Online talk:Races

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

Suggested Addition[edit]

On a general note for all the pages for the playable races in TES: Online, should the descriptions from this site be added? http://www.elderscrollsonline.com/en-gb/game-guide/alliances/ebonheart-pact http://www.elderscrollsonline.com/en-gb/game-guide/alliances/aldmeri-dominion http://www.elderscrollsonline.com/en-gb/game-guide/alliances/daggerfall-covenant They contain a unique description for all the races except the Imperial, and is on one of the official sites for the game. --104.131.94.122 22:46, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Recent Edits[edit]

I have combined some recent additions here with previous versions to provide a better looking and more informative table, but got some pushback on that. To avoid an edit war, here's why I prefer my version. One, it actually tells you who each faction and race are. Just presenting the symbol and making the images linked is a very unclear way of providing information. Secondly, I removed several broken links that were inserted, such as a link to Online:Health# Recorvery , which is both misspelled, and there's also nothing close to the requested anchor there. Third, the claimed reason for the additions was to make it more compact, but text is easier to load and also fits into space better than an image. As such, I don't see a reason to include links to nowhere, as well as make the pages harder to read for anyone by going image only. --AKB Talk Cont Mail 15:49, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Before coming here I compared the two versions. Thus I am surprised to see that your version was not the default as it is so much better than the alternative. We are a text-based website and omitting the names of the races in favour of icons is wrong; images are to compliment the text, not replace it. There is probably a better way to add them without some of them being split beside and below the icon. The extra links are pointless given that they do not point to an actual section. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 17:50, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Already fixed that with newlines. Appearance should be more pleasing now. --AKB Talk Cont Mail 17:55, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
My preference, left to right; Alliances column as it is now, but without a forced width. Races column with icon and name, but without the (Secondary name), as that's already in the table above. Skills column is fine. H/M/S columns should have links, but not to sections that don't exist. Bonuses column looks better bulleted. --Enodoc (talk) 18:03, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Equally we could just do away with the Alliances column completely, since that info is already in the above table. --Enodoc (talk) 18:39, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
I have to agree that the text is pretty ugly as it currently stands, but images are no substitute. Removing the alliance column seems fine to me. —Legoless (talk) 20:36, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
I'd agree with Enodoc, adding one thing - the first column "Alliance" looks quite bad in my browser, because the alliance texts get split, with an image between. It looks like a school kid's website from 1995. I'd prefer Alliance banner with a hover over text. Also, can we please try to minimize making the new editors feel that they are just trouble :( The whole thing would have been easily avoided by a talk page message "hey, i noticed you have a new idea about the Online:Races table, which is great, but do you think we could work out a compromise around this and do it like this, because reasons". Tib (talk) 10:40, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

() Table without labels represents a compact way of seeing how the race actually differentiate from each other. There is already a table in previous sector with all nicknames and face pictures so saying the table would be hard to understand is kinda mooth. The links are not broken nor obsolete, they point to a section in an article where the relevant information should by be located with reasonable title usage. In both cases, if there is no target or there is a section target, it does not have a negative impact on users navigation. Only one having problem with this is you, editor, having problems understanding how # hyperlinking works and priority goes over readers. Also, the image alt and link info told clearly where it is leading and was not displaying the <pagespace><atriclename>#heading form so your argument of it being misleading is void. Removing alliance section also removes easy way of seeing what alliance the race is belonging into thus those interested in PvP (the strong part of the game if you don't know) need to scroll back and forth to see what each alliance has to offer. Making the table wider with added text (that is already presented 200px earlier), ignoring the text aling, removing the correct info from 'other bonuses' and reducing the links does not make the table more text based nor friendly wiki. Is it really too much asked to have one wiki in the internet showing up-to-date race info of ESO in nice compact form with page weight less than 3 megas? This is by far not the only table needing some love but this edit hostility is quite undermining. Voiding other people's work is a dick move. Ek1 (talk) 09:11, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Proposal:
Race Increased experience
gain in skill
Max
Health
Max
Stamina
Max
Magicka
Health
Recovery
Stamina
Recovery
Magicka
Recovery
Other Bonus
ON-icon-Altmer.png
Altmer
Destruction Staff 10% 9%
  • Increases damage with Cold, Fire or Shock effects by 4%
  • Increases your experience gained by 1%
ON-icon-Bosmer.png
Bosmer
Bow 6% 21%
  • Increases Poison and disease resistance by x
  • Decreases stealth radius by 3 meters
  • Increases damage done while stealthed by 10%
  • Decreases your fall damage taken by 10%
ON-icon-Khajiit.png
Khajiit
Medium Armor 20% 10%
  • Decreases stealth radius by 3 meters
  • Increases damage done while stealthed by 10%
  • Increases weapon critical chance by 2/5/8%
  • Increases your chance to successfully pickpocket by 5%
ON-icon-Breton.png
Breton
Light Armor 10%
  • Reduces the magicka cost of spells by 3%
  • Increases spell resistance by x
  • Increases your Alliance Points gained by 1%
ON-icon-Redguard.png
Redguard
One Hand and Shield 10% 9%
  • Restores y stamina when damaging an enemy with a melee attack (only once every 3 seconds)
  • Increases the duration of any eaten food by 15 minutes
ON-icon-Orc.png
Orc
Heavy Armor 6% 6% 20%
  • Reduces sprint cost by 12%
  • Increases sprint speed by 10%
  • Increases damage done on melee weapon attacks by 4%
  • Increases healing received by 5%
  • Increases your crafting inspiration gained by 10%
ON-icon-Nord.png
Nord
Two Handed 9% 6% 20%
  • Decreases incoming damage by 6%
  • Increases frost resistance by x
  • Increases the duration of any consumed drink by 15 minutes
ON-icon-Dunmer.png
Dunmer
Dual Wield 6% 6% + 3%
  • Increases Flame resistance by x
  • Increases spell damage with Fire effects by 7%
  • Reduces your damage taken from environmental lava by 50%
ON-icon-Argonian.png
Argonian
Restoration Staff 9% 3%
  • Increases healing done and received by 5%
  • Increases Poison and disease resistance by x
  • Increases swimming speed by 50%
  • Upon using a potion, gain 12% of your maximum, health, magicka and stamina
ON-concept-Imperial symbol.png
Imperial
One Hand and Shield 12% 10%
  • Melee attacks have 10% chance to restore z Health
  • Increases your gold gained by 1%
Enodoc (talk) 12:18, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
This looks great imo (then again I'm not the one having issue with things not being text-based). Because strictly speaking, this is a step even further from having the Alliance banner and name, as we now only have the color. Anyways, I gladly support it because I think this layout is logical, informative and has good design. Tib (talk) 13:13, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Right. This page isn't even about alliances, it's about races. I was considering just putting all races in alphabetical order and not bothering with alliance at all in this table, but Ek1 is right that it's useful for seeing the full abilities of races when alliance is taken into consideration. There's currently no key to the colours, so I'll make sure the colours are also added to the table above too. --Enodoc (talk) 13:53, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
The alliance Icons and alliance colors are different enough from each other to distinguish them at first glace - something that is (at least for me) not true with the racial icons. They're just some grey-brown with a slightly different grey-brown-ish icon in their middle, so I, too, vote to have the race names with the icons. Alternate race names are not really needed here, though. Linking to Online:Health#recovery makes no sense, as there is no "recovery" section on the Online:Health page, and the page itself was already linked in the prevous columns. The Other Bonus does look better as a bullet list, however. -- SarthesArai Talk 14:27, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
I was pointed to this discussion after making changes to the table in the article, so forgive my edits there. The new suggestion is both concise and clear, and I think it makes an excellent compromise between the two positions, while incorporating both of their points. I don't want to make changes to someone else's table while it's under discussion, but I'd like to suggest a couple of changes:
  • making the entire table centered (with the possible exceptions of the skill and bonus columns),
  • spacing out the 6%+3%,
  • changing the x, y, and z references to be formatted so that they stand out as variables a bit better, perhaps using italics, bold, <kbd> (which sort of replaces the deprecated <tt>) or to Darklocq's recent point about semantic markup, perhaps <var>.
Robin Hood  (talk) 16:56, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
I made the suggested changes to the proposal. --Enodoc (talk) 18:11, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Major Races, Technical Races[edit]

I think the terms "Major Races" and "Technical Races" need some explanation. Where do they come from, what's their definition? This edit indicates that major races are mortal races, but what exactly are "technical NPC types"? --Holomay (talk) 17:58, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Technical races is for everything that is technically an NPC type but might not meet the lore definition of race (which is usually reserved for sentient mortal races). For instance, skeletons and factotums are both NPC types but are certainly not "races" in lore terms. —Legoless (talk) 22:19, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Okay, but what is the "NPC type"? What are the characteristics, how can it be defined? It seems that this discussion hasn't come to a full conclusion, especially in terms of undead creatures/NPCs. --Holomay (talk) 13:39, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
You're going to have to be more specific than that. What is it about the NPC types currently listed on this page that you don't understand? The distinction is currently visual, i.e. we list "Golden Saint" as a technical race but not Aurorans since the only in-game Auroran is actually a Golden Saint enemy. The only two undead enemies currently listed on the page are draugr and skeletons; both have polymorphs, marking a pretty clear distinction between them and other undead NPCs such as vampires who maintain their underlying race.
As for the discussion you linked, it is most definitely concluded. The distinction between NPC enemies and creature enemies in ESO should be clear to anyone who has played the game; compare Ghost creatures to "ghostly" NPCs. The only issue left outstanding is a determination on borderline cases such as werewolves, but those can be discussed on a case-by-case basis and added/removed from this page accordingly. —Legoless (talk) 01:16, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
Basically, I’d like to come up with a short explanatory sentence (something like "Technical races are …") underneath the header "Technical Races" which I think is necessary as the definition is not as simple as “humanoid NPCs”. In the Creature vs. NPC discussion, I can find the following exclusive/inclusive requirements:
  • Humanoid body form.
  • Fighting style with specific fighting classes (usually "Charger", "Pyromancer", "Rogue" etc), excluding things like giants (who appear to be humanoid but don't have equipment).
  • Using equipment (excluding Lamia who have classes but don't use a humanoid model).
  • The player can equip costumes and disguises and play the game full-time as one of the technical races.
  • An NPC is a character who retained the sense of self (even if the form was altered) and is able to communicate such sense to others.
Here’s a preliminary list of things that appeared inconsistent to me, I hope it helps clear things up:
  1. This edit implies that mummies are NPCs. Mummies are listed on the Online:Creatures page, but they’re not included in the Technical Races list. Was it just an oversight or is there something that excludes them from the technical races? I don’t think there should be a [:Category:Online-Mummy] and a :Category:Online-Creatures-Mummy.
  2. On Online:Creatures, there is the sentence “Note that Aurorans, Dark Seducers, Dremora, Golden Saints, Spiderkith, Xivilai, and Xivkyn are NPCs, not creatures, and therefore are not listed here.” next to the Daedra entry, and these Daedra are not listed underneath, but can be found under "Technical Races" on Online:Races. Draugr and Skeletons are NPCs/technical races, too, but they are listed next to Bloodfiends and Bone Colossi in the “Undead” section, and there is no sentence explaining their different status.
  3. Skeletons are categorized as creatures (e.g., General Celdien) and as a race (e.g., Vesta Illvina). If they’re a technical race, that should be made consistent so that we only have the Category:Online-Skeleton instead of an additional category Category:Online-Creatures-Skeleton, unless these categories are based on Shuryard’s latest post in the Creature vs. NPC discussion (“Skeletons are defined on a case by case basis. While skeletons raised by necromancers are creatures in general, the dwellers of Stillrise Village are definitely NPCs, and so is Tarshea.”). As this post remained unanswered, I am not sure if there was a consensus about the idea. If this is the case and Skeletons can be creatures or NPCs, it should be explained on Races, Creatures and Skeleton.
  4. Among the Anka-Ra, I can find Race:Redguard (Prince Tarjal the Lost), Race:Skeleton (Ahmat the Forgotten) and Race:Anka-Ra (Allomuga the Unstoppable). Is there an “Anka-Ra” race, and when should undead NPCs be categorized under the race of their “former”, living bodies?
  5. Why are Bloodfiends and Zombies excluded from the technical races? In the Creature vs. NPC discussion it was suggested that at least Bloodfiends meet all the requirements (“Personally I think we can call the crouching ones (Bloodfiends, Feral Bosmer) NPCs, since they appear to meet all the qualifications even if they have their own unique animations. Not so sure about the zombified ones though.”) Have Bloodfiends been excluded because it turned out that they don’t meet one of the requirements (Using equipment maybe?) or based on Shuryard’s last post in the discussion (“I would define an NPC as a character who retained the sense of self (even if the form was altered) and is able to communicate such sense to others.”)?
  6. The trail of technical races articles leads back to different pages, e.g., Draugr (People), Dremora (Races), Hollow (NPCs), resulting in different categories for these pages as well. The trail on Daedra shouldn’t just lead to Creatures, but to Races as well, and the article should contain an explanation about the NPC/creature distinction similar to the one on Creatures.
  7. Vampires, Werewolves and Spirits/ghostly NPCs (Ghost creatures are easily distinguishable and therefore unproblematic) have one thing in common: They are (or can be) a “type” of NPCs who maintain their underlying race. For Werewolves, the solution seems to be that the Category:Online-Creatures-Werewolf is either added by the template (for creatures like Rageclaw) or added manually if the race parameter of the template is occupied by a human race (for NPCs like Arienne Kerbol). The Category:Online-Vampire is also added manually to NPCs like Lady Lleraya Montclair. However, enemies like Bloodborn Icemasters or Bloodfiend Reavers can be found in the same category as the race parameter in their NPC summary template is filled with “Vampire”, categorizing them as NPCs instead of creatures. If the [:Category:Online-Spirit] is supposed to be a similar category for ghostly NPCs, it needs to be added manually as well to a lot of NPCs like Ansei Radan instead of using it in the race parameter. I think these terms (Werewolves, Vampires, Spirits) need more detailed explanations on their umbrella pages and pages like Races and Creatures, clarifying if and under which conditions they are or are not creatures and/or NPCs. --Holomay (talk) 23:36, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
I just want to counter that that discussion ever concluded, it simply died. Two of the four participants were against some of the proposed changes, while one appears to only worry about how to handle changes in the template. Further to this, there is a topic below that that highlights the total lack of consistency in changes, points out how there was no defining discussion on the wiki, nor an agreed set of "creatures" that were now to be treated as NPCs. If someone had intelligently answered those queries then perhaps there could have been some edits to change those entries on the creature page instead of waiting for yet another query to pop up wondering what was going on. If anyone is interested I am and always will be against treating creatures as NPCs, which includes mummies, zombies, skeletons, goblins, reiklings, etc. There has never been anything to suggest that they are NPCs, except the technical data, which treats all creatures (sheep, wasps, etc) as NPCs along with what we normally call NPCs. This is why this question is being asked, because no-one expects to see these creatures on this page and thus it requires an explanation. If the list was limited to actual technical races such as the "invisible race" in Skyrim there wouldn't be a need to justify the list.
To answer #4, the summary box should always be what the NPC/creature is now, it is for technical data. Any known former "races" can be stated in the opening line instead of or with the current race. For #6, draugr trails to people because of the NPC summary box, which should not be there for a race page (the necessary categories for the "draugr" NPC/creature need to be added manually (see SR:Bandit). For #7, if the summary box has a race field filled in but not a creatures parameter, then it produces the "ON-Race" category, oddly we only seem to have done manual categories for vampires with known races but not werewolves, probably because we've always treated "just" werewolves as creatures, so there is only a "creatures-werewolf" category. We don't seem to have a settled definition for Bloodfiends as either "bloodfiends" or feral "vampires" leading to some confusion. A final point on ghostly NPCs is that they use a shader, because as you say, their race is kept and often discernible underneath it, which means that the previous point on the summary box results in their race not being "ghost". Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 01:16, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

() Mummies, zombies, skeletons, goblins, reiklings are all NPCs. You can literally play ESO as a skeleton or a goblin, and there is a zombie personality which gives players the exact same animations.

The reason for the majority of these listed inconsistencies is due to the fact that many pages were never switched over. Since skeletons etc. were creatures in previous games, those pages were initially set up as such in ON namespace.

Just to address point #4: Prince Tarjal the Lost is listed as a member of the Anka-Ra, but if you look at the image you'll notice that he is in fact a skeleton rather than a stony Anka-Ra warrior. I imagine the reason many Anka-Ra are listed as Redguards is because they were Yokudans in life, but lore does not belong in the summary template (e.g. we don't categorise draugr as Nords).

I agree with listing zombies and Bloodfiends/Spellfiends/Stonefiends as technical races, but there was never really any consensus on how to handle those enemy types.

Draugr being categorised under "People" is patently wrong since that is for specific named NPCs rather than general types. The question between "NPCs" and "Races" is a different matter that definitely needs to be addressed for consistency's sake.

Vampires should not be listed as a race, but regularly end up as such when editors don't know the NPC's actual race.

I like Holomay's proposed definition of what constitutes a "technical race", if only for clarification purposes. At the end of the day, I think we need to follow a common sense approach considering just how many humanoid enemy types ESO has (and continues to introduce). —Legoless (talk) 20:38, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

I still wait for a proper explanation of how these things are NPCs. The ability to appear as one of these things does not in fact mean that you are one of these things. At no time whatsoever are you a goblin/zombie/skeleton, no matter that you walk like one, talk like one, or eat like one; every single second you appear as one of these you are still the actual playable race you selected at the very start of your characters life. These disguises are equivalent to the disguises you can use to infiltrate various man and/or mer gangs and factions to accomplish missions stealthily/without bloodshed, in fact the goblin one which I used extensively is there for that very reason and is still considered a disguise by the game. The reason the pages have not been switched over is because these changes never got the proper backing of anyone serious about this wiki, because if it had the changes would have been made already. It isn't a matter of slowness because the pages are hard to find, all the pages that "need changed" are easily found within the creature categories that were created at the time. If you cannot link a single conversation where these changes found approval from anyone other than yourself, then the changes are disputed and it is about time they are settled for good (ie stop treating this as a settled issue). Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 21:42, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Anything that shares the NPC skeleton and animations should be considered an NPC. Even if goblins, zombies, or (blood/spell/whatever)fiends seem to be unconnected due to them using a distinct set of animations, these animations are actually applicable for the same skeleton, as becomes evident with the goblin disguise, which will make you use the goblin animations unless you've drawn a weapon, are sneaking, using an emote, ect., or the zombie personality. King Kurog uses a unique set of animations, as well, and we don't exclude him from being an NPC, as well. Being a vampire / ghost is a "condition" applied on top of the regular race, so the regular race should be used if known. The Anka-Ra are a kind of special case, since they aren't technically of any aforementioned race, but Anka-Ra is more like a faction than a race. -- SarthesArai Talk 22:31, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
If we want to be "technical", considering all creatures are technically NPCs in ESO, any distinction designed to partition them based on appearance is entirely arbitrary anyway. --Enodoc (talk) 23:26, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
There is absolutely nothing arbitrary about the humanoid model. This can be very easily demonstrated by playing as a wisp or monkey or skeevaton in-game and comparing your experience to playing as a goblin; one functions the exact same as any other NPC, while the others can't perform skills, or emotes, or indeed anything NPC-related.
I have yet to hear any kind of persuasive argument as to why goblins should be considered creatures in ESO when they are quite clearly just NPCs with green skin. The only argument seems to be consistency with older games, which is an entirely flawed argument. Golden Saints, for example, are considered creatures in Morrowind and NPCs in Oblivion, with the distinction being made based on how they functioned in each game. Golden Saints in ESO use the same skeleton/animations/classes/equipment as every other humanoid enemy; they are functionally identical, unlike, say, an ogre. By actually following wiki precedent and determining NPC/creature division based on gameplay functionality, there should be zero room for doubt when it comes to what defines an NPC vs a creature. —Legoless (talk) 23:44, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Yeah sure, there's a difference with the humanoid model, but everything is still technically an NPC. Where did the decision to create an NPC/creature split come from before? Looking at the CS/CK from previous games, there's no obvious split there, as everything is ACTOR. But presumably something informed that decision. If we can drill down to the root of that split, then we should be able to more clearly define how a technical race works here. --Enodoc (talk) 23:56, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
I think the first four criteria that Holomay highlights are logical and easy to visually/technically distinguish in-game. I also think, whatever the decisions made here are, it should be explicitly spelled out that Vampire is not a race (and why it isn't). --FioFioFio (talk) 01:11, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

() The NPC/creature division is, like many classifications on the wiki, a compromise between things like common sense, visual aspects, gameplay and technical considerations. The discussion shows that there is no consistency among older games, and we will hardly find a system that can be applied to all games retroactively. A purely technical approach might be consistent in itself, but confusing for most wiki users, that's the reason why there is no "Skyrim:ACTOR" article serving as an umbrella page for NPCs and creatures. Both "common players" and "CK/technical wizards" need to find what they're looking for, and that can be achieved by comprehensive explanations and linking. The answer to Enodoc's question about the reasons for the NPC/creature splits in previous games could be helpful for writing out a definition for the ESO split, and we should really come up with a definition for the technical races so we can clarify the issue and come to a consensus about it. Meanwhile, I'd like to fix more inconsistencies in the current system that I've addressed above as it is much closer to coherency and a de facto state than any other idea brought up so far. Even if a decision will be made to change the system entirely, the change (including bot tasks etc.) will be much easier from a state of consistency. --Holomay (talk) 10:08, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Incidentally, it turns out I was completely mistaken about Morrowind, and didn't look far enough into the CK for Oblivion. Morrowind has a direct NPC/Creature split already (Creatures are then split further by type – Creature/Daedra/Humanoid/Undead – and NPCs are split further by Race), and Oblivion splits Actors directly into Creatures and NPCs (and then further by Type and Race again). It's only Skyrim where the split of Actors doesn't exist, as every different actor type, whether a creature or an NPC is called "…Race". Skyrim therefore is really the only place to look for where we draw the split ourselves. --Enodoc (talk) 16:38, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
A lot of problems discussed here are solved by the addition of the "affliction" parameter to the Online NPC Summary, see this discussion. --Holomay (talk) 09:59, 9 August 2018 (UTC)