hard mode-only quests levels

Why Falconeye started any of that idk, and as far as I know it's wrong, as last I knew HM-only quest were the same as the regular quests done in HM - levels and everything - unlike Galrath and the Titan quests. Konig/talk 20:47, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Were there other alternatives you considered and dismissed for one reason or another? --JonTheMon 01:55, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok, this discussion died down pretty fast. Do we want to retain the current bracket system and formalize it, or just retain the parentheses system, but have multiple numbers/groups? --JonTheMon 12:30, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Sorry for not responding earlier, tried to on my phone but it wouldn't submit, then I forgot to when I got to a computer. Anyways: It was the fastest clean thing I could think of, and no one brought up a an alternative until now so nothing was dismissed. As for what to use: I'd like to keep the brackets, personally, as it makes it clear what's for what - brackets are for enemies that appear in hard mode only quests and that alone. On the other hand, just adding an additional level into the parentheses can potentially confuse people thinking that say, Evennia at level thirty can show up in Ice Caves of Sorrow or anywhere in WiK at level 30 when in HM. Konig/talk 18:25, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

The brackets are good I agree, but they shouldn't be on pages like Ministry of Purity in my opinion, and I was sure the Ministry foes' levels didn't change in the HM verison of the quests either. --File:User Chieftain Alex Chieftain Signature.pngChieftain Alex 18:28, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Right, Falconeye is, once more, making dozens of edits without discussion - this being adding these parentheses or brackets when the levels do not change or when they are unknown. Those should be undone. Hell, I'm wondering where he gets the numbers that do change as well. It really feels like he's just BS'ing/making guesses some of this stuff. Konig/talk 18:56, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I prefer the brackets for HM-only quests, too. But I am confused about something. What is the convention for when an enemy appears in a quest at 2 different levels? For example, in Cleansing Shenzun Tunnels, there are level 24 and level 26 versions of each foe. How is this noted? --Musha 20:21, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

If there are multiple levels in the same mode, the levels are separated by a comma. E.g., if NPC A is level 24 and 26 in NM, level 26 and 28 in HM, and level 38 in HM-quest, the level designation would look like this: 24, 26 (26, 28) [38] Konig/talk 23:26, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Enemy info box doesn't support 5th profession

I noticed this on the page for Scavenger Marauder. I tried to edit the page and saw that there's a 5th profession listed (Assassin), but that section on the info box only shows the first 4.71.251.126.178 20:02, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Or 6th, or 7th, or 8th. --Musha 22:10, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Location and Quest format for GW:Beyond

I'm noticing that on NPC pages that belong to Beyond storylines, the location section lists the beyond campaign, but the quests section does not. They are appearing as follows:

Locations

• Beyond
  • Winds of Change
    • Kaineng City
      • Specific Location

Quests

• Beyond
  • Kaineng City
    • Specific Quest

Is this the agreed upon format? Or simply an oversight? After all, the quests are what actually make up the Beyond content. Which Beyond campaign they belong to should be there. --Musha 22:38, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

The two should be the same, iirc, until the specific quest/location. Konig/talk 23:30, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Skill listings

(Before I start, the only discussion I could find was this one, and the only main arguments against it were: poke feeling that it would make load times unnecessarily longer, ab.er.rant feeling that it would put too much emphasis on the skills section and Mithran disliking...something...).
As it currently stands, some NPCs have 4 or more skill bars, therefore making it their skills sections the largest section on the page. I feel, personally, that having to scroll through these long lists of skills to get to notes or even the navbars detracts from the rest of the article. I propose a change to a horizontal format perhaps something like User:Aquadrizzt/Sandbox/1#v2. Aqua (T|C) 03:06, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with the V2 example because of the lack of names - people should not be expected to know skill names by the icons - this is also impossible to do with most monster skills. I disagree with the one above because to me that looks unpleasant - though it is more preferred than V2. Alternatively, how about using a hiding feature akin to Mhenlo and other NPCs' locations? Konig/talk 13:51, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Location with repetitive notes already indicated by involved quest

==Locations==
<!-- Group by campaign name if NPC appears in multiple campaigns.
Don't list missions here (use "Missions" section instead) -->
* [[campaign1]]
** [[region1]]
*** {{NPC location|Location1}}
*** {{NPC location|Location2}}
*** {{NPC location|Location3|explorable area}} <!--used for diambiguation-->
*** {{NPC location|Location4}} (during [[quest name]])
** [[region2]]
*** {{NPC location|Dungeon1}}: Level 2
* [[campaign2]]
** [[region3]]
*** {{NPC location|Location5}}
*** {{NPC location|Location6}}
*** ...

This section of the current NPC Formatting Guideline presents the problem of repeating information of its location...when it only names the quest in which is involved and just below has the Quest section itself. Yoshida Keiji talk 10:15, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

When an NPC page is transcluded to other lists e.g.: http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Guild_Wars_Wiki:Projects/Images_to_update/NPC_images, the involved quest is unclear, as it would requiere a double check. Help the Project Images to Update to have an easier time. I had to abbandon The Great Escape quest since I had already killed Commander Kubeh when it looked familiar to me from somewhere else as in "wiki-instinct", then I went to re-do it to screenshot him alive for GWW. Yoshida Keiji talk 11:03, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I am talking alone, I know. But I think the problem has been resolved. The issue was that certain NPC pages had a link to

[[quest]]

instead of

[[quest name]]

, so readers clicking the link would end in the wrong page/place and so on with any transclutions. But NPC main pages will still look with repetitive information. Yoshida Keiji talk 11:42, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

NPCs Health

I sometimes collect the health of enemies and allies (especially mobs in HM in elite areas and mission-critical allied NPCs). Some can be seen here: [1], but that webside is inconvenient, incomplete and outdated. Moreover, wiki would be the place most suited for such information. So I ask, can I add npcs health to some pages? And where/which formatting? I was thinking something similar to the Armor rating or another line in the right box --Haskha (talk) 18:10, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Almost every NPC, with very few exceptions (shiro, lich, great destroyer, kanaxai, urgoz and abaddon), follows the table on Level#Effects of level (linked to from Health under a small see note (perhaps that needs more emphasis on that page)). Unless the health is actually different from the amount denoted in the table, I would say that it shouldn't be documented. -Chieftain Alex 18:38, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

A few everyday NPCs have exceptions noted here. Manifold 22:03, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree that NPCs that follow the general rule should not be specified, but I was mostly thinking about enemies in Hard mode DoA, FoW and UW. Those usually do not follow the general rules. UW and FoW because of the two health updates, and in DoA for its unique nature of Elite area with the lighbringer effect (a lot of enemies have more than 1k health). Take Margonites in DoA as an example: casters(Ki, Dabi, Su, Kaya) have 1230hp, while physicals (Ruk, Vu, Tuk, Rund) have 1380hp. Those values are totally off the table, so i guess it's okay to add them. How should I format it? I guess its best if i don't edit a bunch of pages for now. I tried editing this page as an example, but I don't really like it: Margonite_Anur_Ki. --Haskha (talk) 00:14, 12 October 2013 (UTC)