Online talk:Vvardenfell

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

Firemoth Revert[edit]

From both a lore and an in-game perspective, Firemoth is a region of Vvardenfell. I don't think its size nor its origins as a plugin are relevant to ESO. —Legoless (talk) 18:08, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

I still think Firemoth is such a minor piece of nothing it's not worth mentioning. If we mentioned every little thing that appears in one game but not another, the pages would just be full of almost nothing but that. There are likely dozens of little caves and such that aren't going to be in ESO. Firemoth has pretty much no associated lore, no historical relevance, nothing to warrant being singled out for notice here. Red Mountain and Sheogorad were major large areas of the game. Firemoth is basically nothing. — TheRealLurlock (talk) 04:01, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
For the sake of providing an accurate list of regions not included in ESO, I think it's fine to have Firemoth mentioned. For the reader interested in ES maps and locations that could be an interesting piece of information. I won't argue about the (non)importance of Firemoth (and neither does Legoless), but including Firemoth here does not make the article worse in any way. Tib (talk) 10:37, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Firemoth is a distinct region of Morrowind with significant lore. It's not a random cave, it's a major geographical entity. Even from an in-game perspective it's considered to be a region, called Firemoth Region, with its own weather system. You're correct that it's minor enough in Morrowind not to warrant an entry on MW:Regions, but that's game-specific and not relevant here. From an in-universe perspective it is a distinct region separate from the Bitter Coast. Therefore it is factually incorrect to say that the ESO zone contains all the other regions of Vvardenfell if we exclude one from mention. —Legoless (talk) 13:14, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
You're splitting hairs. Your definition of "region" in this case is game-specific. Weather system, really? Extremely game-specific. The region page you linked is so minor it's just a redirect to the fort. The existence of a Lore page on this site does not qualify as "significant lore". That page merely consists of a brief description of the location and the one quest that occurs there, and arguably shouldn't even be in lore-space as the location has never been mentioned in any other game, not even in books. — TheRealLurlock (talk) 13:55, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm afraid that's a severely outdated definition. Lorespace hasn't been confined by the "multiple appearance" rule for years, it's defined by significance. A chain of islands is a significant landmass. There's no reason to dismiss the lore because it's based on a game-specific system. The reason why I brought up the (minor, game-specific) Morrowind region is to point out that Firemoth is unique, not just a random dungeon I singled out as you implied. It is defined as a region. I can't see a constructive reason to remove mention of it. —Legoless (talk) 14:29, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
I'd also rather keep the mention here than not. The region is a separate archipelago, albeit small, and I don't think it deserves removal. I usually mention obscure places where it's relevant, as it helps maintaining the integrity of the lore, and history teaches us that even a mere mention may blossom into a lot of content much later - like in the case of Bangkorai Pass, first mentioned in Daggerfall. Plus, I don't see any harm coming from it being here, and if I remember correctly, the wiki policy is to avoid reverting things that do not make articles worse. --Vordur Steel-Hammer (TINV1K) 19:20, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

() I've removed the mention, since a datamined quest stage ("Escaping Firemoth") seems to imply we will be visiting the region after all. —Legoless (talk) 16:32, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

ESO Map with Vvardenfell[edit]

I noticed that each location has a link to the map but it leads to nowhere. Someone should add the map and the locations so we don't have to do it later. - Vincentius1 (talk) 00:24, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

There is no zone map yet, those links are just automatically added by the template. —Legoless (talk) 00:44, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
That's true, but we have the datamined map. We can use that for the time being until something new comes up. - Vincentius1 (talk) 01:48, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Maybe, but this is all pretty speculative to begin with. I guess you could bring it up here? —Legoless (talk) 02:24, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
I think we should hold off adding any maps until we get proper in game ones, since the current one seems rather incomplete. Contraptions (talk) 08:30, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
I also think it's too early for this kind of stuff. --Vordur Steel-Hammer (TINV1K) 18:42, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Red Mountain[edit]

On the page, it says that the zone does not include the Red Mountain. However, it has been confirmed that it is possible to climb the mountain as seen here, so should we remove this? It's not possible to go inside the mountain and there's nothing up there, though, which is why I'm hesitant. AlphaAbsol (talk) 10:12, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing. If it's accessible, I'd say it's included. We know that it's climbable in the overworld, and it has a battleground and a public dungeon. The statement on this page was originally based off the datamined location names anyway. —Legoless (talk) 14:48, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
We could remove the statement about Sheogorad too. It was also based on datamined location names and the datamined map, but that was some time ago. Perhaps it was the last region to be made and wasn't ready yet? I'd say that we shouldn't state that it's not in until actual evidence of such a claim appears. --Vordur Steel-Hammer (TINV1K) 16:40, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Alliance Neutral[edit]

As far as I understand, this parameter is supposed to describe the allegiance of the zone from the game mechanic point of view (ie. everything other than the 15 vanilla zones and starters is considered neutral). This can be a bit confusing though: half the island is controlled by House Redoran, which is in the Pact, and the presence of the Pact is mentioned in some lorebooks found there. With upcoming Summerset, this will be even more confusing, because you can't be any deeper in the Aldmeri Dominion than there. What do you think? --Vordur Steel-Hammer (TINV1K) 07:32, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree that "Alliance" parameter should probably take lore into account—especially now with One Tamriel, in which alliance is an arbitrary thing. Zones like Wrothgar and Summerset being listed as neutral can be quite confusing—especially to those who weren't around before One Tamriel—and can easily be misunderstood as lore instead of pure technicality (it's hardly even that now!). Wrothgar and Summerset should be labelled "Daggerfall Covenant" and "Aldmeri Dominion" respectivelly. It's more complicated with Vvardenfell, though; the Pact has a very limited influence over the island: It can only operate by proxy through House Hlaalu and Redoran—and they don't even control half of Vvardenfell. The Temple would hardly bother running errands for the Pact, and the rest of Vvardenfell is openly hostile to the Pact. Labelling it as Pact territory would be just as misleading. One might argue that Wrothgar is in a similar situation—but in that case it's all at least de jure part of the Covenant, albeit not de facto. "Disputed" might be a more accurate description for Vvardenfell. Aran Anumarile Autaracu Alatasel (talk) 10:03, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
"Disputed" definitely seems like a good compromise to me. —Legoless (talk) 20:59, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
It might be better to scrap the parameter completely, rather than destroying its purpose. Neutral, for the most part, means they take no side in the Alliance War. Wrothgar is labelled as Neutral specifically because of the lore background; Kurog said it's a truce zone. It's certainly not Covenant territory, because Covenant forces are explicitly banned from being there. I'm sure a similar point can be argued about why there are no Pact forces in Vvardenfell, but I can't remember if there's any specific statement made by Vivec (or anyone else) about the actual state of Vvardenfell, in the same way Kurog did for Wrothgar. Disputed however is wholly inaccurate, as control of Vvardenfell is not disputed between the three alliances, which is what that word means when considering "Alliance". "Alliance" does not mean "Faction". --Enodoc (talk) 23:43, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
So, should we remove it completely? Or maybe leave it on the vanilla 15 zones and the starter zones, and remove everywhere else? --Vordur Steel-Hammer (TINV1K) 17:48, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
The infobox is for technical data, not lore, always has been and always will be even when it confuses readers. Whatever Vvardenfell is technically is what should be in the box. Neutral already covers Cyrodiil, which is more disputed than any other location. Vvardenfell, Craglorn, and Summerset are all inside their own Alliance territories and somewhat, if not totally, under that Alliance's control. The Gold Coast is the only truly Neutral territory both in lore and gameplay, as even Wrothgar is Covenant even if it doesn't allow its soldiers (at least lore-wise anyway). There may be a better term out there to encompass the varied territories if there isn't an official one, or it may be that we should move the previously Neutral ones inside their Alliances as there is no clear separation anymore. A section on the Zones page should probably be made to cover the differences, with the Neutral (or whatever it is if it is changed) term in the box linking to it. Of course, there is the option to remove them if they are "depreciated" terms, but I think some organisation of zones should remain, even if it be arbitrary on our part. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 18:57, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
It's a shame that technical data is not readily available, as up to now we've just had to infer Alliance from gameplay differences. On that note though, technical reasoning would actually be a good argument to remove it, since One Tamriel basically removed those gameplay differences. For our internal organisation, we can keep the parameter in-use, which informs the colour-coding, just remove it from display. --Enodoc (talk) 20:04, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
I assume it means changing the template, then? --Vordur Steel-Hammer (TINV1K) 20:20, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
The alliance is now no longer displayed, but the parameter will remain in use for infobox colouring and corner icons. --Enodoc (talk) 22:45, 17 April 2018 (UTC)