User talk:Nephele/Archive-2007-12

My External LinksEdit

Hey Nephele. I would just like your general opinion concerning two new external links I have placed on my userpage. Have a look at them, they are both under "Elder Scrolls Links." Please post any reply on my talk page, as I am unlikely to remember to check back here. Thank you! --HMSVictory 09:33, 24 November 2007 (EST)

I'm not too sure what type of opinion you're looking for. You're free to add whatever content you like to your userpage as long as it doesn't clearly violate the wiki rules. --Nephele^Talk 02:25, 6 December 2007 (EST)

Quest HeadersEdit

Currently, I only have one thing to add (isn't even Daggerfall). Theres a fame/infamy for Oblivion, but no Reputation equivalent for Morrowind. --Timmeh 22:20, 29 November 2007 (EST)

We've been listing Reputation in the |Disp= parameter, which includes Disposition, and both Faction Reputation and general Reputation. I don't see a need to separate them any further, to be honest. --TheRealLurlock ^Talk 22:40, 29 November 2007 (EST)

Hi =)Edit

Ok eehm, i noticed too that the second time i did the dungeon, i got a full armed vampire instead of a rat... I'll change that and keep it in mind for the future, Thanks neph =)

Missing Oblivion ItemsEdit

Hi, I think these weapons are missing from the Oblivion items page, not sure if they're needed:

Unenchanted/Quest items:

• Ayleid Long Sword - Carried by statues in The Ultimate Heist
• Ayleid Mace - Carried by statues in The Ultimate Heist
• Baurus's Akaviri Katana - Carried by Baurus in the Intro
• Breath Net - Unknown weapon from Rebuilding the Gatekeeper in Shivering Isles
• Broken Sword - Removed quest item from The Master's Son
• Caelia's Steel Longsword - Caelia Draconis's sword from Next of Kin
• Ceremonial Dagger - Strange item called Mehrune's Razor in CS, does not require plugin
• Dalvilu Cermonial Dagger - From Mephala's Daedric Quest
• Enchanted Dagger - The Argonian dagger from Vampire Cure Quest
• Glenroy's Akaviri Katana - Carried by Glenroy in the Intro
• Grommok's Blade - Carried by Grommok in Shivering Isles
• Luminary Robes - Worn by Luminary Kaz in Shivering Isles
• Renault's Akaviri Katana - Carried by Baurus in the Intro
• Rohssan's Antique Cutlass - Second object to steal from in May the Best Thief Win
• Ruined Akaviri Katana - Carried by undead soldiers from Lifting the Vale

Special magic items:

• Brother of Nab - Test weapon
• Ghost Axe - 0003CD07
• Immolator - 0003CD01
• Sword of Nab - Test weapon
• Tempest - 0003CCFE

Leveled items:

• Syndel's Boltcaster - 0007F3D5, 0007F3D6, 0007F3D7, 0007F3D8 - Supposed to be from Syndelius in Shivering Isles

Generic magic items:

• War Axe of Depletion - 000387AF
• War Axe of Sapping - 0004F038

--202.7.166.163 02:47, 6 December 2007 (EST)

Thanks for the research. However, in general items that are never available during regular game play are not being documented, so I'm not sure whethere any of the test items belong on the wiki. Some of the other items that you've listed are in fact already documented (e.g. War Axe of Sapping). The remaining items do need to properly added to the site at some point, but the problem isn't the inability to find out what's missing; the problem is an editor who is willing to figure out where the items belong and who is willing to spend the time adding the items to those pages. If you'd like to help out with doing that, the help would definitely be appreciated. If you're not sure how to go about it, feel free to ask. --Nephele^Talk 00:21, 12 December 2007 (EST)

Dark Seducer/Golden Saint WeaponsEdit

In a recent edit against Mazken/Aureal weapons being Daedric on the SI weapons page, you included the note ignoring Normal Weapons Resistance does not imply that the weapons are daedric;

That is perfectly true. Just because a weapon can ignore Resist Normal Weapons (RNW) doesn't in of itself make it Daedric in nature, Silver and enchanted weapons from a mundane base form prove that.

However, when a set of weapons is intimately associated with (and nearly exclusive to) a race of immortal Daedric soldiers in the service of a Daedric Prince within his Daedric realm of Oblivion, you can be reasonably sure the reason why they ignore RNW abilities is because they are Daedric weapons.

Players and readers could do well to be reminded that adventurers to the Isles are definitely not in Mundus anymore. The door in Niben Bay is by all regards an Oblivion gate-- we are better off remembering that not all planes of Oblivion consist of burning sky and oceans of lava. If one ventures into the Shivering Isles, pries a Golden Longsword from the hands of a fallen Aureal (who will indeed "follow the chimes home" sooner or later), and walks back into Tamriel to smack a bunch of ghosts with it, it is safe to regard that weapon as being Daedric in nature.--Dark Spark 20:24, 13 December 2007 (EST)

It probably depends upon what exactly you mean by being Daedric in nature. I would take it to mean that the weapon:

• has statistics comparable to Daedric-quality weapons,
• was made from the essence of a Daedra, as is true of Daedric artifacts, or
• was created by binding a Daedra, as is true of bound weapons.

I don't see any evidence that the Dark/Golden weapons in question meet any of these criteria. As you already state, the ability to ignore normal weapon resistance is by itself not highly remarkable; it's also a characteristic that isn't even shared by all of the weapons in question (e.g., the Dark maces). Even in the planes of Oblivion items presumably exist that are made out of regular everyday materials such as metal. If we assume otherwise, then it implies that all items that you find in the Shivering Isles (Grummite Cudgels, Patchwork Pants, Scruffy Shoes, etc.) are Daedric, at which point an item's Daedric nature is no longer particularly noteworthy.

Abstract questions of the true meaning of Daedric nature aside, I also think that emphasizing that the weapons are Daedric is likely to confuse many readers, who will infer that the weapons are in some way comparable in quality to Daedric quality weapons. And that definitely is not the case for the Dark/Golden weapons. So on the one hand the comment seemed to involve speculation; on the other hand it was likely to add confusion. Therefore I didn't think that it needed to stay in the article. --Nephele^Talk 21:07, 13 December 2007 (EST)

Location of the item's origins is but one factor. The fact of the matter is that Dark/Golden/Order weapons are exhibited in the game as being the primary weapons of three Daedric races, items which cannot be acquired by any other means than taking them from those Daedra. You cannot buy a Golden Longsword from the smiths, nor are they looted from a mortal bandit or some chest sitting in a cave.

The fact that the weapons are Daedric in origin can hardly be regarded as speculation. The description of the weapons being Daedric is truthful. Hard to create confusion from truth. If you imagine this may indeed confuse readers, then these specific weapons are the least of our concerns. Daedric, Dremora, and Bound weapons are very different in key respects, yet are identical in appearance. Now that is rife with ambiguity, yet if folks have the mental wherewithal to differentiate between those three, you have to give them enough credit to understand Golden/Dark/Order swords are the items of Daedra, just not the ones who serve Merhunes Dagon.Dark Spark 22:39, 13 December 2007 (EST)

You seem to be implying that any weapon that's wielded by a Daedra must by default BE Daedric, but there is plenty of evidence to contradict this. In Morrowind, Dremora (who are unquestionably Daedra) are often seen weilding Dreugh, Dwemer, or Ebony weapons, in addition to Daedric. Golden Saints in Morrowind use all kinds of weapons in addition to Daedric, most often Glass. So by your definition, Dreugh, Dwemer, Ebony, and Glass weapons are all Daedric? That makes as much sense as saying that all Iron weapons are Undead because they're often wielded by Skeletons. --TheRealLurlock ^Talk 02:03, 14 December 2007 (EST)

That's a false implication that ignores the obvious fact that a set of weapons named in alignment with specific Daedra; modeled to fit the styling of specific Daedra; and set in-game to be utilized primarily (and almost exclusively if it were not possible to loot them ourselves) by Daedra, just might be considered the weapons of Daedra. The default you assume in the above isn't simply about if certain Daedra can hold the darned things— the default stems from the fact the weapons were designed by conceived, designed, and implemented by Bethesda specifically to fit those characters: Daedric characters.Dark Spark 23:04, 15 December 2007 (EST)

Sorry, Dark Spark, but I'm not really sure what your intent is at this point. Is this just a question of what text should be included on the Shivering:Weapons page? Because that's what started this and that's the point that I was trying to address with my comments. In that context, the main priority it seems to me should be what information readers are looking for when they view the page and what information will help readers the most. And based upon that, yes, it is important that readers know whether or not weapons ignore the resist normal weapon (RNW) effect; the information that you added to the page about RNW was kept on the page and in fact expanded somewhat significantly.

Past that, it seems like we're venturing into territory where all seem to have differing opinions. You are free to have your own opinion about the exact nature of the weapons carried by the Dark Seducers and Golden Saints; just as I am free to have my opinion, and Lurlock is free to have his. I'm not sure that it helps the readers of the site or the site in general for the three of us to come up with some absolute truth about the weapons. But given that there is some amount of personal opinion involved here, it doesn't seem that it's appropriate to add any more detailed information to the Shivering:Weapons page. Especially since it's not information that will affect how anyone plays the game: it's not a factor that a player will take into account when deciding whether to attack creature X with the Dark Mace or with the Dwarven Warhammer, for example.

But if I've misunderstood something here, or if I'm overlooking a reason why some information needs to be added to the article, my apologies. If so, could you possibly be a bit more specific about what text exactly you believe needs to be added to the article and why readers will need that information to help them play the game? Thanks. --Nephele^Talk 23:23, 15 December 2007 (EST)

On your argument, adding that information into the article is unneccessary. And as you stated, we are entitled to our own opinion. But I do have a legitimate cause for objection when my opinion is evaluated to be incorrect when I have a sound chain of inferences to support that opinion. RNW doesn't imply the weapons are Daedric, that was your reason. But that comment only partially addresses the factors that in the argument. My intent here is to contribute other factors.Dark Spark 14:22, 16 December 2007 (EST)

Addendum--Actually, there's another reason why it would be helpful to add that 'Daedric' reference to the weapons article in question: the loading screen hints. One of the load screens informs players that ghosts and the like are immune to normal weapons, and directs them to use Silver, Deadric, or a magical weapon instead. Now, aside from the concise information you can supply with an asterisk in a data table, attaching the term 'Daedric' to the Aureal/Mazken/Order weapons on the page will serve well as a mnemonic for the reader. If they should come up to the question of whether or not a Golden Saint's sword is going to affect a ghost, remembering such weapons as being Daedric weapons will allow them to refer back to those tips they read at each load-up. Much more than an asterisk and footnote might provide.

Far from confusing the reader, we give them an additional device by which to retain the information we're presenting in this wiki.Dark Spark 16:23, 16 December 2007 (EST)

The problem is that many of the weapons in question here do not ignore resist normal weapons. The Worn Dark Mace, Dark Mace, and Frail Dark Bow are just "normal" weapons. And almost all of the order swords are "normal" weapons (the only two exceptions, out of seven order swords, are the Tarnished Order Sword and the Perfect Order Sword). So I think any type of generalization suggesting that all of these weapons ignore resist normal weapons is misleading. Which is the main reason why I modified your edit in the first place: to provide accurate information about exactly which weapons do and which weapons do not ignore resist normal weapons. --Nephele^Talk 22:57, 16 December 2007 (EST)

Alas, your point is strong. I am compelled to point out that the Dark Seducer weapons clearly exhibit an inconsistency in comparison to Golden Saint weapons, which strongly suggest the discrepency is the result of a bug rather than design. The Order Swords are a bit more baffling in that regard, the fact that the lowest and highest grades only exhibit this suggests design (albeit a flawed or poorly-coded one).

Bear in mind that I will always see 'color commentary' in a wiki to be just as useful an instrument as the more clinical 'play-by-play' information. Tables and numerical values will convey information to a reader, but incidental descriptions and background help us explore the game with the reader. Such color commentary in this wiki has helped me recall vital information on certain aspects of the game (like the fact that you can parade a stolen horse in front of its owner all you like, so long as no one saw you mount the animal in the first place), which a clinical rundown of various AI scripts would not have easily explained.Dark Spark 20:04, 17 December 2007 (EST)

AthleticsEdit

I must be misunderstanding something here. You said "fatigue never regenerates faster when running than when walking", but the mastery perks say something completely different. I am completely out of my wits here. Can you please explain what it means? --Mankar Camoran^{•T•C•E•} 14:14, 20 December 2007 (EST)

My understanding of fatigue regeneration is that there is a fixed rate at which fatigue regenerates when you are resting or walking. When you are running, however, your fatigue regeneration rate depends upon your Athletics mastery level, varying from a rate that is much slower than the resting/walking rate at a novice to a rate that is the same as (but not better than) the resting/walking rate when you are a master. I don't know what the exact numbers are, but for sake of illustration say that your fatigue always regenerates at 20 points/minute when resting or walking. Then your regeneration rates when running might be:

• 10 points/minute as a novice ("regenerates Fatigue slowly when running")
• 12.5 points/minute as an apprentice ("regenerates Fatigue 25% faster when running"; 12.5 is 25% faster than 10)
• 15 points/minute as a journeyman ("regenerates Fatigue 50% faster when running": 15 is 50% faster than 10)
• 17.5 points/minute as an expert ("regenerates Fatigue 75% faster when running": 17.5 is 75% faster than 10)
• 20 points/minute as a master ("does not suffer from a reduction in Fatigue regeneration": 20 is not reduced relative to the resting/walking value)

That's my interpretation, at least, of what the page says, although I haven't tried to test it in game for confirmation. --Nephele^Talk 15:10, 20 December 2007 (EST)

I did misunderstand what you said. "Fatigue never regenerates faster when running than when walking" is absolutely true. That edit should probably have been "At higher levels, your Fatigue regenerates progressively faster when running" or something to that effect, because fatigue does regenerate when running even if you are a novice. The edit as it stands now implies that fatigue regenerates when running only at higher levels which is not true. At least, that's my understanding of it. --Mankar Camoran^{•T•C•E•} 16:00, 20 December 2007 (EST)

I'll correct the article since there is no objection. --Mankar Camoran^{•T•C•E•} 14:01, 22 December 2007 (EST)

Thanks Mankar :) I'd been meaning to post again and say something about the sentence being badly worded and needing revision, but you beat me to it! --Nephele^Talk 15:10, 22 December 2007 (EST)

You are welcome :). Well, it was done. That's what matters in the end. --Mankar Camoran^{•T•C•E•} 15:19, 22 December 2007 (EST)

Assuming Good Faith?Edit

How am I expected to assume good faith if you have "respected" editors removing content without an reason given in the summary? Double-standards much? 69.250.142.218 22:19, 24 December 2007 (EST)

Perhaps the same way everyone else on the site does. If you don't give a reason in your edit summary for why you made the edit summary, how can you expect someone else to provide a reason in response? If you want to start a dialogue, you need to contribute to the conversation. If you want to others to behave in a certain way, why not trying setting an example with your own behaviour? --Nephele^Talk 22:32, 24 December 2007 (EST)