Talk:NPC rank

So that we have the information here, it is currently suggested that creature pages not be created with separate 'veteran' or 'champion' appellations in their title. 'Rank' also brings up the question of page policy, depending on how it functions. Are the ranked monsters consistent or random? Should the possibility of rank be an unspoken given on pages or should it be specifically included? As in, should we list enemies as Veteran Ascalonian Warriors or simply Ascalonian Warriors? Are there non-named champion-type monsters, and do we want to give champions separate billing in a page? Thoughts? Redshift 12:29, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I think there are two cases:

1) the ranked monster is like, or very much like, the common monster (Ascalonian Monk vs Veteran Ascalonian Monk). These creatures are documented on the same page. That a ranked version exists should be documented on the creature page... in some way. :)

2) the ranked monster is special - it has a special name or it has a special event tied to it something which makes it really different from a stock monster - it should get its own page. If it needs to be disambiguated from a common monster (that is; if there is a Champion Giant Boar which has a 'kill this creature' event tied to it but there are also Giant Boars which are smaller and just stand around all day) I think there should be separate pages but the champion gets the page title 'Giant Boar (champion)'. That every other creature page starts with 'veteran' is starting to bug me...

As to listing of monsters in the area, I think rank vs normal is information about the area so should be captured in some way. Looking at the Ascalonian dungeon page, I'm not delighted by the idea of listing common monsters then listing the same monsters again in a veteran section immediately underneath. The sectioning seems to work best for special champion monsters. The best idea I have so far is I could make some different coloured(green = common, orange = vet, red = champ) tango icons based on the 'kill this monster' event icon (the horned skull thing) which we can attach to listings of monsters to show which different ranks occur in the area to the reader? -- aspectacle  00:27, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I support same page documentation and would also like to avoid redundancy when especially the case is a result of a system change instead of a true differentiation. I'm not quite sure of how I might approach the champion listing; I do like the champions in a separate section, but I'm not settled yet about using color designations and their possible complication of documentation. I also do like specifically incorporating the tango icons; we should keep an eye on how events might present themselves and build from concrete examples (like the giant boar/broodmother/skelk scavenger). Apologies for brevity ;). Redshift 03:10, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

...Should I find it incredibly disturbing or comforting that almost 9 months later I have forgotten that I made these comments and yet am making them again? At any rate, I still stand by this discussion: redirects for the veterans and retaining a content page for Champion rank monsters (as well as creating a Category:Champion or something like that). Redshift 11:05, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Hum. So, say I find a longsword of Chilling. Should I create a separate page for the Chillilng weapon? My point: Absent evidence to the contrary, I believe the Veteran/Champion states are simply prefixes with a defined set of buffs. So long as the prefixes are defined on their own pages and their buffs consistent, then I see no point in a special page for Veteran or Champion or any other prefixes/sufixes they invent. It's one thing if the game doesn't do anything special for 'veteran' critters, but it sounds like veteran and champion are defined states, not very different from a mini-boss buff. For a fictional extreme case of a named foe: Demi-god Zhaitan of Undeath. Lets be honest, if it's always 'Demi-god Zhaitan of Undeath', and Demi-god and Undeath are both defined states (like Furious and Enchanting swords in GW1 have defined buffs) then people will not refer to him as 'Demi-do Zhaitan of Undeath'. That's a lot of typing to make, or words to say, and it conveys no information that is not already common knowledge to the playerbase. People will just call the critter 'Zhaitan'. If someone plugs Demi-god Zhaitan of Undeath into the search, fine, have the redirect in place for the Zhaitan page. This same should carry across to other pages. Eg: "Olias-ling. This is a level 48 Veteran human with the Undeath trait. Be wary, as he will summon minions when threatened." Torrenal 15:22, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree with the above. Puk 01:29, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Legendary

Noticed on the main page that veterans and elites and champs all have noted that they deal more damage, have more armor etc, however Legendary doesn't have anything elaborated. Since I don't personally know much about Legendary (like can the even be defeated??) Can some please put a little more detail under that heading. Like, DEALS MASSIVE DAMAGE or similar :) (I think it even says that in the game doesnt it??) Puk 01:29, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Epic or something

Aren't creatures such as Zhaitan, The Shatterer and similar enemies with an entire portrait above their healthbar in a monster rank above legendary or something like that? Should this be added? TheRealBoz 08:57, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

It's a fun idea, but I can't really think of a practical use for such classification. In fact, it would only, if added to articles and creature infoboxes, confuse the occassional reader who isn't familiar with it. Of course the common creature ranking isn't explained in the game anywhere at all (afaik?) but it's simple enough for most people to understand and recognize. Creatures with the "big potrait" are quite different from most legendaries, after all, and usually cause camera shifting and other such cinematic-like effects in midst of battle. Mediggo 17:50, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

It's been a few months, but I wonder if there's anything acceptable to categorize monsters with large portraits in the wiki. Geekfox 01:11, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

IIRC, Anet refers to these bosses as "World Bosses" but I think Epic fits well enough. And I don't think Zhaitan can count as one, seeing how he isn't selectable. Technically, he's just environment - like how the Iron Forgeman was in GW1. Konig/talk 03:35, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Call anything with a giant health bar epic and it's smooth riding as far as the wiki cares.--Relyk ~ talk > 03:40, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure "Epic" is actually the official term for that classification. talk 13:59, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Source? :P I recently edited the article because people refer to them and other big bosses as world bosses or such, even if the team seems to use that term internally for, uh, anything? The OP in section below this also makes a good case. Do edit if you see reason to do so. Mediggo (talk) 17:59, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Mega boss

From the recent announcement regarding the chest loot adjustments, a dev team referred such world boss NPCs as "mega bosses". Will this be something that we need to reflect on wiki pages of such bosses? Geekfox 05:05, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I refuse to use such a lame connotation for our epic monsters--Relyk ~ talk > 05:11, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

If you want, but personal preference isn't valid on wikis. Changing it. 80.112.180.116 06:54, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Effective Strength

Would anyone else be interested in a discussion of Effective Strength, vs Rank; I personally find this one of the most problematic aspects of the game. My own working rules of thumb based on about 300 hours play time. Are something like this a Veteran is effectively = to 2 normal mobs, a Elite 5, a Champion not less than 10; and Legendary are really off the charts and have no real comparison to a 'Normal' Mob; of the same Class. So A Level 30 Shaman has no real relationship to a Lv 30 Legendary Shaman. I have no doubt a more experianced player might propose a more accurate estimate of true strength.

 
Rank Normal,   Veteran,    Elite,   Champion,      Legendary. 
Lv 30   30,      60         150     not < 300      Unknown. 

My point being I think something like this represents the true level of Difficulty a player is presented with when confronting a given mob; and loot and exp should reflect that level of difficulty; and not the totally fictional purported level of the mob. I personally think this gets very problematic in places like CM which are purportedly playbable by lower level toons; IMHO a freshly minted Lv 40 has no real chance in CM. Where the true level of the Mobs is 200+; although I think the Dev's would disagree. Anyhow your thoughts are welcome.

What is "CM"? You cannot generalize. Some "normal" mobs have as much health as a champion but lack the golden ring on their portrait. "Veterans" are not all the same, some have about double health, some maybe 5 times more; some hit only a bit harder some much more. There is no rule, in fact, which I would say is a bug. And you're right about the loot not being proportional to the difficulty/length of the fight. (Don't forget to sign your posts). --Alad (talk) 16:59, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Elite

There is no section about NPCs prefixed with the Elite title and I don't know enough to write about them/don't remember actually seeing any. This should be fixed if they exist, as they are mentioned in the opening paragraph. Vely^►t►e 19:00, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

it was agreed on wiki that silver ringed enemies/npc's were classed as elite until a recent game update anet called the silver enemies leutenants, so there is no elite rank as far as they are concerned.Spark 07:13, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

World Bosses

Changed the name of the category because under achievements, they're also listed in the category 'World Bosses'. Also, why is Cobington listed under legendary only, even though she's listed in the World Boss category? 80.112.180.116 06:59, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

"World boss" is not a ranking, it's a status of event importance - mistakenly used as a rank by many, such as yourself it seems. Covington is ranked legendary, not epic (what most mistakenly refer to "World Boss" because 90% of Epic ranked NPCs are world bosses - but not all, such as Iron Forgeman, the tutorial bosses, Blightghast and the three Arah champions). Konig 08:37, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Just to drive home the point: Champion Steam Ogre and Champion Svanir Shaman Chief are world bosses per the Bosses category on top of Covington (again, Legendary rank). Champion Modniir Ulgoth, Legendary Karka Queen, and several others that give UI chests can count as world bosses too, even though they lack an achievement in the Bosses category. Konig 08:43, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Areas of Concentration

Would it be possible to get a list of which maps have the highest concentration of each rank, maybe the top 3 maps per rank? --SlatzG (talk) 20:16, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

That's very tricky because any area can have champions as long as enough people show up at an event to scale it up. It would require setting up a distinction between champion npcs that spawn naturally, or without any scaling, and champions which only appear when events scale up. We currently don't have anything set up to document that. For legendary, though, the only way to encounter them consistently is events in Orr and dungeons, though there's also Admiral Taidha Covington. Psycho Robot (talk) 20:21, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I see. I was curious because of the Veteran/Champion Slayer Daily and Monthly achievements. It would make it a mite easier, though I suspect a list would defeat the purpose of those achievements slightly.. --SlatzG (talk) 21:02, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Critter Level

Its implied that critters can be killed with any packet of damage. The wording should be updated to "any packet of damage of the same character level. I often run my level 10 characters through dregehaunt and I am able to make clones which don't do enough damage to kill the critters in 1 packet of damage.A Liability (talk) 05:43, 29 January 2015 (UTC)