Talk:Ballistomycete

So, I've been spawning in monsters according to registry numbers in Wizard Mode (the &m command), and apparently hyperactive ballistomycetes count as their own entry in the registry. Does that mean they're actually separate monsters and therefore need their own page? --spudwalt 04:48, 15 July 2013 (CEST)

Their stats are different, so at the very least they should get a template on this article. If that looks too cluttered, we can split it into its own article, but I'm guessing it won't be an issue.

Giant spores are also a monster, but IMO they don't even deserve a template, as their stats are pretty boring. We should mention that they are speed 15, EV 10 and explode on being hit once, but that's it. -Ion frigate 11:22, 15 July 2013 (CEST)

Hey, Giant spores don't explode on every hit, but only on high enough damage by missiles. And they should have an own entry as monsters. In early game they hold some danger, confusing you for enough turns to get slain. -- Bwijn 12:11, 15 July 2013 (CEST)

Even if we lump all three versions of the ballistomycete and the giant spore into one page, I doubt that'd make for too large a page for our purposes, and it would cut down on repetition across the wiki. Players looking up one entry for advice should probably wound up reading about them all anyway.

That being said, we started a precedent earlier this month with the tentacle articles, treating each tentacle type as its own creature. They have unique stats, unique attacks, etc., but they're really bound up with the creatures that create them. Where do we want to take this? Should every thing with stats and a unique appearance get its own page? Or should "creatures" that are merely the attacks of other monsters be lumped into the same page? By this logic, should the variant monsters that have unique stats but reuse the artwork of other monsters get their own pages? I could see that information being useful, particularly when the new version has its own unique spell set. I think it'd be easier to write up interesting pages for those than to make pages for the tentacles and spores that aren't just repeated information...

As someone who would want to read about giant spores and how they work with ballistomycetes, I'd rather just read everything on one page. --Flun 15:09, 15 July 2013 (CEST)

LET'S TAKE A VOTE

Separate articles for giant spores and spell-summoned tentacles

Lump giant spores and tentacles in with the pages of their creators

• --MoogleDan 14:24, 15 July 2013 (CEST)
• --Flun 15:09, 15 July 2013 (CEST)
• In the case of spores & tentacles, this seems best to me --Lokkij 16:12, 15 July 2013 (CEST)
• --spudwalt 18:06, 15 July 2013 (CEST)

Create separate articles for all variant monsters, to provide accurate information instead of just a brief synopsis

• However, for stuff like, for example, the tengu conjurer/aerator, separate pages seems best to me --Lokkij 16:12, 15 July 2013 (CEST)
• While I think it's an annoying pile of work, I agree on this point. All those vault monsters would probably benefit from being separated out. --MoogleDan 16:21, 15 July 2013 (CEST)

By the way, Bwijn, they actually do explode on any hit. The problem is that you occasionally miss. We wouldn't be removing the information from the wiki, just putting all of it in one article so players don't wind up reading only half the story.

Experience

Is the experience gain from killing colonies still real? I keep an eye on my exp every time I finish a colony and it won't move an inch... --Fingolfin (talk) 01:06, 21 April 2015 (CEST)

It's not, but I have no idea when they stopped giving XP, so I haven't updated the page in a while :P --MoogleDan (talk) 01:48, 21 April 2015 (CEST)

Thanks, it's a shame I could do with extra XP right now :p --Fingolfin (talk) 01:58, 21 April 2015 (CEST)

Pretty sure they stopped giving XP somewhere around 0.15. Whatever version it was where we stopped getting the message about feeling experienced after destroying a colony. --spudwalt (talk) 06:03, 21 April 2015 (CEST)

Combining ballistomycete types

I was thinking it would make sense to combine all types of ballistomycetes (spores, fungus, and hyperactive) into a single article, especially since they're all exclusive to followers of Fedhas since 0.17. What do other people think? --spudwalt (talk) 20:13, 16 May 2018 (CEST)

I agree with this, and I also wonder how these articles ever got marked with "obsolete"; they are by no means obsolete yet (even though nobody I know uses Fedhas's reproduction ability) NormalPerson7 (talk) 14:38, 29 July 2018 (CEST)