Does anyone have confirmation on what type of weapons this mob is weak to in regards to weapon type? --Eddie 10:11, 31 July 2006 (EDT)
I really dislike these edits. In fact, its not even so much a dislike, as I had to close the tab when I scrolled down, as it legitimately hurt my eyes. I don't see the edits being made there as a necessity. I'd rather be able to get the information instead of a headache. --User:Nix/Sig 11:55, 20 May 2007 (CDT)
I can't be the only one here with an opinion on the headache-inducing tables........... --User:Nix/Sig 05:05, 21 May 2007 (CDT)
- Edits were made for uniformity since most other pages have the tables multiple zones listed this way. That is why it was updated here. Each zone listing has its own level radius instead of having one giant radius. --Wayka 05:11, 21 May 2007 (CDT)
- Well, I'm fairly certain I'm not going to be the only person having the same problems. Trying to read those tables has become quite hard. I thought the original layout was quite functional, and wasn't of any issue to me. Suddenly I get a headache trying to get the information, it seems to be counterproductive. If I really need to see the actual breakdown of level differences between a crab in Qufim and a crab in Korroloka, I can easily click on the page.... I know tables are fun and all, but you've heard the saying "too much of a good thing." I just don't see the real point in this. --User:Nix/Sig 12:08, 21 May 2007 (CDT)
- uniformity? what? okay... i'm the only person up til now who's touched the mobs in family tables. i've done 63 of them. SIXTY-THREE. they've been on my watchlist ever since, so i know no one else has touched these tables, apart from the three you've modified. what uniformity?
- also, this hurts my eyes too. please don't take offense; i can't think of a kinder way to say this.... but this is stupid, the whole point of this was to be able to see at a glance what mobs are what ranges. midnight wings are easier than seeker bats are easier than undead bats are easier than lesser gaylas... then from there you can look at specific zones. if you're going to split the table up like this, leave the central column alone with its range-across-all-zones and split the THIRD column up into all those little headache-inducing rows.
- as for uniformity.... if you're going to go around changing this, well, like i said: i've done 63 of these. looks like you have 60 to go, because i wash my hands of this project if someone's going to run through and decide that what i had in mind for this isn't good enough. i wanted a zone-wide level range. i thought that was a GOOD thing. more information is a GOOD thing. show the level range across all zones AND the level range in each zone. you're going to nuke the whole point of my project? i'm not doing it anymore. --Eleri 12:16, 21 May 2007 (CDT)
So much for assuming good faith and actually discussing things... good job people</sarcasm>. --User:Chrisjander/Sig 12:24, 21 May 2007 (CDT)
- Wow, I thought thats what we were doing. Someone made a change, some people didn't like it. Instead of having an edit war, we're talking about it. I missed the part where that is suddenly wrong. --User:Nix/Sig 12:31, 21 May 2007 (CDT)
- Usually that doesn't involve defending your own edits to the limit though... or losing your calm ;) User:Sigma/Sig 12:42, 21 May 2007 (CDT)
- I never lost my calm. Its depressing that you saw it that way. I was legitimately getting headaches from reading these pages, and I wanted to know why the person making the edits saw fit to do them. Especially when you consider most wiki projects are discussed on the forums before major changes are made. Neither happened. --User:Nix/Sig 10:06, 23 May 2007 (CDT)
- I am going to have to go with Eleri here. The table was fine as is, and was a project in-progress. Wayka, if you would like to help with this project that's teriffic, but there are plenty of mob-categories that need the tables made in the first instance. We should not be revising these tables while there are a number of tables still to be made. --User:Gahoo/Sig 13:53, 21 May 2007 (CDT)
Reverted them back since I guess a few didn't like it. However what I meant by 'uniformity' is that is how the tables were aligned on most item pages. For example see Rock Salt, the rowspans are separate for mobs with multiple zones, hence is why I edited it here to follow the same format. But if you don't like it that's fine, but if you want uniformity please feel free to go back to my update again. --User:Wayka/Sig 19:24, 21 May 2007 (CDT)
.Fire +15% damage?
Recently I've spent some time killing crabs in boyahda as ninja, with my AF chainmail on, and I've been noticing that the Blaze Spikes effect deals up to 23 damage on them, while it's normally (in all of my experience) only 20. It's happened multiple times throughout the course of unlocking my senjuinrikio and Kodachi of trials, so I don't think it's a fluke or anything. There was no fire weather present, nor was it firesday. Is it possible that crabs have a damage bonus towards fire (or spikes? :x) even if they're resistant to it? --Dragonspight 03:23, 16 July 2007 (CDT)
- Ignore my earlier comment. I have no idea what's causing it, but it also took place on Knight crawlers, so it's probably something other than the mob in question.--Dragonspight 04:51, 16 July 2007 (CDT)
Bubble Shower based on HP?
Some fairly knowledgeable people have asserted that Bubble Shower's base damage is based on the Crab's HP. Does anyone know where that information/testing came from? (Once it's verified, that probably should be added to the page.) --Itazura 03:41, 29 July 2007 (CDT)
Pretty sure most Crabs can be poisoned, a water based spell. "Immune" should be complete resist ever time, and that's clearly not the case with water based attacks on Crabs. --Itazura 03:51, 29 July 2007 (CDT)
Fixed by changing "Immune" (a term more appropriate used to describe the resistances of Elementals) to "Resistance". I feel the new term is much more appropriate, as you can damage crabs with water, there's just a much higher chance they resist. --User:Chrisjander/Sig 08:32, 29 July 2007 (CDT)
- Thank you. ^_^ -Itazura 18:38, 1 August 2007 (CDT)
I'm a bit suspicious of the changes by Umbra. If Bubble Curtain is Shell, then that's magic defense up, not magic damage cut as his "-50% magic damage taken" would imply. Given that mistake, it calls into question his claim of "+100% defense boost" for Scissor Guard as well.
Unless there are citations to support those two claims, Umbra's changes should be reverted. --Itazura 18:37, 1 August 2007 (CDT)
- Looks like I may have to eat my words; (Japanese) reference to Bubble Curtain as a magic dmg-50% here. Scissor Guard is doubling of defense according to the same link, and is support by a BLU's testing with Voracious Trunk. --Itazura 18:40, 2 August 2007 (CDT)
You do have to eat your words; there's no "may" about it. I've personally verified scissor guard with voracious trunk from my 75 blu. As for Bubble curtain, it is easily testable with any level crab. I've verified this with my rdm, blm, and blu. Magic damage is always cut in half. Hopefully good information isn't being reverted because of kneejerk reactions like you've displayed here. If you don't think something is right, go out and test it yourself before you contest it, especially when it's trivial to do so like in this case. --Umbra 13:47, 7 August 2007 (CDT)
- I was wrong. BUT, no "knee jerk" revert happened. No editing were done--comments were put here, hope to solicit other people's thoughts. When no one chimed in, I tried again to find information which either support or deny the claims. When info contradicting what I thought to be true were found, I posted it. I'd like to think I've been very responsible with my objection, but I apologize if you were offended.
- BTW, if you'd had put something"I tested this, in this manner: ______ And, here were the result...", it would have helped with the credibility of the info. --Itazura 05:17, 8 August 2007 (CDT)
Isn't always correct. Its assumed by a lot of people that all crabs are paladins. Remember Paladin wasn't in the original game ad was added around the time RotZ was made. Some crabs are rdm despite having no spells or differences between their pld counterparts. Most of the non NM crabs have a blank in the job line on the mob page. A dat check can likely tell us which job these use. --1.quos.vita.habitum.captivus 08:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
There are no non-NM RDM crabs that I know of. Unless you can give me an example of a crab with Magic Defense Bonus that isn't a NM, I'm removing Red Mage from the job list. --FFXI-Armando 14:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
SE does not always give all job traits and abilities to a mob. Heck they can even give traits and abilities from multiple jobs to a mob. Facts: we had crabs before we had pld. We have crabs on wiki with no listed job as of yet. We have both pld and rdm NM crabs. Even if you can't point right at 1 crab mob in 1 zone that isn't an NM we do in fact have rdm crabs simply because an NM crab is an NM doesn't mean it stops being a crab. You show me we don't have rdm crabs. --1.quos.vita.habitum.captivus 17:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Afterthought: I'm going to try and find us somebody who knows their way around the dats and find what the files say on every crab mob. Will pop results on talk page later. Meanwhile I see no harm in the page saying some crabs may be rdm. --1.quos.vita.habitum.captivus 17:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
It's true that just because a crab is a NM it doesn't stop being a crab, but it's pointless, misleading, and impractical to list all the jobs of every crab mob in the game in the crab family page. If a person is checking the mob family page, he wants to know what the average crab is like. The crabs that are RDMs can be specifically labelled as RDMs in their own pages. While we're on the subject, I'm sure most crabs don't have job listed out of laziness, not because of a lack of info. Moreover, if we listed the jobs of NMs too then we'd have to go through every single mob family and look at the jobs of every single NM and add them. You don't see the Beetle family being listed as being DRKs just because of the Lumberjack NM.
It's pretty easy to tell that non-NM crabs are PLDs just from their stats. You don't need to go dat mining if you're only checking non-NM crabs, you just need to pick a crab, find its Defense, Evasion, and Level, and use Studio Gobli's mob stat formulas. --FFXI-Armando 00:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Look, pld was added after the fact around the time zilart came out. tell me how we are 100% certain that all crabs that existed before we even had the job are that job. Its been a rather common explanation for some time now that some are simply rdm. I suggested the dat check to settle this. You want to say none are but if you know this for a fact I'd like you to give the data that backs it up, show me. Further, stats do not show you what job a mob is. SE can make a blm mob super high defense if they felt like it, the engine isn't restricted to creating their stats the same way our are. --1.quos.vita.habitum.captivus 03:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Wrong, very wrong. PLD is one of the original jobs, RoZ only introduced NIN, SAM, DRG, and Summoner's Avatars (not the SMN job itself.) And yes, non-NM mobs are based on templates. They have jobs and subs (although their subs are uncapped) and they're also given stat rankings of A-G, just like us. There are formulas for calculating mob stats according to these paremeters, and they can be used to identify the jobs of a mob. I've used these formulas extensively in the past. These formulas are can be found here: https://ffxi.gamerescape.com/wiki/Stats and I explain them more in-depth here: http://www.ffxionline.com/forums/714507-post27.html In addition, I've used these formulas to either find or confirm the jobs of several monster families, in this thread: http://www.ffxionline.com/forums/general-ffxi-discussion/69742-common-mobs-odd-properties.html
So I'm quite qualified to say that crabs are PLDs. As a matter of fact, here's a sample of crab data. Level 66 Robber Crab from Boyahda Tree - Evasion: 240, Defense: 303. Run the numbers for a Level 66 PLD/PLD mob with C Evasion, C Defense, C VIT and E AGI, and you'll find that both the Evasion and Defense match perfectly (don't forget to add Defense Bonus III.)
Moreover, if normal crabs were RDM, they'd have Magic Defense Bonus, yet they don't. Stop insisting they're RDMs. --FFXI-Armando 17:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not wrong. Paladin was added in a patch just prior to zilart. And what you are doing is against the wiki's code of conduct. The verification tag was enough nobody was being "misleaded". In seeing it perhaps others would be inclined to aid in finding definitively, since its being refuted. But you want to insist you are right and its you who can't prove it. You are attempting to control the page content to push your own viewpoint, that non NM crabs can't be anything but pld. We've had crabs since the game started, in beta even, with no pld job. Logically either A) some are not coded to be pld or B) some were altered after the fact. But I'm done talking to the wall here. --1.quos.vita.habitum.captivus 17:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I posted my proof. It's not my problem if you won't do the research or the math yourself. I wouldn't mind the verification needed tag if there were any reason to suspect normal crabs of being RDMs, but there isn't a good one other than the fact that some HNM crabs have Enwater. Maybe they were altered after the fact, maybe they were already PLDs before players had access to the PLD job, does it really matter? Besides, there are Dragoon and Paladin Orcs in non-RoZ zones. --FFXI-Armando 18:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
This has been a fairly civil disagreement thus far, so let's all try to maintain that. It's an interesting argument for sure - and well reasoned by both sides. I think the burden in this instance would be on the party seeking to add the information. That is, if there is a suggestion that there are in fact non-NM RDM crabs, that would need to be substantiated in order to be added to the page. Now, the "proof" provided thus far is based on timing - which may be ok in some instances, but I don't think it carries the day here. The only real fact in the argument is that there were crabs pre introduction of the PLD job. That might prove that there were non-PLD crabs, but it doesn't necessarily prove that they were RDM, or that there are currently RDM crabs. If there is a historical point to be made that SE changed old crabs from RDM (or WAR or some other job) to PLD (if this happened), we can note that somewhere, but if it is no longer true the "Jobs" line should not reflect out of date information. --User:Gahoo/Sig 19:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Given that NMs often do have funny jobs and abilities and it'd be somewhat ridiculous to list all the aberrations on a monster family page, I agree with Armando that RDM should be removed until someone can prove we have non-NM crabs which are RDMs. (Can always put little note or maker by the specific NMs listed on the page to indicate they are not PLDs, if it's that important.) Not going to edit the page myself, since this is looking like an edit war already; hoping some admin-types would instead. --FFXI-Itazura 23:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- If we don't want to list all of what a mob can be on its family why list a job on the family page at all? It becomes assumed that a mob family is always all 1 job because thats all that "wiki says!"..I'm going to be away for a while, I no longer care what the crab page says, I've lost my links so I can't show a d*** thing for proof atm. If I come up with something later I'll cite it well before making any changes. I truly did not believe this was so far fetched when I 1st mentioned it. I had hoped by having it out there at least with the verification tag would lead someone with more free time than myself to look into it. I don't understand the resistance to that.
I don't take issue with being required to provide proof, but I do take issue with the self proclaimed expert editing multiple mob family pages to insist each family are one job while not being held to the same requirement, starting edit wars with multiple people. I stopped editing the page. The last edit was an admin edit. Its done and over as far as I'm concerned. --1.quos.vita.habitum.captivus 19:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Right. Now that my ban's been lifted, let's try this again. I'm about to present a long list of reasons why Red Mage should be taken off the list of jobs for the Crab family. Most of these have already been presented, but oh well.
1) Whether crabs were anything other than PLD earlier in the game is completely irrelevant. What matters is what they are now.
2) Even if it were true that Crabs were a job other than PLD earlier on, this doesn't imply in any way that they were RDMs, nor that those that were a different job are still that job.
3) What jobs crab NMs use is irrelevant; the Crab family page should only list the jobs that normal crab enemies take on. That aside, none of the crab NMs have any characteristics that strongly imply they're RDM.
3) The Defense and Evasion stats of common crab enemies line up perfectly with what Studio Gobli's enemy stat formulas predict for a PLD/PLD mob with C ranked Defense, C VIT, and E AGI. Studio Gobli's formulas have so far been found to be very accurat.
4) Crabs, having a poor offense and very good endurance, have been used for pretty much every kind of test that involves fighting a mob. Not to mention countless skill-up parties. If crabs were either RDM main or sub, at least one person would've noticed they have Magic Defense Bonus at some point in the past 4 years, yet this is not the case.
5) If I'm not mistaken, Crab Soul Plates are PLD by default.
6) 1.quos.vita.habitum.captivus has presented absolutely NO evidence that they are RDM, nor reason to believe that they are RDM. On top of that, it's widely accepted that Crabs are PLD mobs; thus, the burden of proof should fall upon 1.quos.vita.habitum.captivus.
Given all these points and that there's no evidence in favor of normal crabs taking on the RDM job, I'm requesting that someone remove Red Mage from the job list. If no one complies in the next couple of days, I guess I'll do it myself. --FFXI-Armando 05:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
1&2) Would have been patch notes stating they were changed? A long time ago it was pretty well accepted they were red mages. We didn't have paladins in game yet. I concede this point however - for all I know the lowest lv crabs are coded monk. Until someone has actually tested every mob in the family don't tell me you know for a fact each and every one is a pld. You seem to not grasp wtf a verification tag IS. 5 mim within editing the talk page or a "couple days" is not ample time for anyone to see and confirm/refute with evidence.
3) job/job cannot be the end all be all of mob stats. The same rules obviously do not apply to them as players. A player who manages via lag and timing to set main and sub to the same thing does not gain additional stats. Having 2 job with the same trait does not stack that trait (defense bonus x2 = no). SE may or may not use it for abase template, but this does not preclude them from popping whatever they want to on a given mob.
Confirmation bias also plays a role. Look at crafting and drops; people come up with all sorts of explanations for the exact same data set. Players actually do develop theories and equations that seem to pan out with example data. If my defence stats line up perfectly for a pld/pld crab am I a pld/pld crab with 100% certainty? It does not, in any way, determine what precisely it is. It means very little. Players simply can't know how the system works internally with 100% accuracy -- they can only interpolate the data backwards in an attempt to find a formula that appears to work. In most MMO's, such a level of perceived complexity can be, and usually is, achieved through far less variables than players believe are involved. I could easily point at a dozen or so edit to various mob pages where the job was added, ask what the source of the info was and be pointed right back at the family page. Nobody really checked, it was assumed all because a handful of higher lv mobs perfectly match a formula from a respected source.
4) not necessarily. Just as your pld/pld doesn't cast cure on itself, traits could theoretically be locked out/removed. Defense bonuses could arbitrarily be added. This is the crux of our disagreement; you are thoroughly convinced you know exactly the process by which SE creates a mob and that stats lining up with your sample "prove" this as 100% accurate.
5) I have rdm crab soul plates. Pankration also isn't 100% an accurate depiction. Dark elementals in Xarcabard cast absorb mind on me, the soul plate has it as black mage no dark night. Most crabs are paladin. It may be that presently all non NM are in fact pld as you say, but you haven't shown data for ALL crabs. By leabinga verification tag, someone will LOOK. Would you be content with only pld listed with the verification tag? I doubt that, but I would. I'd prefer we listed all known jobs including NM which is why I even added rdm (turns out we also have a blm and a mnk NM crab..I'd forgot about King Arthro or you'd be arguing with me about mnk crabs as well) or else not list job son family pages at all. New NM gets added someone will presume its pld based on family page..
6) [[:Category:Verification ]] FFXI-Armando has presented absolutely NO evidence that ALL crabs are PLD, only that the crabs he's looked at match a certain formula. On top of that, verification tags were used and no burden of proof should fall upon anyone this is not a court room. Verification tags should stay till there has been verification.
Your initial edit here gave mere minutes to present anything before you edited the article itself. You've shown again and again this isn't even about the data, its about you being right. You intend to continue editing pages to what you believe they should say even after you were temp blocked for doing it you just stated you intend to do it again if an admin doesn't make it say what you want. https://ffxi.gamerescape.com/w/index.php?title=Category%3ACrabs&diff=502340&oldid=501755 I'm done here unless I find data that is more direct that either proves (yes I'll say "I was wrong") or disproves that all non NM crabs are pld or find a saved copy of the webpage (from pre NA launch days) that listed rdm crabs that at least show why I thought that wasn't so far fetched for non NM's.
No more arguing in circles though, as my points don't seem to "count" with you. lets not waste time filling the talk page with repeated content, you disagree that its even possible I disagree with blanket stating the job for an entire mob family. --1.quos.vita.habitum.captivus 22:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Just an additional info, I, as a player since JP release, can confirm that PLD is THE original extra job. and exisits at least half years before Zilart release. If you really a lot of spare time, check all the patch note in JP POL site, since NA one wont have note before its release. --Timfung 19:26, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
OK, here is the proof, JP POL viewer about 2nd of July, 2002 patch of adjusting PLD's MP and hate of Invincible, comparing to the Zilart release date on wiki.(Dark Knight is also adjusted) [] --Timfung 19:42, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Job argument now moot
The new template with its common and uncommon job listings kills it, as I'm sure we can all agree pld is the most common, and rdm and mnk being jobs NM's have can be listed as uncommon. --1.quos.vita.habitum.captivus 20:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)