Thread:Mechemik/@comment-37377389-20181104052601/@comment-37377389-20181104190436

Ah, glad that we can get on the same page on this, and thank for clearing up what's a bulled points.

About the third point in my last post, the one about "mutually-exclusive". Firstly, those two cases that I "broke" format is not because I feel like it or didn't know better, it's because like in Coleman's page, the info it's giving out is just facutally incorrect, it's not about format really.

Let me explain this with examples from the "Phases" section of Vizima Confidential.

Right now, the phases in question looks like this:

For convenience, let's call them "Phase V" and "Phase M".

By saying "Phase V or Phase M", emphasize on the use of word "or", it naturally indicates they are mutually-exclusive and all the possibilities you can get is like this:

1. Previous Phase --> Phase V --> Later Phase

2. Previous Phase --> Phase M --> Later Phase

While in fact, this is not true, the possibilities we really get is this:

1. Previous Phase --> Phase V --> Later Phase

2. Previous Phase --> Phase M(require condition) --> Phase V --> Later Phase

This is what I mean by saying they are in fact not mutually-exclusive yet the wording makes them appear so. It's not about format, it's about "corrects the wrong", and just so happens the correct info clearly does not need to use a format like before.

As to What Lies Beneath, it's even more complicated...

The phase in question looks like this:

Like before, Let's call them "Phase C" and "Phase A".

Notice the condition text I've marked with red rectangles.

They are mutually-exclusive in logic, clearly you can't know and not know something at the same time. Like before, the implied possiblities are only:

1. Previous Phase --> Phase C --> Later Phase

2. Previous Phase --> Phase A --> Later Phase

While in fact, these two phases also have relationship with previous and later phase that can't be ignored, making the total possibilities 2*3*1-1=5:

1. Previous Phase --> Phase C --> Phase A --> Later Phase

2. Previous Phase --> Phase A --> Phase C --> Later Phase

3. Previous Phase --> Phase A --> Later Phase

4. Phase A --> Phase C --> Later Phase

5. Phase A --> Later Phase

So, in both of the quests, the real situation can not be explained accurately with the current format, which pretty much only implies mutual-exclusivity. I hope this explains my reasons better than last time? It's also something that I would like to hear your thoughts: Does a preferred format style to explain this kind of situation even exist? Because if you ask me, I think it's better to just separate them as ordinary conditioned phase but write more accurate conditions.

You see, this is why I'm pretty much asking you to trust me and "observe, inform but not directly intervene" as of right now. How would you know my reason if you see another "format-breaking" edits of mine? Am I correcting factually wrong info or did I simply forget / not know about the format? It would be really tiring and counter-productive to have to go back and forth with my edit as well as having to explain my reasons in detail evey single time, which create unnessary work on your part, too. I hope that at this point I've made the impression that I'm not here to troll, and I treat evey single of my edits seriously with verifiable proof. Like I said before there are more stuff I haven't edited because I havn't had the time to verify them myself.

This should conclude everything left I think. Apologies on the long ass wall of text, but I do prefer to clear everything out once and for all, otherwise I really can't continue my work.