GuildWiki has been locked down: anonymous editing and account creation are disabled. Current registered users are unaffected. Leave any comments on the Community Portal.
After moving the article from "Mobile Objects" to "Mobile object", I noticed that GuildWiki style appears to be to use title caps for article titles (ie, "Article Title of the Captitals" rather than "Article title of the capitals"). I missed this at first since so many of the article titles are proper names of skills, mobs, locations, etc. -- which are capitalized anyway -- but then I noticed Non-Player Character. I'll move this one to Mobile Object to conform with the convention. --Saucepan 11:37, 17 Jun 2005 (EST)
- Thanks for pointing this out (a month ago); I just noticed, and am working to fix the problem. See GuildWiki talk:Style & formatting. —Tanaric 15:47, 15 Jul 2005 (EST)
I find that this link clears up a lot, like the fact that the term's origin is, and forever shal be, in debate. This isn't in response to anything stated here, it's just a good source of information on the term.
Mob vs Monster, standardization?[edit source]
I personally perfer to use the term "Mob" over "Monster", since it always feels weird calling computer controlled enemy humans "monsters".
While the Game Updates uses the term "Monster", we can use a similar logic against "Ascended Armor" to minimize usage of the term "Monster".
That said, we currently have a Template:Monster-stub which uses the term "Monster" instead of "Mob". Even though the wiki recognizes them as meaning the same thing, I still prefer we standardize upon the usage of one. If the decision is to standardize upon Monster instead of Mob, that's fine too. Standardization is more important than my personal preference. -PanSola 07:02, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
- Personally, I never use "mob" for a PC. --Fyren 18:09, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
- Hmm, interesting. I've never heard the term "MOB" refer to a "mobile object." Besides that, I prefer the use of "monster" over "mob" when referring to one enemy. Mob generally refers to a "large disorderly crowd or throng," i.e. the mob of inferno imps or a mob of people. In terms of GW, people do use "mob" over "monster" because rarely are monsters solo anyway. Regarding Template:Monster-stub, I prefer using the term "monster."
in alliance battle it also refers to grp of 8-10ppl --Dunkoro 11:19, 25 September 2007 (CDT)
What is the largest mob in the game aside from FoW/UW?[edit source]
well? --22.214.171.124 14:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- Largest mob as in most enemies I'd probably say is that Charr quest in Far Shiverpeaks, can't remember the name --Gimmethegepgun 14:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Good example[edit source]
This is a great example of the lack of linguistic skills of online players.
Hardest hitting Monsters[edit source]
What are the hardest hitting monsters in game. I've heard of Abbysals and Aatxes, but are there other races that can hit very hard? Normal hits Im too tired to think but mursaat hurts pretty bad on uninfused with their spectral agony. ^^126.96.36.199 16:58, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Behavior Details[edit source]
Is there anyplace that discusses some of the (sometimes important!) details of monster behavior?
Such as they will use specific skills against players wielding caster weapons? Sapping Nightmares use Chaos Storm only on foes with caster weapons.
Or that they will use PBAoE when it will affect multiple targets? Terrorweb Dryders only use Lava Font when the skill will hit multiple targets. It doesn't matter if its the only attack skill they can use on a target (Shadow Form/Obby Flesh on a solo-attacker), they won't use it unless a second target becomes available.
Some of this can be documented on the individual skills or monsters (Signet of Sorrow only gets used when a corpse is present, or it will outright kill the target)), but some of it is simply general monster behavior, not specific to the skills or weapons in use. I might drop some of it in the Guide to Aggro, but I don't think it really fits there. Yamagawa 19:45, 2 January 2011 (UTC)