UESPWiki:Community Portal

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

This is the main discussion forum used for community-wide discussions about UESP's operations, policies, design, and improvement.

All members of the community are welcome to contribute to this page. Please sign and date your post by typing ~~~~ or clicking the signature icon in the edit toolbar. If you would like to start a new inquiry, please place it at the bottom of the page with a two-tier (==) heading.

Before starting a discussion here, please review the list of other community pages below, as your question or suggestion may be more appropriate on another page.

Other pages for community-wide or general questions include:

Specific requests can be made on these pages:

  • Bot Requests — This page can be used to request that one of the wiki's bots take on a task.
  • Image Requests — You can request specific images for articles here.
  • Creation Kit Information Requests — You can request specific Creation Kit information for articles here.
  • New Page Requests — You can request a new page here if you were prevented from creating the page yourself.
  • Purge Requests — If you are having problems viewing an article on UESP, the page may need to be purged. New purge requests can be made here.

In addition, past discussions from the Community Portal can be found at:

  • CP Archives — Lists all of the past discussions from the Community Portal page, including major discussions and chronlogical archives.
Active Discussions

Many discussions of community-wide interest are held on pages other than the community portal. Discussions about specific policies belong on the policy talk pages, for example. The following table lists other discussions that are currently in progress on other talk pages. If you start a discussion on another talk page, please add it to this list. If a discussion listed here has been inactive (i.e., no comments of any type in at least a week), please remove it from the list.

Location Date started Topic Listed here by

ESO Skill Browser[edit]

I've been working on the ESO Skills Browser the past week and its finally in a mostly workable state and ready for whatever testing/feedback people can give it.

  • There are a few incomplete skill lines (Vampire, Werewolf, Provisioning, Legerdemain) due to those lines not being max rank on the PTS.
  • The tooltip values are without any CP, passives or active skills in your action bar. Testing on the PTS the spell values seem to match very well, at most a difference of +/-2. If you notice any bad or irregular values let me know.
  • Adding CP effects is not too hard but am wondering if it is necessary.
  • Adding effects from passive/active skills is much more complex and is probably not necessary for this sort of page (I hope).
  • Skill tooltips (like the ESO item tooltips) are coming soon. Just wanted to get the bugs worked out of the given page before starting on that.
  • Should work fine in most browsers. Is probably not very mobile friendly however. Let me know if it breaks horribly and what browser/OS you are using.

Feel free to comment on bugs or other related features desired for the skills browser. -- Daveh (talk) 19:03, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

This looks great, thanks for doing this! I had a quick look around and things seem to be generally as expected. A few comments:
  • Magicka/Stamina cost is based on player level. Could we have a slider for level so we can see how the cost changes?
  • Would there be any provision for getting Active Skills ranks I/II/III to display? At the moment, it only seems to do Rank IV.
  • One of the skills I looked at was Volley (Bow), which has a Range and a Radius, but only the Radius is showing up.
  • CP and Passive effects are probably not necessary, as we can easily see on their own pages what their effects are. The unmodified "base values" that we have are more useful than numerous combinations.
Thanks again! --Enodoc (talk) 22:32, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Initially I thought we needed a "level" field as well but it seems the tooltips are not directly based on the character level at all. You do get more Magicka/Stamina when you level from attribute points and equipment so it only affects the tooltip indirectly. In theory you would have the same tooltip at level 1 as at v16 if your stats were identical (which is essentially impossible). If I'm mistaken in this assumption/theory let me know. We could do a fake level field for the skill tooltip that gives "typical" stat values for characters at that level.
You can get all skills to display by adding the showall parameter like this. I just thought it was better for the default page to have just the Rank IV base skills and two morphs. Once I finish the page I'll document any parameters like this.
There are a few skills/lines that need tweaking and I'll be fixing things as I find them this week. If you find or note anything else just let me know. -- Daveh (talk) 22:50, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
So I just checked the skill tooltips against my level 6 Dragonknight bank mule and the numbers match up fine with just the stat values. The error in the tooltips is definitely higher, but not terrible, than my v16 characters likely due to the fit being done at v16 stat values. -- Daveh (talk) 23:57, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Hmmm, yeah, all the $1-, $2-based numbers match up, but I don't see how cost could. Based on the Update 6 patch notes, "you now get 156 health per level and 122 health per stat pick", which implies that you get more Health (and presumably Magicka/Stamina as well) just based on your level, in addition to what you get from spending the new attribute points. But cost doesn't change no matter what you set H/M/S/sd/wd to, so I assume it isn't based on any of those parameters. Take Fiery Grip, for example; that costs 3410 Magicka based on your V16 character, but I don't see how it could cost that much for your Lvl 6, as I don't think a Lvl 6 character even has that much Magicka. I checked with a Level 1 in the Wailing Prison in June 2015 (which was after the rebalancing in Update 6), and I'm pretty sure the cost of Fiery Grip was 393 Magicka. We'd need to check other levels (say, 20 and VR1), but if that was a linear relationship not based on H/M/S/sd/wd, then there's only a few things left that it could be based on. One of those things could be character level, while another could be skill line level. I think skill line level is less likely, as you could theoretically max a skill line at Level 3, and then you'd end up with the same problem as before (costing more Magicka than you have). If it was linear and based on character level, then the cost of Fiery Grip would be y=mx+c, with y=cost, x=level, m=46.41538, c=346.5846.
Something else that looks slightly off is Stamina morphs; take Unstable Flame vs Burning Embers, and Burning Breath vs Engulfing Flames -- with all things equal, shouldn't they have the same cost in Stamina as they do in Magicka, as shown in this screenshot? We have the stamina cost being less, which I think is only possible with passives and gear.
Finally, would it be possible to get the "New Effect" green text into the tooltip for morphs? This shows up under the effectLines field, but only appears for the first rank of the morph (like Unstable Flame I), when it would be useful in the tooltip for all of them.
Thanks! --Enodoc (talk) 09:50, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Yah, I had the same thought last night in regards to cost. I don't know how it works on level but I'll figure it out. In regards to the Magicka/Stamina cost differences...I checked a few skills on PTS and those are the exact values when naked with no CP/skills so they appear to be correct. I haven't played Stamina characters very much so I've never really noticed the difference before. Since we have the effectLines field it should be relatively easy to get it to show up in the skill morphs. -- Daveh (talk) 12:29, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
I did a little digging and found a tentative relationship between character level and spell cost. It seems to be split into two linear parts, one from levels 1-50 and another from v1-16.
                   MaxCost = Tooltip cost of spell at v16
                   Level = Character level 1-66 (v1 == 51)
                   Cost Level 1-50 = MaxCost * Level / 65.5367 + MaxCost / 10.7466 
                   Cost v1-16      = MaxCost * Level / 110.942 + MaxCost / 2.46882
I don't have a lot of data points to say this works for all Magicka/Stamina spells but it seems to match the ones I do have within +/-5 at most. I'll try that for now and if a better equation is found I can easily fix it.
Update: The cost/level features is now in and working if you reload the skills browser. -- Daveh (talk) 17:21, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
That's brilliant, thanks! Those numbers look a lot more reasonable. I asked on the forums about the stamina/magicka discrepancy and it does seem to be the case. It was suggested that it's possibly due to the ease of stacking magicka, and the fact that stamina is also used for other things, like blocking, sneaking and bashing, while magicka is just used for skills.
Typo: The Magicka entries are now saying "Magica". --Enodoc (talk) 18:22, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

() The first version of skill popup tooltips have been added along with moving the Skills Browser into the wiki. Basic tooltip usage is as follows:

Full format currently is (only skillid is required):

    <esoskill skillid="#" level="#" health="#" magicka="#" stamina="#" spelldamage="#" weapondamage="#" showall="[1/0]">Text</esoskill>

Some notes and caveats:

  • It currently links to the wiki skills browser for the skill in question (showall is now true by default).
  • Add the showall parameter to the skill browser to list all skill ranks (for example).
  • The "New Effect" section is only shown for rank 1 of the two morphs at the moment.
  • When linking to the skills page the level/magicka/health/... values are lost.
  • Would linking by skill name instead of id be useful at all?
  • Done...I was thinking that the level parameter could automatically choose appropriate values for the rest of the statistics. If this might be useful let me know.

I don't know the exact desired usage for the skill tooltips so let me know if you need more or different features/functionality. Bug reports are always needed too. -- Daveh (talk) 21:17, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

This is awesome, thanks for getting it all set up!
  • Regarding ranks other than the "top rank", I would have expected a direct link to a lower rank would work regardless, but it actually doesn't. The tooltip does, Crystal Shard II, but the link http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Special:EsoSkills?id=47548 goes to Dragonknight Standard IV (the default landing page), albeit with Crystal Shard ostensibly selected in the navigator, just not visible. However, the link with showall at the end does work; http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Special:EsoSkills?id=47548&showall. Would it be possible to force showall into the tooltip link, so the links will always work?
  • Skill names probably aren't necessary. We've managed fine with using the ids for items, so using id here as well makes sense. It's probably easier to account for by id anyway, in the event of a skill having its name changed, or there being multiple skills with the same name.
  • Having level set a value for the other stats sounds like a great idea. If we can get it so the values aren't lost when linking, that could be invaluable. (Imagine theorycrafters being able to link directly to the exact values they want... http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Special:EsoSkills?id=47548&level=40&health=25000&magicka=20000&stamina=30000 . If they were able to do that without having to say "set your health/magicka/stamina to...", this could be an invaluable resource for them.)
In general, this is the exact functionality I was hoping for. Thanks again! --Enodoc (talk) 00:10, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
A few tweaks already to fix and improve things:
  • The showall parameter defaults to true when clicking on a skill tooltip link. You can override it with the showall attribute in the <esoskill> tag.
  • Stat values are remembered when clicking on a skill link. There is also the "Link to Skill" link in the upper right corner of the skills browser that links to the current stat numbers and focused skill.
  • Fixed the new effect only showing up for rank 1 morphs. It now should show up for all morph ranks.
  • If you include the level attribute but omit any stat it will be auto-calculated based on the level (linear scale from 1000-20000 for stats and 100-2000 for damage). So you should be able to do things like Crystal Frags @ level 1 and get the approximate tooltip for characters of that level.
Besides any bug fixes and minor tweaks here/there that should be it for the skill browser/tooltip. -- Daveh (talk) 13:54, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Great, thanks! I've wrapped this into a template for ease of use: {{Skill Link}}. Here's Crystal Shard II @ Level 20 {{Skill Link|Crystal Shard II @ Level 20|id=47548|level=20}}. --Enodoc (talk) 14:31, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Just fixed a small bug with the skill tooltip which was not adding the showall parameter for your templated skill link. -- Daveh (talk) 18:46, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Added basic documentation to User:Daveh/ESO_Log_Collector (nothing new from here). -- Daveh (talk) 19:01, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

False alarm[edit]

Update 2: Sorry for the fuss all. Was just a misunderstanding. Ignore both notes, they're fake. :P Contraptions (talk) 17:30, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

First Look at Dark Brotherhood[edit]

The first look at Dark Brotherhood is available on the website here:


Some interesting points:

  • Anvil and Kvatch are in this zone
  • Some old trials are getting scaled
  • VR rank removal
  • Poison crafting
  • IC district capture (Enodoc your dreams have come true)

etc. Go take a look guys! Contraptions (talk) 14:54, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Pretty hyped, maybe we'll finally be able to have something other than empty stubs for the Craglorn trials. VR removal will be a big upset though - it might be worth changing {{ESO Veteran}}'s "veteran" param so that it displays the new CP system instead. Guess we'll have to wait and see how it's implemented first. —Legoless (talk) 15:01, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
I just saw it as well! So I think beta must be a month away then? I wonder if any UESP editors will be there, maybe we could test things that require a group (Both EU-US players). Tib (talk) 15:05, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Sounds like a plan. DB is going on the PTS this Monday, so perhaps we could get something going on the servers. Contraptions (talk) 18:57, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
What! We are not prepared... :D Tib (talk) 20:08, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Elder Scrolls: Legends template(s)[edit]

Hey! With the new information about Elder Scrolls: Legends, I've been thinking about what exactly we need from the template. As I see it, we need these parameters:

  • Name
  • Race
  • Class
  • Image
  • Cost
  • Attack
  • Defense
  • Ability/Effect
  • Type
  • Flavor Text
  • Prophecy

Can anyone else think of any parameters I may have missed? There might also be special cards that do not fall into these categories, or that do not use all of these categories. I'm looking forward to this! Jeancey (talk) 18:27, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Also, just as a reminder, all of this information should be sourced solely from officially released information and public conventions. Any closed beta info will be covered by an NDA and should be deleted from the wiki as soon as possible :) Jeancey (talk) 18:48, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Might want a parameter for how to obtain the card, for special cases like the Adoring Fan. Are we gonna transfer card data to the wiki right away or should be wait for release? —Legoless (talk) 19:08, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
As long as it is from the official release video, I see no reason to wait. Everything should have the prerelease tag of course. Maybe add an NDA section to the pre-release template? Jeancey (talk) 19:11, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
If it came out of an official source, I'd see no reason not to share it, however, there's no telling how (if at all) the information would change in the future. I'm more of one of those "wait and see" people though, and I personally would wait until the NDA was over and we were closer to release to start sharing data like that, just in case it changes. And, although I know we'd be vigilant and keep NDA'd information from being shown on the site, what if sharing large amounts of card information and stuff looks more like an encouragement to do more? Unless it was shared to a Pre-release page that was explicitly for such information, but wasn't posted elsewhere as unique articles or the like. -damon  talkcontribs 19:16, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Purely from a template-design perspective, my questions would be whether we're envisioning a single page with a table for all the cards, or one card per page. If it's one per page, then which of those parameters might we want to cross-reference on other pages (similar to quest or location summaries, for example)? Also if it's one per page, what else would we fill the page with besides the template? I guess a bit of Lore-like info would be appropriate, but I can potentially see individual pages being fairly bare. Robin Hood  (talk) 19:51, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
From the looks of things, individual card articles could actually be pretty beefy. Summary tables will definitely be needed as well though, so we might want to use something like {{Online Skill Link}} to transclude the basic data. —Legoless (talk) 19:56, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

() Great example, Lego. I wasn't thinking of what all could go on such a page. Robin Hood  (talk) 20:23, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Which parameter would things like "Uses: 3" or "Ongoing" go under? Or is that one you've missed? Also, what are the "flavor text" and "prophecy" parameters? I don't see anything like that on the images of the cards. Robin Hood  (talk) 20:53, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
In the Lanes article they talk about how some cards are prophecy cards. It was separate from the ability, so I figured there was something special about them. Flavor Text is just from experience with trading card games, there is flavor text usually on cards. Sometimes just on cards without abilities, other times on every card. I figure that they'll have some sort of flavor text, but it's not a given. Jeancey (talk) 20:56, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Okay, based on the above discussion, I've generated a quick template. Feel free to throw some parameters at it and see how it looks (cuz I haven't beyond a basic test). My design skills suck are unimaginative, and even looking at the test, I can see that we'll probably want to make some changes, so feel free to suggest any you might have or play in my sandbox yourselves. Also, I'm not intending this to be a comment on whether we should put it to use right away or if we should wait. I just figured I'd get something done while I was in a "templatey" kind of mood. Robin Hood  (talk) 21:33, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
As another example of ideas for a card's page, here is an example of a card's page on a wiki for a game I used to play before they shut it down. This one focused more on the numbers: how strong a card would be if you leveled/evolved it different ways, and cost-vs-atk/def ratios. The cardlist might be good to look at too to see how they organize the full list of cards in the game (if you can get it to load, that is - seems to be very slow and iffy lately. The owner of that wiki's stopped doing any work on it due to Rage of Bahamut shutting down, and will take down his wiki before long.) ~ Alarra (talk) 02:01, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

() Ok, I've tried out the card template and been working on some pages as well. I'm not familiar with templates, but have suggestions:

  • Maybe "Magicka Cost" instead of just "Cost"?
  • I think the attack/defense would look better as two columns on the same row
  • I'd say rename "class" to "attributes", since a card can be a single attribute (i.e. Strength). Or maybe have it display as "class/attribute".
  • Maybe color the template based on which attribute the card represents? The colors they're using are red (Strength), yellow (Willpower), blue (Intelligence), green (Agility), purple (Endurance), and dark gray (Neutral). There are also cards that are half-and-half, and I'd assume we'd name them by their class name (for example a red/blue card would be a Battlemage card) - is it possible for the template to look half-and-half (whether it can do a gradient or fill it half-and-half, or maybe use one color for the part that's currently "lighter" in the template and the other color in the parts that are "darker"?
  • Add a field for rarity (that's what the bottom diamond on the card indicates). Maybe change text color based on what it is? Fans who've been to PAX East are saying that the rarities are Basic (white/gray), Common (blue), Unique (purple), Legendary (yellow).
  • For "Ability", maybe center-align the text, like it appears on the card? Also, "ability" covers all the prophecy/what the card does/etc, right?

(By the way, here is an album of most of the revealed cards if you want to look at how the cards vary.) Two more questions:

  • Is it possible to add the Dire Wolf licensing to the dropdown, so that it's a bit easier and people don't have to copy-paste the text each time?
  • Regarding image categories, should the images revealed so far be considered concept art? So far I've started to put them in Concept Art, but I'm considering a "card art" category instead since we know some of them are card images (and not, like, the avatar images). Maybe put them in Concept until we know that they're card art for sure and then move it?

~ Alarra (talk) 06:50, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I've made all the template changes mentioned above. For now, colour choices are very primitive named HTML colours, so they're fairly off, but I figured it was the easiest way to start and then once the design is closer to final, we can tweak the colours to be something more reasonable. To implement the colour gradients, I'd need a full list of classes and the colours they're associated with. Class and attribute are currently both available and overlap in function, but using "class=" will display "Class", while using "attribute=" will display "Attribute". Also, we're probably going to want to re-think the abilities to some extent, as "Prophecy" isn't the only ability, it looks like. I'm just noticing cards like Tyr (7th panel down in the linked thread), where the abilities appear to be all of Prophecy, Breakthrough, Guard. I'm assuming we'd want to categorize all of those separately.
I've added the new license. It looked okay in the preview, but I didn't actually upload anything, so let me know if there's anything wrong there.
Finally, for the categories, I'd personally be tempted to follow your suggestion of putting them in concept art until we're sure, but I can see an argument for just putting them in "card art" to begin with so that there's no additional work to be done later on, and we can just delete any that turn out to be not the final image. Robin Hood  (talk) 19:57, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! The licensing works fine. Here's a list of the classes (ordered as they appear on the cards itself, as far as I can see):
  • Archer - Red/Green
  • Assassin - Blue/Green
  • Battlemage - Red/Blue
  • Crusader - Red/Yellow
  • Mage - Blue/Yellow
  • Monk - Yellow/Green
  • Scout - Green/Purple
  • Sorcerer - Blue/Purple
  • Spellsword - Yellow/Purple
  • Warrior - Red/Purple
Was rarity added?
As far as ability, maybe just change that to "text" and just type it as it appears on the card, bolding the actual abilities when we type it? I can, however, see the possible need for an extra field for "Ongoing", which appears as a gold bar above the normal text. For attack/defense, can you put those on the same line? It would look a little more like the card that way with atk on the left and def on the right, and be more distinct from cost. It's starting to shape up pretty well! I'm eager to start getting those pages up and running once we've got it all sorted out. :) ~ Alarra (talk) 02:34, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Regarding colours, I would suggest we do something similar to what was done for ESO; take the hex colours that appear in the relevant material, use that as a "dark" colour for highlights and text, and extrapolate a "light" colour from those for the infobox. Here are the colours as pulled directly from the website:
  • Strength - #E6000B, Extrapolation: #FF8086
  • Agility - #1B5501, Extrapolation: #8AFD56
  • Intelligence - #1A91FF, Extrapolation: #B3DAFF
  • Willpower - #DDA308, Extrapolation: #FADA83
  • Endurance - #8A0A86, Extrapolation: #F79AF4
If Neutral is just grey, then that could simply be Neutral - #808080, Extrapolation: #CCCCCC
--Enodoc (talk) 09:37, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for all the info, guys! The template's been updated with all of the above, I think: ongoing field was added, colours were changed, gradient was changed to be left-to-right now that I've actually spotted an example :), prophecy-specific code was removed and everything can just go in "abilities" for now, and attack/defense are on one line. Let me know if I missed anything. For now, rarity is just a plain text field, since colouring the text based on that would have made the text difficult to read in a lot of cases. It should be easy enough to change that, though. For example, we could use only a coloured diamond, if someone wants to capture images of them, or we could use both the diamond and the text. I've updated the example to include the rarity, so we can see how it looks if we make changes. I also added a second example to show the gradient effect (though it's the wrong image, since we didn't have one of Merric yet). And back on the subject of text colour, I reset all of them to white text for the darker background, and black text for the lighter background; we can tweak that as necessary if there are unreadable colour combos, but I figured it gave us a fairly uniform scheme to start with.
Noticeably, the "type" parameter isn't being used currently. What was that supposed to be?
Lastly, while scanning through the captured card images, I noticed a couple of additional things. Some cards have a gold circle on them at the top center (e.g., Merric-at-Aswala in the 7th panel) while others have a green triangle/arrow-shaped icon at the top right (e.g., Starved Hunger in the 4th panel). Do we know what those are supposed to be? Robin Hood  (talk) 20:10, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
That template is looking great! I love how the gradient looks. I'll see if I can crop out the diamonds and upload 'em. For attribute, not sure if "neutral" or "colorless" is actually the correct term for the gray ones - I've heard both. We might have to change that eventually. Nobody seems to be sure what those other icons mean - one guess was evolved/evolve-able, but nothing confirmed.
Now, what sort of pages should we have for listing cards? My idea was to have an overall page with a sortable table, like this example for another game I played. (Is that feasible for us to do with apparently 400+ cards? Not sure how exactly their page works), and then pages for each attribute/class so that they can more easily find what they're looking for (though whether this should be another sortable table, or show the card thumbnails, or what, not sure - any opinions?) ~ Alarra (talk) 08:01, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

() So is the template good to go with regards to creating card pages? —Legoless (talk) 00:10, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

I think so. The only issue is that apparently the rarities are wrong, but the person who told me wasn't at liberty to say more than that because of the NDA. We agreed that the best solution was just to not put rarity for the time being so that we don't have confusing or incorrect information. Robin Hood  (talk) 01:11, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Alright, I've gone live with the template and set up the first couple card pages. I'm using the rarity color for now until we get a public source for the official terms. —Legoless (talk) 16:35, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Great solution to the problem—I hadn't thought of that. That'll make it very easy for either the template to handle or the bot to change once we have official details. Robin Hood  (talk) 17:31, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
The template will also need to be able to toggle off some of those rows if the field is left blank. At the minute, it doesn't really support Action, Support, or Item cards (see here and here). Some Support cards also seem to need separate parameters for "Uses (number)" and "Ongoing (y/n)" (example). —Legoless (talk) 17:53, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
The rows not disappearing was an artifact left over from testing in user space. I've added your example card to my sandbox, so you can see it looks okay. It's admittedly a bit odd to have race=Action, so we may want to change the wording for that, perhaps that's what the type parameter was intended to be in the original list? And yeah, I'd noticed the different gold-bar texts, but wasn't sure whether we wanted to handle them separately, as you suggest, or just have a single parameter that we'd type the entire text into (e.g., "Uses: 1"). Either way is pretty easy to do. Robin Hood  (talk) 18:52, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Excellent. Yeah, I was thinking 'type' might be more appropriate, so as not to confuse it with the separate Race mechanic (which is entirely separate from Creature types). —Legoless (talk) 19:03, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Imperial City: Assistance Required (Time-Dependent)[edit]

Update 10 is adding capture points to the Imperial Districts which will change the layout of the areas near the Palace District gate in each of the six districts. Previously when the landscape of an area has changed significantly, we have managed to get before and after shots of the area, showing the change. Now this may not be a "significant" change, but it still affects the layout of the area, so I'd like to do the same again. But since I currently don't have access to Imperial City, and may not do before Dark Brotherhood goes live, I would like to ask for assistance in getting the "before" shots, as I am unlikely to be able to myself. Each screenshot should include the Palace District gate and the whole of the bridge leading up to it, with focus being on any enemies in the area, any Daedric portals on the steps (if they exist), and if neither of those are present, the structural layout of objects, debris, and clutter. (Of course it may turn out that these areas are actually completely void of anything interesting, in which case a before/after comparison is probably not necessary for every district, and could just be used illustratively with one.) I'll also be posting this in Image Requests.

Note that this request is time-dependent, and will expire after 30th May. Thanks for any help you can provide! --Enodoc (talk) 10:17, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Done! Nice to see that page in use again. —Legoless (talk) 13:34, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
That's great, thanks! If you fancy getting the equivalent shots from PTS, feel free, but equally that may change before launch anyway. --Enodoc (talk) 18:58, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
If I get the chance, but probably less urgency with that. —Legoless (talk) 19:19, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Not sure if you've been in to Imperial City yet on PTS, but these locations are even more different than I thought they'd be. There is now access up to the gates from either side, and even the moats have been altered. The railings on the bridges have gone, and I think the main steps have even been moved slightly. Maybe the changes there are significant after all! --Enodoc (talk) 23:19, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
There's ramps on either side? Wonder how they've handled the quest area underneath in Elven Gardens. —Legoless (talk) 23:25, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

UESP Legends Tier Lists[edit]

Hey folks. I've been out of the loop for a while, so I don't know if any of this has been discussed yet. I don't see anything currently in the CP, so here it goes: ranking cards and decks is a form of editorializing which the UESP normally doesn't engage in. But Legends is a different type of game, and requires different considerations. I think the best way to frame the matter is, how can our coverage best benefit the readers?

This game is substantially similar to Magic and Hearthstone. I've played a bit of Hearthstone, and when I'm looking for online resources, I'm rarely if ever looking for pages summarizing the characteristics of individual cards (which, I think, would be our default approach?). What I'm looking for when I go online is tier lists and sometimes deck builds. The best Hearthstone sites have the card summaries, but they're also providing all that information in a more useful format, complete with at least some idea of a card or deck's relative utility.

For an idea of what I'm talking about, here are a couple examples of Hearthstone tier lists: heartharena, Icy Veins. Icy Veins and similar sites also provide deck builds with acknowledged creators.

I believe the ideal would be for the UESP to maintain tier lists and allow users to add deck builds for the various situations the game offers. The meta would be determined by allowing (at least some) registered users to thumb decks up and down, and rate the merit of cards (probably on a 1-100 scale) for use by different characters in Arena, and then aggregate the results. But there are resource and back-end considerations here which I don't comprehend at all. I imagine admins would need the editorial power to put their thumbs on the scales if they think the situation calls for it. And perhaps, sooner or later, we would have to be altogether more elitist with the valuation process. And I'd imagine that we'd have to give some thought to how outdated rankings or other info may be expunged. I obviously don't know what's feasible, so I'm asking: what can the UESP do? What's the plan here? Insignificant RevisionsThreatsEvidence 19:22, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't think a rating system is the way to go, but the UESP hasn't shied away from guides and subjective articles in the past - there's a reason we have the {{quality}} tag. Oblivion:Useful Spells and Oblivion:Roleplaying Ideas provide two different potential models for how we could handle the meta game in Legends. I think we could also allow some leniency when it comes to adding strategies and tips to the individual card pages. However, I'm not entirely convinced deck builds will be a viable option for the wiki. We haven't received any requests for a place to document ESO builds, partially because that game changes so frequently and partially because the wiki format doesn't suit that kind of stuff very well, but mostly, I feel, because of a simple lack of interest from both readers and editors. —Legoless (talk) 19:51, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
I don't believe that's really comparing apples to apples, both because Legends is a very different game than ESO, and because the UESP was pretty late to the party in adding any sort of ESO character build functionality. Sites like Tamriel Foundry were well established long before that - and such sites became established because the extant TES fan sites at the time were not performing the services fans were seeking.
So long as we provide the structure for deck builds - Arena decks, decks for specific fights and what-not - as well as appropriate, easy-to-use page templates, I think we'd draw adequate contribution. I doubt we would draw much participation or traffic without some kind of tier list, because that's what I think most fans will be looking for. And it's certainly something other sites will be providing, in addition to pages about the individual cards. By doing so, they will draw more support for themselves over time.
Adding any sort of strategy or tips to the individual card pages will require some sort of agreement on the meta. That's all rankings would be aimed at doing: providing a mechanism to aggregate users' opinions on the meta, in a less messy and somewhat objective fashion which will be more accessible and useful to readers than hunting through the card pages for nuggets of wisdom.
But regardless, we seem to be in agreement that readers will be primarily looking for insights into the meta, and we should be seeking to provide it. If we're in agreement on that, it's just a question of how we would go about doing so in a way that's efficient and helpful. We can provide lists of anecdotal, situational advice on individual card pages, sure. But if we want fans to read and add to such things in the first place, we should first provide an aggregator of some kind. Because I think it is far more likely that fans will be googling "Elder Scrolls Legends tier list" when looking for guidance than "Elder Scrolls Legends [insert individual card name here]." That's just what strategy card gamers are looking for. Insignificant RevisionsThreatsEvidence 20:41, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
A tier list certainly seems like a good thing to have, although I feel like one could reasonably be put together using traditional consensus. —Legoless (talk) 20:56, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Here's hoping. Anyway, any thoughts on formatting? Like, do you prefer inter-tier ranking, like Heartharena, or ranking cards only by putting them in tiers, like Icy Veins? Number of tiers? Their names? Table style?
I know the NDA makes all this tricky, but I hope people in the beta (please do not identify yourselves) come prepared on launch day so we can hash it out quickly. Any notes, significant combos, maybe even tier drafts if you have the time. Insignificant RevisionsThreatsEvidence 20:51, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
No real preference as long as we get to use "trash tier". That Heartharena layout looks good, but my HS card knowledge isn't deep enough to comment any more than that. —Legoless (talk) 21:00, 1 May 2016 (UTC)


So, let's talk about how we want to do for card lists. I like the idea of doing a full, sortable list - I've found a similar feature on a wiki for another card game really useful. Do we want to include thumbnails in this? That's going to be hundreds of images. In addition to that, I think it would help to have pages just for the different attributes: whether we want to do a separate sortable list on that page, or just link to a "Legends-Cards-Strength" category? Before we go putting in a bunch of work I thought I'd get some other opinions.

Here's an example of what I mean:

Name Class/Attribute Type Race Magicka Cost Rarity Attack Defense Abilities
Abecean Navigator Intelligence Creature High Elf 2 Grey 3 2 Summon: If the top card of your deck is an action, draw it. Otherwise, put it on the bottom.
Ageless Automaton Neutral Creature Dwemer 4 Blue 2 5 When Ageless Automaton attacks a Guard, it gains +3/+0 and Breakthrough this turn.
Ahnassi Monk Creature Khajiit 5 Gold 5 5 Summon: Ahnassi steals all keywords from enemy creatures.

— Unsigned comment by Alarra (talkcontribs) at 19:30 on 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Thumbnails seem like a bad idea on any significantly long list. I wonder if it would be possible to transclude the data from the individual card pages? Otherwise we'd end up with some serious info duplication, which would be a problem if/when the values are changed. Also, we changed "Race" to "Type" (see above). —Legoless (talk) 19:37, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
That would definitely be nice if we'd be able to transclude it somehow. The wiki I mentioned for the other card game does something like that, but that's way beyond what I know how to do on a wiki, lol. Thought I'd link it anyway in case it's helpful to anyone. As far as "Type", was anything ever decided for creature/action/support? ~ Alarra (talk) 19:46, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
I've been following how they're presented in-game and treating all the Creature categories as separate "Types". See Legends:Card Types and Legends:Creatures. So something like:
Name Class/Attribute Type Cost Rarity Attack Defense Abilities
Abecean Navigator Intelligence High Elf 2 Grey 3 2 Summon: If the top card of your deck is an action, draw it. Otherwise, put it on the bottom.
Apprentice's Potion Willpower Action 1 Grey N/A N/A Gain 5 health.
We might also wanna consider adding separate columns for other factors like ongoing/uses. —Legoless (talk) 20:04, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Transclusion would definitely be possible. The setup would be similar to {{Book Normal}} (or, at a more involved level, {{Online Skill Link}}). --Enodoc (talk) 23:39, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Log Data Viewer[edit]

Sorry if this is in the wrong place. I really don't know how many thins work. Is there a way of searching for books by area? Thanks. --Rhynchelma (talk) 19:28, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

ESO Skills: Values for Calculation[edit]

I've asked if it was possible to have a bot run to update the ESO skills for each new update, and things are looking good so far. With these updates, I thought it was a good idea to ask for any input if we should change the values for the calculation of effect cost and damage (currently we use level 4 and Max Magicka/Stamina 1000, Weapon/Spell Damage 0, what I think produces too low numbers to do any good job for comparison). I would propose Veteran16 (or 160 champion poins with the comming update), Max Health 8744, Max Magicka/Stamina 7958, Weapon/Spell Damage 1037 (Base values of the CP500 PTS Template and a CP 160 Staff). -- SarthesArai Talk 16:49, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable (I think I also said those numbers weren't very useful). I'm not sure how {{Skill Link}} will work once VRs are removed, but I assume Dave has something planned for altering that for CPs. It may be better for calculation purposes to use Level 50 and 0 CPs, so that we don't have to keep changing the base values when the CP progression cap is raised. We may also want to use some rounder values, since everyone's setup will be different, so maybe Max H/M/S 10000 and W/S Damage 1000? --Enodoc (talk) 15:52, 22 May 2016 (UTC)