Oblivion talk:The Necromancer's Amulet/Amulet Leveling

The UESPWiki – Your source for The Elder Scrolls since 1995
Jump to: navigation, search
Semi Protection
This is an archive of past Oblivion talk:The Necromancer's Amulet discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page, except for maintenance such as updating links.

Amulet Leveling

This is definitely a bug. I know that Caranya's level isn't a bug and that's what causes the amulet to be lvl 25+, but that means somebody wasted a load of time making a leveled amulet that only ever gives one version. That's what we're calling a bug. The same person evidently didn't realise quite how the lists work. rpeh •TCE 07:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, the fact that someone wasted a bunch of time doesn't mean it's a bug. An interesting note, sure, but hardly a bug since it's functioning exactly the way it's supposed to. By that kind of logic, every quest stub sitting in the master file is a bug because someone wasted a bunch of time and didn't complete the work. Arthmoor 10:20, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
No, that's the point. I don't think it is functioning the way it's supposed to. I think you were supposed to get the leveled version of the artifact, but Caranya having a fixed level means that you don't. rpeh •TCE 10:26, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Except that it takes more effort in the CS to set an NPC to a static level than it does to check one box to make them level with the player. So the extra amulets are just another instance of extra stuff that got created that's never used. But apparently you've made your mind up, and I'm just wasting my time, so whatever. Arthmoor 18:23, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Me, and every other editor who took part in the previous debate. I'm not imposing my will on you - just enforcing previously-existing consensus. And it doesn't exactly take a long time to click a box and type in two digits compared to creating 6 different enchantments, 6 different amulets and a leveled list only for 5 of them never to be used. rpeh •TCE 18:36, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Except I don't see any previous debate to refer back to. Just a "bug" notice attached to the article with nothing more than your responses to my edit claiming it's a bug because "somebody wasted a load of time". They wasted a lot more than that building interiors and exteriors that don't get used in the game for one reason or another. The logic doesn't hold. Really though, this is why I tend to not bother with wikis in general. People throw around that "consensus" word an awful lot and you can rarely ever find how this was arrived at, you're just expected to accept it even without any evidence. That's why I said I'm just wasting my time. This place should be about the accuracy of the information, and an invalid bug report is harboring inaccurate information. It makes no sense. Arthmoor 19:04, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Apologies, the discussions were on the item page rather than this one: here and here.
And I'm sorry but this is a clear bug, your protestations to the contrary notwithstanding. If it's a "bug" that Redwave had the same settings for each level because of developer oversight, this is a bug too. rpeh •TCE 19:27, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
There's a difference you're not seeing. The amulet has proper versions for use in a leveled list reward. It is properly configured and will behave as expected. Redwave has an obvious bug because it's not logical to conclude that you'd make 5 different versions of them all identical to each other and then expect that to work properly as a reward. Like I said though, obviously correcting inaccurate information isn't desired, so a bogus bug report stays in the article based on the "consensus" of two people reporting they got exactly what the game intended them to get. Arthmoor 19:55, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
If you think that's the desired result, it makes me wonder how you get your mods working... (and I rather like some of them).
Bring it up on the Community Portal if you feel so strongly about it, but I'm afraid there's no reasonable doubt that it's a bug. rpeh •TCE 20:06, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
If I bring up anything it'd be the uncalled for insult instead, and it wouldn't be on the portal page either. It's the desired result because they deliberately set Caranya to a static level 30. Like I said initially though, you've made up your mind, and there's clearly no point in discussing it further. Arthmoor 20:14, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
There's no insult in my last post, so don't try to claim otherwise. And if you bring it up on the CP, more people will be likely to contribute. I suggested it so you could see that this isn't about me making my mind up - it's about what the users of the site think. Now, please either drop the subject or do as I have suggested. rpeh •TCE 20:17, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Oh, the insult is there, and obvious to anyone who sees it. No sense in bringing this up on the CP, if it were a legitimate issue, someone would have brought it up through official channels at the BGS forum for inclusion in the UOPS. People know it's being maintained, and that's where all of the competent modders hang out. The fact is, your "consensus" consists of two people confirming the thing works as designed. Further, I don't appreciate being told to "drop the subject". Unless I'm mistaken, you're not an admin, and I have no obligation to drop anything. The article has inaccurate information. That's all I was trying to address. YOU made up your mind otherwise, and quite recently from what those discussion links show. I've demonstrated that Caranya is purposefully set up as a static level 30. Your counter-arguments kept changing in a circular logic fashion to try and fit what you've already decided on. Fine. You want it kept. It's kept. If I felt strongly enough about it I would have simply reverted your reversion and forced the issue that way. Arthmoor 20:36, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Arthmoor, your wrong. About all of this. Rpeh was paying you a compliment, not insulting you. You say HE is the one with his mind made up but your the stubborn one here. At least Rpeh can point out other people who agree with him and thats more than you can do. You have NOT demonstrated anything about Caranya but Rpeh HAS demonstrated that the amulet is fully leveled and you only ever get one version. YOU are the one arguing in a "circular logic fashion". Don't make me laugh about the forums either. Forums are the cesspits of the internet. 94.228.219.141 07:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
"it makes me wonder how you get your mods working" is really hard to take as a compliment. So... uh... yeah. I have in fact demonstrated all I need to about Caranya. Look in the CS for yourself. Static level 30. What more needs to be said? I'm arguing a consistent viewpoint here, whereas Rpeh started with the leveled items, moved on to "someone wasted their time" then tried to argue Caranya is a bug, and eventually arrived back at his starting point.
I understand wiki-politics requires people to throw around this "consensus" word like it's some sort of magic wand, but consensus in the real world means a whole lot of people agree, and right now it's basically him and me and we simply don't agree that this issue is a bug. You could get 500 people to play, get the reward, and all confirm they got the same thing. That would be no surprise since THAT'S HOW THE GAME IS SET TO DO IT. People wasting their time and 5 of the 6 amulets not being used on one particular NPC don't prove it's a bug.
You must surf some really nasty forums then, because I was referring specifically to the Bethsoft forums, and to a lesser extent places such as Nexus and TESA. All 3 of which are places people have real discussions away from the addiction of wiki-politics and can come to a friendly agreement about something with plenty of opportunity to build real consensus about things like this. (and this silly tilde thing is getting annoying) Arthmoor 07:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
"and I rather like some of them" - way to miss the important bit. Nobody is going to disagree that Caranya has a fixed level but that's not the point. You are stamping your foot and saying the same thing over and over again and Rpeh has presented new evidence. He never tried to argue that Caranya is a bug though. Your entire argument is that "it's not a bug because that's how it's supposed to work". THAT is circular. You havent explained why an entire leveled list is used to provide the player with the same item every time. You say "THAT'S HOW THE GAME IS SET TO DO IT" but you could say the same about people falling off Skingrad bridge, duplicating items using scrolls or having paintbrushes float when dropped. THAT'S HOW THE GAME IS SET TO DO IT but does anybody believe those arent bugs? And I meant the Bethsoft forums. Besides, since you have decided to advertise your mod here surely you should appreciate being given new bugs to fix rather than pretending something isnt a bug because you don't know how to fix it? 94.228.219.141 07:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Now who's using twisted logic? Because I and any other sane developer don't consider this a bug means we don't know how to fix it? There's nothing to fix. That's the entire point I've been making all along. If it's being stubborn to stick to your point when you know you're right, then so be it, I'm a stubborn jackass. I concede it's a waste of time to have created 6 amulets, 6 enchantments, and configure a whole leveled list to dole out the reward, but the act of wasting one's time isn't the standard by which developers call something a bug. There's nothing broken about it at all. That Bethesda chose to set the NPC controlling it to a static level thus rendering 5 of 6 amulets moot doesn't make it a bug. An interesting thing to make note of, yes, but it's not a bug.
People falling off the Skingrad bridge is an entirely different thing. Anyone with any development sense can see that Bethesda created a path grid and lined up the noded to go over the bridge. Whoever later generated the road record for Tamriel did not understand how the underlying system for generating that worked, and thus you ended up with road pathing that caused NPCs to jump. Skingrad isn't the only place that could happen either. Kivan fixed that in the UOP with my help, in fact I did the considerable work of correcting the road network for the entire Tamriel worldspace.
Bethesda themselves considered the paintbrush glitch enough of an issue to act on it themselves, as they did with the scrolls thing. Surely if Bethesda thought it important enough to officially patch that should be good enough to take as proof it's a real bug?
I didn't come here to advertise a mod. I came here first as a result of someone on the BGS forum pointing out an extensive list of NPC bugs in need of fixing. The vast majority of which are legit issues that will be fixed. Some of the issues were already fixed by Kivan, so I tagged those that were. Some were caught by later updates through the UOPS, so I tagged those too. That's information people seem to want, but you seem to think is nothing more than an attempt at advertising.
As for your opinion of the BGS forums, I'm sorry you feel that way, but the majority of us in the modding community don't share your opinion. Arthmoor 08:07, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
A leveled list that always produces the same item isn't a bug. Right. It your world, you can do it your way. Luckily this is a wiki and consensus (I don't care if you dont like the word) gets to decide. Everybody bar you thinks its a bug. I have no idea why your so stubborn on this. If you dont want to fix valid bugs that have caused confusion for several people that's fine. 94.228.219.141 08:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Everyone? No. You and one other person as opposed to myself. It's not a bug - the list is fully functional. The NPC assigned to use it is fully functional. I fail to see the problem. And no, it won't be getting "fixed" because it isn't broken. Arthmoor 08:28, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
And the people on the talk pages. Just admit you don't know HOW to fix it and move on. Your making no friends here. Go back to your precious forums. 94.228.219.141 08:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
I said THAT'S ENOUGH. This is no longer about improving the article and has descended into pointless sniping. Please do NOT POST any more comments on this thread unless the comment is USEFUL. rpeh •TCE 08:34, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) OKAY, THAT'S ENOUGH. This has gone on long enough and nobody is going to change anybody else's mind. There is no point continuing this discussion. rpeh •TCE 08:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that there is no real conclusion to be drawn either way. The fact that there are alternate versions means nothing, or else it would be listed as a bug that five or six NPCs never turn up in their associated quests, because they where not finished/where dropped from the final game. On the other hand, the developer may very well have intended for the item received by the player to have been levelled, we will never know. I would suggest erring on the side of caution and listing the fact as a note rather than a bug unless the developer in question weighs in with his intent. Jadrax 08:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Exactly, but I'm sure one can understand why I'd hesitate to reinstate the change I made to that affect at this point. Arthmoor 10:22, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
I added it to Notes. Everything work the way it should within the confines of what they set - the fact that they set it wrong doesn't mean it's a bug.--TheAlbinoOrcany_questions? 15:01, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Can you WAIT until the debate has finished please? Moving things around while the debate is still going on is only going to annoy people. rpeh •TCE 15:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
What's the waiting period before making the change then? I thought I had waited until the debate finished; you and the anon were the only two that had been against the change - since there are now three people (Me, Arthmoor and Jadrax) for it there's a consensus so I added it.--TheAlbinoOrcany_questions? 15:25, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
There have only been about 5 people on the wiki since the last comments were made (all of about 5 hours ago). There's no definitive waiting period but you should at least wait a couple of days before calling a discussion finished. rpeh •TCE 15:28, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Makes sense. By the way can you take a look at the thing on OB_talk:Bongond?--TheAlbinoOrcany_questions? 15:31, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Never mind. You already got it.--TheAlbinoOrcany_questions? 15:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
I think it's a bug. Since the Necromancer's Amulet is an item that you can't keep for yourself legitimately (if you want to finish the Mages Guild questline) and one that is supposed to be a very powerful artifact, I can see how the developers might have changed it to be fixed level, instead of giving the player a potentially crappy levelled version. However, since the amulet is actually pretty powerful even on level 1, that idea doesn't make too much sense, and since the related artifact (the Bloodworm Helm) happens to be levelled, it makes even less sense that the Necromancer's Amulet isn't. Plus, the Bloodworm Helm is also buggy, so it seems much more likely to me that this is just a particularly bug-ridden quest rather than something intentional on Bethesda's part.
I agree with Jadrax that it's very difficult to tell for sure, though, so pointing it out as a note (and a potential bug) would probably be better than forcing a conclusion either way... Weroj 16:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Jadrax and Weroj. I think it's quite possible that it was a bug, but at the same time, there's nothing to say that it wasn't just a change of plan, or somebody just added a convenient levelled list that they knew what was in it rather than adding the direct item itself. Developers are known to frequently have time constraints, and even something that would only take a few seconds longer to look up can be time they'd rather not take. In the end, there's no way to prove anything short of finding the dev that did this and asking him/her, which is rather unlikely to happen. Robin Hoodtalk 19:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
In my opinion, this issue is a bug and should remain listed as a bug.
However, my first and foremost reaction to this entire discussion is that it's one of the most pointless discussions ever on UESP. The issue isn't whether the fundamental information is correct; the issue isn't even whether or not the information belongs on the article. The only issue is whether the sentence belongs in the bugs section or the notes section. There is no reason why this should have been escalated into a major argument. At the first indication that there was a disagreement, it should have been just been dropped and the article left as-is. The time put into this argument could have instead been put into countless other edits on the site that actually would have made a difference. So unlike a few previous comments, I think that in case of uncertainty we should lean in favour of maintaining the status quo -- instead of encouraging other editors with insignificant changes from repeating this type of incident.
Which also makes me question why this was even turned into a major debate. From Arthmoor's comments, it seems that his primary motivation here is that he doesn't want to fix this bug in UOPS. I don't think that UESP should be pressured into changing how a bug is described based on what the developer of UOPS wants to do. UOPS is free to make its own decisions about what needs to be fixed, independent of UESP, just as UOP previously did.
Ultimately, though, both of those reactions are secondary to the real issue here, namely, whether it is most appropriate for UESP to describe this issue as a bug, and therefore what benefits UESP readers the most. This is an issue that took nearly four years to be understood, proving that it runs contrary to the expectations of even experienced Oblivion players and runs contrary to logic. It is even an issue that some players, in particular ones with under-levelled characters, are likely to want to exploit. Therefore readers will benefit if this issue is described as a bug, and if it is thus separated from the half-dozen notes (that most readers probably never read).
Most importantly, if this is not a bug then the item page, Oblivion:Necromancer's Amulet, should not be a levelled artifact page. If the community consensus is truly that this item was never supposed to be levelled and never should be considered as a levelled object, then the levelled statistics have no relevance anywhere on the wiki. On the other hand, if the levelled statistics are kept on the item page, the page also needs to emphasize that the item does not level as expected -- which is effectively synonymous with saying that there is a bug making the page's information inaccurate. In fact, I'd argue that the note on the item page should be moved into a bug section, because it is far too easy to overlook the information as the article stands right now. --NepheleTalk 23:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
At the risk of perpetuating this topic further, I find it highly unlikely that Arthmoor wouldn't know how to fix the bug if he wished. I was able to find two options within a relatively short timespan, and my modding skills are fair at best, so I have to assume that Arthmoor would be able to find at least these two, if not more. The obvious fix is just to remove Caranya's fixed level and have her level with the player. If you want to leave her at a fixed level, then the second method I found was to remove the Death Item and instead add CaranyaRef.AddItem MG16NecroAmuletList 1 to the OnDeath portion of her existing script. Robin Hoodtalk 08:43, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Amulet Leveling: Subsection 1

Hmm. It looks like there are three users on each side right now plus one on the fence so no consensus. My question is: Why is it that in the absence of consensus we stop (unless of course A. the question is ridiculous or B. The debate has degenerated into a series of personal attacks) after a certain point and say that things stay the way they are even though there is no consensus to base that on rather than continuing to discuss it? Please correct me if I'm wrong - this is just my interpretation of what Nephele's post means so it may not be what she was actually saying.--TheAlbinoOrcany_questions? 17:42, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Stopping after a certain point will happen naturally (usually, anyway), once people feel they've had their say. If there's no obvious consensus, then it just stands to reason that nothing should be done either way. If you make the changes, then you've basically just re-created the exact same situation with the opposite viewpoint, so there's nothing gained, and it would just lead to the same discussion repeating itself in favour of changing it back. Of course, the best solution is to find a compromise if possible. In this case, the best I can think of is to flip a coin to decide which section to put it under :), then add wording to the effect of "possibly a bug" or whatever fits the sentence structure. Robin Hoodtalk 18:22, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
The notes section still makes more sense since this is a case where developer intent can't be determined and in technical terms the item is properly set up and the leveled list that uses it is also properly set up. Certainly wasn't my intention for this to become a raging debate since I was never in favor of removing the information entirely. Arthmoor 18:35, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
I think there was no obvious consensus because of how the discussion elevated into an argument. I'm sure this was nobody's intent, but things like this happen. Since the bug has been changed to a note twice, and changed back twice, I think there should be a vote to prevent further complications, and to settle this argument: those who wish for the bug to change to a note should post a bolded Oppose, and those who wish to keep it a bug should bold Support. It's just a suggestion, but it could end this once and for all -- Jplatinum16 20:24, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Oppose: While this may have been unintentional on the part of the developers given the structure they set up it works perfectly; just because they may have intended it to be a different structure doesn't make it a bug.--TheAlbinoOrcany_questions? 20:37, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment: It is probably worth pointing out that in fact the 'status quo' in this case is probably returning it to being a note rather than a bug, as it was only changed to be a bug two months ago. This fact also rather undermines Nephele's point that 'the levelled statistics have no relevance' as that age predates the change to this page by around two years. Jadrax 21:44, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Oppose: Developer intent cannot be determined. It was previously listed in the notes area and should return there. Arthmoor 22:02, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

This is neither the time nor the place for a vote. Nephele has given compelling reasons why it should remain a bug, and has stated other required actions if that is not the case. Simply saying "I think it's a note" is no longer enough. rpeh •TCE 20:50, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

In response to Jadrax and Arthmoor: it was never "previously listed in the notes area". The version of the page two months ago had no mention of this issue at all -- because just two months ago it wasn't even confirmed that you always receive the level 25 version of the amulet. That's what I was referring to when I said that it's taken four years to even figure this bug out. There had been reports on the talk page of levelling issues for some time, but those reports didn't make any sense until rpeh confirmed that Caranya's level controls the amulet's level. So reverting to a two-month old version of the page simply removes useful information, which is not any type of solution.
In response to JPlatinum16, a vote runs contrary to the guidelines on Consensus: Avoid turning a discussion into a vote. I think it's a bit premature to conclude that the only way to resolve a two-day-old discussion is to resort to a vote. Especially when there's been no followup discussion about the implications for the item page: if it's not a bug, then why are we documenting the leveled statistics for an intentionally non-leveled item? How can a vote be held when the two alternatives haven't even been clarified?
If everyone is so insistent on dragging this out, let's get the facts straight and sort out exactly what is being proposed before rushing to an inaccurate vote based on incorrect information. --NepheleTalk 22:35, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
My mistake, the impression was given that the information was already listed. As far as sorting out what was proposed, I thought that was clear enough by the edit I tried to make that started all this - moving it to the Notes section. I was not trying to eradicate it.
Documenting the item's statistics should be left as-is, as that's how it appears in the CS. That the developers made Caranya a static level doesn't change the indisputable data of how the item is configured in the CS. Unless I've wildly misinterpreted something here, the information on how things exist is what's being documented here. Not trying to work out developer intent. The way I'm seeing this, the item and its enchantments work. A user could produce a mod in an unpatched game and get proper results. That same user can't do so with the case of Redwave that Rpeh brought up because it's leveled list is very clearly broken. As you said, what the UOP/UOPS does with the information isn't relevant. This should be about the accuracy of the information and nothing more. Arthmoor 22:49, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Is it not true that the wiki lists every item that is in the CS, regardless of its status as a bugged or not? An example would be Pit Armor which is listed despite there being no way to get it in game, and no evidence that their should be. Jadrax 23:14, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Also my bad, Nephele; I didn't realize that consensus isn't settled with a vote in cases with arguments. I didn't think a vote was the only option, but more as a way to calmly state the problems we're having on this issue. -- Jplatinum16 03:05, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
From the page on consensus: "In other words, editors should not feel paralyzed by an expectation that they need approval of the community before making any edits." I think this one statement alone sums up exactly how I'm feeling about this entire situation. Arthmoor 03:27, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
That is true, but it only applies to your initial edit. Since then you have done nothing but attempt to impose your view on a community of which you know nothing. 82.208.46.123 04:39, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Please keep a civil tone here without insulting others. --Arch-Mage Matt Did I Do That? 04:43, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
FYI to admins: 82.208.46.123 is listed as an open proxy block on Wikipedia. Arthmoor 04:48, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Can I say this whole "developer intent" point is irrelevant. In software development, it doesn't matter one iota what the developer intended. If the software doesn't work in the way the client expects, they will call it a bug and the only way you can change their minds is if you can prove that's what they asked for all along. In this case, the leveled amulet is definitely not being generated in a way that fulfills expectations, so it's a bug regardless of what Bethesda intended. rpeh •TCE 08:04, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Except that it does generate in a way that fulfills expectations. As I said before, if a user mod taps the list, it produces the expected result. Caranya taps the list, and gets back an expected result based on being a static level NPC. Who's to say which client's word is supposed to be taken as definitive when deciding what to expect? That really seems to be the crux of the problem here. Who gets to decide what the expectations are? Arthmoor 08:19, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
No. You've been proved wrong on that before you even came here. The whole reason it was added as a bug was because several people had got the lvl 25+ version and were surprised. In other words: it did not meet their expectations. rpeh •TCE 08:22, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

() Having a different opinion does not make one wrong. This is a subjective matter, and it's gone on quite long enough. Unless there's some new information to add to this discussion, can we just drop it, please. Robin Hoodtalk 08:33, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

If UESP were a coding wiki, or a game developers' wiki, then there might be a reason to make distinctions between various types of bugs based on the underlying code and causes. But this is a wiki about playing the game, meaning that to the majority of readers all that matters is that the Necromancer's Amulet is a Leveled Item (or perhaps even more relevant from a game point of view, a quest reward) that is not leveled -- in other words, that it behaves the same way as Redwave. The technical details of why/how don't matter when playing the game, and we shouldn't have to invoke those technical details to provide a basic summary of the facts. Therefore, readers will expect to see the problem summarized the same way in both cases: as a bug.
Beyond that, saying that the Necromancer's Amulet is not bugged would be a fundamental change in the definition of "bug" used across the site. There are probably dozens of bugs on UESP that fall into the same category of "intentional game settings with surprising consequences". As just one example, take Gran Struthe's armor -- another leveled item that isn't leveled and, incidentally, also a bug fixed by UOP. The mechanics of the bug are essentially identical to those for the amulet. Should all such cases now be changed to no longer include the word "bug"?
Furthermore, if I understand the arguments correctly, the main sticking point here is that if we can't be completely certain of the developers' intention, then we can't call this a bug. Under the most extreme interpretation, that would mean nothing can ever be called a bug: essentially all bugs are unintentional, meaning they are never part of the developers' intentions and therefore can never safely be called bugs. More realistically, however, if we apply that standard on UESP then the only problems that can be called bugs are those that were fixed by an official patch: those are the only cases where we have some definitive indication of how the developers want the game to work. Maybe the player is supposed to lose his birthsign and race if he is resurrected during Molag Bal's quest, so there is some lasting effect from going through a near-death experience. Maybe floating rocks are a natural consequence of physics in a universe where magic exists. Alternative explanations could be devised for nearly every bug in the game (and I even seem to recall a Todd Howard or Pete Hines interview somewhere that makes a similar point).
So why should we apply a different standard of certainty on this page, or a different definition of "bug", than on every other page that describes a bug? I think it's far more practical to continue applying a standard based on common sense rather than absolute certainty, thus maintaining consistency with the rest of the site. In that case, my interpretation of previous comments is that the majority of the editors contributing to this discussion would agree that it's a bug -- and beyond that, I'm quite sure that the majority of the site's readers would consider it a bug.
To try to make some constructive progress, I'd like to propose that Necromancer's Amulet should be treated analogously to Redwave. In which case, I'd actually support moving the information on the quest page into the notes -- on Redwave's quest page, the information is technically in the notes section. However, the item page would be changed so that on Leveled Items there is a statement that, because of a bug, only the level 25 version is given to the player; the Leveled Statistics table should also be changed, for example with asterisks in the "Level" column and a note under the table explaining that the low-level versions are never used in-game. There are other places, too, where information about this bug should be added -- in particular, Oblivion:Quest Timing#Quests that provide unleveled rewards comes to mind, since Redwave is listed there.
Although the upshot is that I can accept Arthmoor's basic proposal, I doubt that this really qualifies as a compromise, since I'm just saying that the word "bug" should appear somewhere else. Nevertheless, having now been forced to over-analyze this one issue, that's what seems most appropriate, overall, to me -- most consistent with the standards used elsewhere on the site, and the most useful to readers. And perhaps having a different alternative will help break the apparent deadlock that exists right now in the discussion. --NepheleTalk 18:54, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
I may have missed it somewhere, but is there a page here describing just what the site's official stance on "bug" even is? If not, something like that would prove helpful in avoiding this in the future. Arthmoor 20:52, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Excellent analysis, Nephele, and I would agree with your suggestions (second-last paragraph in her post, for those who are thinking about the letters "TLDR" right now <g>). Robin Hoodtalk 20:34, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
To me, the way the information has been presented on Redwave would provide and ideal template. Jadrax 20:43, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't think it makes sense to call something a bug when it isn't at all clear that it is, instead of just opting for the safer alternative and calling it a note. I think Necromancer's Amulet is *likely* a bug, but really, that just means I'd assign a 60% probability on it being a bug, and a 40% probability on it not being a bug. Absolute certainty is really pretty far from not having much certainty at all. Gran Struthe's armour is different, as that doesn't (according to the article) show up AT ALL on higher levels, which is a much clearer bug.
Whatever it's called shouldn't change the importance of making clear the amulet is indeed not levelled. Currently it's very easy to miss in the article (I didn't know the amulet wasn't levelled until reading about it on this page) and all related articles should be changed to reflect the fact it's not levelled, of course.
Redwave having identical statistics on all levels doesn't seem to be called a bug on most of it's pages, so I can totally get behind that proposition. =) The only parts that point it out as a bug seem to be the "This bug is fixed by the Unofficial Oblivion Patch" parts, which just means that the UOP considered it a bug. Weroj 21:10, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
As long as we clearly call it a "bug" on the Leveled Items page and on the item page itself, I'm fine with this. rpeh •TCE 09:22, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Works for me. Since everyone that's commented on this previously seems to support this should I go ahead and change it?--TheAlbinoOrcany_questions? 15:42, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
I still think it would be incredibly useful to document somewhere what the site's definition of a bug is, because I think many of us are operating under different definitions for that and it's at least partly to blame for the resulting fallout. Arthmoor 22:04, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Nephele has already supplied something that's a pretty fair summary of the UESP definition: "This is an issue that took nearly four years to be understood, proving that it runs contrary to the expectations of even experienced Oblivion players and runs contrary to logic. It is even an issue that some players, in particular ones with under-levelled characters, are likely to want to exploit. Therefore readers will benefit if this issue is described as a bug"
Basically: does a situation run contrary to the expectations of most players? In this case, as the talk pages demonstrate, it does. So it should be described as a bug. rpeh •TCE 09:47, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
TheAlbinoOrc: if you'd like to take a first stab at making the suggested changes, I don't see why not. In fact, we're probably at the point where a concrete set of edits is necessary -- whether to consolidate opinions or reveal misunderstandings.
Arthmoor: I agree that it would be good to extract some summary of the site's definition of a bug from this discussion, perhaps for addition to UESPWiki:Style Guide. Although it's not the prettiest process, this is generally what's necessary before new guidelines are created -- until it's clear that there are multiple possible interpretations, everyone tends to assume that the definition is obvious. (It's also likely no articles would ever get written, if all possible definitions had to be worked out first!)
The only existing text I can think of that seems relevant are the guidelines at Oblivion:Glitches/Proposed -- although the very first point there seems likely to undermine/contradict this discussion. I think there is inevitably going to be some type of subjective decision made about where to draw the line between "mistake in game mechanics" and "intended game feature" -- which probably does come down to some type of judgement about whether it's contrary to the expectations of experienced players. I think there needs to be some emphasis on "experienced" players rather than just "most" players -- because "most" players seems too likely to result in accepted game features being renamed into bugs. --NepheleTalk 05:11, 25 August 2010 (UTC)