Daggerfall Unity Wiki

Discuss Daggerfall Unity and Daggerfall Tools for Unity.
Ommamar
Posts: 282
Joined: Thu Jul 18, 2019 3:08 am

Re: Daggerfall Unity Wiki

Post by Ommamar » Mon Aug 12, 2019 4:36 pm

Part of the problem was not fully reading things, to be fair the player was doing a live lets play. So it can be hard to focus on the game, pay attention to what people are saying, forming a reply or a thought, then looking at information to try and explain something that has occurred.

What I would add to what is there is the different types of poisons you can be effected with and what they can do. The mentioned player just saw the part about your health dropping but he wasn't effected by that poison but one that dropped his willpower.

I would also state that an alchemist shop doesn't sell potions only components, the player had his start in Morrowind so he assumed there would be the same mechanic.

There is also a confirmed statement that you can out rest a attribute dropping poison, or if you use a heal attribute spell to raise the attribute back to the level before the poison you will no longer be poisoned. This works once the poison drain is no longer occurring which is easy to wait out as long as it isn't health or fatigue that is being effected. If it is a poison that lowers fatigue it can be as deadly as health since once your fatigue is drained you will collapse and can not defend yourself so will be killed by enemies. This is definitely different from classic as I remember collapsing if I started travel with a low stamina bar but would wake up after an hour.

Although it mentions you can use a cure poison potion it isn't to clear on where you could get a cure poison potion, of course all of us here know you can get them from temples. This player didn't make the connection and only found a potion seller by chance when he was looking for something else.

I also have heard an unconfirmed rumor that you can get poisons cured at Witches Covens so that is something I will have to research, then if confirmed I would mention that in there as well.

All this is pertaining to DFU so I am hesitant to put on the UESP but will consider the advice to just note it applies to DFU and might not be functioning the same in classic.

User avatar
Jay_H
Posts: 2518
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2015 1:54 am

Re: Daggerfall Unity Wiki

Post by Jay_H » Mon Aug 12, 2019 4:38 pm

If you can provide links to each of these statements, it'll make correcting them much easier.

We can't really be held responsible if the player misuses the game. Daggerfall is a beast and is not something you just stumble into. People are going to make mistakes, but if they can't persevere a little and try to understand it, this isn't going to be their kind of game anyway.
Come join the Unofficial Daggerfall Unity Discord.
See the Daggerfall Unity Wiki on the UESP.
Progress on fixing classic quests here.

User avatar
mikeprichard
Posts: 684
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2017 6:49 pm

Re: Daggerfall Unity Wiki

Post by mikeprichard » Mon Aug 12, 2019 4:46 pm

Azteca wrote:
Mon Aug 12, 2019 4:28 pm
So in this case, because there is a difference, the DFU wiki would have its own page on poison.
Rehashing my earlier wall-of-text post a bit, I strongly agree there's no utility in recreating any wiki page for DFU if there are no changes to any related info compared to classic. But re: the above on having a DFU-specific page for e.g. Poison, I think the "DFU:Differences from Daggerfall" (or whatever it ends up being titled) page should be the one organized source for content differences between DFU and classic Daggerfall; for anything else, players should simply read the classic Daggerfall pages that already exist and which are gradually being updated/corrected. I especially suggest that having many different DFU-specific pages (e.g. DFU:Poisons, DFU:Attributes) instead of just one "DFU:Differences from Daggerfall" wiki page would be inconvenient and confusing to many players. Speaking from personal experience in similar situations, it would be much preferred to list all changes of this type on one page, with an organized index (allowing easy CTRL-F searches on one page instead of spread across dozens of pages), and indexed sections within the page broken out to describe more in-depth changes to e.g. resistances and other things that are major differences and/or need more visibility to readers.
Azteca wrote:
Mon Aug 12, 2019 4:28 pm
Linking to UESP pages instead of copying info and using it on DFU pages means the UESP page can be corrected and our link will always lead the user to the most current and correct information.
Exactly! Yet again, recreating any info that's already stated elsewhere on the classic pages would be a very, very bad idea. Just link if a link is believed to be helpful, and make sure the target page is correct.
Ommamar wrote:
Mon Aug 12, 2019 4:36 pm
Part of the problem was not fully reading things, to be fair the player was doing a live lets play. ...
It sounds like these problems are more with the player than the existing page content. Not sure how poisons' effect on attributes could be more clearly stated - it's in the very first line of the page ("...your attributes and health..."), with "attributes" linked to the correct other page! However, a note explaining where Cure Poison potions may be purchased might be helpful. And yes, please do ensure any rumors are absolutely confirmed in classic (game code reverse-engineering etc. as I noted above) before any UESP edits are made - rumors are exactly what we're trying to clean out of these pages, not add. Once more, if something only applies to DFU, that wouldn't be noted anywhere in the classic UESP page - that will instead be included in the DFU page to be created. Looking forward to your contributions to our DFU community wiki!

User avatar
Azteca
Posts: 80
Joined: Tue Mar 26, 2019 12:38 am

Re: Daggerfall Unity Wiki

Post by Azteca » Mon Aug 12, 2019 4:59 pm

Thanks for the reply.
mikeprichard wrote:
Mon Aug 12, 2019 4:46 pm
I especially suggest that having many different DFU-specific pages (e.g. DFU:Poisons, DFU:Attributes) instead of just one "DFU:Differences from Daggerfall" wiki page would be inconvenient and confusing to many players. Speaking from personal experience in similar situations, it would be much preferred to list all changes of this type on one page, with an organized index (allowing easy CTRL-F searches on one page instead of spread across dozens of pages), and indexed sections within the page broken out to describe more in-depth changes to e.g. resistances and other things that are major differences and/or need more visibility to readers.
This sounds like a beast to write and maintain but I see your point about use. I'm not sure how deep the headings go, but provided the wiki supports sufficient detailed headings/subsections, I think this would make sense. That way someone coming from classic could have this one page open and refer to it whenever a question arises. I still think some topics would probably have enough info, tables, etc. to justify their own page but we will see. I do think having many short subpages is bad. Fewer pages with better indexing/subsections = more user-friendly and easier to maintain.

User avatar
mikeprichard
Posts: 684
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2017 6:49 pm

Re: Daggerfall Unity Wiki

Post by mikeprichard » Mon Aug 12, 2019 5:04 pm

Azteca wrote:
Mon Aug 12, 2019 4:59 pm
This sounds like a beast to write and maintain but I see your point about use. I'm not sure how deep the headings go, but provided the wiki supports sufficient detailed headings/subsections, I think this would make sense. That way someone coming from classic could have this one page open and refer to it whenever a question arises. I still think some topics would probably have enough info, tables, etc. to justify their own page but we will see. I do think having many short subpages is bad. Fewer pages with better indexing/subsections = more user-friendly and easier to maintain.
It absolutely will be a beast! However, there's going to be a lot of content to create anyway, so the beast will be unavoidable; as you note, the huge advantage here is that maintaining just one easily searchable page would be a helluva lot simpler than maintaining dozens of separate pages, many of which may only need a couple of lines describing a gameplay change made by DFU and a link to a related classic page. I can vouch for the fact that headings/subsections are easily created in the wiki, and would do a lot to organize the large amount of data further.

If there is a need for a page devoted to just one change, I would still suggest a brief bulleted item in the main differences list be included on that change, with a link to the more detailed page. As you say, we can see if any changes merit a separate page with extra details (some very well might).

User avatar
Azteca
Posts: 80
Joined: Tue Mar 26, 2019 12:38 am

Re: Daggerfall Unity Wiki

Post by Azteca » Mon Aug 12, 2019 5:19 pm

I keep going back and forth on the various options. I think the only real way to deal with this is to chart out what the hierarchy or tree of pages would actually look like and tweak it from there. I think it will have to be more involved than what Mike is proposing to be useful to a player but we must strike a balance. Look out for that on the doc.

User avatar
mikeprichard
Posts: 684
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2017 6:49 pm

Re: Daggerfall Unity Wiki

Post by mikeprichard » Mon Aug 12, 2019 5:23 pm

Sure - my main concern is that there is one page that at least lists a brief description of every change (one line in a bulleted list), and if necessary, a few items might then link to a separate more detailed page. I think this will end up being much more realistic than it may seem for now - e.g. we may end up with one page with a list twice or three times as long as that in the original post here (viewtopic.php?f=4&t=1662), which is entirely reasonable and would be extremely useful for one-stop overview/CTRL-F search purposes. Also keep in mind that while there's a huge list of bugs that have been fixed since the start of DFU development, a very large majority of those were bugs unique to DFU's earlier development stages, not bugs that existed in classic - so again, this "one-stop" differences page won't be quite as ridiculous as it might sound at first.

As far as developing a page hierarchy, I suggest the big list of changes first be developed (which of course will be a big initial undertaking any way it's approached), as this will provide the necessary structure. From there, we would then be able to organize the changes and identify items that would need additional detail.

Will keep an eye out here for more!

Ommamar
Posts: 282
Joined: Thu Jul 18, 2019 3:08 am

Re: Daggerfall Unity Wiki

Post by Ommamar » Tue Aug 13, 2019 2:26 am

I updated it with the default class information, the race attributes and a little on how skills work. Please review to give feedback or note any corrections that need to be made. I will begin on custom class, attributes, and advantage/disadvantage tomorrow.

User avatar
mikeprichard
Posts: 684
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2017 6:49 pm

Re: Daggerfall Unity Wiki

Post by mikeprichard » Tue Aug 13, 2019 3:00 am

Ommamar, thank you for taking the time to work on the doc! However, I do have some comments that I hope you accept in the constructive spirit they're given:

1) Minor edits needed: "Nords have a racial bonus of 25% against Frost." should be deleted - the correct special bonus is 30%, as already mentioned a few lines up. Also, the five racial special advantage lines other than Breton, High Elf, and Nord needn't be mentioned here, as they don't affect the topic ("Resistances"). Finally, the line "High Elf: Paralysis Immunity" can be deleted and replaced with the line further down "High Elves have a racial bonus of 50% against Paralysis.", which is saying the same thing given how DFU combines base/racial/class resistance values.
2) The 12 pages of class data you added appear to be identical to the classic Daggerfall information already listed here (https://en.uesp.net/wiki/Daggerfall:Classes). As Azteca and I mentioned earlier in this topic, the DFU wiki shouldn't repeat information already on the classic pages when no changes are made to the underlying content by DFU: not only is it a lot of unnecessary extra work, it also raises the issue of having to update both the DFU data and the related classic data, which inevitably will lead to version differences/inconsistency/mass confusion/dogs making friends with cats. This is the kind of thing I see a lot in my day job, so please trust me on this one. ;)
3) The paragraph you added on skills and leveling also seems to repeat essentially unchanged information already listed here (https://en.uesp.net/wiki/Daggerfall:Leveling_and_Skills). I'm not saying there shouldn't be a place to address common questions (FAQ) somewhere on UESP, but again, duplicating info across different pages always causes more problems than it solves.

I hope you don't take this as me discouraging your contributions - just the opposite; the more dedicated people we can get on this, the better! I just want to reinforce that duplicating info unnecessarily when DFU makes no changes to classic behavior isn't good practice. Down the road when we get the DFU FAQ/Differences etc. pages online, I suggest we can then consider explaining common misconceptions like the above through links to classic pages, editing those pages to correct as needed. Thanks again for your work!

Ommamar
Posts: 282
Joined: Thu Jul 18, 2019 3:08 am

Re: Daggerfall Unity Wiki

Post by Ommamar » Tue Aug 13, 2019 3:56 am

So I guess that is the issue I am having are we making a DFU wiki or are we updating the UESP? I have no doubt you are correct that there is redundant information that can be found else where, as I am also sure that it was used at least in part in the reverse engineering of classic to produce DFU.

At the moment I am just working on getting information into the wiki so it can be moved where ever fits best. I copied it directly from the thread involving racial specials so didn't look to close at the Nords special. Feel free to correct minor mistakes like that when you see them.

Post Reply