FANDOM

Wiki

Welcome!

Hi, welcome to the Dragon Age Wiki! Thanks for your edit to the Daggers page.

I hope that you will stick around and continue to help us improve the wiki.

Please leave a message on my talk page if I can help with anything! -- JoePlay (Talk) 01:11, November 28, 2009

Re: Noincludes Edit

Tierrie is currently working on resolving the conflict between notes and location so if you would like the information to show up on the group page, add a |notes= line and write it there. The way that you had it set up left gaps in the group page. However, I would caution against making widespread changes until the issue is resolved. Loleil 07:22, January 10, 2010 (UTC)

Just add the notes line. I don't think the gaps are browser specific, but I use Firefox. Loleil 08:10, January 10, 2010 (UTC)

Aim Edits Edit

I wish to apologize for unnecessarily reverting your absolutely correct edit to Aim article note. Such slips happen :) Especially when I'm forced to revert half a dozen low-quality edits per day to various mechanics articles in this Wiki. Nevertheless, for the guy that have written Archery: An Efficient Approach and done more experiments with archery than with something else in DA:O, I was surprisingly ignorant ;) Anyway, nothing personal (of course) and thanks for a factual correction! IN 21:29, March 14, 2010 (UTC)

I think it's awesome that you didn't just presume you were correct and rererevert
Well, that would be extremely immature, to say the least :) I may sound like an arrogant prick sometimes, but only because there is a ton of barely literate 'contributors' to the Wiki that are sometimes worse than plain vandals :) I just tested the issue in-game, then dumped the character data to the log to see if that's correct (in v. 1.03 character screen is quite inadequate as far as damage is concerned, for example -- so it's always nice to double-check). It's curious to point out the game engine ignores weapon tier crit chance while calculating Ranged_Crit_Modifier attribute: it will be, say, 98.40% for a 100% crit archer with Far Song equipped. That chance must be added elsewhere (or not: we are human and won't even notice the absence of 1.60%, unless our 100% crit archer fails to score a crit all of a sudden). I don't know how I missed the weapon +X% critical chance duplication before: during my 100% crit experiments I clearly remember being discouraged by the fact Whitewood Bow did not add 10% under Aim. That was the source of my belief Aim just ignores weapons as a whole. Maybe the mechanism was changed in patch 1.03? Or did you test it before as well? Of course, it's just as safe to assume I got the elementary math wrong: too much calculations for three archers might have been tiresome :)
As to your question regarding one/two-roll mechanism. What do you mean by hit, then crit? That the archer basically needs to hit the target based on regular Dex-based routine, and only then the ranged crit modifier is calculated? Well, it goes without saying he has to hit first, so you must have meant something else... About missing some crits: it's a pretty tough question to answer. Basically, my PC archer was always about 95% crit later mid-game+ (due to -3.00% natural base crit and multiple Song of Courage limitations), while both Leliana and Zevran were a bit (2-3%) above 100%. Therefore, my Warden, naturally, did not score crits once in a long while. As far as I recall, Leliana and Zevran were auto-critting consistently. That said, I will probably run the 100% crit (exactly) Zevran test on immobilized High Dragon to determine whether weapon tier crit chance is taken into account at all by the game engine. IN 01:44, March 15, 2010 (UTC)

Hit & Crit Edit

You've got your answer w/ link on my talk page, but I'm not sure that's what you were actually asking :) IN 08:16, March 15, 2010 (UTC)

 :( Edit

I understand though, I guess personal guides are discouraged? A shame, as IN's guides on archery and Hollowness's guide on arcane warrior really improved my enjoyment of the game--I was hoping to do the same. I thought maybe merely placing them under "links" as opposed to, say, the main body of the page would buy me a pass :(. Unsure how else to share direct information on how best to utilize a class. Ah well, perhaps it doesn't need sharing. Basileia 14:53 March, 29m 2010 (UTC).

There are a few issues with that. First, technically, I think the links section is there for external links only. Intra-wiki links would normally appear as a 'see also.' Second, the guide is your user page which makes it uneditable by other authors. The guide also bares your name. I think these facts make it inappropriate to link to the guide from other wiki pages even in a 'see also' section because of the 'invisable author' style policy. There is, however, an alternative. IN created individual pages for tanking and archery as Archery: An Efficient Approach and Tanking: An Alternative Approach in the category dedicated to guides. As wiki pages themselves they are available for edit by other users and appear in the see also section of several other pages. They are, however, slightly less specific than your fairly specific builds. If you could reconstruct your various mage builds, perhaps refine and combine them into a single guide under a single namespace, say 'Making the most of Spells' or something then they could be very strong canditdates for a new guide page. You would have to give up your ownership of the, however, since, unlike your wiki page, they could then be edited by anyone.Tetracycloide 15:08, March 29, 2010 (UTC)
Mmm, appreciate the reply. I also understand the reasoning behind removing the links--totally makes sense. If I'm not mistaken, however, I believe the editors have previously expressed that they would rather not have build guides be a part of the main wiki proper, which is why I put it on my user page instead. Mechanics guides yes, build guides not so much, as I understand it. Unfortunate--perhaps I am taking up space entirely inappropriately on the wrong venue. Basileia 15:17, March 29, 2010 (UTC)
That's what I meant by "reconstruct your various mage builds, perhaps refine and combine them into a single guide" rewrite them as expinaltions of spell mechanics and the implications of said mechanics. Less of a 'this is what I did with my arcane warrior' and more of a 'as an arcane warrior ____ does _____ which can lead to ____ and ____' or something. You would have to cut out a fair bit of what's there to do that though and add a fair bit more. Worst case scenario, you rewrite the guides and move them to their own namespace and an admin decides it's not worth space and nominates it for deletion or merge.Tetracycloide
I understand this may be unsupervised now but I am replying anyways. At the time there was no guides on arcane warriors (and my guide had exceeded information on both the article and the external link but yes opinionated and some times people look for a working example at the time) and the wiki does not like articles to be too opinion based and if anything opinion based guides were encouraged to be done on userspaces, yes users cannot edit other user spaces but if you have information to provide but do not want to commit to a guide the talk pages are available. If multiple users guides start to fill then yes I would agree it shouldn't be plaguing the article and could be moved to talk but my guide as a link was not an issue to the admins at that time (and at the time no other working guides on the build) and I see no communication held between you and the admins that this was an issue (if there was I apologize) and I received much thanks to a guide at the time of no arcane warrior guide and if there was a decent guide at that time I'd be thanking them.
I have for now re-implement my link and face-lifted the article, if it does come up as an issue today, then please speak on the wiki forums or admins, I will not agree to one person deciding to remove (links) useful information from the wiki (than it is just your opinion vs. mine) unless an admin or the enough of the community backs it (in that case then I will accepted because the guide was to help people and the wiki not upset). I do appreciated your concern for minimizing opinion based content in articles but working examples are valuable (and wikis are communities as well sharing information and opinions off the main articles). But we cannot have a article overflowing with link guide options either, if you are just upset a user name is used in the article as a link (maybe we can compromise with "A Users Example") or that you cannot edit then I believe this should/could be discussed as a community or with the admins. Your backings truly are true in regards for the 'articles' they are not suppose to be opinion based but links usually are/can be opinion based. Thanks  Hollowness | Talk | Contr 02:09, December 10, 2011 (UTC)
I didn't just remove it because I didn't like it based on nothing more than my opinion, as you suggest. It was not 'one person deciding to remove' anything. I consulted the Dragon Age Wiki:Manual of Style and the inclusion of a link to a user page does not fit under any of the described headings. There's no such thing as 'internal links' and it doesn't fit the criteria for a 'see also' (not an article) or an 'external link' (not a link to an external site). One could also interpret any link to a user page in an article as a form of signature which is expressly forbidden in articles. The fact that your guide is helpful or has received many thanks is irrelevant, for the time being there is no appropriate place to put said links on an article page. If you have a problem with that then you should try to get the style guides changed so as to allow links to user pages by outlining an appropriate space to put them.
As a side note, I haven't been active on this wiki in some time so I really have to question in what faith you would come to my talk page to post this. It feels like you're actively trying to start an edit war or worse. You don't need my permission to make edits to pages just like I don't need your permission or an admins to revert those edits. Just make the edits you feel are appropriate and follow the rules that are posted and I'll do the same.Tetracycloide (talk) 15:40, December 19, 2011 (UTC)
I meant no disrespect and I only mentioned the unsupervised because I didn't see recent activity it was not meant as an insult. I post this because when redoing the page I noticed it gone and checked the edit history (see if it was an admin or community decision and saw it was a users edit) to who to discuss it and noticed this thread already in discussion. The reason I made mention to admin or community decision is to avoid an edit war, since this edit has been already causing debate. And to further avoid an editing war, an admin has said this is an issue for community discussion so it can be clarified once and for all.  Hollowness | Talk | Contr 06:51, January 11, 2012 (UTC)

editing sentinel armor trivia Edit

Hey, I was the one that added the trivia description to the sentinel armor set, yet you deleted it? I don't think I was wrong in saying that the armor is very popular and looks somewhat similar to the Deadric armor from oblivion, if you have a problem with me adding that, you should take it up with me before you take action, as far I'm concerned I'm going to add it back and if you still have a problem with it, take it up with a moderator.

Look, I don't know who you think you are but this is a wiki and I don't have to run any of my edits by you before I make them. The blurb I deleted was unprofessional, useless, and speculatory. On what evidence are you basing the assertion that the armor is popular? Furthermore, sharing two predominant colors does not make the armor similar to daedric armor from oblivion. P.S. Please sign your comments.Tetracycloide 03:03, March 30, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, your right this is a wikia, which can be edited by anyone, even those unregistered, I at least have registered and have contributed the most information that I can with what knowledge I have of editing a wikia. I'm SORRY if I "offended" you or second guessed your "authority" but even if your a moderator (which I don't know if you are or not) or the owner of the wikia, I think it would be nice and somewhat benefitical to both of us, if you come to me about the issue, before deleting my work, REGARDLESS if you "think" its wrong or not.

On the other hand, the armor IS extremely popular and does look "to a degree" like the daedric armor, whether or not it should be put on the sentinel armor set page can be debated, but the fact its popular and looks like another set of armor does not make it any less factual.

"I'm gonna make him an offer he can't refuse" 03:13, March 30, 2010 (UTC)

That's not how wikis work. I don't have to go to you before I delete 'your work' because it's not 'your work.' The article belongs to the wiki, even your edits to it, and not to you.
I ask again, on what evidence are you basing the assertion that it's a popular armor? Have you conducted any research into the matter? Polled players of the game in an unbiased setting? Datamined character uploads to the bioware social site? Anything at all? Pretty much any armor set that's mostly black and red looks 'to a degree' like daedric armor from the elder scrolls. Do you have any evidence that it was inspired by or derived from daedric armor?Tetracycloide 03:19, March 30, 2010 (UTC)

Ok so let me get this straight, anything not actual, factual information that can be proven by scientific data or written legal documents can not be put on the wikia? If thats the deal then alot of information on this wikia and an other wikia could be "speculation" or "theories" I do not dispute your claims, but I will argue with you all day that the Sentinel Armor Set is a very popular armor amongst the Dragon Age players and if I have to conduct a poll or get a petetion going to prove to YOU that it's popular, I guess I'll have to do that. No matter what though, I do appreciate you taking the time to explain to me that whatever I do here can be deleted without my consent and that any information I provide is not my own after I post it and is credited to the wikia and not to me. "I'm gonna make him an offer he can't refuse" 03:33, March 30, 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with Tetracycloide. An item's popularity, whether it's your opinion or not, is not 'trivia' and is not relevant to the article. Personally, I find most of the entries in the Trivia section on this particular wiki to be rather inane and unnecessary, but this sort of thing adds no informative value whatsoever. Ask yourself if the information you are providing is objectively useful - that is, will the average reader find it useful or not. The average reader likely will not care if an item is 'popular,' nor will they care if it is inspired by some other work in some other game. That is what the social forums are for.Kastagir 03:37, March 30, 2010 (UTC)

So the "average joe" who works "40 hours a week at a 9 to 5" comes on the Dragon Age: Origins Wikia out of what? Curiosity? NO, anyone who comes on here, is either already playing the game, has heard about the game alot and wants a synopsis, or is like the majority of the traffic here: a hardcore RPG gamer who needs help an information on items/quest etc in the game.

I think that adding in the fact that the Sentinel Armor is popular is "informative" if the wikia was only dedicated to informing the absolute basic information about the topic, there wouldn't be a need for a wikia. Wikia's provide a place for the dedicated and highly intelligent gamers to provide the maximum amount of information possible, including the basic and "the word on the street"

If I'm wrong in the fact that all information on the wikia DOES NOT have to be actual, factual, legal documentation, then I apologize and will never edit again, for you can't edit pages like "the lost" or "inferno golem" and provide only "basic information backed by scientific data" I appreciate you putting me in my place, but as a final note, Tetracycloide said that any information added, once added, is no longer mine. That is equivalent to filing for a patent and having the government claim it as their own. I think its wrong that you can't claim some sort of "ownership" to information that you posted on the wikia, especially if you created the info from scratch yourself. However if those are the rules, then I will abide by them.

Furthermore, how does "the article" belong to the wiki, if I created it? For example, I created the article for the Inferno golem, but according to tetra, if anything were to come up, I couldn't step in and say "hey that was me that provided that info" Is that true? "I'm gonna make him an offer he can't refuse" 03:57, March 30, 2010 (UTC)

http://community.wikia.com/wiki/Ownership The third bullet makes it pretty clear that, while the edit you made is your own contribution and will forever be attributed to you, the articles themselves belong to the wiki community. Of particular note is the following:

"Be aware that you are editing a site which is open to edits from any other person. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then do not submit it! Believing that an article has an owner of this sort is a common mistake people make on wikis."

I don't see your point on pages like 'the lost' or 'inferno golem.' What is on those pages that you don't feel is factual? All the information I've seen can be easily sourced to the games themselves. Tetracycloide 04:24, March 30, 2010 (UTC)

Tetracycloide 04:24, March 30, 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining the rules a bit, that was my fault for not reading "the fine print" however, concerning the information on pages like inferno golem and such, my point was that the information there is almost as "factual" as is the sentinel armor being popular. I'll admit I might have drug it on to far, but I've already apologized for overstepping any boundaries I overstepped, but can you at LEAST admit that the sentinel armor is SOMEWHAT popular and a "good" armor in general? If we can compromise on that and that will be the end of it, I think everything will return to normal. "I'm gonna make him an offer he can't refuse" 07:24, March 30, 2010 (UTC)

Opinions don't belong on the factual pages. If you want to put your opinion of "Sentinel Armor is popular", do so on Tanking: An Alternative Approach for example, these are guide pages where you can assert your opinion along with every else. If you want to say it is a good piece of armour, there is also the Legendary Items page where you are free to add it to the list (origins only right now). If you want to say, "Sentinel Armor looks like the Oblivion armour", please provide a citation such as a developer's note saying he plaigarised the oblivion armour, otherwise it will be tagged [citation needed] and eventually deleted if the citation cannot be provided, Keening Blade has an example of this. So in summary, there is somewhere to put your opinion, just not on the factual page. Dch2404 09:50, March 30, 2010 (UTC)

Hey! Don't give people a wrong idea :) Comments regarding such-and-such armor set being cool will be mercilessly deleted from the tanking guide. The guide is not an encyclopaedic article, but it's not a forum, either: its purpose is, indeed, to guide. As objectively and factually as it's possible. On the other hand, if someone decides to write an appendix to the guide covering DAA tanking, it will be greatly appreciated. IN 08:49, March 31, 2010 (UTC)
What? You can't have fashion advice on the tanking page? Outrageous! Everyone knows it's deadly important to look awesomely cool while tanking. Dch2404 09:39, April 1, 2010 (UTC)

Sentinel Armor is popular proof Edit

Its not my Opinion anymore, a bioware rep confirmed on the bioware forums, that the armor IS COOL, so will you please let that fact be put on the trivia section PLEASE? "I'm gonna make him an offer he can't refuse" 04:49, March 31, 2010 (UTC)

Da Don Giovani, I know your still new to wiki editing, but when something is written in a mainspace article's or editor's talk page, it is not acceptable to remove another person's comments. Please do not do so again. However, as this is Tetracycloide's talk page, they may choose to remove this discussion should they so wish.
As to the trivia in question, I'm afraid it's just not informative or interesting enough to be included. People can immediately see by the stats that it is powerful, and can judge for themselves by the picture and other information whether or not they think it is "cool". Friendship smallLoleil Talk 06:23, March 31, 2010 (UTC)

Ok you win Loleil, I know your a moderator, and if you want to ban me, go ahead, but for the record I have done nothing but try and help the wikia, and if by adding in "the sentinel armor is a very popular armor, here is a quote from bioware saying so" I should be blacklisted, then do so.

I don't want to ban or blacklist you, I just want to make sure that you understand how things work here. Friendship smallLoleil Talk 00:32, April 1, 2010 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.