User talk:Vethrian/Swordplay

Shields?

You forgot to mention one of the key disadvantages of the claymore - lack of a shield. While you can block with the sword, it's not nearly as effective as a good shield, plus that's one less item with a potentially useful enchantment you can carry. --TheRealLurlock 01:07, 20 August 2006 (EDT)

Who needs shield when you can completely avoid enemy attacks with longer reach? 129.65.102.130 15:39, 16 August 2007 (EDT)

That doesn't change the fact that a shield could still hold a good enchantment, like constant effect or something.

Rename?

Why not just make this page cover all melee combat? The only parts in this page that are specific to swords is the descriptions of the weapons. It would be pretty easy to add in info about blunt weapons there. The rest of the stuff on this page is applicable to all melee weapons, so it might as well be expanded. Maybe even a brief mention of Hand to Hand tactics would be in order. --TheRealLurlock 16:31, 8 September 2006 (EDT)

yeah i had thought that it would be better if it had minchend more weponsGUM!!! 01:50, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Using perks explained

I'd like to know how to use the melee skill perks! I think such an explanation would fit well into an extension of the article, since the usage of the skill perks and their effect on the combat are not yet described.

• Mastery Power Attacks: I know of the basic power attack (just hold left mouse button a bit longer), but whenever I try to use the Mastery Left/Right/Backwards Power Attacks, I miss the enemy, which hits me in return. I feel like a ballet dancer who throws himself into the arms of his partner, but my partner let me fall to the ground.

• Actobatics Dodge perk: I may be stupid, but I have not yet managed to dodge. I am supposed to make an avoidance roll with holding block and jump forward, but I am always jumping. An explanation of how to do this would be helpful. Is it only the order of the keypresses, or what else?

well do you have the skill preks? for instance you have to have a acrobatics skill of 50 to dodgeGUM!!! 01:53, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Move/Integrate This to Hints/Combat

This only mentions swords, not blunt, hand to hand, bows, or magic, with the exception of "magic to assist swords." It is aggreed it has many errors. I think this should be removed from the Main Page and intagrated with the Combat section of Hints, or at the least moved to hints, as it belongs there. It should also be cleaned up to remove biases towards all non claymore style fighters (even your hands, even a dagger, mages are different, etc.). It has no place as a replacement for the entire combat article. Colloquism is rampent in it. --Dylnuge 22:39, 24 October 2006 (EDT)

I agree, from what I've read of the article, it seems to contain a lot of bias and or unneeded information. — Unsigned comment by Ratwar (talk • contribs)

I agree too - needs to be merged with Combat Hints and/or rescoped. Also I unknowingly duplicated some of this and added some new information to Blades skill. I'll work on linking that and maybe try to consolidate some of this, but if anyone wants to help I think that would be useful. — Unsigned comment by 139.169.218.182 (talk)

I think it needs to be carefully merged to Oblivion:Blade instead of the other pages mentioned, as it would me more on topic there and easier to integrate into the page's style. --Aristeo 14:30, 1 November 2006 (EST)

I still say the majority of information on here applies equally to Blunt weapons, though. With the exception of the descriptions of the weapons, there's not much difference. I think it should be somewhere like Oblivion:Melee Combat or something. --TheRealLurlock 14:59, 1 November 2006 (EST)

Okay. "Melee Combat" sounds like a nice place for this article, as long as it will be reworded to match the subject. If this is something we want to do, we would probably want to move the article first, then post a "cleanup" template on the top describing what needs to be cleaned. --Aristeo 15:42, 1 November 2006 (EST)

I'd be in favour of moving the page to "Melee Combat" and rewording it so that it is equally applicable to blunt and blade (and where appropriate hand-to-hand, too). The few chunks that are blade-specific could get moved to Blade. I'd also suggest that some of the melee combat discussion on Combat should get merged in with this material, and change the "combat" page section to more of an introductory discussion that links to "melee combat". That's my opinion. The biggest problem here is probably just who is willing to do it... I personally have never figured out any of the fine details of doing combat (power attacks, using third person view, etc), so I'm not too comfortable with a major rewrite. (Besides, whenever I feel up to major rewrites, I always have glitches waiting for me). So is anyone willing to volunteer to at least start the ball rolling? --Nephele 16:50, 1 November 2006 (EST)

I've made a start. I have so far removed a few unnecessary sentences and I rewrote a lot of 'Suggested enchantments' in the 'Daggers' section. By the way, I'm new here (: M'aiq 12:07, 10 January 2007 (EST)

Welcome to the team! Thanks for starting to tackle this. One thing that might help alot is adding more links to other pages where some of the points are discussed in more detail. For example, in "Enchantments", adding links to each of the pages that discuss the individual effects would be great (each effect has its own page, all listed at Oblivion:Magical Effects). Not that I expect you to already know all the pages on the wiki, but if there are any cases where you know that there is another page on the topic, feel free to add a link! Thanks! --Nephele 12:37, 10 January 2007 (EST)

Yes, I am aware of that. When I have removed the huge amount of unnecessary sentences and made improvements to others, I will start providing the proper links. One of the best things about any wiki article is the fact that you never stop reading at a certain article, and that's neglegted here. I am now working on. Thinking of merging Long and Shortswords because the differences are marginal. M'aiq 12:55, 10 January 2007 (EST)

The Progress

Well, I've cut out most of the repetitive information, removed/corrected/merged a lot of sentences and made things shorter and easier to read. I don't think it's finished, but it's already in much a better shape. Now going to provide links- I'd like it if a few people had a second/third/fourth opinion about the article and make suggestions, as one can't see everything himself (: M'aiq 14:26, 10 January 2007 (EST)

Oh, and Nephele, I think it would suit you to improve the listing of all the 'Can Include:' stuff in the 'Fighting Different Opponents' section, since you just made that thing in your Sandbox (: M'aiq 15:16, 10 January 2007 (EST)

Yep, if I ever get around to any of my grand plans on creatures and NPCs, those links would all get updated :| In the meantime, links to Creatures and Dungeons could be used. And to be honest, given the rate at which I'm making progress on my projects, it's probably best to create links to the pages that do already exist than to wait on me. Although occasionally nudging me with reminders about those half-started projects never hurts :) --Nephele 16:17, 10 January 2007 (EST)

The linking is now complete. Maybe there are a few other minor things (please add them!), but most of the article is now covered. I think I'll leave it this way (: I'd like to remove the cleanup template now, does everyone agree? M'aiq^{M'aiq thinks talk serves no purpose.} 12:46, 18 January 2007 (EST)

Vethrian's Comments

(moved here from main article)

I have decided to take this guide off of the UESP. I feel that it has somewhat drifted out of my possession because of the many alterations that people have made to it. Many users on the talk page act like it's theirs and not mine. I am also angered that the staff would not let me include my name in the guide anywhere to show that I made it. I have saved the guide on my computer so that I can post it back on here later if I wish. Overall, I believe that this guide was not meant for the wiki. It's made for the Official Elder Scrolls forum where it remains mine and un-edited.

Vethrian 21:41, 21 February 2007 (EST)

It's unfortunate that you did not take more time to understand the wiki process before submitting this content to the page. Part of the fundamental nature of the wiki is that all articles are collaboratively written. All articles are free to be edited by everyone, and are therefore considered to be written by the community. Because everyone contributes, the article is not fundamentally owned by any one person. The page history provides full details on who wrote what, so adding individual contributors' names to the article is redundant. The decision to not include your name on the article was not a personalized decision; it is part of general site policy and is applied equally to every other article on the site.

When you posted the initial material, there were multiple warnings about how the process works. Under every edit page it states that "You agree to license your contributions" under our license, and "Note that all contributions to UESPWiki may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors." It further emphasizes in bold face "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then don't submit it here." (And I confirmed that these statements were all present even when you made your initial contributions on August 19th; you can check yourself in the history of the relevant pages, Mediawiki:Copyrightwarning, Mediawiki:Copyrightwarning2, and Mediawiki:Edittools).

Furthermore, the copyright and ownership states that "you retain ownership of any contribution you submit to us, but you permanently license the right to use it to this site" (emphasis mine). (And again, this policy was already in place last August). So, yes you do own your original contribution, namely this version of the page.

The problem is that the article currently displayed on the wiki is not your article any more. As you can see from this comparison, the article has been substantially revised (and that comparison doesn't include many even earlier revisions made by other editors; it's just from the last time that you edited the page before today). You do not have ownership or control over any of these modifications. The many editors who worked on this page did it under the understanding that the page was a permanent part of the wiki.

In other words the very same reason that makes you want to remove the article from the site is also the reason why it can't easily be removed from the site. Each of the editors who has contributed to this article has just as much say as you do over what happens to the article; in fact the entire community (including people who haven't directly edited this page) is welcome to provide feedback on what is done with any article.

Legally, the copyright policy makes it clear that the site has the rights to continue to use this article, so I have reinstated the article while this discussion is pending. If you would like to take your original contribution and post it as originally written elsewhere on the web, you are completely within your rights to do so, and to use whatever name you would like for that article. However, the most recent revision of the page falls under the site's copyright license and cannot be freely copied elsewhere: per UESPWiki:Copyright and Ownership, "the text of the articles can be copied, modified, and redistributed as long as the new version acknowledges the authors of the article and grants the same freedoms to others". In other words, everyone listed in the page history is considered to be an author of the current article.

It seems like a straightforward solution here is for you to continue to distribute the original article as "Vethrian's Guide to Oblivion Swordplay", while leaving the modified version as UESPWiki's "Swordplay" page. The two will probably continue to diverge from each other as time passes. I really hope that this is acceptable to you; I would like to find an amicable way to resolve this issue if possible. If anyone else has any feedback on how to proceed (especially anyone more fully versed in the legalities of copyright code), I'd welcome their input, as well. --Nephele 00:22, 22 February 2007 (EST)

Well then, I guess I was wrong. I shouldn't have submitted it here in the first place if it's just going to be edited into something that it isn't. 67.101.160.76 01:06, 22 February 2007 (EST)

Vethrian, you promised that you would license your work under our license and copyright policy. This isn't just a legal obligation, this is a moral obligation. A lot of blood, sweat, and tears have been poured into your article to make it better, and it isn't fair for you to come back after four months of hard work and suddenly tell us that you want your article to be taken down. If you would have told us that you wanted your article taken down before we put all this work into it, your request would have more likely been enacted.

As for the rest of you, I highly suggest you meditate on what the right thing would be in this case. Would it be right for us to delete the article to adhere to the wishes of Vethrian and destroy the work that has been poured into this article by other members, or would it be the right thing for us to keep the article against the wishes of Vethrian and respect the work that so many editors have put into the article? Keep in mind that Vethrian still owns the copyright to his article either way, so he can do what he wants so long as he doesn't limit our rights to it. --Aristeo | Talk 04:16, 22 February 2007 (EST)

Before we get into discussions about 'legality' and copyright, we should think about Vethrian's reasons. His most important reason is that it's 'his': he is angered by the fact that he wasn't allowed to stamp his name on it and that other people 'acted like it's theirs'. The second reason he mentioned is that he thinks 'he shouldn't have submitted it here in the first place if it's just going to be edited into something that it isn't'.

My thoughts:

The guide has not substantially changed. Almost all content has been preserved, or at least been changed into something that still gives the same information. In my eyes, from the day it was uploaded to now, it has only been improved (this is somewhat backed up by the fact that its cleanup template is now gone). It has not been made into something different: all the info in the first version is still present in the last version.

The only reason still standing is the fact that Vethrian wants his name stamped on the article, or otherwise clearly stated that it's 'his' article. I don't really think that that is enough to make way for deletion. Should an article, submitted last August and since then improved by many different users, be deleted because the original submitter wants his name mentioned? And if that isn't enough: Edit pages state clearly: You agree to license your contributions under the Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 License (see UESPWiki:Copyright and Ownership for details). Note that all contributions to UESPWiki may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. and If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then don't submit it here. M'aiq^{M'aiq thinks talk serves no purpose.} 13:50, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

EDIT: Sorry if the above sounds a bit harsh. What I mean to say is that the solution Nephele suggested (Vethrian keeps his own version, we keep the modified version on the wiki) is probably the best one. Nuff' said. M'aiq^{M'aiq thinks talk serves no purpose.} 03:52, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Dont feel down mate, im sure the people editing mean well! The Edit solution will enhance the page not destroy it, so relax lad--Willyhead 12:27, 13 June 2007 (EDT)

M'aiq seconds Willyhead and thinks assuming good faith is a very good thing (: M'aiq^{M'aiq thinks talk serves no purpose.} 13:35, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

Cleanup

Just wondering... have we decided what we want to do with this page? I mean, I take it that we're keeping it, but does it still "need cleanup?" --GuildKnight 18:22, 27 February 2007 (EST)

M'aiq did a lot of work cleaning this up (or at least was the most recent person to take a stab at it), and suggested that the cleanup tag was ready to be deleted. I just didn't have a chance at the time to really read through everything and give any feedback. I can't see anything that still warrants the cleanup tag, so I'll delete another one for you ;) --Nephele 00:07, 28 February 2007 (EST)

spell stacking enchantments

I'm not sure if the info on this page is definately confirmed, I ask because some of this info is also on the useful enchantments page and I'm trying to ensure it's validity. If you have Weakness to Magic and Weakness to Fire/Frost/Shock and then that damage all in one weapon and you repeatedly strike with it does it have the effect of spell stacking? Specifically the effect of exponential damage caused by spells with different names, or is it simply going to double or triple the next strikes? I was under the impression that it would effect the next strikes within the timeframe of the effect but not keep doubling itself as real spell stacking does. Is anyone sure about this? Grandmaster z0b 23:14, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

When I went to try it out, I think it worked for me. At least, the guards in Imperial City fell like Mudcrabs (: Also, I think you can logically argue that it works. You strike once, get the Weakness effects and the damage. You strike the second time, you get the bigger weakness effects and bigger damage, because the poor soul you're bludgeoning still has the effects from the last strike. I'm not entirely sure though. If someone else would try it out, or if we could find Vethrian (the guy who originally thought of it), it'd be a great help (: M'aiq^{M'aiq thinks talk serves no purpose.} 02:28, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Yeah anecdotally it seems to work, especially if you have both Weakness to Magic and Weakness to (whatever damage your doing). I think we still need someone to do some real testing, if you cast a spell with Weakness to Magic and Weakness to Frost and Frost Damage 20 points multiple times on the same target it doesn't spell stack I think so I'm not sure if it would logically work with weapons. Grandmaster z0b 22:38, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Uh-huh, well, M'aiq thinks we need a geek! M'aiq^{M'aiq thinks talk serves no purpose.} 03:34, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Ah, good question. M'aiq has it right. You strike once, get the Weakness effects and the damage. You strike the second time, you get the bigger weakness effects and bigger damage. I had this tested with a few friends. I'm not sure about it's game playing purposes though. Many people frown on spell stacking. It does work however. Vethrian 23:42, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

Power of Claymore's range

While the range is negligible when you fight against enemies that's capable of blocking, it has a great advantage against those that don't block (aka non-humanoid creatures). It's very effective against ogres, whose heavy hits almost guarantee you to stagger. You can keep swinging your claymore while backing off in a straight line at walk speed, you'll see the ogre miss it's attacks 90% of the time. 129.65.102.130 15:25, 16 August 2007 (EDT)

Bad idea

Health regeneration is the best asset to have, since it enables you to continue fighting, but those spells can exact a heavy toll on your magicka reserves. Therefore, using dodge tactics or blocking the enemy's attacks while casting a few quick healing spells is not a bad alternative.

Your magicka regeneration stops when you're casting. So it's better to cast a single long duration spell than multiple short duration spells, even if it cost more. 129.65.102.130 15:37, 16 August 2007 (EDT)

Upgrade Swordplay article?

I think this article is a little small to be put in depth guides if anything, editors should just rename to the whole article to "Combat- Everything you need to know about combat in oblivion." Should keep the swordplay and melee articles but can also add a Magic section about the very diverse magic types and spells and how to make them most effective, and an archers section about bows and area to hit for max damage. I just think swordplay isn't the only form of combat, and there isn't anything about magic and Marksmanship. This article can be the base of combat in oblivion after lots of editing. Comments? Western3589 17:54, 3 November 2007 (EDT)

I did suggest over a year ago that this article should be expanded to include blunt weapons as well as blades, but there wasn't much (err... any) response. This article was originally for the most part written by one person, who took great offense when anyone else tried to edit it, even going so far as to delete the entire article when he didn't like the alterations other people had made to it. Given the furor that this page had stirred up, I decided it was easier to just leave it alone, though I do agree that it still needs work. This problem is common with most of the pages in the "in-depth guides" section, since they generally begin life as the pet-projects of a single editor. If you want to re-vamp this article to include more stuff, feel free. There's definitely room for improvement. --TheRealLurlock ^Talk 19:02, 3 November 2007 (EDT)

I'd suggest reading over the rest of this talk page, from which it should be clear that there have been a lot of ideas about what should be done with the page. Also I wanted to point out that there already is an article on Combat, so this article can't simply be renamed to Combat, although it could be merged in with the existing article.

Basically, changes to the article would be welcome, but it might be worth becoming familiar with what else has been said and done before diving in. --Nephele^Talk 01:58, 4 November 2007 (EDT)

Redundant

It seems to me this article is somewhat redundant. Most of the information can be found on the Oblivion:Combat article, and a whole page solely dedicated to only one style of play strikes me as unnecessary. I understand this page was designed as an in-depth guide, but I consider this page more as a personal walkthrough than anything else. I also understand editing this page was somewhat controversial back then, and was therefore left alone for most of the time. I consider this page up for deletion. Thoughts? ^Talk Wolok gro-Barok _{Contributions} 19:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes i think someone should propose it for deletion most of the information is on Oblivion:Combat--Thedrunknord 22:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Any further thoughts on this? ^Talk Wolok gro-Barok _{Contributions} 22:17, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

mabye but then put the stuff that isn't on the combat page but's here on the combat page...--GUM!!! 01:56, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

If someone is willing to go through the page and verify that everything here is also on another page, then they can go ahead and prod it. The concept of a separate article in this instance only encourages redundancy. --GK^talk2me 01:14, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Now then....

What do we do with this article? There is some unique information here, so I am rather loathe to propose it for deletion. How about a poll? Do we keep it here, and expand it, Leave it alone, or delete it and incorperate its information into combat? 184.77.194.254 06:13, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Some user would need to take any unique information on here and put it on the combat page. --Arch-Mage Matt ^{Did I Do That?} 18:17, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I propose moving it to the Combat page. Cirith Mara 03:19, 27 August 2010 (UTC)