Open main menu

UESPWiki β

User talk:Nephele/Archive-2006-07

< User talk:Nephele

Potion StrengthsEdit

I assume you're talking about user-made potions, rather than the pre-existing ones? (I already did those, I assume that Oblivion:Potions is pretty much complete.) Unfortunately, I'm good at looking stuff up on charts, but user-created things are a bit more complicated. Particularly Alchemy, since it depends on so many different things: Your Alchemy skill, Intelligence, Luck, your Level (since some ingredient attributes do not show up until higher levels), the ingredients you use, and the quality of the various apparatus you use. (You'd have to take into account every combination of different qualities of the 4 apparatus, which just by itself means 5x5x5x5=625 combinations.) I think that Alchemy is probably the single most complicated aspect of this game in terms of calculations. However, there's a chance that this page: Oblivion:Spell_Effects might be of use to you. Other than that, try reading up on what information we have already on the Oblivion:Alchemy page. If you have access to the console, (not sure if that's available on the X-box?) you might try coming up with a systematic testing method, try mixing the same 2 ingredients at 5, 10, 15, etc. in Alchemy, Intelligence, and Luck, respectively and seeing what the difference is, then try it with higher quality gear, etc. Short of reverse-engineering the code to the game (beyond my skills, and also illegal), I can't think of any better way to do this. It's possible that this might just be more trouble than it's worth., but if you want to try it, best of luck to you. --TheRealLurlock 20:02, 26 June 2006 (EDT)

Yep, trying to figure out all the combinations for user-made potions is painful. I've collected a ton of data now: stats on 1300+ potions, with varying alchemy, luck, equipment, etc. Now I'm trying to make sense of all that info (and at times wondering whether it is indeed more trouble than it's worth). If I knew what the baseline values were it would make it would make things easier. I went through the pre-existing potions again last night to be sure, but they don't help me. Whatever internal table the game has for user-made potion strengths is unrelated to the pre-existing potion strengths.
How about a somewhat different question: where did you get the costs you filled in on the Spells page? Are those from a construction set table, or are they from somewhere else? For a change of pace, I figured I'd tackle the question you asked at some point about the actual magicka costs of casting spells. Short answer: depends upon skill and luck, but not upon intelligence or willpower. But to pin down the precise equation, I need to know what exactly those costs mean on the Spells page.--Nephele 17:14, 27 June 2006 (EDT)
The costs on the spells page are directly pulled from the CS. No calculations or anything done to them. Obviously, the actual cost will vary with skill and luck, but I don't know the exact formula. I think if your luck is exactly at 50, then that's as close to base as you can get, so it might be worth testing that way. (Anything below 50 is a penalty, anything above is a bonus, though I'm not certain about that.) Try with luck and skill both at 50, luck at 50 and skill at 25, 75, and 100, and that should give you some idea. Then do the same with luck at 25, 75, and 100 and see how much it makes a difference. I put the numbers up there for comparison purposes only. Somebody still needs to figure out how to calculate those to in-game numbers.--TheRealLurlock 23:41, 27 June 2006 (EDT)
As far as I can tell,
  • the in-game potions and user potions are unrelated (e.g. you can find, but not make, Restore Health (RH) potions for instant regen; you can make, but not find those that regen over time)
  • Potion Strength is complicated even further by the stacking mechanism; if you create two RH potions using different ingredients, they will stack together, even if the weights do not match. This might mean that the strengths could be different for using different ingredients. I don't think this is likely, as I haven't accidentally run across an example. However, the mod editor does show unique strengths for different ingredients.
  • An easy test to determine whether the Base Value for spell making applies to alchemy would be to create a single Restore Health and a single Restore Magicka. According to the spell cost chart, the ratio should be 4:1, all things being equal. In other words, if magnitude * duration for RH is 60 then M*D for RM should be 15.
  • I would try this with (a) mortar/pestle, (b) m/p + calcinator, (c) m/p + retort, and (d) m/p + retort + calcinator. That should get you the mulitplier for those items.
  • There's a set of values in the mod editor that suggest that (novice) calicinator adds 1% duration and 0.35% magnitude and the retort does 1% and 0.5% respectively. Which suggests that at low alchemy skill, it's not going to be that noticeable.
  • I haven't found anything in the editor that suggests what the overall formula is.
  • Example of ingredient strengths: Lady Mantle for RH: Mag =15 and calculated totals of Effect Base = 10; Effect Total = 32; Spell Total =5. Whereas Mugwort shows the same, but for Spell Total = 1. However, Ambrosia has RH magnitude of 30 with effect total of 77, spell total of 2.
  • Flax Seed, for RM, has mag/base/effect/spell numbers of 15/2/8/1 and Steel Blue Entoloma the same.
  • Clanfear claws have a paralyze duration # of 45, while the ingredients with paralyze as a 4th effect (harrada, fennel, milk thistle) have 60 duration. That suggests that using clanfear+harrada should yield a lesser paralysis than harrada + fennel.
  • I suspect the 'effect total' relates to ultimate cost (based on other data).
I suspect that spell making and potion making are not directly correlated. Instead, I suspect that tweaking alchemical potion strengths would require updating lots of ingredients or tweaking the power of mortal/pestle and the like.
I hope some/any of above helps. Good luck.
Thanks for all the info.
  • I've tested combinations of different ingredients pretty extensively to figure out just how stacking messing with things. I'm quite sure that stacking affects the weight and price of potions, but not the strength. I've filled in my inferences on how that all works in places like the weight section on the alchemy page.
  • The CS numbers for the ingredient effect strengths at this point seem irrelevant. I didn't even know those CS numbers existed until a few days ago (see the discussion on Refined Frost Salts). But I've tried alot of different combos of ingredients, and never seen any effect on potion strength (duration or magnitude) from swapping out ingredients. But I still need to look more closely at some of the numbers you've given for ingredient strengths and see what they mean....
  • I've done tests like the Restore Health to Restore Magicka ratio that you suggest (although generally with effects like Feather, Burden, Detect Life that have nice large magnitudes and durations). And in those tests the custom-made potion ratios are completely different from the spell ratios, and completely different from the built-in potion ratios. So custom-made potions seem to have their own base values.
  • Thanks alot for the 1%/0.35% and 1%/0.5% numbers for the calcinator and retort effects! If you happen to see any other numbers like that, they'd be a godsend. It's the fact that those effects are so small that's making it tough for me to extract them. The cumulative effects of good-quality equipment start to add up to larger numbers, but trying to tease out the individual ones is tricky.
I'd basically welcome any info/feedback people have on potion strengths... either here on my talk page or by email. --Nephele 02:11, 28 June 2006 (EDT)

...

  • my last view in the editor also suggested that spell costs and alchemical effects were not related; I'm glad to see that your empirical results were the same
  • re: potion strengths or magnitudes depending on ingredients
    • in the editor, very few of the ingredients showed different numbers for individual effects, so I would expect only rare cases of differences; I'll try to spot more for you
    • I haven't compared harrada/clanfear vs. harrada/fennel - if ingredient choice matters, it would be here.
  • re: stacking
    • in mixing potions, I can consistently set the weight by creating an initial potion and subbing ingredients afterwards; all pots get that initial weight if they are the same strength
    • if strength is not the same, then a new stack begins - I have yet to see an exception (this is most noticeable when the alchemy skill changes)
    • obviously, changing the potion name or adding an effect also adds a new stack
  • what is "CS" number?— Unsigned comment by Tennessee Ernie Ford (talkcontribs)
Forgot to test those paralyze ingredients when I was playing with potions again earlier this evening. Thanks for reminding me of that. Your stacking results agree completely with mine: the first time you make a potion with a given strength that sets the weight and cost for all subsequent potions. By "CS" number I just meant construction set number, referring to those magnitude, "effect base", "effect total", "spell total" numbers you quoted earlier.--Nephele 03:47, 7 July 2006 (EDT)
I've tested out the various paralyze ingredients, and the choice of ingredients makes no difference (I tried every pair of the 5 ingredients, plus Daedra Venin on its own -- 11 potions in all). The only caveat is that even though this was at Alchemy=100 with expert/master equipment, the paralyze potions only have a duration of 3 seconds. Paralyze potions are the least sensitive to these types of tests because they are so weak; in theory there could be a 25% type effect that just wouldn't show up.
Just to do another set of tests, I then did a set of Burden potions. I tried a potion made with two ingredients that have burden as primary effect (daedra silk+morning glory), a potion from two with burden as secondary effect (minotaur horn+nightshade), another with two tertiary (bloodgrass+daedroth teeth), a final with two quaternary (arrowroot+monkshood). All had the exact same strength (38 points for 154 secs).
So I can't think of too many other ways to test those internal construction set stats. Everything I've done says they have absolutely no effect on potion magnitudes, durations, prices, or weights. The only difference from exchanging any two ingredients is on potion weight (and even then, only if you haven't previously made a potion with the same strength). (And that's based upon detailed stats I've collected for more than 1500 potions now). Unless someone gives some compelling evidence to the contrary, I'm going to call this particular issue closed.--Nephele 01:28, 8 July 2006 (EDT)

I'VE DONE IT!! The Alchemy page now details my findings on how to calculate the magnitude and duration of any potion or poison in the game.

One of my earlier statements here was wrong: the potion strengths are indeed governed by the same base costs as Spell Effects. I got messed up in my first checks because: first, you have to multiply together magnitude and duration (using the equation on the Spell Making page) and second, you have to look at mortar+pestle cases only (adding other equipment throws in so many things that the relationship to the spell base costs gets really murky).

Also, as for the statement:

There's a set of values in the mod editor that suggest that (novice) calicinator adds 1% duration and 0.35% magnitude and the retort does 1% and 0.5% respectively

Similar numbers ended up surfacing in my analysis. A retort has effects of 1 on duration and 0.5 on magnitude (but then multiplied by the equipment strength, so novice causes 10% and 5% increases; master causes 100% and 50% increases). For calcinator I also came up with 0.35 impact, but in most cases that's actually an impact on duration; the impact on magnitude is usually 1.4. (I say usually here, because of the various exceptions that pop up).

Anyway, thanks for all the input on this project. At this point, I just have one last question to any one who reads this: if you happen to have a Master Calcinator would it be possible to let me know whether these equations work? That is the only piece of equipment that I haven't been able to pick up yet (although I'm in the process of repeatedly searching all the conjurer and necromancer lairs, so someday soon I should find one...).--Nephele 18:13, 16 July 2006 (EDT)

Gottlesfont vs GottlefontEdit

Nephele: you said that, "Gottlefont is the more widely used spelling, so I think it's the best one to adopt on the site..."
and then, "(I'm pretty sure the last comment has it backwards: "Gottlefont" is the spelling used on both of the interior cells; "Gottlesfont" is the anomaly and only used once in the game)."

Since I made the last comment, I wanted you to know why I thought the s-full version might be preferable.

  1. Isn't it more likely that people will notice the name listed on the Cyrodiil=area map more often, since they are more often outside the priory than inside?
    (For example, the only name I notice for forts and dungeons is the one that appears on the fast travel map; once I am inside, I don't notice the spelling.)
  2. In the TES Construction Kit, the faction that Sister Angrond belongs to is, "GottlesfontFaction, with s.
  3. Sister Angrond (inside) can be asked about, Gottlesfont, but not about Gottlefont.
  4. When asked, she will say, "The Sisters of Gottlesfont gather Steel Blue Entoloma..."

So, I thought that Gottlefont was the anomoly, based on where and how it gets used (as opposed to how many map titles have one spelling or the other).

That said, I bow to the consensus; it's better to stick to a spelling, rather than keep switching.

FYI I'm deliberately leaving these comments off the main discussion; it's not worth re-opening the topic. --Tennessee Ernie Ford 04:51, 27 June 2006 (EDT)

It is looking more and more like the with-s spelling may be the more widely used one. I know Lurlock has been coming across a few with-s Gottlesfonts in the books he's been uploading to the site. But I don't know if it's worth switching things again. Both Gottlesfont Priory and Gottlefont Priory work as links, so I think anyone looking for the priory on this site will find it, which is probably the most important point. And we've gotten rid of the Gottesfont spellings completely!--Nephele 17:26, 27 June 2006 (EDT)
Interesting. So, let's blame the developers for leaving us poor fans with such a silly dilemna.--Tennessee Ernie Ford 01:02, 28 June 2006 (EDT)

UESP NewsEdit

Hello. I am about to post a news update on the front page about on the progress being made here at UESP. Including the progress that you've been contributing with, what are some of the things here you've noticed that have been steadily improved upon recently? --Aristeo 18:18, 30 June 2006 (EDT)

Coloring IdeaEdit

Hey, take a look at what I did to M'raaj Dar's page. I think it might be a better way to go on this coloring for all the spell pages. Color the spell cost, not the name. What do you think? (Also made the text bold so you can read it better with the color.) --TheRealLurlock 22:14, 3 July 2006 (EDT)

Looks good. As you may have noticed, I just plowed through and posted new versions of a bunch of other merchants' pages. I'll finish with the ones I haven't posted then take a break, see if there's any other feedback, then go back for another round of updates.--Nephele 22:20, 3 July 2006 (EDT)
I like the look of the new Spells by Effects page, by the way. I'm thinking of applying the same kind of color scheme to some of the items pages, you know, green for Chameleon, blue for Fortify Health, etc. Just more interesting to look at than the boring grey the whole way down, and it makes the ones you're looking for stand out a bit more. Right now I've got my work cut out for me for the next couple days on the already-huge-and-growing Oblivion:Generic_Magic_Items page, though, so maybe later. --TheRealLurlock 22:25, 3 July 2006 (EDT)
This is a good idea, but could you please use softer colors? --Aristeo 23:02, 3 July 2006 (EDT)
I just tweaked some of the colors on Calindil's page. Is that what you were thinking of?--Nephele 23:40, 3 July 2006 (EDT)
I meant colors like #FFE and #EFE. (Abbreviated forms of #FFFFEE and #EEFFEE) I changed that same page to demonstrate what I meant. I feel that colors too much darker than that will make things too violent on that page, of course it doesn't hurt to experiment. --Aristeo 23:50, 3 July 2006 (EDT)
I lengthened the color names -- IE didn't seem to like the abbreviations (everything came out black). I feel that going that far is getting too subtle; it gets too hard to use the colors as visual clues. I'll play with things some more and see if there's possibly a happy medium.--Nephele 00:08, 4 July 2006 (EDT)
Okay, cool. Let me know how things works out :) --Aristeo 00:14, 4 July 2006 (EDT)

One more try at a set of colors, again at Calindil's page. Just one or two shades darker than Aristeo's suggestion; just dark enough so that you can easily pick out the colors. It may be a bit hard for some to distinguish Alteration and Mysticism (originally purple and a pale pink; now pale purple and pale pink). But crystal-clear differentiation isn't absolutely necessary, since we're never relying on the colors to provide the information. How do those colors work for everyone?--Nephele 00:25, 4 July 2006 (EDT)

Works for me --Aristeo 00:29, 4 July 2006 (EDT)

NPC OrganizationEdit

In order to organize the NPCs, I've created the category Category:Oblivion-NPCs and the bread crumb trail Template:Oblivion NPC Trail. Could you apply this to the NPC pages, as I don't know where they are. I also want to propose that the "NPC" be removed from the titles of the pages (eg. Oblivion:NPC Adoring Fan -> Oblivion:Adoring Fan), because other npc pages don't have this prefix (eg. Morrowind:Caius Cosades). --Aristeo 11:40, 4 July 2006 (EDT)

Newbie!Edit

I suppose I can't exactly claim to be a newbie any more, having now broken into the top 10 on the Active Users page.

Hehe, I'm #1 on the active users page, not to mention a site administrator, and I know that I'm still a newbie. This site was founded when I was about 4 or 5, and I only started to use it when Morrowind GOTY was released. --Aristeo 14:16, 15 July 2006 (EDT)

IRC?Edit

I think it would be cool if you could come on the IRC channel so we could talk a little about some of the things going on with Oblivion:Places and Tamriel. --Aristeo 23:13, 17 July 2006 (EDT)

I haven't got myself set up for IRC yet, but now is as good a time as any to do it. Give me a half-hour or so and I should be able to figure it out....--Nephele 23:19, 17 July 2006 (EDT)
I'll be here --Aristeo 23:20, 17 July 2006 (EDT)

Redirects InsteadEdit

Instead of deleting most of your requests for deletion, I made them redirect to the appropriate articles. I did that, for now, because those pages have noteable page histories. There were a couple that I did delete, the two Gottlefont pages that were misspellings or alternate spellings. These redirects shouldn't get in the way, and I hope this is alright with you. --Aristeo 11:37, 20 July 2006 (EDT)

I suspected you might come along and recommend this. I figured I'd start by just following my gut, mark the pages in the easiest way as unneeded (i.e., use the delete tag), then wait for you to chime in and make the official decision. I'll do redirects from now on. FYI, before cleaning up these pages, I have been making a point of doing site searches on all of them, to see if they get mentioned in any of the books, etc. I figure any that do pop in books (i.e., Oblivion:Ceyatatar) probably should have Tamriel entries.--Nephele 13:20, 20 July 2006 (EDT)
I just don't like deleting pages if I feel like doing so would have any bad consequences. --Aristeo 13:33, 20 July 2006 (EDT)
Hmmm, just realized that keeping those pages floating around as redirects really confuses the templates that are still transcluding the tamriel pages. I'll go ahead and change the fort summary template to try to fix things up, but the redirects may be a bit problematic.--Nephele 01:24, 21 July 2006 (EDT)
Are we using any of the content on the Tamriel pages that we turn into redirects? If not, I can go ahead and delete them. --Aristeo 15:34, 21 July 2006 (EDT)
Not exactly sure what you're asking. I'm taking anything that was written on the Tamriel pages and making sure it's now included in the Oblivion pages (whether that means copying it over to the Oblivion pages, or merging into what's there, or making sure it was already there). For any page that I've tagged for deletion, I've then made sure that it's basically orphaned (with the exception of any yet-to-be-fixed templates that might still be forcing transclusion). If you'd like to change over to deletion, let me know and I'll track down the pages and put delete tags on them (and tag a bunch of empty pages for oblivion places that I've noticed in the Tamriel namespace while I'm at it).--Nephele 16:39, 21 July 2006 (EDT)
The only concern I have, and the only reason I'm not deleting the pages, is for the content of the Tamriel pages that gets copied over to the Oblivion pages. If the content is copied/pasted over to another page, and the old pages are deleted, then it appears that you wrote the content and not the person who really wrote it. For example, lets say Garrett wrote a description on one of the Tamriel pages. Afterwards, you copy the description onto another page, and I delete the Tamriel page. It then appears that you wrote the description, when Garrett is the real author. If you can make a note on the Edit Summary that gives attribution to the proper authors, or on the discussion pages, then I'll be able to delete the old pages.--Aristeo 16:51, 21 July 2006 (EDT)
Return to the user page of "Nephele/Archive-2006-07".