User talk:SerCenKing

The UESPWiki – Your source for The Elder Scrolls since 1995
Jump to: navigation, search
Please feel free to add a comment - just click the "+" at the top of the page


Cookies: my cookie jar

Welcome back![edit]

Hey SerC! Just a ’welcome back’ message – good to see you jump on our brand new state-of-the-art quest project! Also, I hoped all the exams went well! --Krusty 17:10, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Hey Krusty! All the exams went well and I'm back for about a month now :) I've fallen in love with the Thieves Guild so I'll be trying to overhaul all the quest, NPC and place pages! Let me know if you need anything. --SerCenKing Talk 11:29, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Hello again! Just wanted to let you know – I’ve seen that crazy sandbox of yours, and if there’s anything I can do to help, just holler! Great pages, by the way! ☺ --Krusty 05:49, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Krusty and sorry the late reply (as well as for Denmark, hopefully Italy will fare slightly better!). Atm I'm procrastinating on writing up more quest pages because I can't be bothered with taking pics for them :P I'm sure I'll get over it by tomorrow though ;) --SerCenKing Talk 14:25, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

UESPWiki:Image Requests[edit]

Hey, SerCenKing! Krusty suggested pointing out the new Image Requests page (which was discussed on the CP here) to you, with the suggestion of adding the page to your watchlist if you're interested in being a regular contributor to the page. He also says "Just say 'hi' from me if you don't know him", hi! :) ABCface 21:22, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi there, nice to meet you :) Unfortunately I haven't got saves for Rikke, but I'll get round to helping Tullius at some point! Thanks for pointing out the page in any case and happy editing ;) --SerCenKing Talk 11:29, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


I noticed your name keeps popping up for giving users's cookies, just a question, what does it take to get one, I feel I've done quite a bit for the wiki Emzi43 21:23, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Pardon me SerCenKing for answering right away but I think it's alright considering your recent activity. Cookies are given to users by other users who feel that their efforts need to be rewarded. There is nothing in particular that will get you one, it will just be given to you by a user should they feel like it. --AKB Talk Cont Mail 21:28, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying AKB, just wondering Emzi43 08:40, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Welcome back![edit]

Hey Serc! So good to see you again – and in busy-mode as well! Welcome back! --Krusty (talk) 21:20, 19 March 2013 (GMT)

Hey Krusty! Yeah it feels pretty good to be back editing!! I'm on break now for a month or so and I'll be studying for my exams in May but I'll take a few breaks to edit :) I'll probably concentrate on SI and Skyrim Thieves Guild but if you need anything, just gimme a shout. --SerCenKing (talk) 23:38, 19 March 2013 (GMT)
And now re-welcome back! :) Haven't seen your name in RC in a long time! Robin Hood  (talk) 03:11, 27 March 2015 (GMT)
Hey RH! Almost two years on the dot! ;) I've got a bit of free time from uni so I'm hoping to finish a few bits and bobs. --SerCenKing (talk) 10:55, 27 March 2015 (GMT)
Great to see some activity in the Shivering namespace, welcome back :) —Legoless (talk) 11:47, 27 March 2015 (GMT)


Hey SerCenKing! I've noticed that some of the images you've recently uploaded are overly bright and slightly washed out. This concerns either an NPC's features or a background. It looks like you use a spell to light a scene and it distorts the colors. Just wanted to point it out.   ~Shuryard (talk) 13:51, 28 March 2015 (GMT)

Hey there! Yeah I thought so too, tbf. Been a long time since I took pics so I am very rusty. I do use a recolored light spell for interiors because sometimes they're just too dark and I can't get a bright enough version. If I have time, which is unlikely, I may give it another go. Otherwise feel free to upload improved versions. My main concern was replacing the God awful 600x600 pics that were there before. Can't see how I thought they were good at the time. Oh and Varulae is completely vanilla - it's the just the sunshine. --SerCenKing (talk) 23:51, 28 March 2015 (GMT)
It may be bloom lighting. Enabling HDR instead might help. —Legoless (talk) 19:07, 29 March 2015 (GMT)
I've got HDR on, I'm not that rusty ;-) --SerCenKing (talk) 19:11, 29 March 2015 (GMT)


Nice to see you around again! —Legoless (talk) 17:00, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Legoless - thanks for the message, it has been a while indeed! I've picked up Oblivion and Skyrim again, so I'll be doing bits and bobs on the wiki. --SerCenKing (talk) 12:30, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Question regarding a character's dialogue[edit]

Hi, recently I've been checking out Armion's page from the Beyond Skyrim: Bruma mod, as he is particularly favourable for me, and have come across some quoted dialogue that I haven't seen in game, or managed to trigger, regarding the white-gold concordat up to the final part of the paragraph discussing it. I apologise for the presumption that it was you who quoted it but I was curious as to where you got this info? Also, thank you for your beautiful editing skills and commitment to usep! Chubbywubby (talk) 22:12, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi, no need to apologise - it's a good spot actually! All the dialogue on the Armion page was extracted from the CK but I double-checked in-game and you're right: that dialogue branch doesn't open up properly post Thalmor question. Bizarrely I can't seem to get quest scripts to open so I can't check for sure, but it looks like it's a bug with the dialogue "quest" that governs the branches. I'll add a bugs section to the page, thanks for spotting! --SerCenKing (talk) 17:14, 6 September 2020 (UTC)


Hey! This was part of my comment on the community portal, but I feel like it would be best as a separate conversation :) Would you be willing to join the Discord? It has been the focus for the namespace overhaul to iron out issues and identify problems or oversights. In addition, since several of the mods are relatively new and may need updates to bring them more into the gamespace standards for UESP. It would help immensely to have someone who is very familiar with the mod in question to bounce clarifications off of. :) If not, that's fine, just an offer. And if you are already in Discord, I'd love to know your username! Thanks! Jeancey (talk) 22:31, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Hey there! I am not on Discord currently - not really one for messaging apps/social media I'm afraid. I'll give it some thought but I'm also fairly erratic in my editing/presence so that might not help too much. Thanks for offer :) --SerCenKing (talk) 12:44, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Questions regarding recent changes[edit]

Hey there SerCenKing! :) I absolutely appreciate the hard work and dedication you've done on UESP, and it's great to see more 'oldschool' contributors still active on this site! It's not too long since I decided to become a more active editor/participant and Recent Changes monitor, and I remember seeing your name on Oblivion talk pages and such back to about 15 years ago or so!

Anyway, I'm sending you a message since I just noticed you updated the Apostle page, and noticed you also leaving a short summary on the edits you've done. I think it's best to ask you some things before I make changes, which would just lead to more friction and such.

  • First on the LL1 list, you wrote: the LL1 list is quite complicated in terms of numbers and % depending on level, so keeping simple. But the percentages for an individual potion should all simply be 19% (18.75%), right? The chances of no potions spawning would first be 75%, and then all LL0 Restore Potion variety lists (weak/normal/strong) would give another 25% of no potions spawning. So that adds up to 19% of up to three potions spawning (19% per individual potion), correct? Then why not simply add that information? That sounds pretty simple to me, and personally, is pretty valuable information I'd like to see on the page as well. Which is the entire idea of having a wikipedia in the first place. Yes, I could look it up in the CSlist every time, but I find this more simple. And frankly, I think I can't be the only one who finds this valuable on the page. If I fight an NPC, I want to know the chances of them carrying a certain item, since I like to play my fights fair (mirroring my abilities/items/spells and such), but that's just me.
  • On the blade/blunt skill, you wrote: Removed note on class as there is no chance of a blunt weapon being around unless you drop it. You're correct on that, even though opponents can also disarm your weapon. Yes, even then the chances of them going for a better weapon is very slim, but there are so many different mods which change these combat aspects, that I personally still think it is valuable information. But beyond that, another reason why I added this information is that I'd like to archive all listing errors/oversights the developers made, which I think is another valuable reason UESP pages are there for. I get why these oversights were made, since the devs probably picked out a NPC Class name which would fit the NPC best, without taking into consideration the exact game mechanics of how skill leveling works. The NPC class system tries to generalize a game mechanic by name, which requires a more detailed and careful approach to make the NPC match his/her combat/magic/stealth skills, spells and items. And beyond that, perhaps even all the way in late 2023, some future modders may still be interested in trying to fix it, no matter how slim that chance may be.
  • And on the previous note: I spent the last months making so many changes to many different NPCs (Marauders and Apostles being just two of them), that it would take you or anyone else many days, even weeks to change them to the exact same format you'd like to see. Also, Legoless moved an edit I made on Havilstein_Hoar-Blood towards the Note section, if you'd rather see that as an option. See my contributions page for more info on the other NPC changes I've made.

You were absolutely right on the other changes you've made btw. It's great of you to check them out, it's a bit embarrassing to find out I made certain mistakes since I try to do my work with the uttermost care. However, that's part of being human right?

Btw, I hope this is not a weird place for me to send you a message. I figured this is just public knowledge since it pertains towards asking questions and receiving answers on topics related to the wiki. And I'm not even sure where to send you or anyone a PM without leaving UESP anyway...

Thanks for reading!--C0rTeZ48 (talk) 23:44, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi C0rTeZ! Thanks for your message, and thanks also for all the edits you've been doing in Oblivion namespace for a while now. I'm not very active anymore these days, but I have a lot of OB pages in my watchlist, so I've been seeing your name pop up quite a lot and with good edits to boot. I'm also still a Patroller, so a combination of Watchlist + the Unpatrolled edits page leads me to focus more on OB edits these days, including yours.
On the Apostle page, indeed - I left a longer edit summary to try to explain more about the changes given the editing on the Marauder page earlier in the month. I've tried to address your points below but the preface is my Construction Set knowledge can be a bit rusty, so I'm very happy to be told I've gotten something wrong if that's the case. It is the beauty of a wiki after all, that we spot and fix each other's mistakes at times - so nothing to be embarrassed about at all! For example, I'd typo'ed 8% instead of 7% on Marauder blades, and completely missed the single LL2 list for enchanted bows... Rusty, as I said, but luckily you were on hand to fix it and give our readers the correct information. Anyhow:
  • My take (though probability maths never was my strongest suit) is that, because at different levels you have different counts and the "Calculate for each item in count" box is ticked, the percentage of at least 1 potion appearing is not always 19%. So at level 1 you only have 1 possible potion and the percentage is indeed 19%. At level 3 and 4 however, you have 2 counts. Which means that instead of the usual 3 outcomes (No LL1 list at all = 75%; LL1 list but no potion = 6.25%; LL1 list and potion = 18.75%) you now have a 3x3 matrix of 9 potential outcomes, a bit like rolling two dice gives you a 6x6 matrix of number combinations. Of those 9, one results in 2 potions, four result in no potions and five result in at least 1 potion (four 1 potion + one 2 potions). So the probability of at least one potion appearing, if I've done my maths right, is around 33% (based on the probability of at least 1 level list appearing and then that leveled list returning a potion). Or in any case, it's definitely higher than when there's only 1 count, as the Chance None probabilities stay the same. Then levels 5 to 6 it goes back to 19% for at least one potion, as the count returns to 1 (but a 'better' potion). Now of course you're correct that for each individual potion, the probability remains 19%. I'd thought getting the percentage of at least one was more important, but perhaps a reasonable compromise is we keep the 19% per potion and then mention that the number of potions and the likelihood of getting at least one potion changes as you level?
  • I get where you're coming from, and generally I think your edits highlighting oversights or discrepancies that give the player a leg up are very useful. There is however a relevancy point to my mind: to be worthy of inclusion the tip must be something that the player can reasonably expect to use/face. If the Apostles or the other Zealots in the dungeon had blunt weapons, or if there were blunt weapons lying around, then maybe. I'm also not sure their Blade skill can ever get high enough that they can disarm you. And even then, they'd have to first disarm you, then you would have to pick another weapon, disarm them and then they'd have to pick up the blunt weapon you'd dropped rather than their dagger. It just feels like such a minuscule likelihood of happening that while theoretically possible, it's just not practically useful and thus relevant to include. Otherwise the wiki would be full of such information and the useful tips would get totally lost.
  • I didn't quite understand your first point, as the question for me is not so much format but rather: (a) whether to include the information at all (b) if so, checking it's accurate. That's just the "job" of Patrollers. In general I'd agree with Legoless that that the kind of tidbit is better suited to the Notes section that to the main body of the article, as it's a sidenote rather than a key piece of information. FWIW, I would be minded to remove the note from Havilstein's page too in that it's extremely unlikely he'll ever have the chance to pick up a blade unless you drop one. Though in this case at least he may be able to disarm you. Although again, requires such a minute chain of events I'm not sure it's relevant enough to be worthy of inclusion.
In any case, hope this has helped clear things up and very happy to discuss further. --SerCenKing (talk) 18:59, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
Great of you to check the OB changes I and others have made! And thank you for your open mind to be willing to discuss, we all get things wrong from time to time. I'm Dutch, so English grammar isn't my strongest point ;)
  • On your first point: I get where you are coming from as well, but I think you're trying to complicate things too much here. As you said later on in your point, the way the list really works is that the average chances of individual potions spawning will always remain at 19%. And frankly put: I think your math is a little bit wrong here as well (the chances of at least one potion spawning can never be 33%, since it's never higher than 18.75%). The essential mistake I think you're making is the difference between (average) spawn chances, and the average potions. I'm only trying to calculate the former here, not the latter, since that makes things too complicated between NPC levels.
Let me take level 3 or 4 as an example like you did: the average chances of no potions spawning will always remain at exactly 81.25%, and in this case due to the list having the 'Alllvl' byte as a 0, that means the list is leveled. That means if the NPC is lvl 3 or 4, it will always choose the highest (in this case item lvl 3) list. But even if the 'Alllvl' byte was a 1, the averages would still be 18.75% per potion. In that case (which this list is not), the average chances of one potion spawning would be 9.375%, and the average chances of two spawning would also be 9.375%. But that's simply making it too complicated for the reader to understand. Therefore, an individual average chance of 18.75% (19%) per potion is always correct. However, at first I was not entirely sure btw how the item lvl 3 listing f.e. practically worked: either taking an 'all vs non' approach (so either an average 18.75% of 2 potions), or an 'average' approach (average of 18.75% per potion), but it does not matter, since the averages will always be the same. After looking at the LL1NPCWeaponArrow100 list of a Marauder Archer, I'm pretty sure it's the latter (the average potion chances). So, as you may have noticed until now, due to the 'Alllvl=0' byte, this list is leveled in that it will always choose the individual list of the highest level. That means that f.e. in lvl 15+, the average of potions spawning will still be 18.75%, but it will be 18.75% of up to 3 (0-3) potions spawning, OR 81.25% of 0 potions spawning. Or perhaps to put it in a way to make you understand in a listing average potions type of way: a 25% chance that 2.25 potions spawn on average, so 0.5625 potions on average (which you can also get by multiplying .1875x3).
So long story short, the way this particular LL1 list works, is that it first chooses the highest LL0 list for the NPC's level, not the player level if I'm correct (which is 25%), and then determines yet another 75% on average per potion (18.75%). Btw, no problem by making an error here, the listing is pretty confusing and difficult to wrap your head around. I had to look it over a couple of times before I was fully confident I understood it myself ;)
  • So on this point, perhaps we can make an in-between agreement on that we do away with the last part of the weapon skills (that the player can't reasonably expect disarmament, and them picking up a matched skill weapon), but keep the former (since that part is still relevant due to what the player can reasonably expect, and how the devs made a mistmatch/oversight of the NPCs)? So for example for the Apostles page, we include the following: Unfortunately for the Apostles, due to their Heretic Mage class, their Blade skill remains at novice level, even at very high player levels. Their Blunt level will be quite high however. And then exclude the following: Be sure therefore that they do not pick up a blunt weapon, should you disarm them.?
  • Well, all I meant by format is the way a page has a pre-determined make-up/lay-out. As in, what pieces of information should go where on the page.
Thank you for reading, looking forward to your reply! C0rTeZ48 (talk) 09:12, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
Oh and btw, one more addition in case you are wondering: if I'm correct, the 'Each' paramater in a list determines whether any/all Item lvl lists in a list are taken into account when picking one randomly. It does not determine whether the NPC literally gets a single item from every Item lvl type in that list (that's what the 'Useall' parameter is for). However, I don't think I've ever seen a list which had the 'Each' parameter at 0. C0rTeZ48 (talk) 09:25, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply, and no worries at all on the English. On the two first points
  • So I think we both agree to keep the 19% individual potion spawn chance and there is no debate there. But I don't think "the chances of at least one potion spawning can never be 33%, since it's never higher than 18.75%" is right. The "Calculate for all levels <= PC's level" box being unticked means the CS will choose the closest item(s) to the NPC's level (but below the level). The "Calculate for each item in count" box being ticked means the CS will individually calculate each of the relevant items. FYI - examples of lists with this box unticked include quest rewards.
Now the individual chance of each potion is never higher than 18.75% regardless of count, as each count recalculation is independent, as per above. But at certain levels (3-4 as you mentioned, or 7-9, 12-13 and 15+) the LL0 list count is more than one. That means there is a chance of more than one LL0 list being chosen, and thus of more than one potion appearing, given the latter is conditional on the former. That means you have a higher percentage of at least one potion spawning. At least being the crucial bit, because it also includes the outcome in which e.g. two LL0 lists appear (and thus two potions potentially appear).
It's a bit like the probability of rolling a 6 with dice. With a single die it's 1/6. With two dice the probability of rolling at least one 6 is 11/36: there are 10 possible combinations with a single six and 1 possible combination with two sixes. You'll see it's almost twice the likelihood of rolling a 6 (a.k.a. at least one 6) on a single die, even though the probability of each individual die showing a 6 is still 1/6.
So in our example, at levels 3-4, you have 9 possible combinations of the LL0 lists, as I mentioned above. Boiling it down to three "overall outcomes" (no potions, one potion, two potions) gives you the following. 4/9 outcomes with no potions, combined probability of 66.02%; 4/9 outcomes with one potion, combined probability of 30.47%; 1/9 outcome with two potions, probability of 3.52%. The probability of at least one potion is the sum of the last two, so 33.98%.
Of course this then changes when you get e.g. 3 leveled lists. In any case, I will amend the page in line with my earlier suggestion, as it's too complicated to fully explain the various scenarios.
  • Agree with that proposal, as long as the skill which is unexpectedly low matches with the weapon they're carrying. So for example for Ra'kheran I wouldn't include it, since there's only a small window where he has a dagger and attacking him would mess up the quest anyway. But I'll add it back to the Apostle and Luminary Kaz pages.
  • Understood. In that case, I'd say putting them in the Notes section would be most appropriate.
--SerCenKing (talk) 20:14, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
I'm sorry SerCenKing, but will all respect, this is getting out of hand. I just don't know where to start from here. I will use your quotes and more sources to back up my claims in order to try to get it over. I will use a bulleted list to make it easier to read. Please also use sources to back up yours.
  • First of, you claim: But at certain levels (3-4 as you mentioned, or 7-9, 12-13 and 15+) the LL0 list count is more than one. That means there is a chance of more than one LL0 list being chosen, and thus of more than one potion appearing, given the latter is conditional on the former. That means you have a higher percentage of at least one potion spawning. At least being the crucial bit, because it also includes the outcome in which e.g. two LL0 lists appear (and thus two potions potentially appear). And: Of course this then changes when you get e.g. 3 leveled lists. So the following is literally from the leveled list page, and goes directly against your interpretation that 'more than one LL0 list may be chosen': "Standard" behavior is for a list to contain one selection from its list; it picks exactly one object with uniform randomness and returns the quantity it has associated with that object, ignoring objects with an associated level greater than the level specified in the request or less than the greatest object level it can return based on its contents, subject to the previous constraint. For example, a list that contains an item with item level 1, two items with item level 2, and 1 item with item level 4, being consulted relative to a player of level 3, will randomly select one of the two items with item level 2 - the item level 4 item has an item level that is higher than the player's level, and the item level 1 item has an item level that is lower than the greatest item level in the list after that comparison, so both are ignored. Do want to point out though, that since the lvl 1 item is not counted here, this must be a list where Alllvl=0. If you disagree, please show me a source where you got that more than one LL0 list may be chosen. Or please try to address your point more clearly since the way you mentioned it may be confusing.
  • Second, and probably more importantly: if you look at a random Apostle page in the cslist (f.e.: 0x00054ca1), you see that the LL1NPCPotionRestoreHealthBandit (0x0000aa65) list has Item Count as merely 1. This means that merely only one LL0 list is picked, never 2 or more (in this case at least).
  • Third, I also want to address another specific point you made here: That means there is a chance of more than one LL0 list being chosen, and thus of more than one potion appearing, given the latter is conditional on the former. More than one potion can already appear from every LL0 list with an Item Count of 2+. It's not necessary per se that more than one LL0 list has to be chosen in order to have more than one potion appearing.
  • Fourth, this can also be made more clear using 100% chance percentages: So let's say the chances of every potion spawning is 100%, rather than 18.75%. Then by your reasoning, at lvl 3-4, with multiple LL0 lists being chosen, that would lead to a guaranteed 3 potions. Which even leads me to ask you: how many LL0 lists can be chosen at maximum? Since the ILevItemLevelDifferenceMax parameter by default is set to 8, in case of a lvl of 15+, that would lead to an average of 14 potions! Now I really want to understand the way you interpret the list. You do seem to think this is the case, as you claimed: Of course this then changes when you get e.g. 3 leveled lists.
  • Fifth, and let me bring in the LL1NPCWeaponArrow100 list as an example since the list is very similar to the LL1NPCPotionRestoreHealthBandit list: so you're telling me a Marauder Archer can spawn with different types of arrows in quality? I've never seen an Marauder Archer 'do' that, let alone any other archer. All they spawn with as well is one single iron arrow. If what you're claiming is true, then at NPC level 4 the Marauder Archer will spawn with both silver and steel arrows. And if you believe a ILevItemLevelDifferenceMax parameter by default set to 8 is to be followed, that would mean that Marauder Archer would spawn with arrows of Daedric quality, all the way down to Silver quality. Do you have a source for these particular claims, since this goes right against my many hundreds hours of experiences of the base vanilla game (I've never played Oblivion on PC). I can bring in other examples from spell or staves lists, but I think I made my point here.
  • Sixth, I looked back at your previous comment, and noticed another very important point I need to address: ...because at different levels you have different counts and the "Calculate for each item in count" box is ticked, the percentage of at least 1 potion appearing is not always 19%. This, AND the more than 1 LL0 list-conjecture, seem to be what you base all your math on (the 3x3 matrix of 9 possible combinations/outcomes). However, that's not how the 'Each=1' parameter works, since it's not what it determines. You're confusing this with either the 'Item Count' of the LL1 list, or the 'Useall'-parameter, those two are what determine multiple LL0 lists being picked. As I mentioned earlier: It [the Each-parameter] does not determine whether the NPC literally gets a single item from every Item lvl type in that list (that's what the 'Useall' parameter is for). Let me use the same source as earlier to back up these claims, starting with 'Useall' since it is easier to understand: Use All: This overrides the above two settings; this list always returns all of its contents, 1 of each selection. And the Creation Kit Wiki quotes: Use All causes the list to always return all of its contents. This list is sometimes used in spell lists, where the NPC knows one of every single spell in that list. I've seen this being used a couple of times.
So now as for the 'Each'-parameter, the Uesp leveled lists page quotes: Each: If set, when another list applies a quantity larger than 1 to this list, instead of picking one option to return with a quantity multiplied by the other list's quantity, the other list's quantity determines how many options are selected individually, and then all of them are returned. And the Creation Kit Wiki quotes: If this list is in another leveled list with a count greater than zero, this check box determines if each item in the count is the same, or is recalculated. Or Recalculate the chance for each item picked by the parent list is a better way to phrase it. So basically, this parameter determines how many times a calculation is being done to determine what and how many items are spawnwed. See this Reddit link for a great example/explanation.
  • Last but not least: I already addressed your further math in my last point, since it all comes down to the same point. Good to know we found agreement on the skill mismatch/oversight-point. I just noticed btw that the Unofficial Oblivion Patch is still being updated, so perhaps me archiving all that stuff had another benefit.
Before responding, please read this and my previous comment again, especially the parts on 'Alllvl=0/1'. I likely may already have addressed points you may still wonder about. I'm really looking forward to your sources should you still disagree. C0rTeZ48 (talk) 01:00, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

() Hi C0rTeZ. As a general point, I think it's worth stating up front that I thought we were having a perfectly civilised and intellectually interesting conversation about leveled lists, with the ultimate objective being that of reaching the correct understanding of the CS's mechanics. So I'm quite surprised you think things are "getting out of hand" just because we're disagreeing on something. I'd like to continue to keep this discussion calm and polite please, as I think it's been thus far. That said, why don't I try to answer your individual points. In many cases, I think we may be talking slightly at cross purposes, interpreting the same text differently or actually basically saying the same thing but with different words. So I will try to be as clear as possible; perhaps I haven't been previously.

  • 1) I think what might have been unclear is me saying LL0 were "chosen" rather than "being returned". Let me expand. The quote from the leveled list page does not in fact contradict what I'm saying about the number of LL0 lists; quite the opposite. There are two elements at play here: number of objects and the item count in lists. The former is essentially the number of rows in the CS objective window (or in the table, if you're using the data here). The latter is found in the "Count" column in the CS or in the "Item Count" column in the CSList table.
To make it concrete to our case, what that quote is saying is that when the LL1NPCPotionRestoreHealthBandit list is called in an Apostle's inventory, "it picks exactly one object" (i.e. row) and then - this being the crucial bit - it "returns the quantity" (i.e. the item count) "it has associated with that object". So at levels 1-2, it returns Row 1, with an associated Item Count of 1; at levels 3-4 it returns Row 2 with an associated Item Count of 2; etc. This is what I meant with the statement that at levels 3-4 there is the possibility (governed by the Chance None = 75% parameter) of the LL1 list returning ("choosing") two LL0NPCPotionRestoreHealthW lists. It's because at those levels the selected object/row has an item count of 2. If this wasn't the case, then there would be no way of more than 1 potion ever appearing (and from what I gather you agree that depending on level there can be up to 3 potions appearing) because all the individual LL0 lists contain only 1 potion.
To address the second part of the quote about multiple objects for the same level. What that means for our case is that at e.g. level 7 there are two objects (rows) that could be chosen: LL0NPCPotionRestoreHealthW and LL0NPCPotionRestoreHealth, both with Item Count 2 but the latter with stronger potions. What the quote is saying is that only one row can be picked, meaning you can't have max 4 LL0 lists returned (and thus potions appearing) but only max 2.
  • 2) As discussed in the point above, the Item Count on LL1NPCPotionRestoreHealthBandit in the Apostle's inventory is not relevant for potion quantity, it is the Item Count on the LL0 lists within LL1NPCPotionRestoreHealthBandit that matters. And as explained above, it is not the case that only one LL0 can ever be returned. Again, otherwise you'd only ever get max one potion, and I think we have both previously agreed you can get up to 3, depending on level.
  • 3) This point is addressed by my first bullet. I think here we're essentially talking about the same mechanism, but the confusion is due to my previous wording about LL0 lists being "picked" (which I appreciate you could interpret as referring to the rows) rather than "being returned" (by which I mean returned to the L11 list based on the row's Item Count and the Chance None parameter).
  • 4) Again, I think this addressed by the above. But to answer your question: if Chance None is zero for both the LL1 and LL0 lists, then the guaranteed amount of potions is simply the Item Count for the selected LL0 row in the LL1 list. In our specific list that would depend on level, with a maximum of 3 guaranteed LL0 lists and thus 3 guaranteed potions at levels 15+.
As a side note, in our example, the ILevItemLevelDifferenceMax parameter is irrelevant because the Calculate from all levels <= PC's level box is unticked (or in CSList, the Alllvl parameter is 0). This means, as I explained above, that the CS will choose the closest item(s) to the NPC's level (but not above that level). So at levels 15+ it will only ever return the final row: LL0NPCPotionRestoreHealthS with an Item Count of 3. If the box had been ticked (a.k.a Alllvl=1) then the standard ILevItemLevelDifferenceMax parameter of 8 would have excluded all LL0 objects below level 7. Or in other words, the first 3 rows.
  • 5) LL1NPCWeaponArrow100 is actually not a good comparison for three reasons. First, unlike in our case, the Calculate from all levels <= PC's level box is ticked (Alllvl=1) so the object selection mechanism is different. Second, the Chance None parameter is zero, so you only have 2 potential outcomes (arrow/no arrow) rather than three as in our case (LL0 object is not picked/LL0 object picked + potion/LL0 object picked + no potion). Thirdly, on a more practical level, having such high Item Count values makes the maths more painful, as we'll see. Regardless, the answer is no, I am not saying you'd get different types of arrows. Depending on your level, the LL1 list would call a given LL0 object/row, which in this case corresponds to a specific arrow type. So you'll only ever get the same arrow type.
But what you'll notice is that the Item Count for the individual LL0 objects/rows changes: the level 1 LL0 object has a count of 20, the level 2 LL0 object has a count of 18, etc. This is exactly like in our Apostle example. Now the maths here is even more complicated, because with Alllvl=1 you have multiple LL0 objects with different Item Counts that could be picked for any given level, as opposed to our case, where all "competing"(if any) LL0 objects have the same Item Count. So let's simplify matters and assume Alllvl=0 like in the Apostle case.
At level 1 you'd have 20 counts of LL0LootArrow1Iron75. For this LL0 list you have a 75% chance of 1 arrow. Helpfully, the Calculate for each item in count (a.k.a Each=1) is ticked like in our example. As I explained above (and as per the Reddit link you posted below!) this means that the LL1 list does not just ask the LL0 list to return 0 or 20 arrows. Instead it "flips" (like a coin) the LL0 object twenty times and returns the aggregate (i.e. summed) result of those 20 flips. Now on average you'll receive 15 arrows (20 * 0.75). The probability of receiving zero arrows is miniscule (0.000000000091%, or 0.25^20) and corresponds to the single outcome with zero arrows in the matrix covering all 2^20 possible outcomes. You can also think of it as the likelihood of never getting a tail in 20 consecutive coin flips (adjusting for tails being 75% likely here, rather than the 50% in a fair coin). The probability of at least one arrow is thus, by definition, 1 minus 0.000000000091%. This is quite a bit higher than the 75% probability in the individual LL0 list.
Pressing on, at level 2 you'd have 18 counts of LL0LootArrow2Steel75. Here on average you will receive 14 arrows (18 * 0.75 = 13.5). The probability of receiving zero arrows is again miniscule (0.000000001455%, or 0.25^18) and the probability of at least one arrow is 1 minus 0.000000001455%.
Hopefully you're starting to see the similarities with the maths in my previous message, even though the higher Item Count makes it less immediate. The point I have been making is that in the Apostle list the average number of potions (or arrows in your proposed example) appearing, the likelihood of at least 1 potion (or arrow) appearing and the maximum amount of potions (or arrows) that can appear all depend on the level and cannot be simply stated with one number (e.g. "19%"). In any case, as I've said a few times now, there is no simple way of presenting this information in detail, so I'm content to just state the principle and to also note the percentage of an individual potion appearing (which to be clear is not the same conceptually as the percentage of at least one potion appearing).
  • 6) Indeed, those are exactly the elements underpinning the maths, I just think you misunderstood what I meant with what you call the "multiple LL0 conjecture". And as I've hopefully shown in the rest of the answer, those elements actually match what the UESP page, Reddit and CSWiki all say. As I mentioned at the beginning, I think we are actually saying pretty much the same things regarding the CS mechanics. The thing that confuses me is thus which part of the maths you're disagreeing with!
As far as I can tell, everything you've linked to supports the logic of the calculations above and you can also verify their accuracy through e.g. websites like this or using the dice rolling analogy I employed before. The probability of a 6 appearing on a dice in one roll is just mathematically not the same as the probability of at least one 6 appearing in two rolls. And likewise the probability of a potion appearing when only one LL0 list is returned is not the same as the probability of at least one potion appearing when two LL0 lists are returned. That doesn't make either "wrong" - they're just describing different things, and both can be included on the page, to my mind.

I'm actually sort of chuckling to myself at all this because in the end the practical result is just the page staying as we agreed, but I'm just genuinely very confused about what you're disagreeing with! Hope this has been clearer, because as I said - almost paradoxically I think we're actually agreeing on most things! :) --SerCenKing (talk) 15:27, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi there SerCenKing, yes we are having a good conversation/discussion, and I appreciate it! The reason why I said it's getting out of hand is simply bc we're further down by some pretty long comments, without us really seeming to get further on this somewhat off-topic conversation without concrete results (seemingly without concrete results, since I just discovered your math as displayed above, more on this down below!). That's not per se bad in of itself, bc I do enjoy learning about the cslist and all (!), but on the other hand, I spent more time on this than I planned on doing. And also, I'm not sure what it's to you, but your talk page is already getting pretty long haha xD! It almost makes me think we should rather discuss someplace else, just so save up some room (not necessary anymore though). Yes, we do agree on the most important part, the chances of the individual potions, but another part is still not clear yet, in the sense that we seem to disagree on that (note: not the case anymore). I simply want to figure out how it works, so without too much hassle, I think its important for us to agree on things. So I really simply want to get to the bottom of this, that's all! Hope I clarified this now!
Oh and btw, I know the current conversation/discussion for the last few comments was actually already somewhat off-topic to our initial topic: that being what we should include on relevant NPC pages. Since we already agree on merely displaying the individual potion chances of spawning, and ignoring further complicated mathmatical outcomes or average potions!
  • I'll just skip bullet points 1, 2, 3 and 4, bc the way you seem to explain it seems to be in align in the way I understand how the lists work, with the associated math and all. Only one small detail I'll add is that I forgot to mention that in my previous example of bullet point 4, the 'Alllvl' had to indeed be a 1, rather than the 0 it is. And as an addition, now while almost being finished writing this by bullet point 6, I finally understand how you arrived at your math above (the 66.02/33.98% figure)! At first, I didn't understand why you kept mentioning the chance of at least one potion spawning and the two dices adding up to 36/3x3 matrix of 9 possible combinations/outcomes-'conjecture' (if you will, for a lack of better words), since I still think it's irrelevant and makes it too unnecessarily complicated, and no page (if I'm correct) seems to display any sort of similar figure. But so you simply seemed to have multiplied 0.8125 by 0.8125 (in reference to a specific Item Count=2 object/row). Yes, in that case, those percentages do seem to be correct, and it to be the case! I've added this to this earlier bullet point, since it's more relevant here.
  • On 5: well I guess this is simply a small difference in opinion, but on Now the maths here is even more complicated..., I'd say the math really is simple here. Bc, as you wrote, in LL1NPCWeaponArrow100, the math is simply always an average of 75% of the Item Count displayed behind the quality of a given arrow, since the Chancenone=25 for every single LL0LootArrow-list. But happy we agree on everything else here! With a last addition to your last two sentences (The point ... potion appearing), that's why I'm happy to agree we should rather state (average) spawn chances, rather than average potions or percentage of at least one potion appearing! As you may have noticed, this is different than what is stated for specific enchanted weapon and armor chances at certain NPC pages, since those are more simple, and should therefore state average armor/weapons!
  • On 6: yes, that does seem to have been the case! Nothing personal, perhaps it's really just my own fault and me being an idiot ;), but at times it was a bit confusing to follow what you were referring to! And thank you for that link! As for the last part of your last sentence (...and both can be included on the page, to my mind.): Well, do you still think that's necessary? If you still want to add anything like this, why not simply add average potions per level instead? That alligns with what is displayed at other NPC pages (f.e., enchanted weapons/armor for Marauders). So you could go for something like: Lvl 1-2 (0.1875 weak potions), lvl 3-4 (0.375 weak potions), ... I still wonder about your opinion on this.
So things have been definitely cleared up by now! C0rTeZ48 (talk) 11:47, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
Oh, and one more addition while being at it now: I've just noticed you've removed some Healing potions are always strongest for their level. lines from specific NPC pages. If you take a look f.e., at a random Conjurer (0x00069adb), you see that LL1NPCPotionRestoreMagicka (0x000ca086) and LL1NPCPotionRestoreHealth (0x000cb8b9) both have Alllvl at 0. That means it's always the strongest for that level, so why not keep this info? C0rTeZ48 (talk) 12:08, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
Hello! No problem at all on the length - I'd rather get to the bottom of issues even if it takes a while, and this conversation has actually helped me a lot in refreshing my CS knowledge (and probability maths!) So I'll chalk it down as useful even if the end result is seemingly small :)
To respond to what I think is the only "outstanding" item. The reason I was banging on about the "at least" probability is because I found the previous wording we had around the potion % insufficiently precise regarding what was going on with the leveled list. So I was using the "at least" probability to 'expose' the issue, if you will, rather than specifically in its own right. Thus I think what we now have on e.g. the Necromancer page ("The average and maximum number of potions that may appear changes depending upon your level, as does the quality of the potions. Individual Restore Health potions have a 38% chance of appearing.") strike the right level between accuracy and readability. So that would be my proposal.
Regarding the Conjurer edit. In general it is true that Alllvl=0 means "strongest for that level", in the sense that the list won't pick any objects below the NPC's current level. However, for those specific lists you will see that at levels 10-11 you have an equal possibility of getting either a weak (LL0NPCPotionRestoreHealthW) or a strong (LL0NPCPotionRestoreHealthS) potion. Thus if you happen to get a weak potion you are not actually getting the strongest possible for that level, because in this case it's actually the strong potion that is the "strongest possible for level". I appreciate it's slightly splitting hairs, but it thus wouldn't be accurate to say you always get the strongest possible potion for the level. There's also the weirdness that at levels 10-11 you can get a weak potion but at levels 5-9 you can only get an average potion, and that at level 14 you can get an average potion but at levels 10-13 you can get a strong potion. So in this case paradoxically you could be better off by having Alllvl=1 as e.g. at level 14 you'd eligible for strong potions. So, in general (vast majority of cases) I've been marking your edits on Alllvl=0 as patrolled, but in this case it doesn't apply.
Since I'm here I'll also explain the edit I'm about to make on the Necromancer page. I'm removing the percentages for the same reason we've just been discussing about the Apostle page: that just providing the % is not sufficiently accurate to describe what's going on with the list. Hence why I instead linked the potions to the explanatory note. However, you're right that for those potions it's 75% rather than 38%, so have specified that too.
Finally, on a sort of separate note. From our discussions here and generally from patrolling your edits, I can tell you understand the CSList very well and have a good eye for Oblivion NPC edits. I particularly enjoyed checking your Falcar edit on his apparent lack of spells as I then discovered that the UOP fixed it (but without mentioning it in the change log)! So, in case you hadn't seen it, I'd point you in the direction of the Oblivion NPC Redesign Project and particularly this page, showing the NPC pages that still need work. I try to continue chipping away at the number of pages still needing checking or writing, and I'd really encourage you to consider contributing too. You certainly have the skills for the CS part, and you may also want to try your hand at in-game checking. Anyway, just a suggestion given your interest in OB NPC pages :) --SerCenKing (talk) 16:55, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
Good to know! The same goes for me for that I also refreshed some knowledge!
Ah, good of you to share your motivation on why the 'at least' probability was important to you! If it's a useful addition to you, it's best to keep it I'd say!
I see where you are coming from. This is my opinion on the matter: on the one hand I agree with you in that there indeed seems to be a little scaling up and down between levels 3-14, but on the other hand there also generally seems to be an upward trend... But if I have to choose, I think I'll agree, mostly by my wording of always. And yes, especially on the 'Alllvl=1' point you're correct! Another question btw: what do you mean by 'marking as patrolled' in I've been marking your edits on Alllvl=0 as patrolled, but in this case it doesn't apply.?
That's fine, I did it a bit in a hurry!
Thank you very much and you're absolutely welcome! The same goes for you off course! If you really want to take a look at pages I spent quite some work on, take a closer look at the following pages, it will keep you busy for a while ;p: Dremora, Vampire, Drothmeri Army, Boethia's_Chosen, Zealot, Heretic, Priest of Order, Knight of Order, Brother Martin, Afflicted Brethren, Goblin Jim, Drothmeri Commander, Agronak gro-Malog, Mirili Ulven, Kathutet, Generic_Magic_Weapons, Generic_Magic_Apparel, Generic Staves, Reflect Spell and Summon.
As for the ONRP: I've known it for quite some time, but hadn't seen this page before. So what is labeled as 'Written' also still needs to be checked? I may take a look at 'faction', 'inventory', 'spells' and 'spells' in the future, but I can't promise anything since I already spent more time than I planned initially at all on the much-needed changes (imo) that had to be made so far! C0rTeZ48 (talk) 22:57, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
On the patrolling point, the full explanation can be found here, but basically Patrollers have some additional tools and functionalities that we use to ensure that (ideally) all edits on the wiki are checked for accuracy. For example if I go to a page's edit history and select a specific edit, I have a little box saying "[Mark as patrolled]" that I can click. I can also filter my Watchlist for edits that haven't been patrolled (i.e. checked) and they show up with red exclamation marks against them on Recent Changes. So in a sense it's my "wiki job" to check edits that are made by everyone except for other Patrollers or by Autopatrolled users, and given few Patrollers are still active in the OB namespace, I do proportionally more there.
On the ONRP, the Category page shows both (Un)Written and (Un)Checked. So everything marked as "Checked" is done - you'll see that Factions, Inventory and Spells are all basically done. What remains to be done is either in the "Unchecked" (particularly Dialogue, Schedules, Rumors, Quests) or even "Unwritten" columns. Hope you'll consider working on some of those pages at some point :) --SerCenKing (talk) 15:46, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Hey SerC, I was barely online last week, and noticed you've done many new contribs in the meantime, including you leaving me a message on my page, so I'll do my best to scan/answer these the coming days! But first I'll give a quick reply to your last message here: thank you for your info, I've only been monitoring all Oblivion and Shivering (talk) pages for about the last 2 years. I do so specifically to do my best to answer talk page questions people still have. Since I played Oblivion for at least 1500-2000 hours or so, including having read most (talk) pages on about every OB/SI topic there is here on UESP, I thought it'd be good of me to do so! :)
I just noticed I made an error in listing 'spells' twice; I meant services and spells. I still wonder what the exact differences are between 'written' and 'checked', since these are two different columns. I guess written ones still need to be checked? C0rTeZ48 (talk) 12:22, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
Hey there! Yes I've been trying to clear a bit of the unpatrolled backlog - still a few to go... To answer your OBNPCRP question, perhaps easiest to look directly at an NPC page. Take Jeetum-Ze - if you expand the yellow banner at the top you'll see there's a mix of elements. For example, Spells are both Written & Checked; Dialogue is Written but Unchecked; whereas Schedule is Unwritten (and thus by definition Unchecked). These then map onto the categories you see in the table. Every element needs to be both Written and Checked for the page to be completed. In the table you'll see that for Spells and Factions every page has been Written, and that there's only a single page that remains to be Checked. On the other hand, Dialogue still needs to be Written on 38 pages, and of the 432 that have been written, only 180 have been Checked, so 252 remain Unchecked. Hope that makes sense! --SerCenKing (talk) 17:23, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
That makes sense, thank you! C0rTeZ48 (talk) 12:36, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Harlun's Watch - New Map Needed[edit]

Hi SerCenKing! I noticed that you recently uploaded a couple of new maps for settlements in Oblivion. Since you're doing so, I just wanted to bring to your attention that the Harlun's Watch page also needs a new map since the current one was produced with the UOP installed. You might want to add that to your list if you haven't done so already. Cheers! — Wolfborn(Howl) 18:47, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi Wolfborn, thanks the message and great spot! I'm not actually sure if another map is needed beyond the one you uploaded to the talk page, actually. Given the key template I'm using covers the door icons anyway, I'd say yours is good to go. If you can just upload it as a new version of the main map file I'll get to work on the key etc. Thanks! --SerCenKing (talk) 21:26, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
Oblivion UESP superfan here (lol) sticking my nose in on this, as I was just about to make my own related suggestions on this great ongoing work. I think you're already looking to fix the Aleswell and Bleaker's Way maps and map keys, but Hackdirt could maybe use some work as well (the map's a bit cut off on the south side, and not all buildings are keyed). Also, Lord Rugdumph's Estate - together with Cloud Ruler Temple, Temple of the Ancestor Moths, Gweden Farm, and the Knights of the Thorn HQ - has a page structure not currently used by other "settlement" pages that's also not quite consistent across those five pages (with more extensive details on building interiors in separate page subsections), while the quest info is not yet at the top of the intro description, and it finally doesn't have a map (see Lord Drad's Estate for a comparison as far as the map). Either way, I appreciate you all and your dedication to the community. --Mikeprichard (talk) 21:52, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
Hi SerCenKing! The vanilla Harlun's Watch map is uploaded as OB-map-Harlun's Watch Vanilla.jpg for you to work your magic on (I didn't want to overwrite the original file until it's ready). Cheers! — Wolfborn(Howl) 04:28, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Thanks both - Harlun's Watch now done. On Hackdirt and Temple of the Ancestor Moths, I'll have a think. The source of the issue is that the maps for the settlements are actually originally exterior maps for the relevant dungeon pages (hence e.g. the lettering starting for C). I might add separate maps with numbered keys. Beyond those, I don't see value in adding maps for settlements with fewer than three buildings, frankly.
On the other mentioned settlements, I would note that given they are not the same (multiple vs single-building settlements) it's not surprising they aren't entirely consistent. My guiding approach would be to keep information concentrated rather than dispersed. My preference would be that pages such as Drad/Rugdumph Estates contain all building information - I see limited value in e.g. creating individual pages for the servant/slave shacks. Similarly, I see little value in creating three separate pages for the components of Temple of the Ancestor Moths when you can easily fit them in one page. In this case, I therefore also disagree with having Gottlefont House as a separate page, but alas. For the others (all single-building settlements with multiple cells) I think the current approach, with subsections for each, works well. If needed we could have a "Zones/Buildings" header to separate them from the intro text. Those would be my initial thoughts at least. --SerCenKing (talk) 15:26, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I completely agree on all points (including there being no need for maps for "settlements" like Gottlesfont Priory or others with only 1 or 2 buildings - I only referenced the single-building "settlements" above in relation to the page structure re: interior details, not maps, but I also failed to notice until now that Lord Rugdumph's joint only has two buildings, not three). And yeah, having compact information on one comprehensive location page wherever feasible is also my strong preference - my recent edits to e.g. Gottlefont House are only textual nits, but I'm intentionally rolling with the existing overall page names/divisions since I don't want to start going rogue and moving many pages around/possibly breaking links on my own. Anyway, I'll let you stew on these broader ideas as you have the time/inclination - thanks again. --Mikeprichard (talk) 15:43, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Plant/ingredient list order?[edit]

Yep, it's me again! I've been having trouble dealing with the various ingredient/plant lists on the Oblivion location pages; in a recent edit to the Shardrock page, you noted that for one sentence there the order should be "numerical first, alphabetical second", but elsewhere (including on this page and many others, as well as all dungeon pages I've come across so far) the rule seems to be simply alphabetical regardless of amounts (which seems simpler and more reliable to implement to me at least). That said, is there guidance on this issue so I know exactly when to do what for future edits? Cheers! --Mikeprichard (talk) 22:35, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for flagging this - it looks like my headcanon (which I've been using for all the Beyond Skyrim dungeons) was utterly unfounded! I sort of still think it looks better in numerical order but will revert the Shardrock edit to keep consistency with the rest of OB namespace. Cheers! --SerCenKing (talk) 11:18, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
Lol, there is a lot to keep track of on this fine wiki - I've seen as I've been digging into the Oblivion pages compared to my earlier work on Skyrim that the different games often have their own approaches to formatting - but once again, I appreciate your patience. FYI, I just finished my backlog of dungeon locations, and may make a few minor (and hopefully final for me) tweaks to some farm and village pages in the next couple weeks based on what I've picked up recently, but I expect I'll get into a more reasonable tempo soon that should make your reviewing a bit easier. Have a good one! --Mikeprichard (talk) 11:28, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Activity Status[edit]

Hi SerCenKing. You are currently listed as semi-active on the Patrollers page and active on the Blockuser page. These should match up since you're the same user. Since you've been making lots of edits recently (500 in the last month or so), would you consider yourself active or semi-active? —Dillonn241 (talk) 05:24, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi Dillonn! It's true I've found myself with more time than expected lately, but I think best to keep me as semi-active across both. I have no guarantee I won't have to randomly disappear again for stretches in the near future so think that's the most accurate option. Thanks also for the bunch of category edits on BS Cyrodiil :) --SerCenKing (talk) 11:04, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
I moved you. Thanks for the confirmation and you're welcome re: the categories. There are some more missing but I don't really want to get lost down a rabbit hole in that namespace. I just happened to notice a red link on a house page, and look where that got me! —Dillonn241 (talk) 11:46, 4 February 2024 (UTC)


Choco chip cookie.png
You have been given a cookie!

Your dedication and diligence to the wiki has not gone unnoticed. A user has seen the progress you've made, and has given you a cookie because of it. Good work! The user had the following to say:

Twelve years later and we finally have a map of the Realm of Peryite that matches the article! Nice work SCK 😁 —⁠Legoless (talk) 16:27, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
Why, thank you very much! Those Oblivion Realm maps can be a bit of a pain, but it's not terrible once you get the hang of it... Though I still maintain my best necromantic effort was this :) --SerCenKing (talk) 08:07, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Amazing. —⁠Legoless (talk) 16:29, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Missing CS dialogue for many NPCs[edit]

Hiya there Serc, just want to let you know that I just updated some dialogue for a few different NPC pages to the best of my abilities by checking the cslist, which had you referred to as the one who checked the CS for dialogue. I just want to ask whether you really checked the cslist completely, since if you did, my guess is that every NPC page need to be checked again for whether they are indeed fully updated. A current example is Alves Uvenim, which also has you referred to as the one who checked the CS for dialogue, but has at least 21 dialogue lines missing on the page according to the cslist: I don't have a lot of time at the moment, so I at least want to send a heads-up for if you can check the dialogue, if you have got the time. C0rTeZ48 (talk) 13:24, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi C0rTeZ48, good to see you back editing! Regarding your question, the Mages Guild NPCs you've been looking at are ones that I worked on way back in 2010, so I can't tell you for sure how accurate I was. It's entirely possible that, being less experienced than I am now, I missed the odd line. More consequentially, these NPCs were also written back when the consensus was not to include quest dialogue on NPC pages, which is not the current consensus. So, if you find there are missing lines, whether quest-related or not, please do feel free to add them. You could also consider changing the dialogue formatting in line with the current consensus (see this edit for example) and if the dialogue is quest-related to also use the newer format (see this edit for example). Thanks! --SerCenKing (talk) 13:52, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
I see, I thought something like that was the case! I also understand what you say on the current formatting, if it's not too much to be changed for a page in question, I will do so. However, since I lack the proper time at the moment, and I still have some NPC pages I want to skim through, I think it's most important to just add the missing dialogue lines. Sorry for if I can't hold up to the standard in question! Also, feel free to check my changes, since I'm not fully sure whether I did them completely correct! C0rTeZ48 (talk) 14:16, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Hi SerC, I think you may have noticed I'm working on a lot of NPC dialogue pages, especially checking the ones UnknownG worked on. However, I think it may be best if you patrol all my edits one last time. First thing is that I get the feelings the CSlist pages aren't always fully complete. And secondly, I can't confirm in-game whether it's all completely accurate. I know you told me earlier about the Oblivion NPC Redesign Project and particularly this page, but for the reasons mentioned, I think it's best I don't change the 'unchecked' markers and such. I'd let that up to someone like you if you find that okay. And as also mentioned in my primary comment in this section, if we want to be 100% sure if the NPC pages contain all dialogue, I think it's best to check every NPC once again, even the ones that are already Written and Checked and all. Let me know what you think of this. C0rTeZ48 (talk) 09:44, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Hey there. Yep, I've noticed you've been quite busy! No worries on the ONPCRP categories, I'll take a look throughout and update them if needed. As you say, sometimes lines cannot actually be heard in-game for whatever reason, so that needs checking.
What exactly was your concern regarding the CSList not being complete, however? I would have thought it had everything, given it's a data extract from the CS. I usually use the CS directly though, so not super familiar. What I would say is to be careful when dealing with Dialogue lines that are linked to a certain NPC, in particular:
  1. Whether the dialogue line is linked because that NPC shouldn't say the line. This is the case for this line you added to Hafid Hollowleg. You can see this by going into the dialogue line directly (here) and spotting that it has a condition which is GetIsID = 0 for Hafid.
  2. Whether the line is spoken by more than one NPC, and is therefore not unique to them. Again, the other two lines you added to the Hafid page are an example: you can also hear them from Petrine and Fjotreid (see here). Another example is Ita Rienus's second "Training" line, which she shares with Boderi Farano (see here). When it's only shared with 1-2 other NPCs it's probably ok to include, but if it's more then I'd say no, as it really isn't "unique" to the NPC anymore.
Let me know if you have any further questions and thanks again! --SerCenKing (talk) 12:08, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
One problem with the CSList is that it only seems to list the last line of multi-line dialogues. You can see an example here: Erina Jeranus's full dialogue if you rent the room at the West Weald Inn (taken from the CS) is actually two lines: "Excellent. I'm sure you'll be quite satisfied." "Go upstairs, and look for the door on the right at the end of the hall. Sleep well!" Only the second line is present on the CSList page; the first line doesn't appear for some reason. Even going to the second line's INFO page doesn't show the first line associated with it. Another example is this line you pointed out above: checking in the CS, it's actually the last (and by far shortest) line of a three-line dialogue (see Raynil Dralas topic here, which ironically I also had to update). Not sure why only the last line of multi-line dialogues was recorded in the CSList, but C0rTeZ48's feeling that the CSList info isn't always complete seems to be well-founded. (And welcome back, C0rTeZ48!) — Wolfborn(Howl) 13:17, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

() I can't recall all of the specifics, but I know CSList doesn't show everything that the Creation Kit does. If possible, you should always use the CK in preference to CSList. That said, CSList is often a lot quicker to look things up in, so if it's something small and not mission-critical, CSList may be the better way to go in that case. Robin Hood(talk) 14:31, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I'll react to what all three of you have said:
1. @SerC, concerning the GetIsID = 0, does that basically mean all other NPCs in Bruma can say (this line) in rumors on the topic of Raynil Dralas, except for those six mentioned in the table?
2. Also @SerC, this is just my opinion, but personally I do prefer NPC pages listing all associated dialogue that mentioned on their related CSList page, even if it is shared by multiple NPCs. In fact, this is already the case on NPC pages. F.e., (these) (two lines) are shared by the five Thieves Guild fences, where Ongar already had them included on his page. The associated pages never mention Generic Rumors, so it's not like we would therefore dump a lot of extra, unrelated dialogue on their pages not unique to them. But I wonder if there is already consensus on this topic I have no influence on changing (also looking at Wolfborn and Robin Hood for their opinion on this matter). If so, taking notice of Ongar I just mentioned, even if there is consensus on this topic, it does not seem to be followed (by all users) on the NPC pages. And final, what's the harm in adding a few unique lines shared by NPCs for the sake of it all being complete?
3. @Wolfborn, yes you are completely correct. I could have been more specific, but as you stated is basically how I also understand the CSList to work.
4. @Robin Hood, since I don't have Oblivion on PC, does this mean I therefore can't check the CK? Moving forward, I will continue checking the CSList pages, but if we are to be complete, that means someone needs to add the final touch in adding the related CK dialogue as well. C0rTeZ48 (talk) 16:22, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
1. Exactly, you got it.
2. The current consensus is that only dialogue unique to an NPC should be recorded on an NPC's page. This is to avoid duplicating information and cluttering pages. However, as SerCenKing said above, how many NPC's need to share a line before it should be considered non-unique is something that is not explicitly defined: 1, 2, 5? Does it depend on context? Would it be better to include the shared lines on the relevant topic page (e.g. quest page for quest-related dialogue, place page for place-related dialogue, etc.)? I don't know if this has ever been discussed in the past; it would be good to have a guideline on this, but that would probably require a separate topic with wider community input.
4. RobinHood is referencing the Construction Set here (which, yes, you don't have access to since you're not on PC). "CK" is actually short for "Creation Kit", which is the name for the Skyrim version of the Construction Set; users who play a lot of Skyrim sometimes use the abbreviation "CK" for other games as well. — Wolfborn(Howl) 22:15, 31 May 2024 (UTC)