Online talk:Creatures

More

Here some more [1]--Ashendant (talk) 01:24, 7 May 2013 (GMT)

I think they are pretty much all covered. Jeancey (talk) 01:32, 7 May 2013 (GMT)

I'm pretty sure I've seen wolves, trolls and scamps in a few of the videos.Norowane (talk) 06:07, 23 May 2013 (GMT)

Yeah, but they haven't been confirmed. I don't doubt they are in the game, we just need confirmation. Jeancey (talk) 06:47, 23 May 2013 (GMT)

Video footage seems like more than enough evidence to me. I've added wolves to the list, but I can't personally recall seeing trolls before so I'll leave that to someone else. —Legoless (talk) 18:25, 26 July 2013 (GMT)

The trouble with video footage is the name. An example is a rat-like creature; will this return to being a rat, or continue as a skeever? Wisp Mother's have been confirmed (from a magazine), but I took an educated guess that they will be named Wispmothers (same as Skyrim). The main problem is not will it appear, but what its name will be. Silence is Golden^{Break the Silence} 18:57, 26 July 2013 (GMT)

(←) I don't have a problem with us being wrong this early on. A minor mistake on a name is worse than not having any information on the topic at all. Take my early creation of Hadvar and Ralof as an example. I spelt both of their names wrong (Hodvor and Rolof, respectively), but it was better than not having a page on them at all. Feel free to make errors if you have reasonable suspicions to make them. Everything you write now will hopefully be completely replaced within a year's time, either way. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 19:02, 26 July 2013 (GMT)

Honestly, I think that is the entirely wrong attitude. No offense, but your example was due entirely to your not paying enough attention and not double checking the name. Information here is used across the web, and even by developers. We cannot (and should not) add possibly false information just so we can have something on the wiki. No information is leaps and bounds better than bad information. Having information that changes is one thing, but adding information that could be completely incorrect is another. Jeancey (talk) 19:08, 26 July 2013 (GMT)

I agree with AKB. The NPC names from pre-release Skyrim footage weren't very distinct, so it was an honest mistake (and not one I'm innocent of either). Besides, if something looks like a wolf, it's probably a wolf. We can move it to "Online:Timber Wolf" or whatever if it turns out to be incorrect, but every TESO article is clearly labelled as being "subject to change at any time". If you want to clarify that no enemy explicitly named "Wolf" has been published, then an article should be created explaining that they've only been seen briefly in a gameplay video. Much better than a redlink, and far more informative than simply excluding the information. —Legoless (talk) 19:17, 26 July 2013 (GMT)

There was absolutely no available source besides the one I used when I originally made the Ralof, Hadvar, and Unbound articles. Of course I didn't expect you to know that, since you didn't even join until a month later, it's entirely understandable that you wouldn't be familiar with this. It is wrong to accuse me of making a mistake there, however. Either way, we make it very clear on these articles that we could easily be wrong with the banners that say This Online article is based on pre-release information. I am not saying that we add incorrect information so much as we add reasonably correct information. Rolof and Hodvor weren't that far off, and it was clearly better to have an actual article than none at all.

There is absolutely no chance that the developers are using us as a source of information for a game they haven't even released yet, and everyone expects a degree of incorrect information pre-release (take for example the Jill, which a clear source was available for, but did not actually exist within the game in any manner). If you want to say we cannot add possibly false information, then I guess I should just lock the namespace down so no one can edit it. After all, all information pre-release is liable to change, and as such we are possibly wrong due to the simple fact that the developers haven't made up their mind yet on how things in the game will be. No one is in favor of adding completely incorrect information, but seeing clear evidence of a rat-like creature or a wolf means that that information isn't going to ever be completely incorrect. As long as there is a source, this isn't an issue. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 19:20, 26 July 2013 (GMT)

If the only info is that "This creature may or may not appear in the game", then that is completely useless and is no better than a red link. In fact, it might actually be worse than a red link because people will assume we have some information, click it, and then realize that we don't know anything at all and we look stupid.

Like I said before, there is a difference between using information which may change, and guessing at information. The pages currently created have (except for mammoth which was created by some random user) all been from officially released articles specifically about those creatures. The Pre-release information we use MUST be officially released info, not a guess. Guessing at a name for something in a video is still a guess, and lowers the quality of the wiki. Jeancey (talk) 19:23, 26 July 2013 (GMT)

(edit conflict) We can highlight unconfirmed yet seen creatures in red, or add a hover to them saying "this creature's name is unconfirmed". I don't think it's necessary, but if it helps...

I am opposed to making pages in advance for unannounced creatures, since we have no info, but we could at least list them. And, Jeancey, as AKB said, even stuff that's officially announced may or may not appear in the game. It's really not that hard to remove something if it's not in the game. If they remove wolves? Fine, we remove wolves too. If they rename wolves? We rename wolves too. If we don't list wolves now, I don't think we're giving full coverage. We can even give them their own section, "Seen but not yet confirmed" or something. Vely^►t►e 19:31, 26 July 2013 (GMT)

I wasn't opposed to listing them, I was opposed to creating pages for them now. Listing them as red links is perfectly fine, but they should only have pages once the names have been used in some official capacity. Jeancey (talk) 19:34, 26 July 2013 (GMT)

(←) (edit conflict) I know a lot of people who did successfully argue that even having a pre-release namespace or any articles on the subject was bad for the wiki, as any information within it could not be completely verified. This is still true with things released officially, they may be cut for one reason or another, or the person reporting it could of been wrong, or even the developer could of misspoken. Therefore, the article may still be wrong, no matter how official the source is. Everything here is based on a reasonable assumption that this information is accurate, including the wolves. Saying that wolf-like creatures are going to be in the game is much better than simply saying: "No, we don't have the name for this creature, even though we have clear evidence they exist in some form. Therefore, we're just not going to document them in any fashion." We lost a lot of time with Skyrim due to similar beliefs, and I don't want to see that happen again.

No one is going to hold it against us if we state that there are animals that appear to be wolves within the game since we've seen videos of them. It's extremely easy to just mention "the creature's name has yet to be confirmed" alongside this. At least with this style we have the article, and it can be moved to where it needs to be at a later date. With your style, that's just one more job for us to do during the chaos of release day. As for just listing it as red links, I think that's even worse. We might create genuine confusion there since some user may come by and create the article, since after all, the red link is clearly saying we want said article made. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 19:38, 26 July 2013 (GMT)

We don't need to do it on release day. Creating the article now and then having to move it later will not save us any time at all. Moving an article and then changing all the information at it is absolutely no different from creating an article from scratch. There will be an open beta without an NDA prior to the release when we can add in confirmed information. An article now serves absolutely no purpose. "Hey. This thing may or may not be in the game." That's the exact same as having a red link, in terms of usefulness. Besides, we actually have specific rules against this. "This article should only contain officially released content, such as open beta and press release information." If you wish to add new pages for these creatures spotted in videos, with no confirmed name, then you best suggest a change to our pre-release policy first. Jeancey (talk) 19:43, 26 July 2013 (GMT)

So, wait, we want to make blank pages? Also, why even have redlinks at all? Just don't link them. Problem solved--list without confusion. Vely^►t►e 19:46, 26 July 2013 (GMT)

No no no. The redlinks are our way of saying that the creature is confirmed but we have literally no further information. Any other way and we start having to provide sources for every creature, which to be honest is ugly in all extremities. As with the Places page, I'm moving the wolves to a notes section that will allow us to add unnamed types of creatures without suggesting they are confirmed. Feel free to add to the new list. Silence is Golden^{Break the Silence} 19:58, 26 July 2013 (GMT)

Jeancey, it clearly takes less time to move an article than to write it from scratch when we will have a ton of other duties to be attending to. And what do you call it when the company explicitly shows a creature? Releasing information, yes? The fact that we don't know the name of said creature is drawing a pointless line that goes against previously accepted behavior. We listed a ton of creatures before they were actually named based on images of them. Thanks to previous games, we have reasonable information about what the creatures in the game will actually be called.

Just listing them is perhaps the worst choice, as we'd only be including the incorrect name then. We can add information about what the creature looks like, where it has appeared, an image of the creature, and of course a note specifying that this creature hasn't been confirmed to be called this yet. Therefore, the page would not be blank. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 20:01, 26 July 2013 (GMT)

We can't include images because vidcaps are currently not allowed under our image policy (I think at least, I may be wrong) and the quality of them would be absolutely terrible. Jeancey (talk) 20:11, 26 July 2013 (GMT)

The videos are available in HD. There is also a precedence for including low-quality vidcaps when no other image is available (see this file). —Legoless (talk) 20:31, 26 July 2013 (GMT)

Kwama

Per this edit, I believe we should list the different forms of Kwama separately on this page. They aren't "variants" of the same enemy, they're distinct creatures. Compare it to how we organise Morrowind:Kwama. We have separate creature sections for each type, with variants listed within (Scrib, Blighted Scrib, Hive Scrib). This isn't a case of listing the different types of wolves we'll be seeing on the main creature article. If anything, the kwama deserve a separate section apart from other 'animals' like we did with Morrowind, although I find that superfluous. If we're going to be so regimental based solely on species and lore, Senche-Tigers don't even belong here. —Legoless (talk) 19:45, 8 December 2013 (GMT)

Layout is a non-argument, the same layout is used for things like Scamps and Stunted Scamps in Oblivion. There has to be some sort of cut-off point for when something gets an entry. Frost Trolls are similar to, but different in appearance to Trolls; by the information released there will be both land and water Dreugh, with different appearances; Bears (hardly likely not to feature) only get one entry in Skyrim's similar layout for the creatures page); Chaurus get only one entry on the Skyrim page despite the added hunters from Dawnguard. The point is that Online will feature more individual creatures than there has been in any game so far as Arena didn't have vastly different creatures for each region. Senche-Tigers are construed as creatures, they haven't been seen before, there is plenty of scope to differentiate them from Senche and Senche-raht. Species is the only logical container for this list, anything else leads to the entries becoming bloated and unmanageable. Silence is Golden^{Break the Silence} 19:59, 8 December 2013 (GMT)

There's a clear divide between a scrib and a warrior. I also wouldn't agree with the current setups we have for stunted scamps and chaurus hunters. —Legoless (talk) 21:05, 8 December 2013 (GMT)

Butterflies

These are common in Khenarthi's Roost at least, however I'm not sure if they should be included on the Creatures list or not because they are activators rather than killable things running around. Until/if we have a separate passive creatures list, like for Skyrim, what should be done about butterflies? Also, are there other creatures in this same category (able to be interacted with, but not attacked) for which this is also a problem? I haven't left Khenarthi's Roost yet. likelolwhat ^{talk lulzy to me} 04:28, 4 March 2014 (GMT)

Torchbugs are the same. —Legoless (talk) 17:14, 4 March 2014 (GMT)

Passive Creatures page has been created, and is a just a list page so please add what you find. Silence is Golden^{Break the Silence} 22:15, 4 March 2014 (GMT)

Organization question

Would it be useful if this was organized to match the classifications in Online:Collectibles Achievements? I wonder if there will be places where those distinctions will help or whether the present grouping are more useful for other spots in the wiki. --Swordmage (talk) 20:30, 25 March 2014 (GMT)

I agree with this, and I've mostly broken it down on Collecting, but it's not complete. If somebody knows for sure what goes in what group, I think they should be split up this way. — TheRealLurlock (talk) 14:43, 20 April 2014 (GMT)

Stat tables

I noticed that, as with the earlier games, we've set up stat tables on each of the creature group pages (e.g. Undead). However, they're all blank except for the names, and I have a feeling they will remain that way. The problem is that in this game, any given creature type can be found at a wide range of levels with different stats. So there's really no one set of numbers you can fill in there. What might be more useful are formulas to determine stats based on level, but we don't even know if there is such a formula that works in all cases. (For all we know, they could be set manually on a case-by-case basis?) What we could do instead is provide a list, separated by Alliance and then sorted by level, of all the places where each type appears. If we can get stats for each of those versions, it should probably go on the individual creature pages, rather than the group pages. Otherwise those tables will get really bulky really fast. — TheRealLurlock (talk) 14:38, 20 April 2014 (GMT)

Probably, but I felt some kind of filler was needed besides just another list the same as on this page making them somewhat redundant. I'm not sure what all data can be obtained besides health, levels, and drops etc. Silence is Golden^{Break the Silence} 02:17, 21 April 2014 (GMT)

"Types"

I don't think we should be categorizing any of the creatures in ESO based on type like this. Types haven't really existed for creatures since Morrowind, yet we insist on including them even those they are entirely subjective with no basis in the game data. Take, for example, the chicken. Currently the chicken is listed under animals. But under the current definitions on the page, it SHOULD be listed under passive creatures, since there is no way a chicken can ever attack you. However, removing "chicken" from the animal category is silly, because it is quite clearly also an animal. Also, the Serpent. The Serpent is listed as a Monster, mainly because of its resistance to frost attacks. However, Giant Snake is listed as an animal, even though giant snakes and serpents are the same thing. A giant snake is an animal. It's just the giant version of a snake, which is also an animal. But because of our archaic definitions based on data from Morrowind, it is also a monster. Another example is the Harpy. Harpies have no magical attacks, and no resistances, which SHOULD put them in the animal category, but they are also humanoidish, which isn't really animal-like. TL;DR All of these categories are made up by us and have no basis in the game data and I don't think they should be included here. We should find some other way to split up the creatures in ESO (I can't even call them monsters because that is one of our archaic categories). I don't really have any suggestions on how to split them up, but the categories we have now don't make any sense in light of the lack of data based divisions present in ESO (in fact, NPCs and Creatures are no different from each other in ESO. At all. Zilch. Nada. No difference). Jeancey (talk) 02:18, 21 April 2014 (GMT)

There IS a distinction, and it comes in the form of achievements. There are achievements both for killing creatures of specific types (see: General Achievements) and for collecting trophies from all creatures of a given type (see Collectibles Achievements, Collecting). There's still some gaps in the Collecting achievements, but as far as I can tell, the ones that are missing are all either bosses with very few examples in the game (e.g. Bone Colossus) or they're passive creatures like deer and chickens. Also not sure about the usually-passive ones like mudcrabs. That's the division they've explicitly given us, so I think it makes sense to follow their example. — TheRealLurlock (talk) 02:29, 21 April 2014 (GMT)

(edit conflict) Passive creatures aren't even creatures as explained on the correct pages, so chickens do not belong there and neither does anything else with 1 health. Your comments are completely dismissible as this page has not had game knowledge applied to it, it is still entirely based off guesswork pre-release, when many of the creatures were completely unknown, like dunerippers, serpents, and snakes. Of course these types are made up, but they do not overlap (much as you try to make out), and it would be idiotic to list them all on one page because there is no type specified by the game. There are many ways we classify things that aren't in games, and trying to drop this one is one of the least sensible. Silence is Golden^{Break the Silence} 02:31, 21 April 2014 (GMT)

There's really 4 kinds of passive "creatures". First are those which are passive unless attacked, like Mudcrabs. Those are passive but not completely defenseless. Then there's 1-hit kill creatures like deer, chickens, rats, frogs, etc. They're so passive they can't possibly attack, but they can still be attacked and killed. Then there's non-attackable creatures which can still be interacted with, like moths and other flying insects that you can catch and get items from. And finally, there's creatures which are completely cosmetic, and can't be interacted with in any way. Mostly these seem to be birds. But I think that's one way to clearly delineate the difference between the various "passive" creatures. Oh, and there's one more to consider - Slaughterfish aren't really creatures in this game. They're not passive, certainly, but they also can't be attacked. They're essentially an environmental effect, much like lava. (And you can fish for them, but I think that's entirely separate - you'll never catch enough Slaughterfish to make the water safe to swim in.) — TheRealLurlock (talk) 02:53, 21 April 2014 (GMT)

If we are to keep them separated by Type, the the {{Online NPC Summary}} template needs the Type parameter included as it was deliberately left off without any sort of public consultation or awareness. Once that is 'restored' we can set about fixing the mess that is creature classification. We also lack hard data on species, so while a goat may very well be a goat, chickens were rabbits in Skyrim so 'guesswork' is already being used on these pages and presented as fact. And in Skyrim creatures came under the NPC type, so that isn't new with ESO. Silence is Golden^{Break the Silence} 03:33, 21 April 2014 (GMT)

I left it off because I was only including things in the template that have SOME basis in the game data. I put the template up for review and no one mentioned it. The type parameter shouldn't be included in the template at all. You can categorize this page as you see fit with your own personal types and what have you, but the infobox should be reserved for things that can be verified. I don't think we should be keeping them classified by type at all anyway. In all honesty, this discussion is probably better left up to people who have actually played the game and can understand the extremely little distinction the game really gives to these things. For instance, using soul trap on a breton enemy will trap its soul the exact same as on a mudcrab, so we should really be including Sentient Beings here as a creature categroy. In fact, this discussion should really be taking place under an Enemies page, as Bretons, Altmer, etc, should all be using the Type parameter suggested, with Humanoid under the type (if I'm understanding TRLs suggestion correctly of using the achievements as our basis of type.) Jeancey (talk) 03:46, 21 April 2014 (GMT)

If that's the case then why is species (and race for NPCs) an option. No-one besides you made anything more than a cosmetic change to that template even while sandboxed. The fact is that that template was broken for creatures, and people were to busy arguing over their need to discuss the contents, which is abundantly clear by the amount of work needed to correct it when it was eventually discovered how broken it was, which wasn't until some time after its creation. Dismissing people who haven't played the game from this conversation is ridiculous, seeing as we aren't even discussing something that's in the game. The types are defined, they do not overlap, they provide a huge benefit to with zero negative impact. The only thing that needs game experience is sorting the creatures, as there is no available data to look at that will help. Until the creatures have been sorted, any mockery of a creature being under one section when it could/should be under another is just plain unhelpful as no sorting has yet been done to mock. You suggested on IRC that you wouldn't sort them as that would imply you supported the current system, but you have already made 8 edits in total when the current system was on the page (2 undoes but still you edited), so you've already 'implied' it by your own definition. Provide some sorting and then you can explain and show with actual examples instead of hyperbole how it doesn't work. Silence is Golden^{Break the Silence} 04:10, 21 April 2014 (GMT)

(←) Fine. There. I sorted them given the silly definitions on the page. Quite a few creatures fit in several sections, with no way of separating them into one or the other. Have a fun time describing a giant snake as NOT an animal or NOT monstrous. Jeancey (talk) 04:26, 21 April 2014 (GMT)

Its actually extremely easy. Does it have any magical attacks or defenses/resistances? If it does it is a monster, if it does not it is an animal. Unfortunately the creature page is bereft of detail, unless it is and therefore it has no magical properties. I notice 'Serpent' has been left off completely now though, is there a reason or just an oversight? Silence is Golden^{Break the Silence} 11:11, 21 April 2014 (GMT)

I wouldn't even go that far. It's entirely possible there may be some that blur the lines using those criteria. But if you use the achievements like I suggested, the distinction is completely unambiguous. It's a distinction that exists explicitly in the game, so it's not some made up groupings we came up with. The only thing left to judgment then are the few creatures who don't fit into any of the groups for achievements, and I'm pretty sure those are all either bosses or some variety of passive creatures. And for the bosses, it's still pretty easy to come up with a good grouping. To take my previous example, the Bone Colossus isn't involved in any achievements, but it's pretty obviously undead. I don't think you'll find too many cases where it's a tough call. — TheRealLurlock (talk) 11:33, 21 April 2014 (GMT)

Personally I think determining whether a creature is a monster or an animal based on whether it has magical attacks/defenses is arbitrary at best. Only if that is equal to the in-game distinction between beasts and monsters should that be at all relevant, as we're documenting the game information, not what we would like to infer from it. Using the achievements as Lurlock suggested is definitely the best course of action, but we'd need to decide whether to follow the "General" list or the "Collectibles" list, as there's a bit of a crossover between "humanoids" and "nature" from the General list, and "monsters", "beasts" and "nature spirits" from the Collectibles list. I would say that using the "Collectibles" list allows for a bit more distinction to be made. --Enodoc (talk) 16:05, 21 April 2014 (GMT)

I agree, but I would also request that we use the type on EVERY npc enemy, humanoids included because the achievement exists for them as well. There is no distinction between an Orc enemy and a wolf other than appearance and attacks, so they should have a type as well. Jeancey (talk) 16:19, 21 April 2014 (GMT)

Humanoids (the playable races and other men and mer) are not covered by the Collectibles achievements, so it's okay to treat them differently. (The general Humanoids achievement does include others, like Goblins and Giants, which are - another reason the Collectibles set makes the most sense to me.) Likewise, passive creatures aren't covered by either achievement set. Kill as many Mudcrabs or Deer as you like, it won't earn you any achievements at all. I think this set provides us with some pretty unambiguous divisions between types - 8 types of creatures, which are clearly separate from both humanoids and passive creatures, so we'd have 10 total, unless we want to break up the passives into the 4-5 sub-types I mentioned above - some of which barely even count as creatures. One more category for "Other" should cover any other weird cases, like boss-types that only have a few instances in the game. But yeah, you can treat "human" enemies the same as other creatures, just use the category "Humanoid" (with the caveat that this definition of "humanoid" would not contain Giants or Goblins because they'd fall under the "Monstrous Creatures" achievement). — TheRealLurlock (talk) 05:09, 22 April 2014 (GMT)

(←) Okay, here's the breakdown, to the best of my guessing abilities. I've marked the questionable ones with '?'s. Please make any appropriate corrections in the table below if you have more information: — TheRealLurlock (talk) 17:46, 22 April 2014 (GMT)

Chart

Atronachs	Beasts		Chitinous Creatures	Daedra
Smoldering Ember Heart - Flame Atronach Fleshy Symbiont - Flesh Atronach Everfrost - Frost Atronach Crackling Lodestone - Storm Atronach	Shimmering Alit Bezoar - Alit Magnificent Bat Pelt - Giant Bat Gnarled Bear Claw - Bear Wolf's Tooth Necklace Wolf Cat's Claw - Lion? Senche-Tiger? Inert Egg - Giant snake Malformed Kagouti Tusk - Kagouti Huge Mammoth's Tooth - Mammoth Buzzing Spine - ? Bile Gilt - Bull Netch Cruel Collar - ? Scaly Durzog Hide - Durzog ? - Skeever ? - Wamasu		Petrified Spider Egg - Giant Spider Calcified Cuttle - Kwama (Scrib? Worker? Warrior? All three?) Razor-Edged Mandible - ? Luminous Blood Sac - Assassin Beetle? Polished Shell Shard - Shalk? Prized Barb - Wasp? Multifaceted Eye Gossamer Winglet ? - Dreugh ? - Giant Scorpion ? - Hoarvor ? - Scrib (different from Kwama Scrib?) ? - Thunderbug	Banekin Horn - Banekin Daedric Dewclaw - Clannfear? Burning Daedroth Eye - Daedroth Blighted Iron Collar - ? Spider's Crown - Spider Daedra ? - Daedric Titan (probably only as bosses) ? - Harvester (May be mostly bosses) ? - Ogrim ? - Scamp ? - Winged Twilight (I've only seen these as summonables, but maybe they exist in the wild? Or at least as bosses?) ? - Xivilai (I think these are mostly bosses as well)
Dwemer Constructs	Monstrous Creatures		Nature Spirits	Undead
Perfectly Balanced Gyro - ? Whirring Dynamo - ? ? - Dwarven Centurion ? - Dwarven Sphere ? - Dwarven Spider (Guessing Gyro is Sphere and Dynamo is Centurion, but then where does Spider go?)	Werewolf's Cameo - Werewolf Nose Shackle - Giant? Troll Skull - Troll Ogre Toe Ring - Ogre Stony Heart - Gargoyle Second Skin - Giant Snake? Flawless Tail Feather - Hagraven? ? - Goblin		Primal Sproutling Lashing Tentacle - Strangler? Brass Anklets Imp's Effigy - Imp Icebound Vertebra - Wisp? Wispmother? Both? Knotted Heart - Spriggan? Glowing Remnant - Will-o-the-Wisp?	Hand of Glory - Zombie? Chattering Skull - Skeleton Wraith Shackle - Wraith Tomb Urn - Lich? Twitching Draugr Hand - Draugr Ectoplasmic Discharge - Spectre? ? - Bone Colossus? (may be only bosses)
Defensive	Passive		Harvestable	Cosmetic
Guar Mudcrab Netch Senche-Tiger	Antelope Beetle Chicken Deer Falcon Fox Frog Goat Lizard Monkey	Pig Rabbit Rat Scorpion Scuttler Sheep Snake Spider Squirrel	Butterfly Torchbug	Cat Dog Horse assorted birds
Unsorted	Fish		Other
Duneripper Lurcher Nix-Hound	see Fishing		Slaughterfish (really should fall under "hazard" rather than "creature")

(←) Banekin and Scamps are different. We should also probably link to the fish. Might be a good place to put slaughterfish, since they're both a hazard and an item. —Legoless (talk) 19:16, 22 April 2014 (GMT)

Yeah, fish should be included, or at least a link. The list is quite long including the rare fish, so I think a link is best, as the Fishing page already provides a full list. That is yet another variety of passives, I guess - since they're not even really creatures that you can see unless you catch them, at which point they're simply items. As for slaughterfish - is there a one-to-one that any place where slaughterfish attacks are found can be fished for slaughterfish? Or can you only fish for them at designated fishing holes, just like all fish? If so, I'd say there are two effectively-unrelated-in-all-but-name things called "slaughterfish". One that you can catch by fishing, and one that kills you for having the nerve to attempt to explore in deep water (I'm obviously not a fan). And neither of them is a "creature" in the strictest sense. At least certainly not like they were in previous games. — TheRealLurlock (talk) 03:12, 23 April 2014 (GMT)

Anywhere that counts as "foul water" and also has a slaughterfish barrier would work. But yeah, the item is unrelated to the hazard. —Legoless (talk) 17:59, 23 April 2014 (GMT)

Creature vs. NPC

The distinction between creatures and NPCs in ESO is even fuzzier than the terms were in Skyrim. Per this edit, I think it's time we set some new criteria, instead of depending on Oblivion/Morrowind.

In ESO, the only distinction between creatures and NPCs, apart from humanoid body form, is fighting style. If you play the game for long enough, you start to notice that most NPC types, be they Bloodthorn Cultists or Dremora, are categorised into specific fighting classes (usually "Charger", "Pyromancer", "Rogue" etc). Creatures, on the other hand, usually have only one system of attack.

I think if we use this class system to judge between NPCs and creatures, it will result in a wiki categorization that's much more complementary to this specific game. This means that enemies that we might otherwise judge to be creatures, such as Golden Saints, Goblins and Lamia, are given NPC status. We may eventually have to call into question the usefulness of using the NPC/creature division in the ESO namespace at all, since right now the only distinction seems to be displaying gender in the summary box. —Legoless (talk) 21:26, 7 August 2014 (GMT)

(edit conflict) There is a usefulness in not displaying gender. By and large, most creatures are marked as male, including creatures that are, in fact female. This includes Betty Netch, Lamia, Brood Queen, Wasp Queen, etc. Thus, it is clear that the gender variable is only important when the gender actually affects appearance. As there is only one gender of Golden Saints, the gender parameter isn't all that useful. Thus, I have been going by the rule that NPCs are humanoids with multiple genders, creatures are everything else. I think that covers everything it needs to, though I could have missed some creatures that have two genders. Jeancey (talk) 21:32, 7 August 2014 (GMT)

Well, the Wrothgar update is adding female giants, and I'd sooner label them as creatures. If we decide to get rid of the distinction, I think being able to toggle the the gender display on/off by itself would be useful. —Legoless (talk) 21:38, 7 August 2014 (GMT)

Well, female and male giants might be separate creatures in the data. Whereas a Dremora Charger could be male or female without changing the NPC at all, a female giant might be stuck as just that, like Bull and Betty netch. Jeancey (talk) 21:50, 7 August 2014 (GMT)

(←) Based on this, I'd like to attempt to resurrect this proposal. It's become quite clear to me that there is a definite distinction between humanoid enemies and non-humanoid enemies in ESO, and (gender param aside) the NPC/Creature distinction can still be worth making. My original proposal suggested using the various generic classes as a way of distinguishing NPCs, but I'd like to extend the definition to include mobs that have a humanoid model or use equipment. This would include everything from Golden Saints to Skeletons, while excluding things like giants (who appear to be humanoid but don't have equipment) and lamia (who have classes but don't use the same model).

I don't want to sidetrack this discussion again, but on a separate note I really think we should modify the summary template to allow gender and soul to be (optionally?) displayed for both NPCs are creatures. All NPCs have levelled souls, and quite a lot of creatures have genders (either implied in dialogue or obvious from appearance). —Legoless (talk) 16:53, 2 May 2015 (GMT)

Gender is in the data. What do we do when the obvious gender differs from the in-game gender.... we'll be getting tons of "fixes" trying to make Betty Netch female when the data clearly states that Betty Netch are male. There just are too many lore-based female creatures that are male in the data that I don't really see a need. Also, I don't think anyone really cares that the nix-hound is male, it just isn't important. Adding souls to NPCs is something I could support in theory, but there is a long history of that being the same spot in the template, and I'm not sure wildly changing the template is needed here. How many issues have we actually had with this? Honestly, the current system is working fine. Changing draugr from creature to npc in how we deal with them is fine. I just think that don't need to change the template, but we can reevaluate how we deal with specific enemy types on a case by case basis. Jeancey (talk) 17:45, 2 May 2015 (GMT)

I've just done beta play so far, so haven't had time to see in game. The gender use is a good way to determine it, but it can't be the only thing. For example, if we have Dark Seducers as NPCs, then Golden Saints should be too, even if there is only one gender for the Saints but male Seducers have been seen. Also to me, draugr will always be creatures despite the two genders seen, as like skeletons, which were also NPCs but have decomposed somewhat, are creatures. I don't think we need to show gender for creatures in the summary though. Silence is Golden^{Break the Silence} 17:53, 2 May 2015 (GMT)

(edit conflict) I wasn't aware ESO actually had gender data, although to be honest it really doesn't come into play. Unlike in the singleplayer games, the NPC and creature summaries are based more on lore than extracted game data. It wouldn't make sense to call a betty netch male based solely on a datamined technicality when we know (and readers might want to know) that it's female by definition. Likewise, it may not be important to list someone's pet nix-hound's gender, but if we're told it then the summary box is a good a place as any to mention it, similar to how we're treating factions. I've mentioned before that the soul parameter might no longer be all that relevant when Veteran ranks are removed, but if we're listing creature souls then there's no reason not to list NPC souls as well.

As for the actual creatures that would need to be changed to NPCs, it might be good to assemble a list so that a bot can go through and make the changes. Off the top of my head, it would include Golden Saints/Aurorans, Dark Seducers, Dremora, Xivilai, Goblins, Skeletons, Draugr/Dragon Priests, and possibly Vampires if any of them are currently miscategorised. A lot of NPCs are also currently listed as Ghosts, even though they're regular NPCs and look nothing like the creature. This might also be an opportunity to talk about "feral" enemies, like Zombies, Bloodfiends, Spellfiends, Feral Bosmer Corprus Husks, and certain skeletons (Bone Flayers?). Personally I think we can call the crouching ones (Bloodfiends, Feral Bosmer) NPCs, since they appear to meet all the qualifications even if they have their own unique animations. Not so sure about the zombified ones though. —Legoless (talk) 18:02, 2 May 2015 (GMT)

Edit: Also, I think the case for Goblins/Skeletons/Draugr can be strengthened based on the fact that the player can equip costumes and disguises and play the game full-time as one. If you compare that to playing as a true creature (as is done in the Vile Laboratory for instance), you'll find that controlling a creature is much more limited than one of the proposed NPCs. This also isn't just a cosmetic change - based on the dance emote, it appears that the costume items really do affect your race. —Legoless (talk) 18:07, 2 May 2015 (GMT)

Also Werewolves. Previously they were creatures, given that we usually knew the race of the named ones and used that for those ones (unknown ones are purely creatures). Its the one category I didn't make today because I'm not ready to define them as NPCs and was looking clarification. Silence is Golden^{Break the Silence} 18:16, 2 May 2015 (GMT)

I was thinking about werewolves. Even though playing as one isn't quite as limited as playing as a wisp or a monkey, they should probably remain as creatures, since they have different models, animations and attacks, and can't wear (visible) equipment. This might necessitate a separate table on pages for people who appear both as humans and as werewolves (e.g. ON:Faolchu the Changeling). —Legoless (talk) 18:23, 2 May 2015 (GMT)

My approach is more "sensory" than technical. It surely is subjective and might be challenging if the categorization is to be done by a bot, however, I believe that human perception is as much as important when describing another universe. To me, all characters that belong to one of the Races are NPCs by default. I would define an NPC as a character who retained the sense of self (even if the form was altered) and is able to communicate such sense to others. So, vampires are NPCs, while bloodfiends and zombies are creatures. Skeletons are defined on a case by case basis. While skeletons raised by necromancers are creatures in general, the dwellers of Stillrise Village are definitely NPCs, and so is Tarshea. Werewolves who can control themselves are NPCs, while generic werewolf mobs are creatures. Spirits (not ghosts), like The Boatmaster or Naeruuna are NPCs, while Forlorn Farela is a creature.  ~Shuryard (talk) 06:00, 4 May 2015 (GMT)

Animal vs. monster

I'm quite confused as to what exactly is a "magical ability" when differentiating the two. For example, the Nix-Hound can teleport and the Shalk can breathe fire, but are listed as Animals. On the other hand, Durzog can only bite and Trolls use their claws and pound the ground, yet are listed as Monsters. Shall I switch them around, along with some others? Thanks. Contraptions (talk) 12:58, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I think that distinction was originally introduced for Oblivion to distinguish between real world animals and fantasy monsters. Not sure why things like nix-hounds woule be listed as animals. Makes sense in-universe I guess, but it seems very subjective. Similarly, trolls are totally monsters despite not using magic. —Legoless (talk) 13:08, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I see. It's not a big deal really, just wanted to make sure that I'm putting things in the right place. I guess I should put the Haj Mota under monster and the Kotu Gava under animal then. Contraptions (talk) 13:20, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

(←) Are "animal" and "monster" actual differentiations used in TES games, or simply something we made up? It seems very arbitrary, and if the latter, could use a better definition IMO. Just sorting between animals found in real life, and fantasy creatures would be much better. Weroj (talk) 15:20, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Pretty sure we did it. Jeancey (talk) 17:40, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Actually I think leveled lists in Oblivion distinguished between them. Could be mistaken. —Legoless (talk) 22:18, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

NPCs

At some point someone decided to start marking most undead types as NPCs rather than creatures. These include skeletons, draugr, mummies, zombies, bloodfiends, as well as goblins and rieklings. More ambiguous are the Xivilai and Xivkyn (both listed on the lore bestiary along with the Dremora NPCs), and the Soul Shriven, or at least their feral versions. There is overlap on most of these types and seemingly absent coherent singular direction in which to go with these types. Can we get some clarification? Silence is Golden^{Break the Silence} 21:31, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I think that we consider humanoids that share at least some animations with player characters NPCs, and other beings are creatures (see the discussion just above). By that definition, the Xivilai and Xivkyn should be NPCs too. I'm not sure if real consensus was reached in that discussion, though. --Vordur Steel-Hammer (TINV1K) 22:30, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

We've been changing over humanoids and ferals for a while now, but there's very likely a ton of legacy pages still marked as creatures. The lore bestiary really bears no relevance though, so there's no need to change that. —Legoless (talk) 22:46, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

The bestiary is for creatures, it stopped being for enemies a long time ago, so there shouldn't be any non-creature ESO-new enemies on it; that's why its relevant. I also asked for clarification because I can't see anywhere this change was decided, and if there was a drive should have been done to change them so that there wouldn't be a question later about why there is a huge overlap between them. Silence is Golden^{Break the Silence} 22:52, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Animals vs passive creatures

I don't fully understand the criteria defining the two groups. From the descriptions, it sounds like animals are supposed to be able to strike back when attacked (but without using magical abilities), while passive creatures either can't retaliate or can't be attacked at all.

But then, a lot of creatures listed under "animals" can't attack you. One example would be antelope, which is listed as an Animal, while deer are categorized as Passive Creatures, even though the two are identical in terms of mechanics.

Am I missing something? --Vordur Steel-Hammer (TINV1K) 10:53, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Antelope should definitely be recategorized. There seems to be a bunch of them (monkey, squirrel), so I assume they were just listed there in error. —Legoless (talk) 14:19, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Redefinition

I'll admit it was "wrong" to use 'magical abilities' as a definer, as mundane creatures tend to have a few magical resistances. However, I do think that animals and monsters should be kept apart, and even the game recognises the differences in the trophy section. The trophy section should not be copied fully, mostly because it doesn't include all the creatures, and also because it mixes daedra through the other sections.

In my overhaul, which should be the last mass-reorganization of the page, the overriding factor is that a creature can only be of one type. An animal cannot be a monster or passive. The very idea of having sections is to split them, not overlap them. I can imagine this was done to try and point out the arbitrary nature of the classifications, but is detrimental to the page's usefulness. However, given that a few creatures (eg scorpions, spiders) currently share one page for both passive and aggressive types they are there with a note explaining their exceptionalism.

I've changed the definition of monsters from "magical" to "terrifying". This is again arbitrary and should be taken from the viewpoint of an average citizen of Tamriel. There has been a lot of trouble trying to settle on some brief outlying 'types' of creatures and I would not like to see this more indefinite definition abused as the previous definitions were. Silence is Golden^{Break the Silence} 15:22, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

It looks good to me; I moved Mournful Aegis to undead but otherwise the current split seems the most logical. I think a common sense approach should work fine here. —Legoless (talk) 16:05, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Daedric Yaghra?

This seems like a Crown Store miscategorisation to me. Yaghra are sea creatures, not Daedra. —Legoless (talk) 05:13, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

We know too little about the Yaghra to say anything for sure about them—considering their connection to the Abyssal Pearls, they could simply be Daedra summoned by the Sload. As they are not treated as Daedra in-game, nor are implied to be that anywhere other than the Crown Store, it really isn’t safe enough to list them as such here, though. —Aran Anumarile Autaracu Alatasel (talk) 09:26, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Elite Creatures

I am seeing a number of references on various creatures, that they are elite and therefore immune to crowd control effects. Do we have a page somewhere that defines Elite Enemies and what that means for a creature? Solomon1972 (talk) 15:48, 17 February 2023 (UTC)