From Cities

Jump to: navigation, search


Helping newbies

As it was said further down, most monsters that a newbie is likely to encounter are on the top of the page in the element sections. However the cows/sheeps/wolves/... are common too but they are described in the quite clutered 'other' section. I think we should add a section for common 'Kingdom neutral monsters--Solune 20:43, 3 August 2007 (BST)

Individual Monster Pages

I don't think we need pages for every monster. They are largely redundant with the information in the main Monsters page and with each other (i.e. do we have to say "Air monsters are prevalent on Crags and Mountains" on every Air monster page? And a lot of the monsters have standard drops, so describing their drops is not very useful.) Conversely, if I'm looking at an item page, I don't need to know if it has a miniscule probability of dropping from a Sparrow; if there's a direct correlation (e.g. Antidote and Bats, Coloured Scarves and Ice Warriors) it can be noted, but for general drops it's usually more useful to look here. In short, I think it's hard to say enough about any individual monster to warrant its own page, with very few exceptions, and the resulting linkage clutters up existing pages without real benefit. Thoughts? --Dragon 06:37, 2 August 2007 (BST)

Then someone needs to clean up the mess that the monster page is in. If I look up sparrow, I'd like to see it's stats in an easy manner. What about getting something where the redirect will lead to monster#sparrow and not the top of the monster page, and then a link to that itemstats page but for each monster's entry? --Vainglory 06:56, 2 August 2007 (BST)
There's really little to say about most monsters, though. What isn't an easy manner about "Sparrow (1hp, 1 damage)"? There's not much to say other than that--the drops for many monsters are not worth noting. There's also the Monsters:Quickref page for a more tabular format. --Dragon 07:53, 2 August 2007 (BST)
Alright. Then I'll use the redirect to go to the Monster Quick Reference table. It is far more coherent than the regular monsters page.--Vainglory 10:39, 2 August 2007 (BST)

What about making the Monsters:Quickref into an index of links smaller monster tables by type of monster? That way if you were looking for a particular zodiac monster using the search feature, you wouldn't have to scroll down quite so far. --Vainglory 10:42, 2 August 2007 (BST)

Both the Quickref page and the main monster page have links to the various sections of the page at the top. I'm not sure what separating the page is meant to accomplish when you could just click the link to Monsters:Quickref#Zodiac_Monsters. As for using the search feature...I'm of the opinion that the Monsters page should be a complete description of all monsters (indeed, it's basically functioned as such so far), so why would you search the wiki for a particular monster instead of going straight to the Monsters page? (Besides which, having the monsters page *and* individual pages means there are more places to update when new monsters are discovered, or more information about an existing monster, so they will inevitably get out of sync. I'm not a big fan of the quickref page for that reason, although that's had the attention of Isambard's wiki-OCD so it's pretty well synchronized.  :) ) --Dragon 18:49, 2 August 2007 (BST)
I meant for redirects. Without making some minor changes to how redirects work, you really can't put in a redirect to Monsters:Quickref#Zodiac_Monsters, as it will just link to the top of the page. Since even the Quickref page is so huge, really the only quick reference is the lack of clutter from the Monsters page and the organization. I think the problem is that you are looking at the page from the point of view of someone who knows what most or all of the monsters do. Look at it from the point of view of a new player using the search feature to find out what a particular monster does, and see if how it works for you. --Vainglory 04:20, 3 August 2007 (BST)
When I was a new player, I kept the Monsters page open in a separate tab all the time. The most common monsters a newbie is likely to run into are near the top of the page, arranged by alignment and then by size. While it's not immediately obvious where something like a Cow might be (and even then, you can probably guess it's under "Other Monsters" and then it's alphabetical), I would argue that it's quicker to do a control-F on the monsters page to find a monster than to use the wiki search function. --Dragon 05:25, 3 August 2007 (BST)
A side note for Vainglory: Monsters:Quickref#Zodiac Monsters works just fine. To make it look better, though, you can use [[Monsters:Quickref#Zodiac Monsters|Piscean]] to get Piscean, or some such. Granted, the "Other Monsters" category is pretty large, but it's still alphabetical, and the rest of the categories are small enough. PotatoEngineer 07:33, 3 August 2007 (BST)
In my browser, clicking on a link to Monsters:Quickref#Zodiac Monsters will get me there, but if I follow a redirect, I'll get to the top of the page. --Solune 07:47, 3 August 2007 (BST)
Exactly my point. Also, isn't the purpose of a wiki to be able to easily search and find information? Shouldn't the search function be effectively a ctrl+f? If you have to ctrl+f to get to something that should tell you that there is something wrong. What's wrong with wanting to type in Sparrow in the search window and that take me to the entry for the monster? Since PotatoEngineer made a site that tracks all of the statistics for the monsters and people utilize it on a regular basis, it stands to reason that there is some demand for it and I think it would be pretty nice to have that information available on the wiki. Then we could have it easily searchable and accessable for those who want that sort of thing. Sure, I have come to find out that all monsters have a chance at dropping anything, but don't you think new players might want to know what the common item drops for a cow is? --Vainglory 11:36, 3 August 2007 (BST)
The purpose of a wiki is wahtever the users decide. In this case it's not just an encyclopedia, it's part community/discussion too, so having nothing but information would be a loss to all users. Currently the Talk: pages aren't used much, so discussions go on the "list" style pages. If Talk: pages were used more people may check them more often, but I still think we'd be losing some of what makes this place what it is by everything being sterile. God forbid we end up like wikipedia with "cite needed" and suchlike plastered all over the place MrFoo 17:06, 3 August 2007 (BST)
I got bit by the redirect bug a while back too. I'd love to be able to make Sparrow a redirect to Sparrow's entry on the Monsters page (or even just the Air Monsters section would be close enough), but you can't in this version of mediawiki. --Greycat 17:10, 3 August 2007 (BST)
What I was pointing out was that it was redirecting to a user page instead of the monster page, however, everything is moot now. --Vainglory 20:41, 3 August 2007 (BST)
Couple of points here. The wiki search function will never be as good as your browser's when all the information is on one page. (Well, I don't know about IE, but assume it can't be that primitive.) Why waste time and resources by sending the search to another computer when the one you've got will do it just as well, or better given mediawiki's limitations? It's like going to the library and using the card catalog to look something up in the dictionary.
As a new player, I would find an easily-accessible explanation of the monster-drops system a lot more useful than Big Brother or any other list of what individual monsters drop. Perhaps we should add or link one to the Introduction to Cities? (I'd do it right now, but have way too much real-life work to do.) I like the new Monster Spawning Rules page, something like that would be very helpful to new players.
Having said all that, I will also note that you are free to create and use all the individual monster pages you want. However, as has already been noted, they will not be as easy to keep up-to-date as the main Monsters index. Even the information at Monsters:Quickref is incomplete in spite of everyone's best efforts. (I linked there for the first time yesterday and found a few important details that were common knowledge but missing.) You've been warned. :) -Scrumbucket 18:13, 3 August 2007 (BST)
No, it actually seems that I am not. --Vainglory 20:41, 3 August 2007 (BST)
At the risk of putting words into darksatanic's mouth, he seems more concerned about widespread changes to the wiki rather than adding another indexing layer. Sticking information in a new place isn't as big of a deal as, say, changing existing information. There was a bit of confusion when the individual items got their own pages, too. That said, I believe that few people aside from Vainglory will actually maintain the individual monster pages, so they're likely to fall out of fashion. This wiki is a fairly small community, and only a subset of the wiki users are willing to do maintenance on the various pages. PotatoEngineer 22:06, 3 August 2007 (BST)

Astral Monsters Ordering

I know that convention is to order alphabetically within each section, but given that the angels have a clear ordering with mathematical relationships in HP/damage (and also since there aren't too many of them) I thought ordering them by size would be more appropriate in this instance. --Dragon 07:35, 25 August 2006 (BST)


I just wanted to let people know, on a hunch I tried using a fishing rod and net on the headhunters, thought turn about is fair play... but it had no effect. In fact it was 0 damage given. Wanted to let people know incase they thought of it too. -Stien 04:05, 1 September 2006 (BST)

Table of monsters

Would it be a good idea to have all this information in table form? I'm thinking something like..

Name Alignment Initial Health Damage x Attacks Notes
Earth Worm Earth 1 1x1 can be spawned from can of worms
Esquilax Earth 7 1x1

obviously this would be a big job, and take some time, so I was wondering people's opinions before starting it... ELeeming 17:08, 24 February 2006 (GMT)

I'd use a template so you can add or change the columns... if this works...

Name Alignment Initial Health Damage x Attacks Notes
Earth Worm earth 1 1x1 Can be spawned from a Can of Worms
Vampire spirit 150 10x1 can be killed in one attack using Pointy Stick, drains XP, can be passed using garlic
Thunder Bird air 30 2x2 Drops 5 Feathers

So do people think this would be a good idea? ELeeming 15:26, 27 February 2006 (GMT)

+1 from me! Ant 19:03, 27 February 2006 (GMT)
+1 from me also! Map 22:53, 17 March 2006 (GMT)
Alright, I'll start work on it the next time I have an hour spare. ELeeming 16:07, 20 March 2006 (GMT)
Looks good, although I wouldn't use a coloured background on the notes column. - Isambard 16:22, 20 March 2006 (GMT)
I agree, just color the monster name, otherwise it's kind of hard to read. Maybe make a few seperate pages, one unified list of all monsters, and pages for each element?
  • Finally starting! ELeeming 15:10, 28 March 2006 (BST)

I don't like it because I can't see other people's comments and it will be hard for people to add more. For example, I remembered that there was something that I wanted to know about Triffids but when I saw the new table, the info wasn't there. I also don't see how it could be included without taking up a whole lot more space. You could put discussion on another page but I don't think that is as convenient. Maybe someone else out there has an elegant solution that could incorporate tables, be easy to use, and allow for community contributions. DiscoBean 15:32, 28 March 2006 (BST)

I'm guessing the Triffids thing was about poison? There's already a lot about that under Dose of Antidote, and at the bottom of this page. Adding new monsters at least is easy (copy/paste an exsisting line and change numbers etc.) Wikis are designed to have information and discussion on seperate pages (although perhaps a seperate wiki page for each section would be sufficient?). ELeeming 15:54, 28 March 2006 (BST)
That page does not exist; where were you trying to point? (Suggestions, maybe?) BlaisedeC 17:34, 28 March 2006 (BST)
Ditto. It looks cluttered and makes it hard to add anything to the page. What would be ok with me would be to make a quick reference table. Use the colors to indicate alignment, and only list HP and Attacks values, but keep the main monster page the way it is, there are important discussions about monsters that cannot be easily placed in the table. DWE 15:45, 28 March 2006 (BST)
I honestly don't think it's that difficult to add things. New monsters can be added in a new line and perhaps footnotes could be added in at the bottom of each table? ELeeming 15:54, 28 March 2006 (BST)

I've done the four main elemental tables, I'll see what people are saying tomorrow about the rest. ELeeming 16:48, 28 March 2006 (BST)

Footnotes are a poor excuse for having space to actually talk about a monster. If Elsewhere adds a new monster that has special properties where will we discuss our findings as we attempt to figure out what it does? I think the table is good as an additional way of organizing the data, but it does have enough space to put more detailed comments. If you want to make the monsters page into a single big table that would be ok, but we also need space for discussing the monsters so if you wanted to make a discussion page for each monster I would be ok with that. I also think it is too cluttered. Perhaps you could have a * that indicates that there are comments and that one should check the monster subpage. DWE 16:50, 28 March 2006 (BST)

If you really want to do this do it like so:

Name Initial Health Damage x Attacks
Earth Worm 1 1x1

you could make the monster id another property in the template, I guess.

I think maybe the tables would be a good quick reference tool but it shouldn't replace the original monsters page which is more inviting to discussion. If you still want to go with the tables then I would suggest a "discuss" link in the notes column that links directly to the corresponding line in the original page. I still prefer to have the original page come up when I click the "monsters" link on the main page. I might go a step further and suggest that a "tables" link be placed on the main page. The "tables" page could contain a number of various tables from different topics. Actually, I think that would be great! One page that contained a quick reference to most of the stuff I need and a link on every item going to it's original location. DiscoBean 17:36, 28 March 2006 (BST)

After seeing the tables in action, I'm going to throw in a vote against, mostly for the reasons DiscoBean and DWE have already mentioned. If people adhere to a general template (which they have, in general, been doing)--that is, if every monster has HP and damage right after the name--it's just as easy to find this information as if it's in a table, and it's much easier to have short discussions or give extended details about the monster. Footnotes really aren't that good in this situation, and frequently there's minor discussion about a monster that really doesn't warrant an additional page.

For example, Darksatanic recently made an edit stating that Triffids drop up to three Triffid Stings. I don't want to delete this, because I figure he might know what he's talking about

On the other hand, it could just be a sign of advancing senility. They only drop up to two stings. It's crocodiles I was thinking of, which drop up to three scales. Darksatanic 17:49, 28 March 2006 (BST)

, but after killing a lot of Triffids I've never seen them drop more than two. I might want to post a note/question to this effect, but in the table there's really no convenient place to do this. If the table were self-contained and there were an additional Triffid-discussion page, not only would most of these pages be short or nonexistent, but I envision problems keeping the individual monster page in synch with the details on the main table.

Also, in the example table immediately above, making the monster name a link causes severe readability problems with the default CSS (blue on green).--Dragon 17:45, 28 March 2006 (BST)

Yeah I noticed that but I think the page tables are going to get voted down anyways so... DWE 18:27, 28 March 2006 (BST)

As a compromise I have made a Quick Reference Page. I took out the column and simplified the Notes (I feel that the notes should not be so long as to wrap around). This is no substitute for having actual discussion about the monster and it shouldn't be. Consider the Small Earth Demon whose attack is 1 from max HPx1. I don't even know what that means?! There are too many specialized monsters to put them all in the table. We need some longer explanations. DWE 18:27, 28 March 2006 (BST)

When I said to place a link on the main page to "tables" I actually meant to make "tables" one of the links in the navigation pane that is on the left side of every page. The "tables" page can contain tables for monsters, items, quests, and terrains. The "Monsters" page should be reverted back to its original form. The tables on the "Tables" page should have indexed links that point back to that items place on its original page. It's your baby though ;) I don't plan on making any major updates myself. DiscoBean 21:22, 28 March 2006 (BST)

I went ahead and reverted the relevant sections of the page. There was lots of great information that simply couldn't make it into the table. Such as how much the Tundra Troll Regenerates and information on triffid stings, and the damage that skull gulls cause, etc... I think a table is a good idea as an additional resource and you are welcome to do whatever you want with the QuickReference page I started but I think we need the monsters page as it is. DWE 00:13, 29 March 2006 (BST)
  • Well, fair doos. I guess the fact that the original idea had sat here for a month with only 4 comments should have warned me that people don't actually use the discussion pages. I still think it's bad wiki-ing to have discussions on an article page, but I'll keep my mouth shut and count to ten instead... :) ELeeming 09:24, 29 March 2006 (BST)


Has anyone any wisdom to offer on whether monsters of particular types cluster in particular areas? e.g. would you be more likely to find low-level Earth monsters around Earth City?

Doesn't seem like it. Mostly they are distributed by terrain type, not geographical area. Zabieru 21:31, 26 February 2006 (GMT)

Spawn linkage

In New Stuff, Elseware mentions If there are 2 players competing to be top of the eagles kills list then it should cull eagles, allowing the occasional Roc to spawn. ...

That suggests to me that certain monster types are linked, and if you're having trouble finding a certain monster, you might have to cull the related one(s) to find it. For example, I'm having trouble finding an Esquilax to finish my Creature List and maybe I need to nuke some Gnomes or something...

Does this ring true with anyone?

jmb 13:23, 28 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Sort of. Water creatures seem to appear at a much higher rate in lakes/swamps, earth creatures appear in forests/jungles, air creatures is crags/mountains, and fire creatures in badlands/desert. So clearing out forests is a reasonable strategy to spawn an esquilax.

I get the same impression and added the info to the creature entry. I someone disagrees or knows the above info is wrong, please speak up. Markus 23:37, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)


How does poison work? I've seen bunches of "you lose a HP" style messages, so I guess it's measured in realtime; does it eventually wear off by itself? Can it take your last HP?

I've heard there's an antidote, but that it's hard to come by...

Kill some cave bats; they leave some antidote behind.

It takes you down to 1HP but doesn't kill you (or at least level 2 doesn't)

Poison will not kill you. It will take 1 HP per level of poison you have (level 2, 2hp - level 3, 3hp - and so on). It takes the HP on the hour, game time. Antidote will cure 2 levels of poison, so if you're poisoned to level 3, you'll need 2 doses. Poison does not wear off. Syagrius 00:19, 29 March 2006 (BST)
On the other hand, if you die you're no longer poisoned.


Ok i killed a Naughty Thief with a Golden Gun dealing 583 damage killing it and got this message

You attack the Naughty Thief.
You lose 583 Gold Pieces.
You lose a Shilling.
You cause 250 points of damage, and receive 2500 experience.
The Naughty Thief says 'With my last breath I curse Earl Mapster MD!'
You slay the Naughty Thief.
You gain a Knife.

I havn't noticed any effects yet but what should i do to break the curse?

I'm sure you'll find out eventually. Darksatanic 10:20, 17 March 2006 (GMT)

Snakes - Garter Snake ?

Hello everybody, small question here.

I am now West of Water City, at the first entrance between the Rurals (thanks for the map, Darksatanic). Around me I see Snakes with high HP (not round numbers: 591, 381, ...).

I don't see them explicitely mentioned in the Monsters page, only Snakes of 30 HP. Are they the same as the Garter Snakes?

When I attacked them, they gave two attacks of 5 damage. After a while, it became 3 attacks, I don't know why. Also, something strange happened. I do not remember what was written, I had not made a copy-paste and I am too low on AP now, but it looked a little bit like this:

You attack the Snake
You cause 4 points of damage, and receive 20 experience.
The Snake attacks you.
The Snake causes 5 points of damage.
It is crushing you (???)
The Snake causes 5 points of damage.

Crushing me? I was afraid for poison, might it be a Boa?

Greetings, Conzy 15:58, 6 April 2006 (BST)

Nessy Hoax

  • Nessy - Yes, we don't know anything about this one. What I've seen might have even been a log or something -- I forgot my camera :( --Deva 20:57, 10 February 2006 (GMT)
  • Let me guess- the one and only sighting was on the road near the market going to Water City? I have to claim this one as mine. I was bored, armed with a wand of illusion, and a will to use it. See also the "Knight of the Hokey Pokey" and the "One Eyed, One Horned, Flying Purple People Eater" that I had also created nearby- Though I know that they were all destroyed soon after creation (I checked) Just clearing up any mystery here... Pageturner
  • Damn, Pageturner - way to go and spoil the fun by revealing that! I would have let people look for it for a few days, at least. -- Sertularian 12:16, 27 February 2006 (GMT)
  • It was up here for 17 days, not a few. Not to mention, anyone with a Tarot deck could disprove its existince.Sorry to spoil the fun though. Pageturner


Hello, anybody got a good tip on where to find Triffids? I have been wondering about for quite a time now, but I don't think I've ever met one. Apparently, I have more chance of finding the Knights Who Say Ni or a PiƱata In A Tree than to run in to a Triffid. Thanks, Conzy 12:58, 4 May 2006 (BST)

Ok, I found two in the Jungle within the Dark Mountains, but these guys are really not easy. I should have a Merz bow or something :-) Conzy 14:59, 4 May 2006 (BST)
Yes, Triffids are found in jungles in the Interior. They aren't normally that uncommon, although sometimes they become rare (when people hunt them, but not the other Jungle monsters, they can get crowded out). Also, if you're Earth-aligned, hunting Triffids is...pretty dangerous. (I suppose you could be using a Ghastly Bling and a bow, but if you're not, you're probably getting hit--and poisoned--a lot. It's probably safer to trade for the Stings instead.) --Dragon 16:28, 4 May 2006 (BST)
Alternatively, visit Monster Island and have a talk to a Mirror Monster. A Fire Wand brightens the outlook for triffid hunting immensely -- Thog 22:45, 7 May 2006 (BST)


Moved from the info about the llama:

I confirm that some Llamas can do 6 damage.--Hamelin 06:34, 24 March 2006 (GMT)
I (reluctantly) confirm that some Llamas can do 7 damage... just got killed by one of them *gg*.--LordAsriel 15:12, 13 April 2006 (GMT)
Cuidado, llamas! Conzy 08:42, 26 June 2006 (BST)

Mr. T. the Parrot

I know it is off-topic, but I just wanted to share that this one really cracked me up :-) Cool name for a parrot (40E 18N). Conzy 08:42, 26 June 2006 (BST)


Is it just me or do these guys never spawn recently - I've been hanging around the dungeons for ages and have only seen rats - anyone else seen them or have I just been unlucky? --Bel3338 17:24, 24 June 2007 (BST)


Any particular reason only the neutral monsters have borders on this page? Eg: CSaur rather than CSaur. It doesn't look quite right to me, but I wanted to make sure there wasn't some particular reason for it before I went and changed them all. -Scrumbucket 00:43, 1 March 2008 (GMT)

It probably has to so with the text being smaller when there's a border. Or perhaps ignorance. I still find the bordered text readable, though. PotatoEngineer 02:03, 1 March 2008 (GMT)
Personal tools