User talk:Elakyn

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

Belated Welcome[edit]

Hello Elakyn! Welcome to UESPWiki. It's always good to have new members. If you would like to help improve any of our pages, you may want to take a look at the following links:

If you would like to spice up your userpage, click here for a list of userboxes you can use, including a guide to making your own.

When you're editing, it's always a good idea to leave edit summaries to explain the changes you have made to a particular page, and remember to sign your talk page posts with four tildes ~~~~. Also, the "show preview" button is a great way to view the changes you've made so far without actually saving the page (our patrollers really appreciate it!).

Feel free to practice editing in the sandbox or discuss the games in the forums. If you need any help, don't hesitate to contact one of our mentors. Have fun! —The Silencer speaksTalk 12:30, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I am glad to see you finally joined us registered users! You make an excellent member of the wiki team, and I look forward to working with you. This message was written by Rosalia Tell her what you think......of her work here. 11:46, 26 February 2013 (GMT)

Excellent Contribution[edit]

On the Block page. Thank you! We have lots of people who clean things up very well, and many of us like doing it. That's why we encourage people to "be bold" when adding to or revising our pages. In fact, that's our official policy. I hope you are enjoying this wiki that so many of us love (and hate, of course!) And I encourage you to reach out to your fellow contributors, who you'll find to include some lovely, smart, friendly, funny, warm, and generous people. I, however, am the only one who possesses ALL of those traits togther! XD --JR (talk) 16:46, 13 January 2013 (GMT)

Thank you very much! I do enjoy UESP, I've been lurking around for what, 5 years now? Only with Skyrim's release did I decide to sign up and start contributing. Unfortunately I only have the PS3 version AND it's not the original one, since I'm french, which limitates the amount of things I can talk about. I wish to get a good computer soon but in the mean time I can only help with what I have. Elakyn (talk) 09:26, 14 January 2013 (GMT)
Well be sure to ask me if I can do something to help you in any way on my PC. Many others will also gladly provide such assistance. --JR (talk) 11:14, 14 January 2013 (GMT)

for you undo of my conjure mistman/boneman/wrathman edits[edit]

I HAVE done my research note the tag MagicSummonUndead for all 3 spells and perk refers to this tag

I would appreciate that you don't obviously make up stuff like "obviously no research done" in the future, although i would like to thank you. It would appear dark souls perk does not affect these spells (unless there are hidden scripted effects), so i was only half right. 07:51, 26 February 2013 (GMT)

oh and i shouldn't have deleted summoner either, so i was only a third right :p 07:56, 26 February 2013 (GMT)

My bad then. I saw the perks without any description, and the Conjuration page states that it only affects "reanimated undead" (i.e. zombies) so I thought it was yet an other person adding stuff half-randomly, guess I should have asked you first, sorry. You've been very active I see, you should make an account! Elakyn (talk) 09:53, 26 February 2013 (GMT)

for you undo of my fire/frost/lightning runes edits[edit]

In game displays shows damage is still the same after taking the augment whatever perks. are you sure these spells are affected? 08:07, 26 February 2013 (GMT)

Neither Rune or Cloak spells get affected by either level of "Augment" Perks. Its actually a bug, and I believe it was fixed in the unoffical patches. But I'm going to be reverting your edits Elakyn just headsup because without the offical patches those edits were correct. Lord Eydvar Talk|Contribs 08:11, 26 February 2013 (GMT)
It's weird cause cloak spells Should have been affected since they have the right tags (runes spells don't), it's possible for the cloak spells it's just a display error? 08:13, 26 February 2013 (GMT)
I apologize then, I never noticed Rune and Cloak damages were not affected by Augment perks (after all this time playing, shame on me). I guess we should add a bug section to each page? Elakyn (talk) 09:53, 26 February 2013 (GMT)
I believe its listed on the general Destruction page but a note on the Cloak/Rune pages could be a good idea. Lord Eydvar Talk|Contribs 15:36, 26 February 2013 (GMT)

Re: Dread Cloak[edit]

Hi Elakyn, I just saw your edits to SR:Vampirism, and I was wondering where your information is coming from. As far as I can see the spell is very clearly added by the vampirism script (PlayerVampireQuestScript Script) for stages three and four. Does it not actually work during gameplay? eshetalk 16:38, 11 March 2013 (GMT)

No, I wondered for a long time what Dread Cloak actually was since it was never added in my powers nor in my destruction spells. In fact someone already mentionned it on the power's talk page. Elakyn (talk) 16:42, 11 March 2013 (GMT)
Hmm...odd. It would probably be helpful to figure out why it doesn't work, but that's enough to go on for now. Thanks for the catch! eshetalk 16:47, 11 March 2013 (GMT)
Well I also noticed that the revamped page mentions Vampiric Strength but it is nowhere to be found in the Active Effects and testing it at stage 3 I still did standart Unarmed damage so I think this one is bugged too. The script for both Dread Cloak and Vampiric Strength seem to be correct though so I really don't know what's going on. Elakyn (talk) 17:10, 11 March 2013 (GMT)
Do NPCs use the abilities that you are removing? Because if they do, you should re add the abilities, but under a new NPC section, because often they are linked from NPC pages. Jeancey (talk) 14:12, 12 March 2013 (GMT)
No, the NPCs use different abilities, as detailed on SR:Vampire. eshetalk 14:16, 12 March 2013 (GMT)
Yes, according to the NPC Vampires page, they're supposed have similar abilites, but with different names. However I have yet to see a vampire using a cloak spell, and they never attack with their bare-hands - when running out of magicka, they simply wait to regenerate some and cast Vampiric Drain again. As for the ones supposedly added to the player, I've found a few discussions, especially on Nexus, and no one have ever seen them in the game. I apologize if my edits seemed to be rushed or bold, but in front of so much evidence I had to do something. Elakyn (talk) 14:37, 12 March 2013 (GMT)
It's okay! No need to apologize. So far I've only heard reports of these things not working, although there aren't many reports and I haven't tried out vampirism much myself. I'd just really like to dig into it and find out why it's broken, because the cause isn't immediately apparent to me, even after spending quite a bit of time combing through those scripts. Hopefully we can figure it out and at least explain it as a bug on the page. eshetalk 14:42, 12 March 2013 (GMT)

() Honestly, I don't know. There is little information from the people who managed to restore those abilities (can't blame them) and the script seems normal. On a side note, how are the relations between UESP and TESwiki? Especially on the subject of, erm, content theft and plagiarism? I mean really, they're not even trying to hide it. Elakyn (talk) 15:00, 12 March 2013 (GMT)

From what I understand, as long as it's the exact same user that posts content to both sites, that's okay. Otherwise, I'm not directly involved myself, but I've heard that most of the time when other sites are asked to remove our content, they're very nice about it and respond quickly. If you've seen something that looks questionable to you, UESP's owner, Daveh, urges us to take these matters up with him directly. You can get a link to email him from his user page. eshetalk 15:05, 12 March 2013 (GMT)
Alright, I'll be on the look out then. Thanks! Elakyn (talk) 15:13, 12 March 2013 (GMT)


Hey! In these cases, it is actually correct to say dps per second, because the amount of dps differs based on the cooldown. So if one word does 1.6 dps per second of cooldown, for a 5 second cooldown it is doing 8 dps. If two words has a cooldown of 10 seconds, at 1.4 dps per second of cooldown, it does 14 dps, which is higher, but less efficient. That make sense? Jeancey (talk) 17:12, 24 March 2013 (GMT)

I don't think so. The goal was to compare the raw damage with the cooldown time, not the DPS with the cooldown time; in our case, it's 50/30, 70/50 and 90/100 resulting in 1.66, 1.4 and 0.9 damage per second of cooldown. Also, I'm not entirely sure "damage per second per second" is correct. Elakyn (talk) 17:22, 24 March 2013 (GMT)
In that case, it does a total of 8 damage, and two words does a total of 14 damage. Three words would do a total of 27 damage. In this case, the dps per second of cool down is much, much lower. Is that correct? I guess my real question is, is it 50 DAMAGE over 30 seconds, or 50 DPS over 30 seconds? Jeancey (talk) 17:27, 24 March 2013 (GMT)
Okay I'm seeing the problem with all this. The thing is that the damages per second of cooldown is calculated according to the specific cooldown of each word, not over an arbitrary value. The goal was to see which number of words would deal the more damage over time, by repeated casting. For example, assuming that you shout as soon as cooldown allows you, on a 5 minutes period one word deals 500 damages, two words deal 420 and three words deal 270. Divide those values by 300 (5 minutes) and you'll get the same results: 1.66, 1.4 and 0.9. I'm not sure this is extremely clear, but I understand that some people my get confused over this. We should probably find an other way to explain it on the respective pages. Elakyn (talk) 17:41, 24 March 2013 (GMT)
But they have different cooldowns. What efficiency is saying is the amount of damage they do per second of cooldown, it is more efficient to use one word multiple times than three words once. Therefore, shouting for the same period of time isn't really useful, because clearly you can get more shouts in and more damage for the shorter shout. The real question is how much damage is it doing per second of cooldown. Does the damage come all at once? Or is it over time, with a total of 50 damage over 30 seconds? If it does it over time, then it might be more worth it to do a longer should, because it is actually doing more damage per second, and therefore will kill whatever creature you are attacking faster. Over 5 minutes it might not be worth it, but the majority of monsters wouldn't last 5 minutes of continuous shouting. Therefore, a shout that does more damage would be more efficient, because you wouldn't NEED to shout for 5 minutes. That make sense? Jeancey (talk) 17:59, 24 March 2013 (GMT)
Well, the damages are nearly immediate so of course using the most powerful version is recommended in nearly all situations. I'm personnaly not found of this whole "damage per second of cooldown" thing, but if we do keep it, let's make it understandable. As I said, "damage per second per second" is not correct, be it gramatically or even in concept, that's my only concern. Elakyn (talk) 18:20, 24 March 2013 (GMT)
Grammatically speaking, Damage per second per second is perfectly correct. It means that the longer the damage is applied, the more damage is being applied. It might not be correct in this instance, but grammatically speaking there is nothing wrong with it. As a real world example, gravity is usually described in terms of the acceleration. If you are falling, you speed up by 9.8m/s every second, in other words 9.8 meters per second per second. At 1 second, you are going 9.8 meters per second, at 2 seconds you are going 29.4 meters per second (or 9.8+9.8x2), at 3 seconds it is 58.8 meters per second (29.4+9.8x3). That's what per second per second is indicating. Like I said, in this case, I do not believe that to be the accurate way of phrasing it, but it is possible that it is. I just don't know enough about how the damage is calculated to make that assessment. Jeancey (talk) 18:47, 24 March 2013 (GMT)
"Per second every second" sounds better than "per second per second" in my opinion but I understand. Still, in our case we're just comparing damage over time, there is no accumulation. Anyway, we'll see what happens to all this, it may not even stay on the page. Elakyn (talk) 18:58, 24 March 2013 (GMT)