User talk:Lacrossedeamon/Animus Archetype

This is Lacrossedeamon/Animus Archetype's talk page, where you can send messages and comments to Lacrossedeamon/Animus Archetype.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.	Be polite Assume good faith Do not insult other people

Opening up for suggestions

So I’d like to start discussing what could be or shouldn't be include in this to keep it in line with our IU perspective policy. I’d also like to talk about formatting to see if there’s a better way to name the sections. Personally I see this as being formatted similar to out Mentor page with just pictures of each archetype and the name linked to the actual article. As for content we need to talk about how far in the weeds we can go. Origins is unique that it breaks down archetypes further into variants but depending on how you view the game = Animus concept that might be OOU. Next the game guides only refer to archetypes when talking about enemies but should we or shouldn’t we include civilians or allied NPCs? Finally and this might be the most complex, the concept of archetypes from LD when they use the Animus to simulate the collective unconscious; what the hell do we do with that? Lacrossedeamon (talk) 03:04, April 23, 2020 (UTC)

I just want to let you know that, especially after Assassiiinuss expressed confusion over our current "Soldiers" page, I think having a complete page listing all enemy archetypes would be really convenient for our readers. I remember that over on the "Soldiers" talk page, you mentioned that if we really can't make this in-universe, you would be fine scrapping it because you don't wish to be the one to set that sort of precedent for pages entirely devoted to OOU content. I appreciate that consideration. At the same time, I think that since there is more and more evidence that there is some sort of need for this page, then we should find a way to keep it; if there is a need for this page, you shouldn't feel bad about setting that precedent even if it ends up having to be OOU. :)

Now having said that, Assassiiinuss's concern also made me more doubtful that it would be helpful to twist our description of these archetypes into an IU-perspective even if that would theoretically ideal. We should still find a way if possible, but I worry that any attempt to make it IU would still cause some confusion for readers, and it might really be best to simply have this as an OOU page. I don't say this lightly because I am very pro-IU, but I know we have to be adaptable sometimes too I guess.

I would recommend excluding civilian archetypes though. Allied NPCs I think should be included because there are combatants like police and the Ottomans which strictly speaking aren't always meant to be enemies, and the games color-codes these NPCs differently from other enemies (e.g. blue, orange, green, etc.). I think formatting this similar to the Mentor page, i.e. like a gallery, should probably be fine although I'm wondering if that would leave any space for descriptions because I know at least one user in the past who wanted this page was looking for details of each type. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 16:19, April 29, 2020 (UTC)

Personally, I'd still like it to be IU. Otherwise we'd probably need to get rid of the Last Descendants archetypes which I find the most interesting part of this page. But I also forgot about Discovery, Bloodlines, and Altair's Chronicles and don't know how to include them in a IU manner as there is no known Animus aspect to them.

I'm fine leaving out civilians as I was never 100% on including them anyways. I just wanted to start big and then prune where necessary. Would we still keep courtesans, mercenaries, etc?

As for the formatting I assume we will still keep pages like Brute but update it with the archetypes from the other animi. I feel that would cover the descriptions and this page would just be a means to quickly cycle through the different types. Otherwise I feel this page would be massive. Alternatively though we could try tabs under each header.

I think we also need to discuss the archetype database entries from the Chronicle games. Because they are by definition IU but are wonky as hell. Lacrossedeamon (talk) 11:09, April 30, 2020 (UTC)

Master (ACCI)

I wouldn't say that the masters are with East India Company, but I think that they are mercenaries. GodGamer GodConsole 11:31, June 20, 2020 (UTC)

I haven’t played through the game so I don’t actually know what context they appear in but I assume it’s as Sikh forces and not the EIC. Lacrossedeamon (talk) 12:46, June 20, 2020 (UTC)

Status on Soldiers & Archetype pages?

Copying this over from my talk page.

My progress on the "Soldier" page has really stalled because I have been quite unsure of how to rewrite the sections on each militaries' units, but after I was reminded that there is a unit in Chronicles: China called [Grabber]], I realized that you were right that I can't go around the article describing each of the units that appears in Animus sessions like they are actual units in the military. I think you're also completely right that I should only cover the units which are actually historical.

With that in mind, it is probably best that I shorten the sections covering each militaries' units. For the Animus archetypes page, I'm also less averse to it being IU now since Chronicles enemy types do have database entries, but it still depends on how it is written.

We should eventually have headers for both articles directing readers to the other also. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 18:34, June 19, 2020 (UTC)

I just took the initiative to rewrite the lead in your draft for "Animus archetype" to see if it helps. It was kind of awkward to open with defining archetype; the page isn't about archetypes in general but Animus archetypes, and the definition provided was too vague or incomplete.

Apart from that, we've talked before how "generate" can imply that the Animus automatically or even sentiently creates these archetypes itself, making it sound more like an active agent. I recognize that it was also too far in the other direction for me to have instead attributed the archetypes to the Animi makers like Abstergo or Rebecca though. So, I changed the wording to described within the Animus. I think describe is the perfect term since it only notes that these archetypes are, well, described in the Animus, without implying or attributing the descriptions to anyone or anything. It is a simple, indisputable fact. So I hope that works.

My rewrite was really simple, and it's just to give another idea. You can continue to try to modify it or tweak it if you think there's a better way of wording it. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 18:50, June 19, 2020 (UTC)

Oh! Forgot to add that we could also invert the new lead I wrote since conventionally leads begin with the subject, but I considered we could make an exception here since the inverted sentence probably sounds more awkward. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 19:08, June 19, 2020 (UTC)

Glad to get input from you on this. Yeah my lede was unorthodox. I still think archetype by itself should get defined as it might be an unfamiliar word and we do have Animus archetypes that are more conceptual than just physical in the final LD novel. But I fully recognize you are more eloquent than myself so defer to you on this matter. Lacrossedeamon (talk) 19:55, June 19, 2020 (UTC)

Also yeah the chronicles' database really gives us some wiggle room on what can be considered IU speak but I still don’t want to go to overboard. I’d have to review but I think how the guides describe the different types might be a good base to start from. Some guides are probably better with their perspective than others though. Lacrossedeamon (talk) 20:00, June 19, 2020 (UTC)

Singular or Plural and Factions

So I am very inconsistent with this but think units should be referred to in the singular. I'm split on whether to always include faction name before the unit and sometimes don't distinguish between factions whose units are all the same a la Black Flag. Does anyone have any input on the consistency for these topics. Lacrossedeamon (talk) 04:39, June 28, 2020 (UTC)

Assassin Archetypes

Should the archetypes/roles/specialization that appear in either the contract and den defense mini games or identity and rebellion mobile games get mentioned here as well? Lacrossedeamon (talk) 09:19, July 1, 2020 (UTC)

Animals?

Should animals get added to this? Lacrossedeamon (talk) 23:06, July 14, 2020 (UTC)

Enemy overview sections?

Some of the game guides provide tables that detail comparative stats for the different archetypes as well as what attacks they are weak or immune to. Should this be included and if so how? Lacrossedeamon (talk) 02:30, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Project Legacy, Recollection, Memories, etc

These all have what could ostensibly be considered animus (or DDS for PL) archetypes as part of their mechanics. PL with it's crafting/training system and the others with their cards. These would be hard to elaborate or expound on though as all are defunct media. But should they be included anyways? Lacrossedeamon (talk) 06:10, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

In the weeds

Some of the guides go far enough into the data to note the HP, Damage, Morale, and Loot tables. Should we be going that deep into the weeds? Lacrossedeamon (talk) 06:55, 15 April 2024 (UTC)