Talk:Dungeon

I originally entered Ghost Pet Dungeon, because that's how it will be recognized as, but it was quickly changed to Pet Cemetery Dungeon. Don't know which is better, and don't want to create more pages just to be deleted.. Onicoe 13:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

We should add to each dungeon title estimated times of completion. this saves a many people from starting a dungeon at 2am, and being grumpy as hell going to bed at 8am
 * Good idea, but I think the current estimated times are awful as a range. Perhaps listing as: Allow up to XX minutes for completion (LXX Group Recommended) or something would be more helpful. Ranges just suck in general: I mean, I have been through Gobball Dungeon in around 3 or 4 minutes and Blacksmith and Skeleton in less than 10 and 15 respectively...
 * The problem with this estimated times is that there is no level definition so at gobbal dungeon a group of high level people can do the dungeon in 3 or 4 min a mid level people can take them more and a low level people can take it 30-40 min (thats the time of my first run in gobbal dungeon), at wabbit castle I went with 2 levels +120 xelor and feca and it took bearly 1 hour to do the dungeon, while some people have take 8 hours. So yes the times are going to be way off for some people.--Cizagna (Talk) 15:27, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * That is exactly the point I was trying to make. Sorry if I was unclear... I believe the time estimates should be directed towards slow/weak parties and that there should also be an indication of the sort of level needed to complete the dungeon. (No-one wants to waste a Dungeon Key). For example: Gobball Dungeon: Allow up to 90 Minutes for Completion (L30+ Group).

Completion times should probably be moved to the individual dungeon entries if the ranges will be specified by group composition.

Re order / format / rename
I'm thinking we should order by Areas the dungeon as for example, Gobball dungeon its a boss (Royal Gobball) and a reward (Bow meow), Wabbit Castle is a Boss (Wa wabbit) and a reward (pieces of the wabbit set), Koolich dungeon its a boss (Koolich) and a reward (capture spell if you have the ingredientes to trade), etc. So it would look something like this.

== Area == === Name of the dungeon === Type : Boss / Reward Level : Low / Mid / High / Insane


 * This is a dungeon of various types of "monsters", including "boss monster", and the reward is a "reward item/spell/emote".

--Cizagna (Talk) 20:56, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Why would you want to order them by areas? Except the Pandala dungeons others are difficult to place in specific area and honestly, I doubt most players even care where the dungeon is. I would think there are 2 helpful orders: by level or by name. I prefer the ordering by level: low level dungeons, mid level dungeons etc. Also, I would reformat whole page into table with entries for each dungeon: Name, Item(s) required to enter, Reward, Monsters - Fogleg 08:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Because I consider its more easier to find something by areas, as it has happened to my party where they want to go to a dungeon that its near their location so the start naming all the ones that are near the area, then they think on difficulty unless some one has a specific idea on what dungeon they want. But if no one wants i would prefer the Name way, as for the table... i want that and have test it, but will have to take out description information (thinking on people with 800x600 resolutions even thought its rare people still use them)--Cizagna (Talk) 16:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Example of Dungeons table sorted by names:

Will edit the article page later if nobody has objections against the table layout. - Fogleg 20:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * To give you on an idea of what i'm telling


 * 800x600


 * 1024x768


 * 1280x1024

If we think on 800x600 people it will be very clog making it longer to scroll down.

Now here is one of my ideas I took the extra info of location out, people want the entrance location and they can use their maps, took the Set notes out of the rewards, because there are not static rewards there are possible monster drops so doing the dungeon will not assure you will get one of the set pieces.

In this next example I have take keys out, because that info can be manage on the individual pages, most of the keys are logic the only one that may cause trouble is the larva dungeon key that its a tricky one and the bwork and bworker dungeon as they are the same and the difference are in the capitalization "K" and colors. And its optional but i also took the other monsters out, as what normally lures people to go to the dungeon is to fight special/unique/boss monsters.

In case you wonder why I'm taking so much out is because I'm trying to stick to the KISS principle and thinking "what do we really need to know in a page that has a recollection of info from other pages?", and keep it as minimal as possible.--Cizagna (Talk) 21:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I quite like the last shortest version. Only thing I would add back are the possible drops of certain set pieces. I know those are not certain to drop, but if only place to possibly get farmer set item is in Daisy Dungeon, it should be mentioned as reward even when you do not always get them. The reason for the "Keys" was that most dungeons require simple Key item, but some (Pet, Wabbit Castle, Cawwot Dungeon) have special requirements to enter. Maybe add another column to the end for "Notes", where some things important enough could be mentioned.

- Fogleg 08:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)