GuildWiki has been locked down: anonymous editing and account creation are disabled. Current registered users are unaffected. Leave any comments on the Community Portal.


From GuildWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Problem with definition[edit source]

I'm pretty sure some creatures don't have legs... Some of those ghostly things that float. -PanSola 10:06, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I feel the whole article is a bit pointless. Shandy 10:12, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Creature IS a term used by the game though... -PanSola 10:19, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, new definition doesn't help much. What does it semantically mean, not what does it look like. --Karlos 15:11, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I *think* it semantically means anything that can take damage and dye, as opposed to inanimate objects. It's tricky because natural spirits are creatures too, and that might not be immediately obvious since they are "created". -PanSola 15:32, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Anything that can take damage and be affected by dye remover?  :P --Rainith 15:50, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't see the point of this article. Anyone who thinks they can cast Life Siphon on a wall deserves to die. More respectfully, this is trying relaly hard not to be a dictionary definition article, but I don't think it ever can be anything but. —Tanaric 15:37, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm with Tanaric, this is quite possibly the most pointless one-liner article (which is a bit of a oxymoron in line doth an article not make). Does anyone see any redemming value in this article in relation to the game & wiki (semantics aside)? --William Blackstaff 16:53, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Are there skills that say they target a creature? Or anything in game that uses the term? I think there are for some reason. If so that I think we need to have the term here, if not then chuck it out. --Rainith 17:13, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Edge of Extinction doesn't target creature, but "whenever any creature dies, Edge of Extinction deals 14...43 damage to all nearby creatures of the same type". All other Nature Rituals also affect, but not target, "creatures". Is that good enough or do you need a skill that specifically requires the player to actually target the creature? -PanSola 18:06, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
No, that's good enough for me. I think we should keep it. Personally I've never liked using the term "monster" for the stuff in the bestiary. Creature, while not much better is better than monster IMO. As for "Mob," I've never used the word in (what I guess is) the standard online rpg way of meaning "mobile objects." I've always used it to mean a group, as in a mob of Tengu. --Rainith 18:44, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Note that creature covers all NPCs (I think) and PCs, not just monsters. While "Mobs" technically originally mean the same thing as NPCs (for most MUDs all NPCs are attackable and fightback, I think), the common player usage within GuildWars is (I presume) for computer-controlled red-dots. I still advocate to standardize using the term "Mob" for computer-controlled red-dots as opposed to using the term "Monster". -PanSola 19:08, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
PanSola, skill descriptions are allowed to have nouns in them that aren't defined by the wiki. We don't have a page on what "fire" is, even though fire is used in quite a bit of skill descriptions. Creature is just a noun. Everybody knows what a creature is. Unless there's some useful, game-related information about "creatures" that isn't directly obvious from the dictionary definition of the word "creature," this page should go. —Tanaric 23:44, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
I'd disagree with that. The bats flying around in Old Ascalon are by a dicionary definition creatures, so are the frogs (not talking about the frog, but the ones that hop around outside of towns), but as far as game mechanics go, they aren't creatures. --Rainith 23:56, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
As far as the game goes, they are creatures. This is not a document about the game mechanics. While overriding the definition of "creatures" in a game's design document would be entirely expected for something like this, overriding it here, where, in the lore and the world of Guild Wars untargettable animals are indeed creatures, doesn't make any sense. —Tanaric 02:20, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
Tanaric, I understand your concern. In which case we can change the "definition" into "tips on how to recognize". Namely, because of Edge of Extinction, we know creatures by nature of game machanics are able to take damage. Thus all creatures must have health bars, though this does not guarentee everything with a healthbar is a creature. That would be the tip on how to recognize. Then, anything that appear in explorable area or missions can be tested for their Creatureness, assuming two of the same type of subject can be located in proximity of each other, and either the player or mobs can damage the test subject. Then either by having us or the mobs kill one of the test subject while in the range of Edge of Extinction, and checking the health on the other test subject (assuming it's not taking damage from a different source), we can verify whether it is a creature or not.
Once we have done that, we can put that creature type into Category:Creatures, unless you prefer to have that list under a subsection inside Nature Ritual, to show everything that the game considers as creatures and are affected by Nature Rituals.
Currently it is simply assumed that everything with a health bar is a creature. Though I can personally attest that Playable Characters are creatures, and I'm fairly certain animated minons are a type of creature (necro army + EoE + sudden mass death not simply due to regen). From various discussion forums, I've heard ppl discussion using EoE to kill spirits, and no one every posted a challenge that they can't get affected. Thus I would say they are most likely a type of creatures too. Pets were mentioned by one contributor as consitution their own type of creature with respect to EoE, so I'm going to trust that too.
Any hint of sarcasm is unintended. I wander easily from one extreme (lots of assumptions based on patterns) to the other (verify on case-by-case basis). Also lack of sleep a little... need to go back and work on my final project. -PanSola 00:23, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
I think you're missing my point. If some mechanical definition is important for the purposes of Edge of Extinction, the special cases should be noted on the Edge of Extinction article. —Tanaric 02:20, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Tanaric. This is overkill. How would we define creature in a mechanical sense? Every clickable object that is not a stationary object? But wait nature Rituals themselves are creatures, aren't they? Every living object, that's a semantic definition that is a copy of the english word "creature." Every green and red dot? That excludes real world creatures. If for the purposes of EoE, we need to clarify that it only works on creatures that are clickable, then we say that in EoE's article, not make up a weird article with an incorrect definition. the article as it stands now is saying that the Frogs in the swamp are not creatures. Which I think is wrong. --Karlos 03:30, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
I do think the frogs in the swam really are NOT creatures, because I only care about what the game considers as creatures. I would never characterize Ether Seal in real life as a creature (not that they appear in reallife...), they are just... things. But for the purpose of game mechanics, they are counted as creatures (probably, I'm just guessing from the patter of "having health bar" here), so I think of them as creatures.
Let's look at the general issue from another angle. Are Giant Tree Spiders animals? Are Hydras animals? Is Bill the Rogue Bull an animal? For every single skill that act upon Animals (not just animal companions), are we going to list all the exceptions of things that should be Animals in the real world but does not get affected by the game mechanices? Including the frogs in the swamp and the dolphin/shark swimming by Lion's Arch and the butterfly that I forgot where they show up? Or should we find a way to generally characterize what the game mechanics consider as Animals, and make an article out of it?
I might have taken things too far with Object (I really need to get away from programming), but it makes sense to characterize what the game mechanics consider as "Creature", rather than for each skill that interacts with creatures repeat redundent information on the counterintuitive exceptions. Some people might have trouble realizing Ether Seals and Plants are creatures. Some other people might not think of computer controlled human NPCs as "creatures" (such an inhumane term). So are we going to spam the Nature Ritul skill articles, each one of them, with this clarification?
Blah, back to debugging my final project. -PanSola 04:08, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
Heh, I knew you had to be working on code. :)
Back on topic, we clearly differ in our opinion here. In all cases so far on the GuildWiki in which differences of opinion have erupted, the more liberal definition was used. I think this is a good policy, and I'd like to invoke it here. While I understand your stance, there is no justification for making it any better than mine. Further, mine encompasses yours -- you have a stricter definition than I'm using. Finally, the Nature Ritual article itself is pretty clear on what nature rituals affect and how they work.
There's no clear benefit to having this page. There is very little ambiguity in the term "creature." Said ambiguity is already addressed in other places—every nature ritual skill already links to Nature Ritual. I could see adding "Note: this skill affects all allies and enemies within its range" on every nature ritual skill, if you thought it was helpful; such a note would be much more helpful than this page. However, as I have never seen any confusion on this issue, I'm not going to do it myself.
Of course, if you'd like to continue arguing about it, I'm prepared for that.  :) —Tanaric 20:33, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Still stand by my old position, but nothing new really directed at what you said above. Though for things like Tank and such I would agree with covering the broader definition. But when it's a term used by the game mechanics, I feel we should stick with however the game mechanics behaves, regardless of whether its definition is the broader or stricter one in the debatel.
ANYWAYS, I recommend resolving the issue with Bestiary I raised up first, before we decide on anything directly related to the Creature article. If I win my case over there, the nature of the debate of whether this article should be kept would be quite different. And that's the better battle in which I want to fight and win. The issue of keeping this article or not is much more trivial on a relative scale.-PanSola 12:26, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

And if anyone really hate the "oneliner-ness" of the current version and want to revert to Ollj's version, I won't be offended. Though requirement for creatures to have head and at least 2 legs isn't really a good definiton, so I'd still stick with having a health bar as definition (unless someone devise something better). -PanSola 18:09, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

My apologies if I wake up a dormant debate but the article needed a small clarification. --Leonim 06:28, 29 September 2006 (CDT)