UESPWiki:Archive/CP Morrowind:Monsters Redux

This is an archive of past UESPWiki:Community Portal discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page, except for maintenance such as updating links.

Morrowind:Monsters Redux

In another revamp suggestion, I would appreciate any input you - my fellow editors - may have as regards replacing the current format for displaying the "monsters" of Morrowind with this look. I ask as I spent the past few hours digging through the CS and extracting every piece of data pertaining to such, much of which is not listed on the current article (and numerous monsters as well).
Thoughts? -- Booyah boy 10:16, 12 September 2006 (EDT)

Looks alright - but don't you think that's a little bit overkill? There's a lot of information that I don't think anybody really needs to know, and I think you can safely leave out in the interests of saving space. (Blood color? Really?) I think anybody that cares enough about the nitty-gritty stuff at that level probably has the wherewithal to look it up in the CS themselves. Plus, when you consider just how many creatures there are in the game, this could get huge pretty fast. (Most creatures have several variations, if as nothing else than just quest-specific ones.) --TheRealLurlock 10:51, 12 September 2006 (EDT)

Quite true, on every point...however, isn't the compilation of all data as regards a specific subject the point of an encyclopedia or wiki? That much aside, the information may be useful to those who are unaware of how to navigate the CS, or, moreso, do not have access to such (either through some freak program error, or simply a lack thereof as a result of not owning Morrowind). As to monster variants, you could not be more correct in stating that "this could get huge pretty fast", yet, again, I come back to my point as regards the underlying premise for this wiki (do correct me if I am mistaken): the compilation of all data as regards the Elder Scrolls universe.

For instance, currently the Morrowind:Dagoth Ur Servants article lists all of the "Dagoth" character variants under the single heading of "Ash Vampires". This is utterly ludicrous to anyone who has perused the actual statistics of said characters in the CS, as there are more than thirty such characters, many of which have unique statistics (and, in many cases, are remarkable for the items they drop). Furthermore, along those same lines, even quest-specific creature variants have different statistics (Old Blue Fin the slaughterfish, for instance, or the Giant Bull Netch); also, in further support of a complete listing, the form currently lists only the regular variant of creatures. On the primary page you will note the listing for an "Alit", followed by a "Betty Netch", but nowhere do you see the "Diseased Alit" or "Blighted Alit", both of which have unique statistics and abilities from the regular Alit; what's more, they may also be encountered in other areas and will pursue characters for a greater distance.

In short, and to answer you hypothetical question, no, I do not find it overkill...simply, exhaustive. -- Booyah boy 01:18, 13 September 2006 (EDT)

I don't see a problem with listing every variant of every creature in the game. In fact, if you look at my user page, you'll notice I've done exactly that for Oblivion. And I do agree that the current coverage of Morrowind creatures is a bit sparse. I just think there's some information that is just not particularly needed, and I don't think that this website is really meant as a place to put every single piece of information that can possibly be squeezed out of the games. If you followed that logic, we'd have pages describing exactly how many plates are on Crassius Curio's dinner table, and an ordered catalog of each of the shelves at Jo'Basha's Books, etc. A line needs to be drawn somewhere between what is likely to be useful and what is just wasting space. The only people I can possibly think who would be interested in some of the finer minutiae you've included on this chart would be modders, and they would of course be able to look it up themselves. Certain information is necessary - health, attacks, resistances, item drops, soul values, etc. Things you'd want to know while playing. Stuff like blood color or attributes like Personality (really, why do creatures even have a Personality attribute?), the exact settings of their AI, scale (I'm pretty sure it's always 1.0, with the exception of that one easter egg location.), movement type, etc. This is stuff that nobody needs except for modders who can find it themselves. I realize you've done a bit of work extracting it all from the CS, but just saying you might want to filter it down to the essentials, and leave out the stuff that's likely to be of interest to almost nobody. --TheRealLurlock 01:43, 13 September 2006 (EDT)

I'll conceed that you do have some fine points, and certainly that your analogy is an accurate one (moreso, I have to agree with you on some very telling points, after all, why do monsters have a personality? So they can kill you in a cheery manner?). I'll take a moment or two and remove some of the less-than-necessary information and post a revised version shortly (say, in an hour or so). Thank you for your input, Lurlock, it is greatly appreciated. -- Booyah boy 01:53, 13 September 2006 (EDT)

Okay, I removed the following elements:

• Movement Type: After all, there are few flying creatures, and those that do fly kind of give it away with their wings. Aquatic creatures also have a distinctive look that is not likely to be misinterpreted.
• Weapon/Shield: Much like the above, it is rather obvious which creatures can come equipped with weapons and armor.
• Encumbrance: As the creature's encumbrance level does not slow them down (and, most often, is neligible), it is frivilous information to most.
• Blood Texture: As TheRealLurlock suggested, it's inclusion is a trifle bit absurd. After all, to find it out, all you need do is hit them. Moreso, there are only three textures (gold sparks, white powder, and red blood).
• Scale: 1.00 is all anyone would ever see listed, so, what matter.

I also shrunk it down a bit, to better conserve space (90% to 70%). On reflection, however, I chose to leave the "Personality" trait intact, as it is a central statistic, and thus, should be represented.

Comments? -- Booyah boy 04:12, 13 September 2006 (EDT)

Better. I still think there's more that can be pared down. The Probability and AI sections are not likely to be necessary. (There's basically only two behaviors out there that anyone cares about - monsters that will attack you, and those that won't, and this information can easily be included in the description.) Also, some information could be removed on a selective basis. For instance, there's really no need to know how much Magicka a creature has if they don't actually have any spells. As for Personality, I'm almost of the opinion that NONE of the attributes need to be listed with the possible exception of Speed, and maybe Agility. The others are all irrelevant. Strength? Doesn't affect how much damage they do, and as you said, encumberance is pretty much negligible, so why bother? Intelligence, Willpower? Doesn't seem to stop them from casting spells if they have them. Endurance? You know how much health they have, why do you need that? And I think Luck is likely to be 50 on almost all of them, but nobody really even knows what that does. (I think in all of Morrowind including expansions, the only time Luck ever comes into play on an enemy is that one guy in Tribunal.)

Another point is that it might be possible to combine several similar creatures on the same chart. If there's 12 variations on the Skeleton which differ only by location (and relation to quests), why not list them all in one place and save space? Take a look at how I've arranged the Oblivion creatures to see what I mean. For example: Creatures Undead. I listed every single undead creature in the game, but in a format concise enough that I don't end up with a miles-long page of mostly redundant information. Only thing missing from the page that I might consider adding is images, but one image of a skeleton is enough - they all pretty much look the same anyhow. --TheRealLurlock 09:44, 13 September 2006 (EDT)

Well, the Probability does factor in on some of the creatures (specifically those meant as "bosses", the netches, and some of the Dagoth variants), thus I thought it best to leave such. The AI section was also left as certain creatures pursue for a markedly different space/time (blighted cliff racers, for instance, will pursue 2000 for 6 seconds). Still, on reflection, I suppose all of that information could be worked into the description, either as a statement (Alit's are ninety-percent likely to attack passersby, and thirty-percent likely to flee, although they will pursue fleeing opponents for up to a thousand yards at a time) or in a round-about fashion (Alit's are highly aggressive creatures, given to attacking any who stumble upon them. Furthermore, most will pursue an enemy for great distances). What do you think?

I'd go for the latter approach. We don't need to know the exact percentages. (Oh, and get rid of those extraneous apostrophes. The plural of "Alit" is "Alits", not "Alit's". Just a minor pet-peeve.)

Ha-ha! Same here. I offer my apologies, as it was not my intention to make the Alit a possessive. Kindly consider the frivilous apostrophes as the result of undue haste in phrasing a reply. That much aside, I shall modify the chart as noted. -- Booyah boy 11:16, 13 September 2006 (EDT)

As to the attributes, well, I am still rather adamant about listing such; after all, these are the central statistics of the creatures, and vary wildly from one to another (even within each variant).

But really, what do these statistics actually DO? Try this. In the CS, make an Alit with 5 Strength, and another Alit with 200 Strength, and everything else the same. Then go fight them in game. They're essentially identical. The only statistics that have any visible effect in-game are Speed (how fast they run), Agility (how often they hit or dodge your hits), and maybe Luck (which affects everything in a small way). Strength doesn't change the damage of their attacks. Endurance doesn't change how much damage you do or how much health they have. Intelligence and Willpower do not affect their spellcasting ability in any way. And Personality doesn't do anything whatsoever. (Even on NPCs, Personality is useless, I think.) Strength could possibly come into play if you were to cast a very powerful Burden spell on them, though by the time you got a Burden strong enough to actually stop them from moving, you might as well just use Paralyze instead.

I assure you, the underlying functions of the stat-based combat system of Morrowind are not lost on me, and each of your points is - as I must admit - both well-stated and true. Still, if only for the purpose of absolute completion, I would prefer listing such. That, I am afraid, is the best arguement I can make as regards the statistics. -- Booyah boy 11:16, 13 September 2006 (EDT)

Finally, insofar as multiple variations on the same statistics are concerned: worry not. I assure you, I am not so insane as to desire the posting of every single separate creature, nor even those that share the same statistics and have only differing names (for instance, Dagoth Fandril, Felmis, Goral, Irvyn, Malan, Molos, Rather, Reler, Tanis, Uvil, and Vaner all have exactly the same statistics in every way, even down to the items they drop; as such, I would list them all in one; however, others, such as Dagoth Gares, would need to be listed separately, so as to display that they not only have unique statistics, but also drop unique items). -- Booyah boy 10:12, 13 September 2006 (EDT)

Well, that at least is good to know. Though you could still save space by putting similar creatures, even with different stats, onto a single chart, and using chart headers as I have done, so that 50% of the screen isn't taken up by just headers. My goal when creating the creature pages for Oblivion was to get as much useful information on the screen at one time as I could. By separating them out as you are proposing, you'd have to keep scrolling back and forth to compare two similar creatures, as each entry takes up about half a page by itself. I hope you don't think I'm being overly critical. Your format looks good, but it just seems like this kind of flash-card like layout will use a lot of space and not be very practical for somebody just wanting to compare the stats of similar creatures all on one page. --TheRealLurlock 10:41, 13 September 2006 (EDT)

I'll take a look at the Oblivion page and see what I can do.

Oh, and there is no need to concern yourself that anything you might say would be taken as "overly critical". It was with the foreknowledge that opposition might be encountered, and with anticipation of constructive criticism such as your own, that I posted this suggestion herein. Frankly, I would invite you to say whatever you wish, even if your only suggestion is "it sucks, do this instead". -- Booyah boy 11:16, 13 September 2006 (EDT)

Oh, and don't look at Oblivion:Creatures. That has mostly the same problems as Morrowind:Monsters, and is long overdue for a format re-work. (Particularly the Bosses section.) After creating my individual categorized creature pages, my intention was to convert the main Creatures page into just a main directory leading to the others with more detail. However, then people started adding images and stuff, and I didn't have the heart to take it down. One of these days, though, that's got to be cleaned up. Instead, look at the examples linked from my user page. Also occurred to me that if you were to take a similar approach, making a single page for each category (Undead, Daedra, Animals, Ash Creatures, Dwemer Constructs, etc.), there'd be one more field you don't need on the chart. If you make a page just for undead creatures, you don't need to mention that they're undead on the charts, obviously. --TheRealLurlock 11:34, 13 September 2006 (EDT)

I took a moment to look over Creatures Undead (that was one of the pages you referenced, was it not?) and, generally, liked what I saw. There are a few minor things that would need to be changed - purely as a result of the differences in the games - however, it appears to be a clean and space-efficient format. I'll take a moment later on and see what I can do about modelling the sandbox page I linked herein to resemble such and get back later with the results. -- Booyah boy 13:27, 13 September 2006 (EDT)

My apologies for not having posted a revision yet, however, I am still feeling rather ill, and so, have procrastinated on many projects here at the UESP. I'll get it up as soon as possible. Thanks for understanding. -- Booyah boy 11:02, 21 September 2006 (EDT)