Proper listings for Beastlord Warder classification...please? [Archive]

View Full Version : Proper listings for Beastlord Warder classification...please?

TorrynWoodsrunner

12-08-2011, 10:09 PM

I'd like to put forth a little bit of my personal feeling towards the new Beastlord class. I started one as soon as the servers came up, and I'm currently close to level 30, with 12 Warders under my belt, including my Collector's Edition Warboar.I must say, I'm a bit disappointed with the level of research and thought put into the various classifications of Warders up to the point I've reached. the classification system is discordant and woefully inaccurate in several areas. I'll detail this shortly.The Warders I have accrued are as follows:War Boar - Classification War BoarWolf - Classification CanineLion - Classification FelineFrog - Classification AmphibianCrab - Classification AquaticHawk - Classification AvianBat - Classification BatBear - Classification BearStag - Classification BovidChokadai - Classification ReptileBadger - Classification RodentGorilla - Classification SimianAs presented, these classifications are as I said, discordant and inaccurate. Several attempt to classify by what I can only assume is Family (bovid, which should actually be Family Bovidae). Some are apparently singular animal types (bear, for example), while others define an entire Order (rodent, which should accurately be Order Rodentia).This discordia in classification is firstly confusing, and secondly educationally WRONG. If you're going to undertake something of this nature, it should be at the very least informationally correct. Some obvious corrections:1. Canine refers to Family Canidae, divided into two sub-families or tribes; Canini (wolves) and Vulpini (foxes). Singular members of the family are called Canids.2. Feline refers to a sub-classification of Family Felidae, sub-families Pantherinae (lion, tiger, jaguar, leopard) and Felinae (cougar, cheetah, lynx, ocelot, domestic cat). Individual members are called Felids. Note that to be educationally accurate, large cats would NOT be considered felines, but Felids.3. Amphibians are not a Family or Order, but a Class (Amphibia).4. 'Aquatic' is a broad-spectrum inclusive referring to any animal, vertebrate or invertebrate, that spends most or all of its life in water. This should really be broken or narrowed down if you want to remain consistent.5. 'Avian' is also a broad-spectrum inclusive referring specifically to birds (Class Aves).6. Bats...well, bats are pretty much unique. The Order Chiroptera consists of...well, bats.7. Bears, on the other hand, are of the Family Ursidae, of the order Carnivora. Based on the availability of species and sub-species in RL, renaming this to Family Ursidae would make more sense.8. Reptiles should be 'Class Reptilia', and would also include crocodiles, alligators, turtles, snakes, and lizards.9. Bovid refers to members of the Family Bovidae, which includes cloven-hooved ruminant mammals. Cows, sheep, deer, buffalo, antelope, gazelle, and so forth. Rename this to 'Family Bovidae' for accuracy.10. Badgers are NOT RODENTS. They are not members of the Order Rodentia, nor are they related to rodents in any way, shape, or form. Badgers are members of the Order Carnivora, Family Mustilidae. They are not related to mice, rats, squirrels, or other rodents. instead, they are related to weasels, ferrets, otters, and skunks.11. Simians refers to higher primates. If you're going for accuracy, rename this to 'Order Primates'.So, as you can see, some simple changes would make the existing system more educationally accurate. Mixing Class, Order, and Family isn't an issue, as long as you're labelling them accurately. I'd recommend adding Family Mustidae to cover the badger type animals, and keep Order Rodentia for your rats, squirrels, and so forth.Also, though I haven't run into it yet, I'll point out that rabbits aren't rodents, either. They are of the Family Leporidae, and are classified similarly to bats.How's that? Type-A personality enough for you?<img src="/eq2/images/smilies/283a16da79f3aa23fe1025c96295f04f.gif" border="0" />

TheSpin

12-08-2011, 10:22 PM

I like that you know all of this stuff and are sharing it with the community. I don't necessarily think that the game needs to be that accurate though, because most players don't know the 'correct' terminology, so in this case it's more important that it is easy to understand even if that means fibbing on the words a bit. Now that being said... I do think Badgers and Armadillos could be taken out of the Rodent family and be given a more defensive type role.

TorrynWoodsrunner

12-08-2011, 10:51 PM

Thank you. Animal studies have been one of my passions since I was young. though most of the information I put forth is widely available online.I find it important to be informationally accurate because despite age recommendations, young children can and do play games like this. As that is the case, it's the responsible move to make sure that any information that parallels RL should be accurate. I know I wouldn't want -my- children going to school thinking that badgers were rodents, because of something they picked up in a video game. there's no reason it can't be both easy to understand -and- informationally correct.Now, seeing as I didn't know about armadillos, let's classify those as well:Armadillos, or Dasypodidae, are the only surviving family of the Order Cingulata. As such, for the purposes of Warders, they should have their own classification, much like bats and bears.

The_Cheeseman

12-11-2011, 12:39 AM

Warder families are not meant to be strict taxonomical classifications, but simply themes of similar creatures. Look at the the Exotic warder families: mystical, enchanted, dire, etc. The groupings were put in place to enable game mechanics, not to simulate real scientific fields. And honestly, it isn't like Taxonomy is the most precise field in the world, anyways.

Souse

12-11-2011, 01:19 AM

Everquest 2 has a history of being realistically correct; we're the only MMO to really encompass animals and mobs from the real world more than made up creatures placed in many of the earlier zones (my guess is to encorporate the more exotic ones in later zones, such as zones made out of lava, or ice :3). So I believe it should be accurately named, and I also think that it won't be a problem to name it very accurately. I mean, why not? If someone doesn't know what a Canini is, you could just look at what animal it is and go, "Oh, it relates to wolves, so it must describe them, specifically or not."

Banedon_Toran

12-11-2011, 01:33 AM

Surely the classification system is whatever the scholars or zoologists of Norrath invented.I don't see why they should be using earth based latin names

TorrynWoodsrunner

12-11-2011, 01:53 AM

<cite>Banedon_Toran wrote:</cite><blockquote>Surely the classification system is whatever the scholars or zoologists of Norrath invented.I don't see why they should be using earth based latin names</blockquote>Because the current classification system is, in fact, derived from earth-based Latin. 'Canine' and 'feline' are both derived from earth-based Latin, as are 'rodent', 'avian', 'reptile', and 'amphibian'. The earth-based Latin is already there, but it's muddled, discordant, and innacurate.It basically comes down to a simple philosophy: "If you're going to do something, do it right."In regards to the Exotics, that classification contains mostly (if not all) mythical or legendary creatures, and is thus fine as a classification...at least until we have real-life drakes and dragons and unicorns to classify. <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/283a16da79f3aa23fe1025c96295f04f.gif" border="0" />And while Taxonomy may not be the most precise field, is is none the less the field used to classify and categorize, and thus should be correctly used whenever necessary.

Kitsune75

12-11-2011, 03:11 AM

"folk taxonomy"<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folk_taxonomy">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folk_taxonomy</a>EQ2's system may remind you of the Linnaean type, but it's a whole different animal... pun intended.--Kit

Katz

12-11-2011, 10:40 AM

Is it true that they have Turtles classified as Amphibian? I saw that at a site that posted the known tameable warders. I realize the majority of players won't care, but for those of us that know the actual reasons why a turtle isn't an amphibian it grates on the system like fingernails on a chalkboard. Nice post.

simianthief

12-11-2011, 12:48 PM

Yeah I commented on this earlier in another post in another subforum. There's something to be said for suspension of disbelief and there's something to be said for getting some out of what you're doing. As an adult, do YOU know what the animals classifications are? No? Probably don't have a handy-dandy degree in biology or zoology. Fact is, I still get some confused from time-to-time, but this is why we are able to write things down. I think they should have just gone with "Bear, Fox, Wolf, Camel" and been done with it. You got a Fire Bear? Great, it's a bear. But whatever. God-forbid you learn something while getting your fun on.

GeminiStar

12-11-2011, 12:49 PM

This entire topic is rendered stupid with a few words. THIS IS EVERQUEST AND NOT PLANET EARTH. The devs make the rules and there is a huge seperation of the two worlds.

TorrynWoodsrunner

12-11-2011, 07:14 PM

<cite>GeminiStar wrote:</cite><blockquote>This entire topic is rendered stupid with a few words. THIS IS EVERQUEST AND NOT PLANET EARTH. The devs make the rules and there is a huge seperation of the two worlds.</blockquote>Nothing about the advancement of education is 'stupid', regardless of the format in which the knowledge is presented. While the 'devs make the rules', that doesn't mean they can just throw real-world terms around with incorrect usage or meaning, at least not without someone calling them on it. Which is what I did.Yes, turtles have been classified under 'Amphibian'. Yes, that is incorrect. Yes, it's annoying as hell.Yes, this is Everquest, and not planet Earth. Yes, they are vastly different. But they are also very much similar, BY DESIGN. If you're going to use Earth creatures, use the classifications correctly and uniformly, that's all I'm asking for.

Kitsune75

12-11-2011, 08:54 PM

<cite>Torryn@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Nothing about the advancement of education is 'stupid', regardless of the format in which the knowledge is presented. While the 'devs make the rules', that doesn't mean they can just throw real-world terms around with incorrect usage or meaning, at least not without someone calling them on it. Which is what I did.Yes, turtles have been classified under 'Amphibian'. Yes, that is incorrect. Yes, it's annoying as hell.Yes, this is Everquest, and not planet Earth. Yes, they are vastly different. But they are also very much similar, BY DESIGN. If you're going to use Earth creatures, use the classifications correctly and uniformly, that's all I'm asking for.</blockquote>1: Beastlords are not scientists... or Bio-Parsers. They're spiritualists with good fighting skills. Their knowledge about the classification of different warders comes from the Truespirits; not guys in white labcoats. And I would think that the spirits would know (though maybe not agree) how to classify themselves.2: Even in our world, there are different classification systems. To certain inhabitants of New Guinea, the cassowary (a flightless bird related to the emu) is considered to be in the same classification as humans rather than with other birds. Reasoning for this classification is partly through observation (it walks on two legs and has no wings), and partly through mythology (the cassowary are actually reincarnated female relatives). Who's to say that they are "incorrect"; their way of classification has been around a lot longer than others.3. As for education. First, I don't expect video game developers to teach me or my children about scientific classification systems*. I expect them to provide an interesting fantasy world that is both fantastical and familiar. If it's too 'out there', then I would be just as lost as staring at a piece of modern art. But, on the other hand, if they make it too familiar, then it's no longer a fantasy game; it would be a simulator. Second, if my child is playing, I would be sure to point out that turtles are considered reptiles by most here on Earth (and more importantly in her school), but I would also point out that there are different ways of classifying things.Seriously, I was a little shocked by what they considered a amphibian, but it quickly turned to amusement. I was actually more dismayed about not being able to tame certain animals that I thought would fit into at least one of the classes (snakes), but I guess they have to have something to add later on.*Not saying that many dev's couldn't do so, everyone has hidden talents. Actually I do know some developers (of other games) that are qualified to teach modern biology (and one that can teach zooarchaeology).--Kit Edited for typos. At least the ones I found.

Felshades

12-12-2011, 02:21 AM

<cite>The_Cheeseman wrote:</cite><blockquote>Warder families are not meant to be strict taxonomical classifications, but simply themes of similar creatures. Look at the the Exotic warder families: mystical, enchanted, dire, etc. The groupings were put in place to enable game mechanics, not to simulate real scientific fields. And honestly, it isn't like Taxonomy is the most precise field in the world, anyways.</blockquote>Considering the sheer number of reclassifications over the course of just the past 10 years? Yeah.

General_Info

12-12-2011, 02:49 AM

<cite>Kitsune75 wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Torryn@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Nothing about the advancement of education is 'stupid', regardless of the format in which the knowledge is presented. While the 'devs make the rules', that doesn't mean they can just throw real-world terms around with incorrect usage or meaning, at least not without someone calling them on it. Which is what I did.Yes, turtles have been classified under 'Amphibian'. Yes, that is incorrect. Yes, it's annoying as hell.Yes, this is Everquest, and not planet Earth. Yes, they are vastly different. But they are also very much similar, BY DESIGN. If you're going to use Earth creatures, use the classifications correctly and uniformly, that's all I'm asking for.</blockquote>1: Beastlords are not scientists... or Bio-Parsers. They're spiritualists with good fighting skills. Their knowledge about the classification of different warders comes from the Truespirits; not guys in white labcoats. And I would think that the spirits would know (though maybe not agree) how to classify themselves.2: Even in our world, there are different classification systems. To certain inhabitants of New Guinea, the cassowary (a flightless bird related to the emu) is considered to be in the same classification as humans rather than with other birds. Reasoning for this classification is partly through observation (it walks on two legs and has no wings), and partly through mythology (the cassowary are actually reincarnated female relatives). Who's to say that they are "incorrect"; their way of classification has been around a lot longer than others.3. As for education. First, I don't expect video game developers to teach me or my children about scientific classification systems*. I expect them to provide an interesting fantasy world that is both fantastical and familiar. If it's too 'out there', then I would be just as lost as staring at a piece of modern art. But, on the other hand, if they make it too familiar, then it's no longer a fantasy game; it would be a simulator. Second, if my child is playing, I would be sure to point out that turtles are considered reptiles by most here on Earth (and more importantly in her school), but I would also point out that there are different ways of classifying things.</blockquote>1) do you need ANY scientific knowlege to own a pet? no you jsut need to have the common sense to care for it.seeing wrong classicifactions for animals is no different then examining a weapon that says it is one handed when it takes two to wield it. So tell me do you consider pluto a planet? just because a bunch of scientists reclassify it from the long held perspective that pluto is a planet doesn't make it any less of a planet.2) true, however can you name a MAJOR competeting classification system which has numerical differences to the standard classification system we use?3) wether you realize it or not there are countless forms of education both scientific and moral. why do you think in all the childrens shows you see that the good guy always wins (by extension few adult movies ever made have the "bad guys" winning and by that i mean both kinds, the real bad guys and the not so bad guys)alien invaders? no worries the land with the highest debt and loans it wont repay will save the day by finding the aliens weakenesses how many movies do you see where humanity gets completely wiped out.It is a simple fix to change the classifications to be standarized and in line with reality. also how good a game is due to a number of factors like how well they pull off the magical/technological balance (and by extention non-magical alternative evolution).kids generally look at games and find something and they take it as a truth because it is beleivable to them if you name one creature incorrectly under another "famly tree" and the similarities between that creature and a creature from that "family tree" childern will believe they a related to each other.

hexalobular

12-12-2011, 05:31 AM

I think it's a mistake to interpret these classes as latin taxanomic terms, with the possible exception of "Bovid" these are all common english words. (Obviously a lot of them originally come from latin but that's beside the point.) And as english, I don't see anything wrong with how most of them are used. One of the definitions I found for "Feline" is "Cat like" which fits Lions.Obviously tha Badger is misclassified, on the other hand, I believe that the OP is wrong in claiming that Badgers aren't related to Rodents, they are related to Rodents, as well as to Turnips, Jellyfish, Mushrooms and Humans, not closely related perhaps, but related.

Felshades

12-12-2011, 05:45 AM

I think i know why badgers were put in with rodents.They look like rodents. Huge, horking rodents. With butts that look like ore nodes. /shakefist

Articwind

12-12-2011, 06:42 AM

If you think it was a lack of research or thought that made the current classifications you obviously aren't looking at the bigger picture. This is an MMO, filled with thousands of diverse people. Making a system simple and easy to use is far more important than making sure an armadillo is classified right. The changes you guys are wanting would needlessly complicate and expand the warder classification system.Obviously SOE wanted to keep the number of different classifications as low as possible, which is why you see things like turtles are under a classification they don't really belong in. They are close enough, and it's better than making an entirely seperate category. And seriously, do we really need more than one classification for cats? When people see Feline they think, "here is where all my cat's are". Does anyone really care if their latest warder is in family Pantherinae or Felinae? Who cares if Bats are in the Chiroptera order and how many people do you think know that? At the end of the day you have to think about the grand scheme of things. Take the current system and take your proposed system and honestly ask yourself which would be the most easily understandable and cause the least issues, while fitting into the design goals of the developers. If you think it's your system you aren't being honest.Finally, if none of that sunk in remember these two things:1) EQ2 is not an educational product.2) EQ2 is a fictional game, in a fictional world, and can have it's own set of rules. You can claim they speak Latin or English, but that's not true, they speak Common. There never was a Europe in Norrath. If Sony uses the word Feline to describe all cats in EQ2 than that's what Feline means.

Felshades

12-12-2011, 04:04 PM

I like to think that they chose words that classified them based on what they look like or where they live over what they actually are. See: Rodents and badgers.

Gyee

12-12-2011, 04:37 PM

<cite>Felshades wrote:</cite><blockquote>I think i know why badgers were put in with rodents.They look like rodents. Huge, horking rodents. With butts that look like ore nodes. /shakefist</blockquote>hahahha Classic!Also, yeah why not charm a snake they fall right into reptile?Hopefully, they'll example into insects. Spiders, draco flys, oh my!Can't we tame Kerra are they feline? <-- j/k

TorrynWoodsrunner

12-12-2011, 05:03 PM

<cite>Articwind wrote:</cite><blockquote>If you think it was a lack of research or thought that made the current classifications you obviously aren't looking at the bigger picture. This is an MMO, filled with thousands of diverse people. Making a system simple and easy to use is far more important than making sure an armadillo is classified right. The changes you guys are wanting would needlessly complicate and expand the warder classification system.</blockquote>Canids (Wolves, Dogs)Felids (Cats)Ursids (Bears)Bovids (Cows, Sheep, Goats)Cervids (Deer, Moose)Amphibians (Frogs, Toads)Reptiles (Snakes, Lizards, Turtles)Rodents (Mice, Rats, Squirrels, Beavers)Muskrats (Badgers, Weasels, Skunks)Avians (Birds)Bats (Bats.)Primates (Monkeys, Apes)Suids (Boars, Hogs, Pigs)Other (Armadillo, Crab)Exotic-DireExotic-EnchantedExotic-DrakeExotic-MysticalWow, how difficult was that? Took me all of 15 minutes, tops. Adds a couple of categories, loses at least one (Aquatic), and is 100% accurate and correct, while allowing wiggle room for unique critters such as Armadillo and sporatically encountered critters such as crabs.<blockquote>Obviously SOE wanted to keep the number of different classifications as low as possible, which is why you see things like turtles are under a classification they don't really belong in. They are close enough, and it's better than making an entirely seperate category. And seriously, do we really need more than one classification for cats? When people see Feline they think, "here is where all my cat's are". Does anyone really care if their latest warder is in family Pantherinae or Felinae? Who cares if Bats are in the Chiroptera order and how many people do you think know that? </blockquote>No, they're not 'close enough', they're incorrect. Turtles are Reptiles, and that's where they belong. And I didn't say we needed multiple classifications of cats, I said we needed accurate classifications. Feline is incorrect, Felid is correct. See my list above...all ACCURATE.As to the last sentence of this paragraph? I care, and I know. And if I'm saying something, it's a safe estimate that there are nineteen other people who also know, and care, and haven't said something.<cite>Articwind wrote:</cite><blockquote>At the end of the day you have to think about the grand scheme of things. Take the current system and take your proposed system and honestly ask yourself which would be the most easily understandable and cause the least issues, while fitting into the design goals of the developers. If you think it's your system you aren't being honest.</blockquote>See the list above. It's just as easily understandable if presented as listed. Should cause few if any issues to actually implement, fits the design goal, and has the bonus of BEING CORRECT. I'm nothing if not honest with myself...I don't believe in doing things one-cheeked. I do it right, or I don't do it.<cite>Articwind wrote:</cite><blockquote>Finally, if none of that sunk in remember these two things:1) EQ2 is not an educational product.2) EQ2 is a fictional game, in a fictional world, and can have it's own set of rules. You can claim they speak Latin or English, but that's not true, they speak Common. There never was a Europe in Norrath. If Sony uses the word Feline to describe all cats in EQ2 than that's what Feline means. </blockquote>1. In the context in which I am interpreting that sentence, you are correct. EQ2 is an entertainment product, that doesn't mean you can't learn something from it. Much like the Carmen Sandiego games were eductional products, that you might have been entertained by. My point remains the same: if you're going to do something that refers directly to an established and accepted system, then adhere to said system, and do it right. Because one-cheeked reflects poorly on the team that develops it, as well as those who simply accept it.2. Again, we are in agreement, except for one thing: THEY ARE USING ENGLISH, AND LATIN. They did not create a 'Common' tongue, as Tolkien CREATED his languages (created...from scratch...grammar and all). We are expected to accept the use of English (and Latin derivatives) AS Common. Well, that being the case, they've committed to using the English language as their root base, and as such, need to use it correctly to maintain believability and accuracy. They can't just throw established words around and say they mean something else.Actually, let me correct myself: They CAN do it, but it falls under the 'one-cheek development' classification. To me, anyway.

The_Cheeseman

12-12-2011, 05:27 PM

Yes, your suggested system would be scientifically accurate. It would also be entirely ill-suited to a fantasy role-playing game. What you are failing to understand is that factual accuracy is not the goal, the goal is creative resonance and simplicity. While "Ursids" may be the appropriate term, it sounds dull and doesn't mean anything to a large number of people. "Bear" is common term which describes the general feel of the family and should be immediately recognizable to everybody.You split the bovid warder family into two separate families: bovids and cervids. How, exactly are the devs supposed to mechanically differentiate between a cow and a deer? Can you think of what sorts of meaningful abilities these two families would have that would justify their separation? Are there even enough different animals of those kinds in EQ2 to fill both of those families with compelling choices?The point of the warder families was to provide beastlords with a number of useful pet choices and allow for the customization of those pets via the taming mechanic. SOE decided that 16 sounded like an appropriate number of options, based on the variety of animal-like MOBs that exist in EQ2. They simply grouped those MOBs together in a loose theme so that they could fit as many different creatures as possible into their 16 chosen classifications.Ask yourself this question: how does creating two separate families for cows and deer make the beastlord class more fun to play?

TorrynWoodsrunner

12-12-2011, 06:07 PM

<cite>The_Cheeseman wrote:</cite><blockquote>Yes, your suggested system would be scientifically accurate. It would also be entirely ill-suited to a fantasy role-playing game. What you are failing to understand is that factual accuracy is not the goal, the goal is creative resonance and simplicity. While "Ursids" may be the appropriate term, it sounds dull and doesn't mean anything to a large number of people. "Bear" is common term which describes the general feel of the family and should be immediately recognizable to everybody.</blockquote>While accuracy may not have been the goal, that doesn't mean it should be ignored, either. Ill-suited would be in the perspective of the individual player. My character, for example, might RP a more research-based approach, as my Necromancer does with his art. Therefore he might wish to research the effect of the Truespirit on Ursids, where his compatriot just knows that he made friends with a bear.The list I provided in the previous post allows for both, with common terms side-by-side with their more cerebral counterparts.<blockquote>You split the bovid warder family into two separate families: bovids and cervids. How, exactly are the devs supposed to mechanically differentiate between a cow and a deer? Can you think of what sorts of meaningful abilities these two families would have that would justify their separation? Are there even enough different animals of those kinds in EQ2 to fill both of those families with compelling choices?</blockquote>Are you referring to game mechanics? If so, there's really no need to change anything about the creatures themselves. The subdivision is simply to maintain accuracy. I personally see no point in having a cow as a warder anyway...but that doesn't mean I don't understand that someone else might want Ol' Bessie following them around. Sheep? Well, that makes for some funny Halasian Beastlord jokes, that I'll refrain from going into here. Goats? Mmmm...some of the goats in Norrath are very similar to mountain goats, which I think fit well as warders. As for enough different varieties? No, but then there's only one Armadillo, isn't there? Yet they're tamable. Proper classification just means an open door to development of further creatures to fit those categories, and a legitimate reason to do so. It's called forward vision.<blockquote>The point of the warder families was to provide beastlords with a number of useful pet choices and allow for the customization of those pets via the taming mechanic. SOE decided that 16 sounded like an appropriate number of options, based on the variety of animal-like MOBs that exist in EQ2. They simply grouped those MOBs together in a loose theme so that they could fit as many different creatures as possible into their 16 chosen classifications.</blockquote>Okay, reasonable enough. Now my counterpoint: They 'decided' that Beastlords would NEVER EXIST IN EVERQUEST 2. Decided so vehemently, in fact, that the WORD Beastlord was forbidden on these forums.That decision was, obviously, reconsidered.Now that Beastlords are in EQ2, player feedback and suggestion can, and should, be used to further refine them.<blockquote>Ask yourself this question: how does creating two separate families for cows and deer make the beastlord class more fun to play?</blockquote>I think I touched on this up above, but I'll reiterate just for completeness: I don't find a COW fun to play with, but I can accept that someone else might. If I want to master barnyard animals, I'll play Farmville.I find seperate families to be fun to play because I like to stretch my intellectual boundaries with my gaming, such as my necromancer being more of a 'Research Scientist' than a 'Master of the Undead'. My Beastlord could just as easily be studying the interaction between the Truespirit and the different animal families.Would that be fun for you? Maybe not. But can you accept that it might be fun for me, and would take nothing from your own Beastlord experience?

The_Cheeseman

12-12-2011, 06:20 PM

I see where you are coming from with the individual preference angle, but you must understand that complexity in game design is very dangerous. If a game or sub-system of a game is overly complex, it might push people away or intimidate them, or it may overshadow the rest of the game such that it obscures the fun. The goal of a game designer is to introduce just enough complexity to achieve their goals, and no more. What you suggest may be fun for you, but you must admit that your interest in taxonomy is not exactly a common trait among fantasy RPG players. To be blunt, I doubt most players log into EQ2 to roleplay a research scientist. This is simply a situation in which the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few (or the one).

TorrynWoodsrunner

12-12-2011, 06:39 PM

I'm glad we're seeing some common ground as far as personal preferences and such, and I do see your points in regard to not wishing to overshadow other elements of the game. And I agree. As I'm working with a Game Designer (as an Art Designer), I'm very familiar with overcomplicating things to the point of nausea...it's one of the reasons I don't play EVE Online, in fact.However, I still stand by if you're going to do something, do it properly. Properly doesn't have to mean complicated. The revised list I posted (not the original list of errors and innacuracies) increases the list of categories by two...and makes all of them accurate. I don't think two more categories would put undue strain on the system, and I don't think there'd be any undue confusion if the list were presented as written. I seriously doubt a lot of EQ2 players understood what their 'bovid warder' was when they first looked at it...I mean c'mon, how often in your life have you heard the word 'bovid' used in conversation?So the Devs already set the groundwork...all that's needed now is some minor tweaking to make it a well-oiled machine, at least in the sense of the warder classifications. It's likely that most people would ignore the classifications entirely, at least at first. Hell, I didn't actually start paying attention to them myself until I started taming other warders. But once I -did- start paying attention, it honestly lowered my enthusiasm for the class once I saw the inaccuracies presented.EQ2 is my game of choice. I want my game to be the best it can be. And that's the main reason I started this thread in the first place.

Kitsune75

12-12-2011, 11:13 PM

I still have to point out that you seem to want everything to be "correct" by your standards and to do the classification system "properly".The classification is already correct. It has already been done properly.This isn't true science. It's a blend of the familiar and the arcane. This blend is what seperates Fantasy from Science Fiction.Your suggestion to rearrange the warder classes means that if adopted, YOU will have forced everyone else to conform to your sence of properness and correctness. The wording of your posts also make it seem that you could care less how others view the system as long as it conforms to your tastes. Correct me if I'm wrong on this point.Anyway, I like the system as it is; the classes are based on the animals' perceived abilities, not how closely genetically related to each other they are. The abilities are important to me, as is ease of use. My 'canines' slow my opponent, good for PVP, my 'felines' have two abilities to get their health back and can heal the party and are offensive, good for grouping. Each class has a purpose and I don't want that system changed. You offer a mechanical solution for an aesthetic problem.---------------------Well, I offer you this. Using the existing classification grouping that EQ2 offers, come up with a better nomenclature for the groups. Do this without changing the animals groupings. This way, the system still works as intended, and you can decide its aeshtetic correctness.--Kit

TorrynWoodsrunner

12-13-2011, 05:06 AM

<cite>Kitsune75 wrote:</cite><blockquote>I still have to point out that you seem to want everything to be "correct" by your standards and to do the classification system "properly".</blockquote>By 'my' standards? Hardly. The Linnaean taxonomy concept dates back to 1735, which is just a -bit- before my time. It's been the accepted 'standard' for classification of fauna for quite some time. Not MY standard...THE standard.<blockquote>The classification is already correct. It has already been done properly.</blockquote>No, in both cases. Correct would be use of the Linnaean taxonomy standard, which means BADGERS WOULD NOT BE RODENTS. ARMADILLO WOULD NOT BE RODENTS. TURTLES WOULD NOT BE AMPHIBIANS. ANYTHING else is incorrect usage of the system THEY acknowledged from the initial launch. They opened the door by using 'Bovid' as a classification. 'Bovid' is part of the Linnaean taxonomy system. Doing it properly means doing it correctly. And by the Linnaean standard it's currently incorrect, plain and simple. Your -acceptance- of it being incorrect does not invalidate the truth that it IS incorrect.<blockquote>This isn't true science. It's a blend of the familiar and the arcane. This blend is what seperates Fantasy from Science Fiction.</blockquote>No argument, though the statement has no relevance to the discussion. I'm not suggesting some massive upheaval to suddenly change Norrath into some Science Fiction world. I'm asking for the familiar (Linnaean taxonomy), which has already been introduced (the use of 'Bovid' and incorrect usage of 'Canine', 'Feline' and so forth), to be tweaked to where it is introduced and used -correctly-.<blockquote>Your suggestion to rearrange the warder classes means that if adopted, YOU will have forced everyone else to conform to your sence of properness and correctness. The wording of your posts also make it seem that you could care less how others view the system as long as it conforms to your tastes. Correct me if I'm wrong on this point.</blockquote>Hmmm...if adopted -I- will have forced everyone else to use a properly structured system instead of a hodge-podge mess full of inaccuracies. -I- will have forced everyone else to *GASP* learn something they might not have fully understood...Sorry...not feeling any kind of guilt for that. Because as I stated, it's not -MY- sense of properness and correctness. I didn't create the taxonomy system they started using in the first place. I simply point out the errors in their initial usage, and a fast easy method to correct those errors.Also, as requested, I am correcting you if you're wrong: I COULDN'T care less. Saying I COULD care less implies that I care to begin with. I don't. How another player views the system doesn't matter to me. Perception is subjective. What matters to me is that the information is presented to them in a correct form, which it has not been. Love the system, hate the system, I don't care. But they should be given the opportunity to love or hate the system based on correct presentation...which they have not.<blockquote>Anyway, I like the system as it is; the classes are based on the animals' perceived abilities, not how closely genetically related to each other they are.</blockquote>I would be most interested in seeing how you came up with thatassessment, with relevant examples for each classification. 'Rodent' indicates no abilities whatsoever, nor do most of the other classifications. Exceptions to this would be 'Avian' (can fly), and 'Aquatic' (lives in water), those are hardly enough to validate your presented perspective.<blockquote>The abilities are important to me, as is ease of use. My 'canines' slow my opponent, good for PVP, my 'felines' have two abilities to get their health back and can heal the party and are offensive, good for grouping. Each class has a purpose and I don't want that system changed. You offer a mechanical solution for an aesthetic problem.</blockquote>Where have I changed ANYthing as far as the mechanics? I haven't. Your 'Canids' would still slow your opponent, your 'Felids' would still have two abilities to regen health, heal the party, and be good for grouping. They'd also be correctly identified under the system the Devs threw on as a gloss. Each class would still have a purpose. NOTHING about them would change mechanically. I have offered an aesthetic solution to an aesthetic problem.Unless of course you consider increasing the categories from 16 to 18 to be a 'mechanics' solution. I suppose in a small way, it is. But it by no means breaks or invalidates the system as developed. It merely refines it to be more correct by taxonomic standards.<blockquote>Well, I offer you this. Using the existing classification grouping that EQ2 offers, come up with a better nomenclature for the groups. Do this without changing the animals groupings. This way, the system still works as intended, and you can decide its aeshtetic correctness.</blockquote>Respectfully, no.First, I expect to get paid to do that level of creative work. The Devs DO get paid to do that kind of creative work. THEY decided to take the shortcut of using Linnaean taxonomy, and they botched the execution. Is that necessarily bad? Certainly not...flubs happen, things get through editing/beta testing/quality control. It happens.It's also easily correctable, keeps the system working as intended (I've changed -nothing- as far as the actual warder mechanics), and it is not only aesthetically correct, but informationally correct, which is far more important.At least, it's important to me. And I'm noticing it's important to a few others as well. Because while some people are satisfied to say 'that's good enough', others are motivated to a higher standard of quality.

urgthock

12-15-2011, 01:20 PM

<cite>Torryn@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Correct would be use of the Linnaean taxonomy standard, which means BADGERS WOULD NOT BE RODENTS. ARMADILLO WOULD NOT BE RODENTS. TURTLES WOULD NOT BE AMPHIBIANS.</blockquote>Maybe in Norrath they are. Have you dissected a Norrathian badger, armadillo or turtle?

Greenmist

12-15-2011, 01:48 PM

Boy, I sure am impressed by your girthy, swollen brain. It must be hard to find a well-fitting hat with such an enormous skull.In a related note, I am annoyed that my deity choice in-game is not as accurate as that of the real world. I feel that I should be able to properly worship the great Atheismo and enjoy his blessings.

Geothe

12-15-2011, 01:58 PM

LOL @ arguing about a scientific classification system while still including "Drakes" "Enchanted" "Mystical" "Dire"

millie

12-17-2011, 04:04 AM

All of this and no problem with Hyenas being classified as dogs and not cats?Crocodiles being listed as 'aquatic' with crabs? (Arthropods with Reptilia whole different Phyla there!)

TorrynWoodsrunner

12-17-2011, 06:43 AM

<cite>Geothe wrote:</cite><blockquote>LOL @ arguing about a scientific classification system while still including "Drakes" "Enchanted" "Mystical" "Dire"</blockquote>Those four classifications don't qualify under the correct taxonomical system, because they contain creatures that don't have contemporary counterparts in the real world. Therefore, the exception is made to maintain the ability to tame those creatures in the game.Doesn't change the fact that the shortcut used to classify creatures in game that DO have real-world equivalents was implemented poorly. <cite>millie wrote:</cite><blockquote>All of this and no problem with Hyenas being classified as dogs and not cats?Crocodiles being listed as 'aquatic' with crabs? (Arthropods with Reptilia whole different Phyla there!)</blockquote>I didn't include hyenas or crocodiles because I hadn't attempted to tame either yet, so wasn't aware that they too had been incorrectly classified. They most certainly would also need to be corrected if the system were re-worked to be correct. Feel free to add any other mis-classifications that I haven't encountered yet...it only helps provide further detailed information should the system be given the once-over it needs.Now, if you folks will excuse me, I'm going to put on one of my -many- wonderful hats...my girthy, swollen brain is getting cold. <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/b2eb59423fbf5fa39342041237025880.gif" border="0" />

Gladiolus

12-17-2011, 10:57 AM

If Norrathian information is created and is therefore different to Terran facts, that's fine. But using a real word which has a real meaning to then mean something different is confusing to those who know the difference and misleading to those who don't. However, this is nothing new in Norrath, where a rapier, which is a word synonymous with speed and dexterity, has the same speed as a greatsword, a cumbersome weapon weilded by only the physically strong.

Finora

12-17-2011, 11:24 AM

I dearly love my sciences however there are things one must keep in mind about the system here. Just looking at it one can tell the system is based on what the dang things look like not correct zoological classifications.NO one except someone who has really studied it, looks at a hyena and says to themselves "that's a cat". They look at it and say "Boy that's a weird looking dog."By bovid they mean something that's sort of cowlike.The only one I have a real problem with is the tortises being an amphibian warder. My 3 year old could tell you they are reptiles and they are using actual terms for that one. I can only assume they might mean amphibian in the sense they could be on land or water but that one does bug me a bit (thus I won't be getting a tortise and will be happy with a frog instead).

Aneova

12-17-2011, 04:11 PM

<cite>millie wrote:</cite><blockquote>All of this and no problem with Hyenas being classified as dogs and not cats?Crocodiles being listed as 'aquatic' with crabs? (Arthropods with Reptilia whole different Phyla there!)</blockquote>actually Hyena's are related to the Mongoose and Meerkat, despite the canine appearance.<a href="http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Hyena" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Hyena</a>

simianthief

12-17-2011, 05:30 PM

Geothe, if they existed in our world by-gum we'd have them disected and properly classified. I promise. If it breaths, we'll make it stop so we can understand it better. But that's why they are "Exotic" and "Mystical", because they are, like the current beast classification system, pure unadulterated fancy. People who play these games maybe not know it, but they take a lot of stuff home with them. I met a guy who swore raptors were real. I said "You play WoW, don't you?" "Yeah, why?" I had to politely explain that they were just based on dinosaurs and did not, in fact, actually exist (at the BEST anymore). It's best to err on the side of caution with this sort of thing. And besides if it wasn't for EQII I wouldn't know that I can't fly until I am level 85. I mean, seriously...that's a LONG time to wait! I'm only level 30 something!!