Talk:NPC Template

Proposed Changes

Should we have a category or some other notation for NPCs who will/won't talk to players in beast forms? Karunama (talk) 01:54, 7 October 2014 (CDT)

I don't have Beast Forms gameplay experience, but it makes sense if it is not super obvious in-game. So you mean like eg. the Suspicious Cow in Eltibule? Well if we have a category something like "Beast Form Friendly NPCs" then we can make a DPL (DynamicPageList) listing within Beast Forms. But... is it the case that some talk to spider but not wolf, some talk to wolf but not cow , etc? (I don't know). If not, then the category makes sense. Next we could potentially add that to a future Template:NPC infobox eg. "Talks to Beasts" yes/no. Until then, we can add it to the NPC pages so we don't forget. I think it would fit in the intro text? Another sentence "John Doe talks to players in [[Beast Forms[Beast Form]]" as it will be high up the page, and it won't clog most pages (I think it's limited to a few NPCs). We could also add a section only on relevant NPCs. I prefer the extra sentence so we don't needlessly lengthen the NPC pages for this small info. In time, we can move this info to the "NPC infobox" (another sidebar "info card" thingy). But either way is fine. Cheers --Gorgonzola (talk) 04:48, 7 October 2014 (CDT)

Shop Table Layout (new template with icons)

Btw, I realize now there is no column for Favor. It sounds like favor is often a requirement and may be worth documenting. On the other hand I think you soon realize as a player, that nearly everything of value is going to be locked with favor anyway. But that's just me. For the time being, don't worry.. with this template format, it is only a matter of adding a new parameter, if we really need to add favor as a column.. we can do it. Just i'd rather focus on other priorities as long as it works reasonably well. The template can accomodate any number of rows. It allows to make complex formatting of table rows with little code in the article. --Gorgonzola (talk) 08:16, 7 October 2014 (CDT)

Proper Categorization of NPCs (including creatures) to work with DPL (Dynamic Page Lists)

Some things that come to mind while testing DPL on Goblin and Arthropod (creature types). We have to take technical requirements of DPL in mind when designing the categories so we can pull useful lists.

• Category:Serbule NPCs and Category:Under the Hand Bosses seem extraneous and have no purpose
• Instead, we can pull DPL lists that include one ore more simpler categories, for example Serbule + NPCs, or Bosses + Under the Hand

For example Ancient Skeleton Guard could be categorized as Serbule, Creatures, Skeleton

For DPL purposes I think we should use NPCs for friendly characters, and Creatures for things that can be attacked.

Then we can pull (using DPL options):

• Friends (friendly characters) : Category:NPCs & Category:Serbule (zone, ptional)
• Bosses (creatures) : Category:Bosses (Creatures here is implicit) & Category:Serbule (zone, optional) & Category:Arthropod (creature type, optional)
• Foes (basic enemies) : Category:Creatures & Category:Serbule (zone, optional) & NOT Category:Bosses (DPL notcategory option!)

Conclusion:

• A global category that overlaps both enemies and friendly NPCs could be made, but then we could also pull all NPCs + Creatures with DPL.
• A global enemy/attackable entity category that does not overlap friendly NPCs => Creatures
• A global category that includes all friendly (non attackable) NPCs => NPCs (NPCs does sound like an overarching category for both friends and foes... but thats what we used so far, it's short so I'd prefer to keep using that, .. also NPCs is often used to refer to distinguish from "mobs" in many games).
• A global category for named creatures, currently we use => Bosses

Do we need a "named creature" category? I'd rather avoid adding more categories unless there is a use case.

Do we need a "mini boss" category? I'd rather avoid adding more categories unless there is a use case. Though here we could identify the ones that have a curse through the use of the MOB infobox template and some DPL trickery (we have a curse parameter).

For bosses we can make some trickery with DPL to pull lists based on MOB infobox parameters: for example only those that have a curse. Any template parameter in Template:MOB infobox can potentially be used as a filter. --Gorgonzola (talk) 15:31, 25 October 2014 (CDT)

Zone Categories

I think we should use Category:Kur Moutains instead of Category:Kur Mountains NPCs. The latter creates additional categories that are not necessary since DPL can pull from multiple categories (eg. "Kur Moutains" AND "NPCs").

Such zone categories coudl potentially include other things like quests, points of interest and so on. In each case, we can pull (zone) + (other category). --Gorgonzola (talk) 15:39, 25 October 2014 (CDT)

Simplifying Categories (with DPL in mind)

Bosses & Creatures : a boss is implicitly a creature, so it may not be required to include both categories. I can't say as of writing we'll have to see use cases.

Bosses & NPCs : NPCs should be used for friendly characters, so DPL does not need to exclude them. eg. All Orc Bosses are "Orc&Bosses" and no exclusion is needed. Adding the bosses to "Creatures" category here does not cause an issue. Adding to NPCs makes it required to use an exclusion in DPL which is a requirement that's best not used if we can avoid it.

Overkill?

Actually, I'm not sure. Maybe DPL shouldn't be abused for things that can be fairly easily maintained, where it limits flexbility in editing pages.

Categories on the other hand can be useful for example we can pull all the Orcs on the creature type page.

I'm also not quite sure about the Zone categories, whether to use "Serbule" or "Serbule NPCs". I can't think of specific uses cases atm. --Gorgonzola (talk) 15:52, 25 October 2014 (CDT)