Talk:Storm Top

To defeat the storm wizard: high-five his energy hand projectile with your karate chop move. They will be reflected back at him and damage him. You can also hit him with a stick after this for a short time, but it is safer to avoid him. After awhile, he will start chasing you instead of moving to a different spot.

Phase two: jump around the different platforms avoiding the energy sparks and the dragon's lightning vomit. When the dragon sits down, hit him with a stick. When he roars, he initiates his lightning vomit, stay off of the center platform. The energy sparks that chase you around, some disappear after a bit and some keep on chasing you. The ones that keep on chasing, they can be killed in one hit. After his vomit, he flies downward and then comes back up hitting one of the outer platforms. Once he does this, the vomit will disappear from the center and you can run there and wait for the dragon to come rest in the center platform, then you can stick him. Takes three rounds with the stick, like the toad king, to kill the dragon

Dig Spot edit war

The areas for the dig spots for these chests are named according to the checkpoints. Area 1 is the area before checkpoint 1. Area 2, before checkpoint 2, etc. As such, the dig spots for locations 5-11 should be in area 5. Please stop reverting the correct area numbers to incorrect ones. ~Mervil 04:50, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Zone Map

So working on a map of this zone and since it goes upward and overlaps and such, I'm pondering the best way to do it. Current rough mock-up is here: File:User Doodleplex Storm Top map.jpg. I definitely will have to split certain areas that overlap each other(such as 6-9 being over 1-5), but I'm wondering if unlike the maps for Dark Woods and Sunny Glade that perhaps for Storm Top, leaving gaps between the sections would allow for cut outs/extra stuff like hidden rooms hidden under parts and such since this zone goes in and under and around and teleports all over the place. For example, I moved Area 3 to be by itself, so it would still be above Area 4, but there's room for like hidden stuff. - Do_odleplex 22:30, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Area 1, 2 and the ice maze as the first level. Then area 3, 4 and 5 as the next. That should get you up to the start of the statue tower climb. The top of the mountain that can all be on a layer on its own. The second half of the map is reasonably flat so it can be drawn in one go. All the hidden rooms are within the mountain so they can be drawn inside it to save space. I tried this myself once but got bogged down with scale issues. How concerned are you for scale or accuracy? J.Tesla (talk) 23:44, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Probabky not that stuck on scale, but I'd like to be somewhat close/not uber off. For the time being, I'm just working on getting a map that gives players a basic idea of the level. - Do_odleplex 17:31, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Areas

Is it important or a rule somewhere for the areas to be structured according to the Baby Adventure achievement? I feel that detracts from the overall understandability of the guide. The Baby Adventure tiers aren't called areas in-game, they are called feats, but by treating them as areas we get weird statements like "The skip from 4 to 7 is due to Areas 5 and 6 of Infantile Mode activating while hitting the second and third Infantile Cloud from taking the initial Infantile Cloud found just after entering Area 4 upwards towards Area 7".

If there is no formal game definition of the areas, I would suggest the areas be organized by what players would naturally find logical and understandable, e.g. one per checkpoint or even subdivided beyond that if there are well-segmented map areas (maybe with labels like 1a/1b/1c). If this happens to match the Baby Adventure feats, that's fine, but if not then that shouldn't compromise a more logical organization. If we truly want to document Baby Adventure as well, I would say just do it inline like the baubles, e.g. "Proceed to the checkpoint (feat #X)" or "Take the second Infantile Cloud (feat #Y)", rather than structuring the whole guide around it. Mayhap (talk) 16:54, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

It was initially set up that way to follow Anet's "official" numbering of the areas as notated by the Baby's Steps achievements. However after more thought and discussion, to avoid confusion in general, this page and all of the other zone pages have been updated and changed to be sectioned by checkpoints. Players are far more likely to remember checkpoints, as well as having the option see in their chatlog how many checkpoints they've hit, making it far easier for them to follow the guides this way. - Do_odleplex 20:07, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

All Dig Spots

So, article says that the Digging spots section is incomplete because of a missing dig spot. How do we know there's one missing? If its missing, then add it, or at least tell us where it is so we can add it. ~Mervil 20:58, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Dig spot Checkpoints

Just my two cents, but I really don't like it as "Last Checkpoint" cause that's not really specific cause you can skip checkpoints. What about closest or nearest checkpoint? That makes more sense and avoids confusing and kinda dumb things like "Checkpoint 0" where I have no clue where that is or is supposed to be lol. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 174.225.8.245 (talk) at 00:40, 31 March 2018‎ (UTC).

Yeah, I wish there was a better way to represent or describe the dig spots. As for my two cents, skipping checkpoints isn't a very common thing to do. It's easier to describe where the dig spots are in a linear manner rather than an abstract or circular manner. If somebody is playing these and skipping check points, then they're likely already pretty familiar with the zones, or don't care enough about the rewards (hence, the skipping). I like the last check point being listed, because then you can describe the locations based off of forwards progression, describing the location based off of landmarks that can more easily be found as one would play the zone normally, rather than trying to describe something from a non-linear or even backwards view which is something most people aren't doing. "Checkpoint 0" doesn't exist, so perhaps we could leave it blank or put a "--" or something like that. ~Mervil 04:03, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Somebody who's doing this for the first time isn't going to have the slightest idea where they are in relation to the next checkpoint and will have no basis of measurement which checkpoint they are closest to. If somebody is skipping checkpoints they will still have to know which checkpoint is which to compare which one they are closest to. "Last checkpoint" sets an established standard direction that is easy for somebody to use as a reference. But "last checkpoint' = 0 is somewhat confusing as it doesn't exist. Let's change it to "Start." --Musha 04:21, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Problem with that: the start isn't a check point. Also you can see how many checkpoints you've passed via the "You've reached a checkpoint" yellow text in your chat log, so even new players can figure out which checkpoint they're near based off of that, so I would also prefer it be switched back to how it was(and that's also why I set it up that way in the first place). - Do_odleplex 04:42, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

The text doesn't tell you which checkpoint you're near; it only tells you when you've reached a checkpoint. Again, if a player is new to this, they have absolutely no way to know if they are close to the next checkpoint or not. It is objectively best to use the last checkpoint reached as the frame of reference. You, yourself, did it the exact same way in your walkthrough: "Starting Area to Checkpoint 1," "Checkpoint 1 to Checkpoint 2," etc. You used "Starting Area" as your first checkpoint. Then you divided up each zone into smaller areas demarcated by consecutive checkpoints. You didn't provide a walkthrough with less specific references such as "Just after Checkpoint 1," "A Little Further after Checkpoint 1," "Halfway between Checkpoint 1 and Checkpoint 2," "Close to Checkpoint 2." Why? Most likely because those kinds of frames of reference are very subjective and a player has no idea where checkpoint 2 is until he actually reaches it. This is good. In that respect, your walkthrough is very effective. The wiki thrives on specificity, objectivity, and consistency. Let's keep it that way. --Musha 18:40, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

I think it should be changed back to Closest checkpoint. Orienting by beginner progression only makes sense for the walkthrough, not for dig spots. The dig spot list is reference-oriented and is better served by precision of location. Many descriptions already use "just before checkpoint X" because it's simply the most accurate, so it makes more sense to align the checkpoint column to that, rather than an incongruous last checkpoint X-1 which might be nowhere near the spot. Mayhap (talk) 08:32, 3 April 2018 (UTC)