Template talk:Online Quest Header
XP "for quest" / XP "for complete poi"Edit
I've been adding XP to some quest pages, according to the values I've received from the uespLog AddOn. Now, for some of the quests, namely for the ones which complete a quest objective, one gains an additional amount of XP, called "for complete poi" by the uespLog. For example: I've added XP=452 ("for quest") to the quest page of Purifying the Wyrd Tree. The actual XP gain, though, is 452 + 575 ("for complete poi"). What are we doing about this additional XP gain which is always associated with the completion of such quests? We could simply put the sum into the XP field (1027 XP in this case), but I'd rather suggest to add a parameter like "XP gain for objective completion" to the template - it would also indicate that a particular quest completes a given location objective, and I believe the quest header now only shows which quests belong to the objective. --Holomay (talk) 18:37, 8 September 2014 (GMT)
- Such a thing would probably more appropriately belong in the {{Online Place Summary}}, as it's about the place rather than the quest. Locations can be completed by more than just quests, and quests within an Objective do not always have to be done in order (meaning, there may be no quest in particular which completes the Objective). Assuming that one location's completion XP is always the same (ie, at level 20 is the same as at level 30), this could be added to the "completion" parameter of the location. --Enodoc (talk) 18:57, 8 September 2014 (GMT)
- Not necessarily. But I think since quests have a specific level, it's quite likely, as a quest's rewards are based on that level, not your character level. The only way to be completely sure would be to play the same quest at vastly different levels to check. --Enodoc (talk) 12:28, 9 September 2014 (GMT)
- Ok, I'm going to leave the
{{huh}}template next to my upcoming XP edits, adding my level as custom text so that other users can verify the number. Could you add a completion XP parameter to {{Online Place Summary}} so we can do the same there? --Holomay (talk) 13:20, 9 September 2014 (GMT)
- Ok, I'm going to leave the
- There's probably not really any need for an extra parameter, we can just add it as another line within the existing parameter using <br>, so it would say:
| Completion | Objective 356 XP |
- I also don't know whether POI completion gives any VP in the Veteran Zones either; there are definitely some things which don't, so we'd need to find that out too.
- Similarly, we could investigate the POI Discovery XP based on level, with the aim of replacing the discoverable parameter with a value if it remains the same across levels. For example:
|
or just |
|
- Enodoc (talk) 13:56, 9 September 2014 (GMT)
- I have been adding XP and (mostly) VP points wich I gather using my own plugin to quests. When you complete a quest that clears a zone you get points for quest completion (EVENT_QUEST_COMPLETE is triggered) and points for clearing the POI (EVENT_OBJECTIVE_COMPLETED). According to this I think those points should be added to place pages, not quests. This XP is fixed in the same area. I added some of the XP I got clearing POI in a sandox.
- A couple of days ago I completed The Serpent's Beacon and the amount of XP received was the same as Hargrimm. It is a level 5 quest and my character was 13. I don't think Hargrimm was the same level (too much of a coincidence). So, it seems XP don't change with your level but need more confirmation. I am not so sure with VP points. I left some quests behind to be able to complete them in a higher VR rank and try to compare the points given with quests in the same area wich I completed with a lower rank. Unfortunately there is no way to repeat a quest with the same toon. Another "bad" new is ZOS did a good job with XP and leveling... I am never underleveled or overleveled, so I end leveling up with area changes (in VR mode) and can't really compare a lot of quests. Moinante (talk) 18:54, 9 September 2014 (GMT)
- Enodoc (talk) 13:56, 9 September 2014 (GMT)
(←) I've just finished Daughter of Giants at level 13. My XP gain was 1470, whereas the article lists 1507 XP. On the other hand, I've also finished Anchors from the Harbour at lvl 13 and received 1356 XP, which is exactly the same amount as listed in the article. Moinante, you've been adding both these numbers - did you take notes about at which level you've finished these quests? Is it possible that you've also finished Anchors from the Harbour at lvl 13, but Daughter of Giants at a lower level? --Holomay (talk) 07:45, 10 September 2014 (GMT)
- I don't remember my level at that time, sorry. I think they tweaked the XP you get with one of the patches because of complaints in the forums. For several VR levels all completed POI gave the same VP in each area, but when I started to check it I noticed a variation between POI of the same area. I think it was in July with the change from 1.2.3 to 1.3.0 Moinante (talk) 13:25, 10 September 2014 (GMT)
- I managed to get a new VR level mid area, from VR6 to VR7. I got VR7 with the completion of The Fall of Faolchu. With VR6 the amount of VP quest gave were 6080 and 9121. There was a odd one wich was 18242 VP (The Dagger's Edge). Now, in VR7 I get 7094 and 10641
- So it seems in VR mode the experience awarded in quests increases with level. The amount you get for clearing a zone remains the same (I need to clear a couple more to be 100% sure) and the amount of gold appears to be constant too. Should we add some kind of note to mark when the quest gives the bigger or lesser amount of points. A link to a table, perhaps? Moinante (talk) 12:43, 13 September 2014 (GMT)
- Holomay, I completed Daughter of Giants one week ago at level 10 and got 1507 XP. Previously I've mostly seen an agreement with the base XP on quests, without any variance for level. Haven't gotten into any VR stuff yet though. It sure is irritating not having a CS to just get all this info from. -- Hargrimm(T) 03:25, 14 September 2014 (GMT)
- So we both had patch 1.3.5 when we finished Daughter of Giants, yet I received 37 XP less on lvl 13. 3 lvls higher than the required lvl, 2.46% less XP - doesn't sound like a convincing formula to me ... :) What else could be the reason for the lower XP gain? So far, it is the only quest for which I've received different XP than listed on a page. All the Covenant storyline quests or Glenumbra side quests I did gave me the XP listed on the respective quest pages (if they were listed; if not, I've added them with a vn). I miss the CS/CK very much, too ...!
- Moinante, the VP gain difference looks more like a formula to me: 6080 = 6 * 1013.33. On VR 7 you've received 7094 = 7 * 1013.33. Also, 9121 = 6 * 1520.17, and 10641 = 7 * 1520.17. If this pattern continues, we might be able to come up with a formula like "x VP per VR" for each quest. --Holomay (talk) 05:56, 16 September 2014 (GMT)
- Having just hit VR, and still doing quests in Coldharbour, I notice the UESPlog is recording both the XP that I would have gotten for the quest, and an equivalent "VP for XP" straight after that I actually receive. Is this how the Silver and Gold quests work as well, or does it not show an initial XP? --Enodoc (talk) 08:52, 16 September 2014 (GMT)
- XP and VP are two different point system. The first one is used in regular levels and VP are used in Veteran ranks. I get the XP/VP awarded by quests, kills, etc with my own addon. Some events return only one of those values (VP or XP) and some return both of them but only one is useful. The formula Holomay suggested seems to be correct. After the last big patch the VP were:
- VR4: 4053 and 6080
- VR5: 5067 and 7600
- VR6: 6080 and 9121
- VR7: 7094 and 10641
- XP and VP are two different point system. The first one is used in regular levels and VP are used in Veteran ranks. I get the XP/VP awarded by quests, kills, etc with my own addon. Some events return only one of those values (VP or XP) and some return both of them but only one is useful. The formula Holomay suggested seems to be correct. After the last big patch the VP were:
- Yes I realize they are different systems. My point is that it is directly showing me how XP converts to VP in Coldharbour, and I was wondering if it showed the same in the Siver and Gold zones. In Coldharbour it's only converting Quest XP to VP, not Completion XP or Kill XP, whereas in Silver and Gold zones you get VP from everything. Let me just add what I've been getting from Coldharbour, and we can see if that matches up for VR1. Looks like it's going to:
- 416 XP converted to 1013 VP (Lvl 46 quests)
- 6253 XP converted to 1520 VP (Lvl 46 quests)
- 6534 XP converted to 1520 VP (Lvl 47 quests)
- 9380 XP converted to 3040 VP (Lvl 46 quests)
- 9801 XP converted to 3040 VP (Lvl 47 quests)
- 3040 matches with the 12161 you got at VR4, which is 4 * 3040.25.
- So it seems from this that Quest XP (and Gold) is based on the Level of the quest, while Quest VP is based on your Veteran Rank, and each Level or Rank has three different tiers of reward it may give. --Enodoc (talk) 22:19, 16 September 2014 (GMT)
Is the Icon parameter needed?Edit
It seems that the only purpose for the Icon parameter is for the quest icons designed by Enodoc. However, the general consenus on this discussion was that the icons weren't needed. Therefore, I think that the parameter should be marked as deprecated so it isn't added by any new users that don't know its purpose. Is there any use in keeping it as optional and not deprecated? AlphaAbsol (talk) 10:11, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
- While it was never used for the icons I designed, it does come in and out of use depending on how ZOS use icons in-game. Currently, it's indicating Solo quests and Group quests, but those are auto-defined by the quest type, so the parameter doesn't actually get used directly. --Enodoc (talk) 10:43, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
- I see what you mean. However, since those icons are only added from the quest type, do you think it should still be marked as "deprecated", since the Icon parameter most likely won't be used again? AlphaAbsol (talk) 10:57, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
- Alright, thanks. AlphaAbsol (talk) 20:34, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
type Parameter ScopeEdit
Looking at the type parameter, I realized that, although the table lists it as "required", it takes care of itself if it's left blank—that is to say, you really don't have to use it, as it'll set to Zone. As such, shouldn't it technically be listed as "optional"? gelza1Talk Cont 01:44, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry for the imprecise wording of my post—I was typing really distracted. gelza1Talk Cont 01:48, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
- Eh not really. If there's no
type, the quest is only half categorised. The only reason I set a #default was so that it didn't have bad formatting if the type was left out. So while the template will function without it,typeis still required for the template to be complete. --Enodoc (talk) 08:52, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
- Eh not really. If there's no
Journal block quotationEdit
A previous version of this template used a <center> tag wrapping a {| '' '' |} one-cell table to display a journal block quotation. <blockquote> is the element for block quotations. {| '' '' |} could be pretty chunky, performance-wise — it comes out as <table><tbody><tr><th><i> five elements, where one will suffice.
Enodoc, you mentioned something about a style change — was there a visual problem with <blockquote>? It looked the same to me in Monobook, give or take a pixel, though I forgot to check in mobile. Rigel Kent (talk) 20:54, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
- After the margin wrangling you did it was pretty close, but the top and bottom may have indeed been out by a pixel or two. For the most part though, blockquote is stylistically different on the code front from how we generally do boxes; {{Notice}}, {{Deprecated}}, {{Pre-Release}} and so on are all single cell tables. The journal entry is designed to be a similar sort of box with a text entry, not a blockquote wrangled to look like a box. Besides, I don't like the idea of using a blockquote for something that is not a 100% verbatim single quote with a cited source, since that is the purpose of blockquote. --Enodoc (talk) 21:37, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
- Weirdly, W3C almost did the opposite, disallowing putting references inside blockquotes in the HTML5 working draft. They eventually changed the spec to allow it, but it's still not required.
- That leaves the matter of using a table for something that is not a table. That was common on wikis in 2006, but nowadays has undesirable results, such as uneven borders on mobile and Google excerpting the least interesting parts of pages. Moving away from using tables to draw boxes would help with those details. Rigel Kent (talk) 01:05, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
- A table is definitely overkill here, not to mention a table in now-deprecated center tags. I've generally been moving us towards divs lately, when applicable, as I notice you've been as well, Rigel. Since I don't play ESO, I can't directly comment on whether blockquote would be appropriate or not from the semantic point of view. If we're concerned about choosing the semantically correct tag, it only takes a minute for the bot to pull a template usage list and provide an excel sheet with every last journal entry on it for comparison (which I could either upload somewhere or convert to a wiki table, though I expect that would make for a rather large page). Edit: Just looking at some of the entries, I'm not sure we can consider them all to be quotes per se, unless you want to say that we're quoting the journal. Sometimes, journal entries definitely sound like someone talking, but others, like Black Dagger Supplies, it really strikes me more as informational text than someone talking. – Robin Hood (talk) 01:26, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
- There's also things like Divine Conundrum, where there's four different journal entries and their conditions in addition to the actual text. The journal parameter is supposed to be functionally similar to {{Online Journal Entries}}, so maybe we should start there and work backwards. --Enodoc (talk) 19:26, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
- Wow, okay, multiple quotations probably have to be marked up differently. That's a good idea, let's work on that before doing the easy stuff. Rigel Kent (talk) 21:50, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
- Quotations can be speech, but can also be passages I copied from another work and didn't write myself. "It was a dark and stormy night." Rigel Kent (talk) 21:50, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
- There's also things like Divine Conundrum, where there's four different journal entries and their conditions in addition to the actual text. The journal parameter is supposed to be functionally similar to {{Online Journal Entries}}, so maybe we should start there and work backwards. --Enodoc (talk) 19:26, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Storyline ParameterEdit
It is probably valuable to add a parameter, like "storyline" where we add the storyline the quest is part of and have it display above the prev and next quests. For example Online:Danger_in_the_Holds is part of the Online:Dark_Heart_of_Skyrim storyline. It would make things clearer, and neater than using prereq quest over previous for each storyline quest. I made a Sandbox with an example (You may need to do a force refresh for it to look right, I may have gotten a little too fancy :) )--Tlupes (talk) 02:57, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
- I agree that having an option in header to show if a quest is part of a storyline is a good idea. Looking at the sandbox, I can see you are using fancy swirls to highlight the storyline part, but the right image doesn't seem to be centered on the text. OTOH it is centered with the infobox, so I don't know if centering on text would work or if it would look good.--Talyyn (talk) 03:02, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
- We already have "This quest is part of the Zone Story" further up, so I'm not entirely sure what that would add in this context which couldn't just be done by converting the Faction parameter directly into a Storyline parameter. The critical difference with ESO (unlike the other games) is that Prereq and Prev are not the same thing; a quest which comes directly Previous to another quest in the storyline may not be a Prerequisite. This is why I said the other day that if you wanted to make similar changes to this template, you'd need to be very careful to account for the differences between those two things. Before the recent edits,
prevwas labelled "Previous Quest" andprereqwas labelled "Prerequisite Quest" in this template, but in {{Quest Header}},prevwas labelled "Prerequisite Quest" (not "Previous Quest") andprereqhad a completely different purpose. The parameters can't be treated the same in both templates because they don't have the same purpose.
- We already have "This quest is part of the Zone Story" further up, so I'm not entirely sure what that would add in this context which couldn't just be done by converting the Faction parameter directly into a Storyline parameter. The critical difference with ESO (unlike the other games) is that Prereq and Prev are not the same thing; a quest which comes directly Previous to another quest in the storyline may not be a Prerequisite. This is why I said the other day that if you wanted to make similar changes to this template, you'd need to be very careful to account for the differences between those two things. Before the recent edits,
- Up until now we only listed a Prev when it was different to a Prereq; there are currently 945 Online Quest Headers which use Prereq, and only 252 which use Prev (48 have both). If you look at those which have been edited in the example quest chain - Bound in Blood → The Gathering Storm → Dark Clouds Over Solitude → Danger in the Holds - there is now no distinction between how the preceding quests are presented, despite the fact that The Gathering Storm is a prerequisite for Dark Clouds Over Solitude, but Bound in Blood is not a prerequisite to The Gathering Storm. That sort of distinction is something we can't lose. --Enodoc (talk) 22:20, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
- If the Faction parameter can be expanded/altered to include the DLC/chapter/zone storylines that would be fine. From what I can see the faction bit stopped getting use after the Psijic Order from Summerset.
- With how the new design for the quest header looks, the preq quests are above the prev/next and looks clunky if there is nothing next. I guess we could go back to filling both the prev and preq with same thing with quests that are both (e.g. most of the dlc zone story quests - disregarding the former tutorial quests)--Talyyn (talk) 00:54, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
- Would it be possible to add something that if it was marked =1 or =yes that it would note a previous quest is also a preresquite?--Talyyn (talk) 00:57, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
- Up until now we only listed a Prev when it was different to a Prereq; there are currently 945 Online Quest Headers which use Prereq, and only 252 which use Prev (48 have both). If you look at those which have been edited in the example quest chain - Bound in Blood → The Gathering Storm → Dark Clouds Over Solitude → Danger in the Holds - there is now no distinction between how the preceding quests are presented, despite the fact that The Gathering Storm is a prerequisite for Dark Clouds Over Solitude, but Bound in Blood is not a prerequisite to The Gathering Storm. That sort of distinction is something we can't lose. --Enodoc (talk) 22:20, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah I think that's a reasonable short-term solution, although I imagine the hesitation to do that already is because there are 900 instances where they'll presumably be the same thing, which seems somewhat redundant. I wonder if we can keep the previous intention (and only display them both when they're not the same) while still keeping the new design. --Enodoc (talk) 07:01, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
- I think I have implemented a reasonable solution which keeps all the intended features of both versions. As such I have reverted the edits that I noticed where you moved Prereq to Prev. --Enodoc (talk) 19:31, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah that works after seeing the update to the template.--Talyyn (talk) 23:47, 22 May 2025 (UTC)