The way monster groups are structured differently from item groups

Game Talk The Toolbox
1

Why are mosnter groups so different from item groups and would monster groups work better if they were more like item grouops.

The item groups are often nested. For example
ammo_pistol_common, ammo_smg_common, ammo_rifle_common and ammo_shotgun_common all contain items in them. But then there is ammo_common that instead of containing the items contains the four groups instead.

None of the monster groups do this. They all are really long lists of monsters.

For example there are four separate lab monster groups that are almost identical. Wouldn’t it be better if there was one base lab monster group and then the three other lab monster groups would take the base group and just add their flavor monsters.

Fewer unique monster groups would make it easier to mod the groups. Instead of needing to change all the groups you would only need to change few fundamendal groups that are used in other groups.

And also some mapgen buildings define their own monster gorups in the building json (animal pound) while others have their group in the monstergroups.json (labs).

2

It would make sense to me if monsters were spawned in fixed-arrangements (quantity and type) or by selecting from an infinite/finite pool.

select_from_infinite_monster_pool(lab_pool_icy_infinite()) -----> lab_generic_infinite + lab_specific_infinite_icy; return pool;

Selected scientist_in_a_parka

3

I think all groups (item groups, vehicle groups, monsters groups, whatever else) should be structured with the item_groups collection/distribution model. It’s fairly easy to understand and super flexible.

1 Like