Hi. I noticed you removed my change at Character attributes Are we supposed to only add changes related to gameplay? I went looking for this data, and I couldn't find it anywhere, so I modded the game to reveal the IDs for all the story abilities, and I thought it would be helpful for anyone else looking to add back abilities that were absent from the game due to bugs.
Hi, so with information like item IDs and such, we don't add those to amagulation pages like the attributes, quests, potions, etc. as they don't actually help with gameplay itself (so it's why you don't see us adding an Item ID column for say, the witcher 3 potions page). If there's a severe bug for a well known issue (like the Finding Junior quesst) we instead add a specific note to the related page for that (or to the infobox itself if it has a field for it). Overall we don't act as a modder guide but more for walkthrough/readers: those looking to mod the game have other sources like Nexus, the official CDPR forums, etc. for that, if that makes sense :)
Just a heads up, reverting someone's honest edits without explanation is quite rude. I've made some edits here too, and you constantly sanitize. Per Fandom policy, this wiki isn't yours; it's the community's. While I'm sure you feel you are doing your best, it's important to keep in mind how you're being percieved, not to crap on others, and most importantly: Don't just randomly revert.
Quick follow up: I strongly suggest enabling a talk page for this wiki as a whole. Most wikis have them, and it's not the same as the discussion at the bottom. A talk page is the appropriate place to discuss edits, and proposed formats.
Ah, I forgot to add the summary explanation there. For the most part, we don't need screenshots of the posters for such, which is why it was removed. If anything, using the direct game image instead would work better for those purposes, but it still doesn't really add to the page as just a short note about the posters works well for the page in question.
Also talk pages are actually on their way out as Fandom is pushing newer formats out for such.
See this page (near the bottom under Message Wall section). Basically because we enabled the message wall a few years ago, it updated itself and removed the talk pages ability. Likewise with discussions: we moved over to that (beause nobody was using the old forums section for a good year or more) and now there's no way to revert. But the tradeoff is this is cleaner (no constant nesting and double nesting of messages on talk pages) and people started to post in discussions almost right away after converting over.
Well it's just that the skill has an interesting effect. You see it does just as it says however it directly stacks with whatever damage reduction your gear has against a specific enemy type. So when using Ursin set it causes Geralt to take almost no damage at all. As the gear gives 75% damage reduction against monsters so with protective coating level 5 it goes up to 100%. Well not exactly but the damage becomes so minute that you can just ignore it, I'm like fighting the Griffin from White Orchard and put on Quen. So the Griffin swoops down on me and damages my shield by 1% on Death March XD
I wanted to ask you if the articles in the witcher fandom should be based on the books or the show, or both? I admit that I have not read the books yet. But since I am a admirer of the show I would like to edit a few articles or adjust them to the show? I ask you because you deleted my slaughter of cintra edit which was based on the show ;)
We're going off the books for most of the pages (especially as the shows have split away from details in the books. Any events that don't contradict the books is added as well (though most of the show info ends up going on th show pages). That said, the information you were adding isn't part of the Slaughter of Cintra and is actually covered already on its own page, the Battle of Marnadal. When the events are right on top of each other like that we don't add the information from the previous (or after) except just the note that it leads/or started after the events of the other battle.
I could give some tips on how to reduce the costs of crafting the grandmaster sets. Only I'm not sure where, I was thinking about the Master Master Master Master! quest article but I think it's best I ask.
Sort of, or make it a table. For instance, if you know players can buy X item for Y from one vendor versus Z at another, we could easily do a table format for it and have notes on the page to further explain it and any irregularities (like if certain quests are done that make vendor unavailable, prices go up, etc.).
That's not exactly what I had in mind, there are no better prices for Eriched dimeritium or Infused slyzard hide as only Lazar sells them. I'm talking about making pre-preparations so you don't have to fork over 34k on the materials alone. With my tips it costs around 10-15k, now thats still a lot but you can forge 2 or 3 sets at the price of one.
I have been thinking and I believe the best solution will be explaining where to get the materials on their individual articles, while just explaining what is required on the quest article. Else the article would be more about instructions on materials than a quest walkthrough.
Hi! So that's one the weird caveats/mistakes in the game: prior to BaW (and even with the expansion) the game devs still have him marked off as a higher vampire (and then when BaW came out, they changed up the definition to bring back Regis). That said, as they still have Hubert marked off as one, even if by the BaW definition he's not, we still go with the game information and just note in the notes there the error/mistake.
Yeah, I remember seeing the cutscene where Geralt refers to a Katakan as a “higher vampire” to a guard. As you said, this is retconned in B&W, where Geralt refers to katakans as being lesser vampires in a conversation with Damien and the Duchess. A bit of a discrepancy here.
B&W changes the canon for higher vampires, but I do understand the idea of having Rejk’s page referring to what he is in-game. However, I would defend my change of rewording the infobox description from “higher vampire” to simply “vampire”; the latter is more general, and while “higher vampire” may be confusing for the reader by sending mixed messages of what one actually is, “vampire” is an inclusive term for whatever he may be. The broader meaning of it suits the ambiguity of Rejk’s race.
In terms of the trivia point I changed, I agree with your point that the original game’s description of him retconning B&W’s version is noteworthy and that my change - referring to the higher vampire description as “erroneous” - did need undoing. That said, I think the existing wording of it does need altering. Something like: “As a Katakan, Rejk is considered to be a higher vampire, but the Blood and Wine expansion retcons this by classing Katakans as lesser vampires”. This may, of course, need improvement too, but I believe that the wording needs changing on this page.
So I changed it around some to add the reference into the infobox itself. The problem is (and this makes terms even more confusing) is there's 2 "grades" of vampires: higher and lower. Katakans are still considered higher grades, as are higher vampires, but while higher vampires are higher grade vampires, katakans are not higher vampires (yeah confusion!).
It seems to me like Katakans are like a middle grade of vampire - higher than Garkains and Fleders etc, but not as high as actual higher vampires. Even higher vampires seem to be different, as elder higher vampires (i.e. the Unseen Elder) seem to be stronger still and are almost like their own sub-tier. B&W certainly made vampire lore a lot more complicated!
In general, CD Projekt games originally followed Wiedźmin: Gra Wyobraźni in using "higher vampire" as a term to denote all intelligent vampires (thus excluding ekimmaras, fleders etc). This was contradictory to the novels (where there are savage ones, sapient ones AND higher ones as a distinct subrace), so they tried to correct it. That said, dozens of people worked on the game, so I imagine miscommunication might have been frequent in such cases. Mind that one of the main writers had no idea of what type of vampire Orianna should be.
Hi, so when images are added that can't immediately be verified (like if it's a real world image, concept art, etc.) we ask that it be cited correctly on the image to make sure it is official/is what it's stated to be. If you're not sure how to add the citation template to an image, you can just add the link and we can get it added to the file correctly, thanks!