User talk:TheRealLurlock/2006 09

A Small Favor: FeedbackEdit

Good day Lurlock, I just completed posting a further suggestion on the Community Portal - specifically regarding the Tamriel:Books section - and would appreciate your feedback on such, notably as you are both a dedicated editor, frequent contributor to the site, and - judging by your contributions list and notes on this page - have spent quite some time organizing that yourself. Thus, if you find yourself with a moment to spare, I'd appreciate your stopping by and chiming in on the subject. Thanks!

PostScript: Naturally, feel free to delete this at your leisure. Again, my thanks...
-- Booyah boy 09:59, 4 September 2006 (EDT)

Mysticism iconEdit

Is there any chance that there's something odd about the format of the Mysticism icon ()? When I was at work today, my browser kept glitching on that one icon when I pulled up the Oblivion:Skingrad_People page: instead of showing it, it would just print out the tooltip text. All the other icons on the page worked fine. I think I ran into this before as well, but didn't bother to follow up on it. Admittedly, I'm using a pretty old version of mozilla at work, but I thought I'd mention the problem in case there happens to be a simple fix. Thanks! --Nephele 01:03, 8 September 2006 (EDT)

No idea. It should be exactly the same format as all the other skill icons. Unless somebody misspelled the name or something. But it looks fine from here. --TheRealLurlock 09:31, 8 September 2006 (EDT)

Chameleon active, but no graphic effect ??Edit

Do you know any solution about my problem ? The Chameleon Effect costs a lot of FPS, is there any way, that the Chameleon Visual Effect does not apply to the player ? I mean that Chameleon is active, but you see your player as usual ?? Thanks for Answers...

-- Sooker 03:29, 14 September 2006 (EDT)

Apologies, but I'm not the one to talk to about graphics tweaks. My computer requires a 3rd party plugin (Oldblivion) just to run at lowest quality. Without it, I can't play at all. However, one of the side-effects of Oldblivion is that Chameleon (and Invisibility) don't work at all, on you or on other people. Can't help you much there. --TheRealLurlock 09:25, 14 September 2006 (EDT)

Hmm, guess you got me wrong, that's exactly what I wanted. You say Oldblivion cut's out the transparency effects of Chameleon and Invisibility? Or does it totally cut out both spells ? Is there, perhaps, any other mod, that alters or disables the transparency effects when using Chameleon or Invisibility ??

Thank you for answering. -- Sooker 05:13, 15 September 2006 (EDT)

It completely eliminates them, but not just for you, it eliminates it for everyone else, including things like ghosts and faded wraiths, and all the people that are supposed to be invisible in Aleswell, etc. Check them out at [www.oldblivion.com Oldblivion]. I only use it because I have to. You lose a lot of the fancy graphics features with it, but at least it plays on out-dated hardware, which it wouldn't do otherwise. --TheRealLurlock 09:06, 15 September 2006 (EDT)

Open up the construction set, and change the values of fChameleonMinRefraction and fChameleonMaxRefraction to 0 and save as a plugin. Now the chameleon visual effect won't have any shader transparency, instead will have a "ghost-like" fade to it which should be much less taxing on the video card. (And much more cool-looking, too.)--The_Black_Hand 0945, 29 October 2006 (GMT+8)

Reflect Damage editEdit

Ok, there might be no ranged weapons other than bows. But tell me what do spells have to do with reflect damage (see your edit). And by 'such as bows' I mean that there MAY be mods out there which add new ranged weapons (javelins, darts, crossbows, etc). I bet there's plenty of them on tessource.net or elsewhere.--Brightone 11:44, 21 September 2006 (EDT)

(Moving this text from User_talk:The_RealLurlock) Okay, I replaced the phrase "Ranged weapons, such as bows" with just "Bows", and it seemed a little short, so I added spells. It is worth noting that spells still affect you as usual with this spell. As for mods which add new ranged weapons, we are not in the habit of including any material from mods on this site. The only exceptions we make are for the official mods, but that information is included on their own pages, and so far no other ranged weapons exist in any official mods. So those are irrelevant as far as this site is concerned. --TheRealLurlock 12:09, 21 September 2006 (EDT)

It's nothing. I didn't want to make a fuss of it atol. But as you and me were both wrong, wouldn't it have been easier to simply put it as 'Ranged weapons will still affect you as usual'? I suppose this would have settled the argument. Either of us could make the necessary adjustments to that page. I don't mind if you do. And sorry to have posted my comment to the wrong place :p)--Brightone 15:34, 21 September 2006 (EDT)

Real Barenziah AuthorEdit

I noticed that you changed the author listed for The Real Barenziah from Anonymous to Plitinius Mero. For the Morrowind/Oblivion versions of the book, the author is explicitly listed as "Anonymous" (i.e., it's not like some books that just don't have any author listed). Without being sure whether the change was accidental or deliberate, it's hard to know much significance to place on it. But given the level of interest in this book and all the other changes made it to it between games, I'm not sure that we should be tampering with the author, no matter how logical it may seem. --Nephele 12:42, 22 September 2006 (EDT)

I figure, if we know that the original version is written by Plintinius Mero, and some of that content is in the revised version as well, then he is the author of at least those parts as well. It's possible whoever revised it is anonymous, in which case the author would be "Plitinius Mero, revised by anonymous" or something like that. Obviously the Temple has gone to some lengths to at least partially repress this book, but if you view the games as a historical progression, then it's clear the book was originally not anonymous, despite the Temple's attempts to make it so. In any borderline cases with the books, my choice has always been to favor some information in place of no information, and thus anything else trumps "anonymous" if the information exists anywhere. Perhaps adding an editor's note to the revised version of the book might be in order, stating something like: "This book is published anonymously, but there are rumors of a version published under the name 'Plitinius Mero' before its revision by the Temple." --TheRealLurlock 12:50, 22 September 2006 (EDT)

My understanding (without having actually played Daggerfall) is that the original version with Mero's name on it was really just an unpublished manuscript. The fact that in the book version the author was changed to "anonymous" could imply that is the only way Mero was actually able to publish it (fear of reprisals if his name was on it?). And the revisions could well have been made by Mero (except, presumably, for the censorship which is attributed to the Temple) in the process of revising the manuscript for publication; there is no evidence to support listing the author as "Plitinius Mero, revised by anonymous".

So my feeling is that "anonymous" is not an absence of information that needs to be filled in (if no author at all had been listed, that would be a different case). I feel it would be more appropriate to have the author subpage state anonymous, since that's how the book was published. Then in the notes on the book's page (where the Daggerfall version is already listed), mention that the author of the original manuscript was listed as Mero. To me, this seems more comparable to standard practice with books (i.e., there are authors who publish under pen names, sometimes even multiple different pen names: the pen names are kept as the official author of the books, even when it is well-known who the real author is). --Nephele 13:43, 22 September 2006 (EDT)