Since this would apply to pretty much each Empty mob type, I figured it would be best to post it here. Each Empty monster page (each individual monster, not each individual monster type) should list what elements they can possibly be in each zone they are located in. I've heard various reports that any monster in the standard 3 Promyvions can be any of the 6 elements, and in Vahzl, they can be any of the 8 elements, though I only heard that in passing.
Also, I've heard conflicting reports for the monsters in the Spire (specifically the bosses, though I assume the same would apply to the ENMs), some saying their element varies depending on the day of the Vana'diel week, though they always have the same colored core, whatever color is the dominant color of the zone (except for Vahzl, then it is the dominant color of their original zone).
And what of the 6 NMs, the 3 in the lower Promyvions, and the 3 in Promyvion-Vahzl, do their elements vary, or are they constant. And if the elements for any of these do vary, but the model used (i.e. the elemental core) stays the same, that discrepancy should be noted. --zoogelio-forgot-his-password 18:07, 10 September 2006 (EDT)
I can confirm that the elements of the 3 bosses in the Spire of Vahzl are ALWAYS the same element (not as each other). On 5 runs, 3 diffent Vana'days, they were always the same. When I go get another Tactics Pearl, I will put further study into this. But I'm pretty they can be all 8 elements in any of the 4 Promyvion areas. Perhaps people who do anything in Promyvion should report the following: A)What elements are in that Promyvion (Elements may vary by both family and area...so this could get tough). B)What element the bosses in the missions/ENMs are.
A) is pretty easy to study, so I'm more interested in people reporting the elements of the bosses. --Jopasopa 21:37, 10 September 2006 (EDT)
Does anyone else feel there might be a "machine" system which includes automatons, the new Alzadaal monsters, and maybe biotechnological weapons? --Jopasopa 17:44, 19 December 2006 (EST)
When SE revealed the way to enfeeble AV's regen they said "Ru'phuabos, Qn'xzomits, and Qn'hpemdes", implying that the plural form of Lumorians have s's at thend, such as aerns. Should the Lumorian pages be renamed to reflect so? --Jopasopa 23:15, 23 January 2007 (EST)
EDIT: Also, shouldn't it be Humanoids? --Jopasopa 23:16, 23 January 2007 (EST)
Okay, I recently changed a lot of NMs classified as Salvage or Unknown to "Nyzul Isle." However, would Assault or simply Nyzul be better?
Battlefield Thing: Limbus and Assault give the battlefield status, should they be under the row for Battlefield NMs? I'm personally split:
All-in-all, I would say Limbus is up for further debate (but I would keep it with the Other NMs for now), and Assault belongs there too since I would say it's the Garrison and maybe EF of ToAU (since staging points are sorta like outposts), although Assault is not directly involved with Besieged like those 2 are with Conquest (although you can say the required IS does make it involved). I guess it's just its own thing that takes elements from different things. Okay, since I originally planned this edit to be maybe 3 sentences long, I'll stop now. --Joped 12:24, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
Okay, so how do Orcish Warmachines fit under the "Beastmen" category? Last I knew they were machines, not actual beastmen. And do about Khimairas belong under "Arcana"? Because that really seems like a weird category to put them under. 房[User:Anson|Anson]] 00:24, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
i think a few things about the NMs in family tables should really be rethought. they aren't so bad when you get to something small like, i dunno... Lizards, but take a look at Goblins. the 'other NMs' section is utterly massive. i think it would work better if, instead of listing all four categories (quest/mission/battlefield/other) even if there's no mobs in a category, it should be expanded to quest/mission/battlefield/dynamis/limbus/garrison/expeditionary force/salvage/assault/nyzul isle/besieged/other, and only the categories that are actually used would be displayed. NM pets are the only thing i could think of belonging in 'other,' but since there could be future additions i'm not considering, it feels more proper to call it 'other' instead of 'pets.' :P also, splitting them up this way could resolve the tension of 'is this an NM or isn't it?' we're feeling with mobs from limbus and assaults. just put them all there in their own category and be done with it. ^^
also, goblin garrison mobs are listed as NMs, while (as i'm finding out from trying to do the 'monsters in family' tables) orc garrison mobs are not. can we get a consensus on this? --Eleri 11:59, 8 May 2007 (CDT)
i've tested this on the Orcs page. see which you like better compared to Goblins, and if you have legitimate grudges against this new thing, respond here and i'll put it back like goblins. i think it's a lot better, though. --Eleri 14:20, 8 May 2007 (CDT)
while i'm thinking about it, i also meant to suggest something else. instead of this:
Battlefield NMs: Aa Nawu the Thunderblade (BCNM), Cuu Doko the Blizzard (BCNM), Gii Jaha the Raucous (BCNM), Voo Tolu the Ghostfist (BCNM), Yoo Mihi the Haze (BCNM), Zuu Xowu the Darksmoke (BCNM)
how about this?
--Eleri 14:42, 8 May 2007 (CDT)
Is there any real point to the whole "Animal System" and "Soft System" thingies? Are they the JP translations of beasts/lizards/etc.? --Joped 07:17, 27 June 2007 (CDT)
I think it would be a good idea to put into the mob families pages(eg Tauri) a new field saying whether or not they can be used in Pankration. What do you guys think? --Futan 19:01, 12 September 2007 (CDT)
Some families are called by different names than we have listed here. Can someone name them all here? Then we can discuss whether these families should be moved and renamed. Thanks. --GAHOO t/ c 14:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Why in the world are pixies under Beastmen? --Asantra 02:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Pixies are attackable monsters, not directly affiliated with any city, this is generally inadvisable actually attack them however as they are generally a higher level mob than the mobs around them, and posses powerful heal spells. --LegionPothIX 11:39, March 11, 2011 (UTC)LegionPothIX
In addition to the number of spawns in each area, I think it would useful to have information on where the mob appears and anything else that would make it easier to find (or avoid). For example the entry for Giant Amoeba in Zeruhn Mines might read "Spawns: 1, J-10, lottery spawn with tunnel worms." It would be silly to list every spawn point for common mobs but general indications might be nice. For example for River Crab in East Sarutabaruta, "Spawns: 33, near rivers, tougher in the north." I'm thinking this kind of information would be useful for people trying to farm specific items, and it would also be interesting stuff to find out. Anyone agree?--Zuke 14:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I noticed that the Drops column never includes Beastmen's Seals and Crystals. For Beastmen's Seals this is probably for the best, but it might be nice to have a notation like "Beastmen's Seals not included, dropped by all monsters in this area." The situation with crystals is more complicated and perhaps they should be listed in the drops column. At least there should be a notion such as "Crystals not included, see entries for individual monsters."--Zuke 15:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I have gone ahead and made this change as there appeared to be agreement in the bestiary thread on the forums. If there are any concerns feel free to discuss. --Toksyuryel 18:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Where are Zilart? And chocobos? Chocobos are not enemies, but they are "beasts". And Demons are officially classified as beastmen.--Sinh 22:39, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to see something like this implemented. There's always times where I want to find monsters of a certain level for skilling up various skills and I hate having to just look through random monster families to find things. Maybe just a simple search bar where you can type the level you're looking for and it would give you a list of every monster in the database that has that level in it's level range (example: searching for '68' would also show monsters that range from 64-70). Just an idea, would love to see it. --Bojack316 17:47, July 5, 2010 (UTC)
Due to the Trial of the Magians requiring Elemental kills for Trial 1701, discussions at Category talk:Pixies revealed that Pixies are not Arcana, but are actually Elementals. Does this mean "Elemental" is also a superfamily now? The trial refers to killing Elemental-type enemies - phrasing used in reference to other superfamilies (i.e. Lizard-type including raptors). I went ahead and moved Pixies to Unclassified until a proper category with all the redirects and whatnot are made (I don't know how and don't want to mess with that)--Mooffins 08:09, August 3, 2010 (UTC)
That would make a lot more sense. Arcana are animated objects, like Golems, Dolls, Bombs, etc. Pixies are organic, however, not artifical. --Blue Donkey Kong 16:01, August 3, 2010 (UTC)
Can someone please tell me why we now refer to types as "superfamilies"? The game still calls them types. I am unable to find a thread on the forum where discussion of this change may have taken place (tried searching "superfamily", came up with nothing), and all of the changes appear to have been made by a user named User:Seedling (no discussion appears on their talk page either). I would REALLY like to see a good explanation for why the wiki should not use the in-game term. If no such explanation can be given, I am going to change it back to type. --Toksyuryel 12:12, September 13, 2010 (UTC)