User talk:C0rTeZ48

The UESPWiki – Your source for The Elder Scrolls since 1995
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome![edit]

Hello C0rTeZ48! Welcome to UESPWiki! It's always good to have new members. If you would like to help improve any of our pages, you may want to take a look at the following links:

If you would like to spice up your userpage, click here for a list of userboxes you can use, including a guide to making your own.

When you're editing, it's always a good idea to leave edit summaries to explain the changes you have made to a particular page, and remember to sign your talk page posts with four tildes ~~~~. Also, the "show preview" button is a great way to view the changes you've made so far without actually saving the page (our patrollers really appreciate it!).

Feel free to practice editing in the sandbox or discuss the games on the forums. If you need any help, don't hesitate to contact one of our mentors. Have fun! •WoahBro►talk 00:46, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Signing Talk Pages[edit]

As a courtesy to other editors, please sign your posts on talk pages and other discussion pages. To do so, simply add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and the date will then be automatically added along with a timestamp when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps readers understand who is involved in a discussion, and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you. — Wolfborn↝(Howl) 14:57, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

NPC Dialogue[edit]

Hi C0rTeZ48, I saw you were asking in a few places about Shivering Isles NPCs having any main quest dialogue. Those NPCs fall within the scope of the Oblivion NPC Redesign Project; if you don't see the project tag at the top of the page, then the NPC already has all dialogue listed on the page. —⁠Legoless (talk) 09:24, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Editing Talk Pages[edit]

I noticed that while making a recent edit to a talk page, you deleted a number of other users' posts. I am not certain why you did this, but please be aware that deleting or modifying other users' posts on Talk Pages is not appropriate. If you wish to participate in a Talk Page discussion, please add your comments at the end of the discussion without modifying the remainder of the discussion in any way (minor formatting corrections are acceptable if necessary). If you are not familiar with Talk Page etiquette, please familiarize yourself at the link I have provided.

I have edited the Talk Page in question to restore the deleted comments and placed your comment at the end of the discussion. Thanks for your contribution and for confirming the behaviour of the enemy spawns. — Wolfborn(Howl) 20:28, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

My bad Wolfborn, it was simply an accident. I seem to have edited a previous version, not the last one.--C0rTeZ48 (talk) 00:41, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Patrollers[edit]

Hi C0rTeZ48! I scanned a recent post you made on SerCenKing's talk page and noticed you used the following phrase: "...I decided to become a more active patroller..." While I know what you mean when you say that, the term "Patroller" on the wiki is normally reserved for a specific group of editors who have been granted that title by the Admins and have extra tools and privileges at their disposal. Referring to yourself as a "patroller" when you are not a member of this group can be confusing and (unintentionally) misleading. You might want to consider rephrasing that sentence to clarify your true meaning to avoid any potential misunderstanding that might arise from using the term. Just wanted to point this out! Cheers — Wolfborn(Howl) 01:06, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Mmmh, I missed the part that it is a title granted by Admins. I do often voluntarily patrol the Recent Changes for Oblivion/Shivering however. Then I guess a Monitor would be a better name to use?--C0rTeZ48 (talk) 01:27, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
"Monitor" is fine; "more active editor/participant" might also work. BTW, there's actually a userbox to describe what you mean, if you want to add it to your page: {{User NoPatroller}}. Cheers — Wolfborn(Howl) 02:11, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
Thank you! C0rTeZ48 (talk) 02:23, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Couple of questions[edit]

Hi C0rTeZ, a couple of questions I had as I've been getting through some of your unpatrolled OB edits over the last few months:

  1. I noticed that on a number of pages (1; 2; 3; 4; 5; 6; 7; 8; 9) you've been modifying the health and magicka stats. I am curious about where you are getting these/how you are calculating them, as I seemed to get different ones using rpeh's old NPC stat calculator...
  2. Having looked at this edit quickly, I think that some of the spells might potentially duplicate each other as various leveled lists contain the same ones, and so may spit out the same spell more than once. I haven't actually had time to investigate how common this is, what the likelihood is and how many "unique" spells he could get, but would be grateful if you could double check.
  3. I also couldn't figure out the basis for this edit, but I feel like I'm missing something pretty basic :)

Thanks! --SerCenKing (talk) 14:32, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Hiya SerC! I will answer your points one by one. I've taken a quick look at them, and think I'm able to answer them! I also have two questions for you down below:
  1. It does seem I made a few little mistakes here and there, since I sometimes double counted the extra Strength/Endurance points a NPC got by being a few levels above the player. I will do my best to correct those. I did not know about rpeh's old NPC stat calculator, thank you for sharing it, it's quite helpful! It seems to be pretty accurate, however, I only will use a slightly different health calculator for very few specific NPCs with large fortify Strength/Endurance bonuses, like the Afflicted Brethren. This is simply because some of them already have a raw Strength of 100 at level 1, so I will half the retroactive health of their equation (so f.e., 1.5 rather than 3). Besides that, I mostly corrected the health for specific NPCs with Attribute/Health bonuses, since those would be more accurate than those listed at the CSlist. EDIT: rpeh's NPC stat calculator does round decimals to the nearest integer, rather than down. The NPCs page states All values are rounded down to the nearest integer. So this is a small error, presumably of the stat calculator. ANOTHER EDIT: I have now corrected all NPC health of the relevant pages you linked. Only very few seemed to be incorrect. I'm not sure what you were referring to, so perhaps you want to be more specific with an example about where I'm getting these/how I'm calculating the health stats.
  2. I think you're correct: f.e., Hannibal seems to have the LL1ConjurationNoArmorAllMinorLvl100 list twice in two independent lists, and the chances of getting Bound War Axe from LL0BoundWeaponMinorLvl100 are pretty big (2x(2/3rd))=4/9th (≈44.44%). I haven't been playing Oblivion for the last year, but if you really want me to, I can attack Hannibal on my Xbox360 after getting to a new level, and see what spells he summons. But as you can imagine, that's not very practical. I think there are better tools for PC that can make someone take a look at what spells NPCs have or something.
  3. There are multiple people on certain talk pages talk about this occurrence. F.e., see this page/section on the topic. There are other talk pages too, and I've heard others notice it as well. I have never experimented with/confirmed it myself, but I'm pretty sure it seems to be correct. Someone would need 100% Resist Poison, Resist Element or Resist Paralysis to fully resist those poison types.

So now two questions for you:

  1. On the Heretic page, can you perhaps adjust the footnotes part? It's currently at the bottom of the page, it does seem to be at the correct place on the Zealot page.
  2. Are there any rules about the amount of decimals 'allowed' on UESP pages? I haven't found any specific rules on it after some searching. I'm asking since we currently have pretty much rounded all decimals to the closest integers on specific percentages, like enchanted weapon chances. I'm wondering if it was the best choice. Also, I do not know exactly whether the CSlist rounds things down, or to the closest integers. I actually think decimals are rounded down, rather than to the closest integer. If that's the case, about half of all percentages are currently wrong.
Btw, you've done a great job so far looking after my edits! I noticed I made some errors, and you did great by correcting many of them. Have you currently done all of them however? I'm asking since I did not see any edits to the Dremora page yet. Also, I did revert some changes on the Vampire page. I think I made a good choice on a lot of changes, but looking back I could've let some stay perhaps. C0rTeZ48 (talk) 19:14, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
Hey C0rTeZ! Thanks for having a look at all these. To take them in turn:
  1. I had initially only compared a sample of the calculations rather than every single one - I thought easiest to just check with you first in case I'd missed something. I'll now have a full look and let you know if there are any issues. And interesting spot on rpeh's calculator - I'll keep that in mind.
    1. Edit: Looking at the Afflicted Brethren, I still seem to get different values while using rpeh's calculator. For example, for Ghola gro-Muzgol it's giving me 108 + (6+3)x(PC+2), PC=2--2. That's with adding +30 Health bonus and +50 Strength bonus. Am I missing something?
  2. Sorry, I didn't realise you weren't on PC. I'll have a look later this evening. I'm thinking the easiest thing is to mention the max-min number of unique spells he can cast.
  3. Thanks for linking that. From rpeh's point on MGEF I had a look and confirmed. Now marked as patrolled.
  4. Yes, good spot, will fix. While we're on Heretics, where are you getting the level 22 for standard Transformed Heretics? I can only see level 23 in the CS for the relevant leveled lists (SELL1HereticMage100 and SELL1HereticMageLvl100).
  5. The Style Guide doesn't mention decimals so seems a bit of a gray area. My take would that we round to the nearest decimal for ease & simplicity, with perhaps an exception for "common" decimals like 12.5% (1/8). But in short, there's no hard and fast rule.
Re the Vampire page. I'd gone over the "nested" % question a bit and had come down on stating the percentage of the weapon type in the table (e.g. 33%) and then the percentage of enchantment in the note. By having the asterisk specifically next to one of the two weapon types, I think it's clear that it's saying that that particular weapon may be enchanted with whatever probability. I can't make out how the current text is much different from the previous in terms of clarity, though.
Related to this, a chunk of your edit is about moving the enchantment % text back into the table, which frankly is visually unwieldy and given the repetition of the %s, begs the question of why not simply use a note, as before. Per se, it also doesn't make the text any less "confusing" - I would actually argue that putting it into the table makes it less clear given it clutters the column. I do however prefer your reformulation, so I'd revert to notes but keeping the new explanatory text.
Regarding Notes about lacking spells/weapons/armor to match a major skill - my take is these are not noteworthy enough for inclusion. They seem to me to fail the "so what?" test: "ok, so Heretics have HA as a major skill but don't wear any - so what?" The only relevance for the player is a hypothetical advantage if you're a non-magic character, and it's not even clear if this is an dev oversight or they never intended to. I am in favor of including similar mismatches when it (a) is a Bug fixed by the UOP (b) actually impacts gameplay, for example by underpowering melee attacks or preventing the NPC from casting spells they know. But not otherwise. That said, I'd be interested to hear your argument for inclusion. I also hadn't come across these Notes before, so grateful if you could share a few links.
Otherwise, I'll probably first go through the remaining unpatrolled NPC pages as I got a bit of "generic NPC fatigue"! Also the reason I hadn't yet looked through the Dremora page ;-) Will have a look at the latest edits perhaps on the weekend. --SerCenKing (talk) 10:56, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
I'll do my best to answer your questions. I made a new numbering to better answer them point by point:
  1. A quote from my last response: It seems to be pretty accurate, however, I only will use a slightly different health calculator for very few specific NPCs with large fortify Strength/Endurance bonuses, like the Afflicted Brethren. This is simply because some of them already have a raw Strength of 100 at level 1, so I will half the retroactive health of their equation (so f.e., 1.5 rather than 3). For Ghola, this is the case. His Orc+Warrior combination gives him a starting Strength of 50, and the +50 bonus brings this to 100. His Endurance will be 55 however. By this reason, taking Ghola's PC+3 into account, the retroactive Strength+Endurance health part of the equation will increase by exactly 1.5 (Endurance/2) each level, and will hit 100 in level 13. For this reason, it will be easier for unknowledgeable readers to exactly determine Ghola's health. The PC=2--2 or 'current' PC=2-13 part of the equation is only a handy tool for readers to determine by what player level either Strength or Endurance first hits 100. For this special reason, I really think it is better to use the different PC=2-13, rather than the standard PC=2--2 Rpeh's stat calculator shows. The same reasoning goes for Umar and Nille. Remember, the only reason that part of the equation exists, is to give an exact determination of what the Health is at those exact levels. And even more so, for very rare NPCs like Ghola whose starting Strength/Endurance is already above 100 at level 1 (Ghola's Strength is actually 109 in level 1, rather than 100 since PC+3), I actually think the current health is sub-par. His health should be 4.5 points higher than what is currently displayed, which is why it previously was 112, rather than 107. Looking back, I actually think 112 would be more precise. To my knowledge, Ghola is literally the only NPC in the entire game for which this special health count should be displayed on the NPC page. But first I'll hear your response.
  2. No problem! Yes, I think that's the best option.
  3. Also no problem!
  4. Mmmh, so the LVLC determines for a given spawn point what NPC/Creature may spawn? Then you would be correct. I went back and forth two times in my edits as you may have noticed, since I noticed in your edit summary that you wanted to change it to 23, but then I noticed you kept it at 22 in your edit. Later I took another look at it, and noticed the standard Transformed Heretic displays PC-2 (min=20) for NPC Level in the CSlist, rather than PC-2 (min=21) the standard Ascended Zealot does for NPC Level. I figured you took notice of that at the last moment, and therefore did not change it (but did leave it at the edit summary). Now I still am confused to what should be the leading factor, but if you say the LVLC is what determines a given spawn point, rather than NPC Level, I'd say that is the leading point we should go by. :)
  5. Then what do you think if I may revert some small changes in the future back to one decimal behind the integer? I'm not fully sure if I will however, since it's only a rather small point.
  6. About the Vampire page: You're right, I thought about if for a while, and in the end decided that what you changed on that point was better. Only for Vampire classes which had no differences in weapon spawns between enchanted and unenchanted (so f.e., one had enchanted Longsword or Daggers, and another had always unenchanted Longsword or Daggers), I indeed reverted some changes (enchantment % text back into the table as you said), since no different weapons may spawn (so f.e., enchanted Longsword or Daggers vs always unenchanted War Axes). I figured that would be a better lay-out, but going by your new response, I actually agree with you now on this point. I will take another look at it soon, but perhaps you may want to revert those changes back to how you want it, and then I will go for one last look. Just let me know if you want me or yourself to put those changes back. I thought I'd be good to mention it in my previous post, since I figured it was the only page I made some changes on about which you might not agree :)
  7. Mmmh, okay, but for many other magic skills until now, we did decide to leave it on the page. There are many current pages (f.e. the Necromancer and Mannimarco pages), for which we decided to keep it as a bug that they have a certain magic major skill, despite not having any such spells in their repertoire. Since the devs at multiple times gave specific NPCs specific spells, without taking notice of their magic skills as a result of it being a minor or major skill, we can reason it also happened the other way around (deciding a NPC should have a major skill, without then adding at least one spell to their repertoire). Then also by this reasoning, the same would go for mentioning that no single Hereitc variation wears Heavy Armor, despite having it as a major skill. The other point is that there are quite some Zealots that actually do wear Light Armor. That's why I figured it would be a good addition on the Heretic page. Therefore, for Zealots at least, I think the devs actually wanted to make use of their Light Armor major skill specifically. At least imo, it's very interesting they did, since they are the only magic-based NPCs in the entire game to do so, and I'm pretty sure the skilled devs were aware about things like Magic Effectiveness and the fact that no other magic-based NPCs like Necromancers or Conjurers wear any armor, after working on a game for 6 years or so by that point. And in addition, when going by your (b) point; it actually impacts gameplay, for example by underpowering melee attacks or preventing the NPC from casting spells they know, I think it does indirectly affect gameplay, since a given NPC is now less strong than what the devs had for them in mind. F.e., on the Vampire page, there are two Bloodcrust Vampire variations (Spellsword and two Warriors) which suffer from bad armor (and weapon) listing, which we decided to keep on the page. At least, you 'agreed' with this since you decided to keep it in last change. At the very least, I would argue for a (c) point: that we can reasonably argue that the devs had a particular spells/weapons/armor listing in mind when going by a given NPC skill. And then last but not least, even if it would be better to exclude all these things, we still have go back again over all pages we made changes to the last months, which frankly I'm not too fond of. For all these reasons, I really think I have made a strong case for why this really is the best way to keep it as it is on all relevant pages. :) I don't quite understand however what you mean by I also hadn't come across these Notes before, so grateful if you could share a few links, so perhaps you can expand a bit on this point.
  8. I actually have one more question I would really appreciate if you could help with: I left a question on this User talk page, including a link to the relevant page. Perhaps you can help answering it?
And no problem haha! I understand why you are getting tired by reviewing so many changes! I told you before it would take you or anyone else at least many days, if not weeks to go through all of them ;p C0rTeZ48 (talk) 14:17, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Hello! So answering a few:
NPC Health: I see what you mean on the starting Strength/Endurance point but then got a bit lost on the rest... Tbh I always struggled with that formula and with understanding how it worked, so just relied on rpeh's calculator. You clearly seem to understand it better, so will take your word for it!
Heretic levels: Yes, I'm fairly sure the key thing is the LVLC so you'd only get to see them from level 23, and so actually their minimum level in practice would be 21 rather than 20.
Decimals: If you want to, then feel free, but I'd say not necessary to track them all down, given at the moment they're not against the style guide.
Vampire page: No worries, I will revert the whole edit as that'll be quicker. Then I'll re-add the Bugs section and some other bits that were fine.
Skills notes: I get where you're coming from, but I think we should be cautious about trying to reverse engineer the devs' minds too much and making assumptions about what may or may not have been intended. It's entirely possible they were not interested in giving some NPC an Alteration spell but wanted that NPC to have a certain class with certain other skills. Given they could only create a set number of classes but have hundreds of NPCs I don't find it strange that not everything is aligned. Each case may or may not be an oversight, but it's hard for us to know and we shouldn't speculate.
As I said, there are legitimate exceptions. Anything that is "fixed" by the UOP (e.g. the Sorcerer spell list) makes sense to list as a Bug. Anything where the skill level mismatch prevents the casting of a spell or underpowers it, likewise. The only other exception I see is the Necromancer page, where actually we're discussing the Necromancer spell list and class as a whole, in which case I think it's a legitimate point to make. On Mannimarco and other pages, if I didn't remove the note, it was an oversight on my part - I have tended to remove them.
When it comes to weapon/armor listing "errors", I am more open to including if there is a clear comparison which you can draw on that suggests it was a mistake rather than design. The Bloodcrust Vampires is a good example, hence why that stayed. For Heretics, I know what you mean re: Zealots, but it's not an exact comparison and as you say, only a few Zealots actually wear armor. If they all had, then maybe it'd be noteworthy to say Heretics are so unlike them. But for how I see it, the only thing that is currently worth including is the point on some Zealots wearing armor despite being magic-based NPCs.
So in conclusion, I think the Notes should only stay where there is clear and direct gameplay impact or UOP bug-fixing. The notes being on a number of pages already I don't think is sufficient justification per se. Also because I think where the notes do appear it's because you've previously added it yourself, which risks the argument being a bit circular... That said, that doesn't mean we should go on a crusade looking for every one, but remove them if/when one comes across them.
ACHR question: Unfortunately I have no idea as file formats/modding are not my forte.
Dremora: I finally got round to looking at it (you really weren't kidding re: time to look over!) Broadly ok, have jotted down a key small things to fix. One thing I noticed is I got consistently lower levels for spells than you. For example, for the Feydnaz I had him hitting Expert-level Destruction at NPC Level 41 rather than 44: 37 level ups (as Destruction is a Major, unspecialised skill) starting from his min level 4. Unless you meant Level to be PC Level? But in that case I get 45 (NPC Level + 4). How did you work out 44? --SerCenKing (talk) 15:28, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
Hey SerC, I'll answer your questions by going for the same topics:
NPC Health:This page is a quick summary of how health works. However, the funky intermediate Nephele talked about doesn't 'really' exist. The equation is far more simple: in PC levels 5+, NPC health is simply (Strength + Endurance) / 2 + Classfactor * (NPC Level-1). So just divide Strength + Endurance by half, and than after level 1 add the Classfactor per level. That's it. For PC levels 1-4 you also need to multiply by LevelFactor. Btw, I noticed you also changed Shagrol's page, which is quite interesting on this topic, so I'll take one more look at NPC Health.
Decimals:Okay great!
Skills notes:I'll come back at this point since I have little time atm.
ACHR question:No problem!
Dremora:The Feydnaz is supposed to hit Expert-level Destruction at level 45, and Mysticism at level 50. At player level 8 this Dremora is still level 4 (PC-4). It is from this level he starts leveling. The > is a symbol which signifies greater than. I think you rather meant the ≥ symbol, which signifies greater than or equal. So as of now it is correct. Still please take your time to look things over. C0rTeZ48 (talk) 22:49, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

(←) Hey there, apologies been a busy few weeks. Have now made the Vampire changes as discussed. Also tinkered about with Dremora page: I decided to slightly reword the spell notes because while you're right regarding ">", I found it not super intuitive. I await your response regarding the skill notes.

On a separate topic, looking at Generic Magic Weapons, how are you calculating the average number of weapons in specific dungeons? Are you just counting containers or also NPCs? Because I guess with NPCs it's too complicated if the leveled list is not a guaranteed magical weapon one - you'd have to get into how it only applies for e.g. level 3 etc. Wanted to check before looking in more detail into those edits, as at first glance I had a few different numbers. I noticed for example I was only getting 0.125 claymores in Robber's Glen Cave looking at the chests, rather than the 0.175 you added. --SerCenKing (talk) 12:57, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Hey there SerC, no problem. I've noticed your message before and still wanted to respond to it, but then a few days ago I wanted to change something small first, which then took me into something larger I'm still not finished with. But since I just responded to another comment, I think it's fair to respond to this bit first:
On the Dremora/Vampire pages: I agree with the Dremora edits, it's better this way. I'll take another look at the Vampire page later, I have it on my 'worklist'.
Regarding the skill notes: It's entirely possible they were not interested in giving some NPC an Alteration spell but wanted that NPC to have a certain class with certain other skills. Given they could only create a set number of classes but have hundreds of NPCs I don't find it strange that not everything is aligned. On this point, my first argument is that it doesn't even matter whether something is intended or not. That has never been sth I argued for. But even if the devs had that in mind, it would still impact gameplay, since it would make a certain NPC less strong than others. Personally, I think this is actually rather a reason why it should be labeled as a bug. But besides that, I have some more reasons for my case: first being that magic and armor skills are not passive, but active. They require at least one spell or armor piece to make use of it in some form, unlike other skills. Definitely for battle-oriented NPCs, I think this should be the case for balance gameplay reasons.
And it's not asking for much, just one spell for major magic skills f.e. should be sufficient to make use of it. Some skills like Block and Hth are always handy in battle, since every NPCs can block or make use of their hands. So I think it's utterly reasonable to require just one spell for a NPC 'making use' of the skill. Even more, magic-oriented NPCs sometimes have at least one spell for minor skills, while lacking at least one spell for their major skill. Imo, this is absolutely silly, and should definitely in itself already be a good reason for including it at the bugs section, rather than the notes section, no matter what was intended by a developer. Especially when it comes to something like pre-determined leveled spells lists, in those cases major magic skills should definitely include just one spell. Final, you can actually see devs doing their best of finding classes and spells together, f.e. when Conjurer spells and heavy armor are given to Sorcerer classes.
Beyond this, I still stand at some other points of an earlier comment of mine. That being that it's a bug when the devs may have forgotten about major magic skills when assigning certain spells or spell lists to NPCs, it may also be labeled a bug when it happens the other way around: deciding a NPC should have a major skill, without then adding at least one spell to their repertoire. In these cases I'd also say it does not even matter whether it's intended or not. So I still think I have strong, clear and concise reasoning for my case.
On the UOP: UOP is not a be-all end-all: the last months we already found out new bugs that still need to be fixed by the UOP. The thing is that these oversights are hard come after. You can't take a quick look at then immediately conclude it's a bug. It's after doing quite some digging in the CS, and comparing leveled lists in depth after which new things are found out. F.e., you listed a month ago on Falcar's page that his stats are indeed corrected by the UOP, but last months I've found out many more bugs that still need to be corrected by the UOP.
I also have a question about the UOP: I actually wonder where you got from specifically that the UOP fixed Falcar's stats. On this page I can't find it anywhere.
On the Generic Magic Weapons page: I took a quick look at it, and it does seem I made some small calculation errors, unrelated to your specific question. But so to answer your question: I count both chests and NPCs. NPCs often (and I think sometimes containers too) have a specific weapon type they spawn with. There are 9 total (4 blades, 4 blunts, 1 ranged), so I count the average chances of a NPC appearing, and then also taking into account the specific weapons they spawn with. Yes, it may not be fully equal all the time (since they may f.e. spawn with 6 different enchanted longswords, but 5 enchanted maces), but it's just a reasonable average estimation to give players an indication where they may find a specific enchanted item. That's all. In this case, it's not meant to be 100% perfectly accurate, since it's the goal what matters in the end. That being where the best chances are to find specific loot. That's why I decided to keep it as it is. However, I will take another look at it soon since I noticed minor calculation errors.
As for the differences in levels: I did end up deciding to take the lvl 9+ numbers, since most players would go check for these, considering how easy it is to level, and the max level for an average player being between 30-50 or so (most players dont go by efficient leveling). Personally, I would pretty much keep the page as it currently is, since the averages give players more precise and measurable information they may be looking for. And leaving NPCs out would make it less accurate once more. And displaying numbers for below level 9 would likely make the page less readable to a significant degree, even though it would be somewhat more accurate.
Then two more questions I still have:
First, on the Heretic page, can you perhaps adjust the footnotes part? It's currently still at the bottom of the page.
Second, I still didn't quite understand what you meant by I also hadn't come across these Notes before, so grateful if you could share a few links, so perhaps you can expand a bit on this point. C0rTeZ48 (talk) 22:16, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
Hi C0rTeZ, no worries at all. On the specific points:
Skill notes: Thanks for setting your reasoning, though I must admit I sometimes struggled to follow all of the arguments. I will try to reply by using noteworthiness and intent as the common threads.
The first question to ask when including information on the wiki is noteworthiness. The wiki cannot accommodate all information, otherwise it becomes unwieldy and loses its purpose: that of being useful to the player. A general rule of thumb for noteworthiness and inclusion is the "so what?" test. That is: "Ok, I now have this information, but so what? What concrete impact does this have in-game?"
I find these Notes fail this test. There is only a hypothetical impact (the NPC could have had another spell) rather than a direct and measurable impact (e.g. they can't actually cast one of the spells they would rely on, or they carry a sword but have a low Blade skill) on gameplay. Yes, the NPC could have been 'stronger' if they had an extra spell. But equally they could have been stronger with +10 Strength, or a Block skill of 86 rather than 41, or with +13 Magicka, etc. The possibilities are infinite if you follow this hypothetical reasoning and, crucially, do not consider intent. Clearly we can't just add a note to each NPC page saying "well they could have had 100 in all Attributes and Skills, but alas". So for me this type of hypothetical note does not make the cut.
Which brings us back to intent. To consider this information relevant for inclusion, you'd therefore have to make that case that it is noteworthy because what's happening goes against the intent of the devs. Or put simply, that it is a bug, because a bug is by definition when something is not working as expected, anticipated or intended.
An NPC not having sufficient magicka or the right skill level to cast one of the spells they've been assigned is clearly a bug: they were meant to be able to cast it (otherwise it wouldn't have been added) but can't. However, an NPC not having a spell for one of their major skills does not qualify as a bug. There is nothing to say that it was intended on the part of the devs for an NPC to have a certain spell just because they have a certain major skill. As I mentioned above, pre-set classes mean you physically cannot tailor all major skills to all NPCs. These kind of things are a feature, not a bug. To give you a counterexample to further illustrate the point, when an entire class-based spell list does not includes a spell from the "right" school, when all other lists match magic schools and major skills, that's clearly a bug (e.g. Sorcerer - incidentally fixed by the UOP). When it's an individual NPC, it isn't the case.
So we are left with information that cannot be conclusively called a bug, and that fails a noteworthiness test. As such, it remains a set of mildly interesting hypothetical trivia, but not one that merits inclusion. And to cover here your second question at the end: what I meant was that I had never come across these notes before you started adding them to pages (though let me know if I missed any!) So then arguing that they should stay because they are also on other pages (e.g. here) is rather circular :)
UOP: Wolfborn sort of answers most of this in the thread below, but to be clear I never said UOP was the be all and end all. I said it was one source to ascertain what is a bug and what we can therefore feel confident including in a bug section. However the reverse - that if something isn't already 'fixed' by the UOP it can automatically be classed as bug - does not follow. It can also be that it's just not a bug... On Falcar specifically, I checked by loading the UOP .esp in the CS. As Wolfborn mentioned, it's not uncommon for fixes not to be recorded.
Generic Magic Weapons: I have no strong feelings on whether to include both NPCs and containers, or which level to use for determining NPC numbers. However, it is essential to clarify the parameters used in the calculations if those numbers are going to stay on the page. Otherwise users (including me!) won't a have clue what they're looking at and (a) won't be able to check if the numbers are correct (b) may experience radically different numbers (e.g. if they're level 2) and then get confused. So very grateful if you could add in the information once you get around to double-checking the numbers.
On your final question, I have now made the relevant change to the Heretic page :) --SerCenKing (talk) 19:01, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Bug or Deliberate?[edit]

Discussion moved to UESPWiki:Community Portal

Rumors & responses[edit]

Hey there - great effort thus far on finding missing dialogue & rumor lines on various OB NPC pages. On rumors in particular, I noticed that on a few you've been mentioning things like "likely missing responses" or "need to check responses", and in some cases removing the relevant ONPCRP template parameter. Just to let you know that you can verify this also in the CSList. For example, this rumor from the Raynil Dralas page does not have a specific response. You can verify this by checking the TCLT parameter, which you'll see links to this line. So, bear this in mind when you're looking over rumors and looking to see whether there are "unique" responses. Keep up the good work! --SerCenKing (talk) 19:55, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Heya SerC, I'll keep that in mind! But just to be sure what you mean: that rumor about Raynil does actually have responses, but they are simply generic, non-unique responses so that they are not worthy to mention?
Besides this, I decided to mention those rumor/responses notes for two more particular reasons: 1) As discussed on your talk page, the CS unfortunately isn't fully complete, and 2) The game itself needs to be checked (therefore), or better yet: the CK as Robin Hood mentioned. Unfortunately, as previously mentioned, I don't have Oblivion on PC, so I simply can't do it myself. I do know the game very well, having played it for many hundreds of hours over the span of more than 15 years, so I do know on what NPCs there are very likely no rumors/responses and such. Also, I will do my best to check every single NPC in Oblivion on whether the dialogue and rumors are complete on their pages. And occassionally I'll check things like quests/schedules as well. Hope that clears things up! C0rTeZ48 (talk) 01:42, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Btw, I do have a question concerning Raynil Dralas's page atm: I do see some rumors were indeed already on the page, but as of how the page is now, the current 'dialogue quest-related events' lines are not consistent with many other pages I've seen so far. Generally, first it's non-quest-related dialogue, then quest-related dialogue, and then rumors final. As of now, there are at least 10 lines which 'should' (if I'm correct) be in a seperate 'rumors' section at the bottom of the page: the 2 lines on top (from Bruma's denizens), the "Have you... all about." line on the middle of the page, and the 7 last ones. Yes, they are quest-related, but on every page I've seen so far, rumors should be at the bottom. And to my knowledge, what is the essential distinction between what counts as 'dialogue' and 'rumors'? Primary, dialogue is always related to the NPC in question, whereas rumors are related to other NPCs. There are other distinctions as well, but that always seems to be the most important one. Let me know your thoughts on this. C0rTeZ48 (talk) 02:00, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Wait, I do want to come back on my last point: it does seems these particular lines are likely more directly associated with the quest than other lines. Those first three lines likely lead to receiving the quest, and the last seven lines are associated with the ending. So in this case, I do think it's likely better where they are. I still wonder about your opinion on this matter. Then, especially if the CK is checked, I think we can be sure these are all the 'rumors' associated with the quest, and Raynil in particular :) C0rTeZ48 (talk) 02:13, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
So to your first question - yes, exactly: I mean that other NPCs will only give generic responses to that line, which means we should not be including them on Raynil's page as they are shared by hundreds of other NPCs. Feel free to continue to put any notes in the edit summaries regardless: I check the edits on Construction Set. This is abbreviated to "CS", which is not the same thing as the CSList and is basically the Oblivion equivalent of Skyrim's Creation Kit (aka the "CK")... Confusing terminology, I know. The long and short is that the CS has the full game info so I can double-check any edits you make based on the CSList.
Regarding your question on Raynil's page specifically, your final edit is on the money. If the rumors (as in Raynil's case - he only appears during the quest) are directly linked to a quest, they should be under the quest section. This is also why I prefer the section to be called "Quest-related Events" because that gives us more flexibility to include not just dialogue lines but also rumors and any schedule changes. Non-quest-related dialogue and rumors will then have their own sections, as you note.
And on your Dialogue vs Rumors question, you can see the "definitions" at the project page, but in brief Dialogue is what the NPC say themselves, while Rumors are what others say about them. Often someone's Dialogue (e.g. Vigge on Adrienne) will be someone else's Rumor - in which case we include it on both pages but in the relevant sections (Dialogue for Vigge, Rumors for Adrienne). Hope that's clear! --SerCenKing (talk) 07:22, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Just another small pointer (to explain edits like e.g. this reversion) is that each category must be either written via CS and checked in-game or vice versa. So you cannot check dialogue via CS if it's already been written via CS. The only exceptions are spells (due to leveled lists) and rumors (as they are random and therefore would take ages to check all in-game). --SerCenKing (talk) 19:02, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Alright, but I do have something to ask on that: what if it's by checking a YouTube vid for the exact lines in question? Shouldnt that be enough to be able to confirm it as having it checked in-game? And what if you already easily have hundreds, if not thousands of hours in the game that makes you very much capable and known will the dialogue and rumors in question? F.e., I spend hours just listening to dialogue between NPCs by quicksaving and loading (upon loading NPCs will automatically engage conversation with each other, as well as make themselves 'ready' to give their 'HELLO' dialogue in the CSlist when you approach them. Doesn't that also count as an in-game check? C0rTeZ48 (talk) 22:06, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Btw, I do have to let you know that even though I really want to check every single NPC page in-game, it is's simply just too ambitious for me (at the moment, at least). I simply lack time to do it, even though I am motivated to do so. With about 1150 NPCs spanning both Oblivion and Shivering Isles, it's just too much. I will check NPC pages that are recently changed though. I'll keep the project in mind for the future. From what I've seen, it's necessary to check every single NPC page again, since Ive seen multiple times now that pages that were deemed complete, weren't. C0rTeZ48 (talk) 22:52, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

(←) Hello. So on your first question, no, unfortunately YouTube videos would not be sufficient. That is because you yourself must be fully aware of the conditions under which you're hearing the dialogue (e.g. ongoing quests in the background, any mods loaded, etc). So it must be you checking under an ideally zero-mod game. Likewise, while I don't dispute your memory, unfortunately relying on previous game experience also won't work. You may not remember exactly everything, including specific conditions, etc. So it must be done systematically, in the moment, with clear gaming conditions, and with reference to the specific NPC you're checking. Touching on your second point, there is no deadline as such for the project (it has been going on for like 15 years!) so don't worry about time. It's ok to do as many as feasible in whatever time you have available at any given point. After all, we don't get paid for any of this :) So any help you can give is still very appreciated! --SerCenKing (talk) 10:50, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Another thing I've noticed and wanted to flag. In a number of edits you've removed the "checked" tag from the dialogue and/or rumors while making reference to missing lines. If you spot that there are missing lines, please do not remove simply remove the tag. Add the lines you find missing, add your name to the "written" tag and only then remove the "checked" category. That will allow users to only check the additional lines, rather than having to check every other existing line once again, which will waste a lot of time and has already been done. This is particularly the case if the checks need to be made in-game and across multiple quests, like e.g. for Martin. On that basis I've reverted a bunch of those edits but will be very happy to double-check any additional lines if you can provide them. Thanks! --SerCenKing (talk) 16:47, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=User_talk:C0rTeZ48&oldid=3055876"