Talk:Nightmare

Ok. The members of all three shadow armies are ALL 'Nightmares' too. Should we use a more generic name for all those 'shady' creatures or just use Nightmare we have been using until we knew that? MithranArkanere 17:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's fill out the list first, as to get a better overview. Backsword 17:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Nightmares are found outside of quests

In Pre-Searing Ascalon, there are nightmares that are not a part of any quest whatsoever. They are in the dungeon/cemetery (can't remember what it's called) and jump out of nowhere when you aproach candles (there's like 1 thousand in one place). If I remember correctly, they were known as something like Chaos Nightmares. These are level 3 and attack as fast as they appear. The candles cannot be lit, for they are already. Some of them appear from the ground. Eryops3 20:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC) My mistake. Mistaken identity...no, wait a minute. I was right! They were Crypt Fiends.

Reptilian Nightmares

The nightmares that look more reptilian, in my opinion, are so beautiful that when I saw a fog nightmare I said "Aww...cute...can I pwease tame it?" I knew they weren't tameable, but I couldn't resist. Yes, I was a ranger. Eryops3 20:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Possible Note

Alot of the nightmares resemble real ingame creatures. The most obvious ones are attys, shadow army and coldfire nights. A note on the bottom of the page would be ok? Justice 21:03, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

It has been already stated by the devs (I don't recall if Gayle or Linsey) that the resemblances are just mere coincidences. Being them similar to other creatures has not a real lore or design reason. They just look alike. MithTalk 21:35, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmm wierd... let me make the list of look alikes.

• abyssal = troll
• shadow army = white mantle, by profession
• atty = minatoar
• typical nightmare = Behemoth Gravebane
• Coldfire Night = sand drake
• Stalking Night = dune lizard
• Grasping darkness = phantoms?
• Vaettir = saltspray dragon?

I cant find a single nightmare that doesnt share a skin with a "real-world" counter part. The question marks are the ones im not too sure about to be honest though. In any case just because its not lore doesnt mean a trivia type not cant be put on the page and even a side note about it not being some form of connection as you described. If we can add notes about what/who is on a skill icon that almost kinda sorta resembles, then surely this is ok. Justice 22:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

As I said, it's just coincidential. They do NOT share skins. They use the same skeleton (the part of the model that defines how the model will move), and the skins sometimes look a little alike, but that's all. There is no reason behind that similitude. They just probably took those models as a base to make the nightmares to save time and resources. Guild Wars has many creatures that share skeletons and have similar shapes and movement. The case of Nightmares is just the more obvious case. The case of the behemoth is a good example of that, Tyrian Nightmares existed WAAAY before those behemoths they didn't make the Nightmares after the behemoth, but gave the behemoths the same skeleton as those nightmares. Other examples are Flesh Golems moving like Charr warriors, Carps moving like Vermin or Margonite Warlock moving like Mursaat casters. And every single Human in the game has skeleton with a set of movements of any of the 10 professions, usually warrior, but there are also cases of other professions. Don't sweat about it. MithTalk 03:21, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

There are ZERO nightmares that have a unique model, and the fact that behemoth had their model copied from the regular nightmare was like an attempt to make a regular creature to which it got its model from. Shadows of the "real world" which is what i thought shadows were a representation of. Same with Vaettir and saltspray dragon. But whatever, i wasnt crying LORE i was merely saying that every one was based on a "real world" counter part and a note couldnt hurt. But obviously such a note would hurt your feelings in some way. Justice 18:57, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

You don't seem to get it. The question as already brought upon the devs, and the clarified they are not based on 'real world' counteparts. Most Menies nightmares look like White mantle, and they even have the Mursaat emblem, but there is no reason behind that. And definitely doesn't affect gameplay in any way, so it can't be added as a note. And a trivia, es too trivial even for the section. They just look alike. You don't see a note in the Black Widow saying that 'It looks like the Moss Spider' or in the Wretched Wolf saying that 'it looks like the Thorn Wolf' or one in the Kraken Spawn page saying that it look like the Phantom. That would be pointless information, and pointless information goes in the Trivia section when, although pointless, it may be interesting. This is both pointless and not interesting, since there is no lore ore reason whatsoever behind it, so it can't go in Notes neither in trivia. Many times skeletons and models are reused to make new ones. That doesn't mean that there is any relation whatsoever behind that. MithTalk 19:53, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I find it interesting or i wouldnt have noted it in the first place. Interesting is an opinion. I guess yours trumps mine. Like i said, wtf ever Justice 10:42, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Sigh... to put it simply, simple enough, I mean, it's not objective data. It's just something that some people notice, with no real meaning, gameplay value or trivia info. It's like when you see a cloud that looks like something. Just a coincidence and nothing more. MithTalk 04:26, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

"It's like when you see a cliud"

Perhaps you meant a cloud? :p personn5 04:56, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, cloud. Fixed. Anyways, you are not the first one that noticed that (he mursaat logo is pretty much noticeable) and people asked before, so where you are now many people was before, and we are now were I am, and that's why there is no such note after so many time. MithTalk 05:05, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

never said i havnt noticed such a thing before. Dont know why you need to discredit me as some nooby who just wants to tag every page with trivia. Im not so stupid to notice something and then believe im such a genious as to be the first to discover something in a 4-5year old online game. Nor am I so stupid to believe that I have a grasp on the whole picture. I considered your way of looking at it and I have even said rubbish to many other trivia comments on other pages just to end up letting it go since I can accpet that I may be wrong. Someone said something to me once "Get over yourself". I will practice it here, perhaps you could help me by showing me its possible aswell. Justice 05:51, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not 'discrediting'. I'm stating the truth: They are unrelated. It has been already answered here. Unless you are a dev that was working long before Lynsey Murdok, I think I'll stick with what Linsey said. MithTalk 22:49, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

For the record

As told by the Forgotten Wardens' bounty text, all Nightmares in the Realm of Torment are forces lent by Menzies to aid Abbadon. I have changed the affiliation of several creatures to reflect this and would like this to remain the standard. -- Oiseau | 18:35, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the affiliation is not a lore aspect, but a game mechanic aspect. The Domain of Anguish, like a majority of elite areas, have their own affiliation. As per this. -- Konig/talk 20:18, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

And what of this? -- Oiseau | 20:23, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Realm of Torment and Domain of Anguish are two different areas, my friend. At least, in game mechanics. The Domain of Anguish is within the Realm of Torment in lore. -- Konig/talk 20:40, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Alright, granted. So we are to assume that Nightmares outside of the Domain of Anguish, in the Realm of Torment, are affiliated to the Shadow Army, just not those within? -- Oiseau | 20:43, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah! I found that you meant here. That is kinda screwy though. :x -- Oiseau | 20:46, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

All of the Shadow Army are of the Shadow Army affiliation in lore. In mechanics, the one exception to this rule are those of the Domain of Anguish. It's just how elite areas works. -- Konig/talk 20:47, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, thank you for clarifying that point for me. :) -- Oiseau | 21:05, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Affiliation/Creature Type

Should Nightmares (aka Shadows, aka Darkness, aka Nightcrawlers) be classified primarily as subtypes of Aberrations, Demon, Elementals, Fey, Undead, or treated as thier own supertype? --Falconeye 05:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

No. They are not undead. They are either dead or demons (the nature of the shadow army, aatxes, and other UW nightmares are unknown). Official name is Nightmares, btw - not Shadows, Darkness, Nightcrawlers (dunno where you even got the last one...). And they are an affiliation it seems.

In fact, I'm wondering if ghosts are actually undead, or if they are, in fact, Nightmares since we know a majority of the Nightmares (the Nightmares, Azure, and Vaettir) are spirits. And ghosts are spirits... -- Konig/talk 05:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Scratch that, it is a type - I got confused since I thought that some of them were listed as demons. -- Konig/talk 05:55, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

So should I treat them as Incorperal (ghosts, nightmares, spirits, etc.) or just Nightmares? Either way, Ill make changes to Creature types by Supertype and Subtype. Should I stop using the term Supertype on pages? Ive only been using it to help distinguish the differences between (primary)SuperType/(seconday)Type/subtype as is the case with Carven Effigy... Elemental (construct)/Undead (ancient). --Falconeye 06:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

No super/sub type, treat Nightmares as Nightmares, treat Ghosts as Ghosts under Undead (for now - if they are not affected by the Of Deathbane mod, they don't have a super/sub type for all we know). I'm starting to think that construct isn't a mechanic term (except for Shiro'ken?), and Undead is an affiliation (thus no need for the Ancient, Awakened, etc. pages). Though that creates a conflict with the Skeletal Army (at least) as they are undead and in an elite area (the undead confuse things so much...). Either way, I don't think there's so much as "primary/super" and "secondary/sub" for types and affiliations so much that there are 2 types/affiliations - neither is super or sub, they're equally a type or affiliation. As such, those which are classified under multiple types or affiliations (whether through lore or mechanic) shouldn't have a Super or Sub listed. -- Konig/talk 06:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Your Quote:Undead are not affiliations; there are affiliations within undead... Now were back to square one and the origial reason that motivated me to work on it. When does common sense take over when mechanics/lore conlict/overlap/inconsistent/derails us? should the whole categorization process be overhauled and re-standardized to allow for transclusion, something akin to Descriptors or Templates (to borrow a Dungeons and Dragons term), that way you can have both Elemental/Undead/Construct/Awakened or Undead/Mummy/Awakened/Dragon/Lich (yikes, Palawa commanding mummified Dragons and Junundus... shudders. ^_^) --Falconeye 07:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, I thought they were a type, but I'm not an expert on types and affiliations. With how holy damage works, I think the undead may be an affiliation, with the types being the various kinds of undead (mummy, skeleton, zombie, abomination, minion, etc.). Some of which don't have the undead affiliation (abomination). I question the ghosts and the three elementals listed on the undead page as being undead at all due to the lack of double holy damage - I'd have to see with an Of Deathbane mod though. I think that if something has two creature types or affiliations, both should be listed side by side (unless, of course, it is of the page - in which case, have the column and/or do a sup note) - much like how lore and mechanic affiliations are being listed side by side.

Basically, Undead is the only thing throwing a wrench in the system because we are not sure whether it is a type or affiliation anymore. -- Konig/talk 07:36, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

So until its resolve, Ill just ignore it and its relating pages, and work on anything else that has no issue. Why did Anet ever treat Undead as an affilition, rather then a creature type/template like the 99% of the other fantasy games. Most are of far lesser intelligence of even the dumbess insects to form any useful social gain, and the oh-so-rare smart ones (Liches, Vampires, Mummies, ect.) would rather keep to themselves. --Falconeye 08:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, even those of the lowest rank show intelligence - at least to the degree of their previous life. Unlike other games. In fact, all Desolation undead show intelligence, and the Tyrian undead show at least semi-intelligence (beyond the Steward of Murakai, Murakai, and Zoldark). -- Konig/talk 08:22, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Should we treat Undead as an inherent template "Trait", similar to "Boss", "Fleshy", "Passive", "Summoned", ect. --Falconeye 08:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

They're more than that, at least. Though they may be like that which gives the holy damage bit. But they're more than that due to the Of Deathbane mod. -- Konig/talk 08:48, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Please note that types are NOT something players decide. They are investigated by using things like EoE or weapons that deal damage against certain types or armies. In the case of undead, the double damage comes from a skill they have equipped. And the extra damage from the Undead slaying weapon mod from the army. When nothing can be found by investigating, a dev is asked, and when devs do not respond, it's when we have to use temporal values decide by consensus.

In the case of nightmares, it's a type/family. We already know that. There are creatures that are of that type, like nightmares themselves, the whole shadow army or vaettir.

In the case of undead, if a weapon that deals extra damage to undead does extra damage to a creature, that creature belongs to the undead army. 'THE' undead army, not 'A' undead army, there is only ONE undead army. That's like that even if they appear in regions where all enemies are supposed to belong to another faction, because that weapon mod checks for ARMY, not type, nor the undead sensitivy to light skill. ARMY. You know that because enemies like the Carven Effigy that do not have the skill neither are one of the typical 'undead' creatures will take extra damage when hit with the weapon mod, and that's why they also trigger the undead bonus. Because they are part of THE undead army. That's why the 'undead' page does not need an affiliation column, because if an enemy is part of the undead army, it belongs to the undead army, and no other 'sub-army' or faction. Or anything like that.

Then you'll have lore factions and types, but they usually are not registered in the wiki when we know the actual affiliation and type. MithTalk 14:45, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I knew how types were tested (though I forgot about EoE), but I'm going off of past knowledge and not re-testing things (don't have time/patience and someone needs to keep up with Falconeye's changes). I wasn't sure on the undead and the constructs, but that's all I'm unsure of (I did say Nightmare was an affiliation but that was me misremembering). I take it undead is an affiliation. I myself have been trying to add the lore factions and types in parentheses - but only when a column is already needed. I just like the lore to be more known. -- Konig/talk 22:00, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

It is in the pages. It should go at the top of each description. If you do not add lore at the description of the page, what would you put in there? Their levels, behavior and tactics that work against them, skills, profession, location, drops,... all that has its own place in the page. So all that's left for the description is lore. Some pages have very scarce descriptions because there is no lore there. So, if you look at the undead page, you could add things like: "Although it is know that all undead belong to the same affiliation, sometimes part of the huge army are controlled by others, forming smaller factions withing their ranks. Some examples of that are the Orrian undead controlled by the Lich, or the Awakened controlled by Joko." And if you do that in several pages, you get lot of nice text with lore. MithTalk 22:42, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

You misunderstand. I meant to add that certain creatures are part of certain groups in these lists. Yes, the lore usually goes at the top, but can you state "such and such Nightmares are part of this army, while such and such Nightmares are part of this army, and finally such and such Nightmares are part of that army" while making it 1) flow within the article and 2) make sense within the context? Sure you can add the lore on the top of the individual pages, but what about listing creatures as a group without the said list being on the group (e.g., how can you list creatures as the Shadow Army without it being on the Shadow Army page - thus this page - without ruining the top's flow which is about Nightmares enlarge).

In other words, I'm not talking about the paragraphs, but adding lore within the lists in order to denote the lore group of individual creatures. -- Konig/talk 23:03, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, I've seen that a few times, and that usually goes in parenthesis after the actual lore. Since all creatures in the undead page are all undead, all you have left is that 'lore affiliation'. So just using the parenthesis and adding a note that states "Affiliation in parenthesis are not actual mechanics affiliations, but lore ones" should work, I think. Once in the page of the creature, you put that in the description with a link, like you can see in pages of constructs and awakened. MithTalk 23:14, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Right, that's what I was thinking, but that's hard (or impossible) to do on popular affiliation pages such as Undead. Then again, Falconeye suggested a reasonable way around that. -- Konig/talk 23:28, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Best to have a reasonable system to account for the ever growing Affiliation and Creature type. --Falconeye 10:39, 18 June 2010 (UTC)