Mabinogi World Wiki is brought to you by Coty C., 808idiotz, our other patrons, and contributors like you!!
Want to make the wiki better? Contribute towards getting larger projects done on our Patreon!
Viewing a history listing
Don't give me that crap that it was released in sections/seasons overseas. As this is a North America Wiki, we should reflect patch notes based on what we got and not based on overseas content. Unreleased content can stay as is since well...we don't have it but we'll have something to base it on and edit through when the time comes. I noticed several repeats and I am only basing organization on whatever is on the front page of the wiki in the Server Updates section, and whatever was written on this page.
I believe we had an earlier discussion here. I was planning to do Project Cleanup on here and make my own userpage for it.
Also can we get rid of what patch other servers are on at the top as well as the trivia?
Not everyone has access to the foreign servers and if they do, why even bother with it? I vote removal since I do recall one of the links to the server was a 404 until I ran into it during my search for "Luck Evasion." I still hate how it works and how regardless of luck a hidden cap exists somewhere...
Looking into the nexon's official patch notes and...I don't like how it was done back in the day.
Going through the old patch notes is a nightmare...
Sounds like we're on the same page now, woo! Don't forget about the general mabi news archives which give way better details on the updates, such as seasons, than the server update box does. Even though it's a complete disaster trying to actually look thru it.
- I think saying what version number other servers are on is just stupid. That being said, I do think we should say what update title (if they're on master chef, treasure hunter, Saga 2, etc) another server is on and link to their site, like we do now. Just remove the version number crap.
- I don't think we should remove the trivia line about Pioneers of Iria being three separate generations in other servers, resulting in a massive patch in NA. But I don't necessarily think it belongs in trivia, it can go up to the Pioneers of Iria section.
- The EU note is important, I believe, because EU Mabi no longer exists and EU players have to play on NA servers now.
- I agree with merging seasons up IF we can prove that certain patches came in one update and not separate updates.
G1-11 can use some re-writing.
Should we re-write G1-14 the same way its written for G15 - Treasure Hunter?
If you mean putting everything in the spoilers and not summarizing, I think we should yea sure. If you mean something else or that and something else, can you be more specific?
Last edit: 05:13, 21 July 2020
Compare the three below:
- Generation 1 is not only redundant (listing updates outside of the boxes when they're already in the boxes in the first place) but its also unorganized. This goes all the way until around G12.
- Generation 13 is simply unorganized and randomly spits out information.
- Generation 17 is organized, using headers like "Skills", "Talent", "Other", etc.
My suggestion is to re-write G1 - G14 as like its done in this G17 example.
On a semi-related note, why do we list the release dates of these patches on the front page and not on the patches page, like we did with some earlier updates like Generation 1.
Getting around to it...the patch notes are a nightmare to look for e-e and as far as exact dates...don't get me started.
Didn't we establish G18 ≠ Saga due to lack of evidence of the use of the word "Generation" or w/e?
I'd prefer it to be g18 since that's what everyone I hear calls it, but I guess it's for the best with diva and druid updates being thrown around etc.
Popular name ≠ Correct name, lets go with whatever shit name Nexon America gave us and not add on or remove things from the title.
Anything, anyone, ever considered useless to the NA Mabi Wiki.
Trivia, Skipped Content (Removal has been voted among higher ups to avoid confusion), and stuff like (but not limited to:
- Login Screen is changed.
- Various redundancies of repeated notes.
- Combo Cards have an increased drop rate.
- Pet additions
- These things (Should be noted elsewhere):
- Warning: Choosing a later generation makes the earlier ones unable to be redone (e.g. choosing Generation 3 makes G1 or 2 not redoable). However, choosing an earlier generation makes the next one doable (e.g. choosing Generation 1 makes G2 and 3 redoable).
- Warning: "C1 Complete" means the player does not want to redo any of the old generations.
There's more random minor things that could be removed but I don't feel like looking over all of it now. Patch notes are mess as is.
The admins decided there shouldn't be foreign content? Everywhere or just this page? (Meaning we cannot make an unreleased content page?)
What's wrong with mentioning increased drop rate? Other than being possibly difficult to prove.
Also, wouldn't it be better to mention all the patches that change the login screen, rather than removing it from the ones that do? Or possibly just adding a gallery at the bottom of the page.
For now, just here in regards for skipped content. Unreleased is another story. and we have a gallery somewhere on Kiyoura's page.
Why not add a gallery to an official page?
So we're going with the G19,20,21 method previously mentioned in the other thread?. . .
Unless Nexon NA directly states "Generation #" or anything, no. Patch notes should reflect what Nexon NA says. I don't even think they used "Generation 18" but instead Sagas.
That's not what I meant, in the previous thread the G19,20,21 example was a hypothetical situation. Let me put it this way, KR got the updates in this order: Druid, Diva, Vate. NA got Druid as expected in the ocrrect order but NA never announced the other two heroes. We later get Vate, making Diva skipped content. A month later we get Diva, AFTER Vate. In that time frame between Vate and Diva, what happens to the patch notes on Diva?
The way the page is currently set up, treasure hunter and SMART content are listed as unreleased. So using your example of KR's release vs NA's hero releases, the period between the Vate and Diva patches would have been listed as:
- druid patch notes
- vate patch notes
-notice talking about future unreleased content-
- diva patch notes
- cul artist patch notes
- treasure hunter patch notes
- SMART content patch notes
So if that's the case, we would include Unreleased Content (meaning the Skipped Content section, whether or not it is actually Skipped) because Diva would then directly fall into that category. Don't think of this on terms of what's currently on the page, think of how we would handle the page in the future. We might get Smart Content next patch, then the Saga 2, then Treasure Hunter after all that. Although unlikely, things like this do and have happened on a smaller scale and can happen on a larger scale. If we remove skipped content, then that would mean removing information on Treasure Hunter if/when we get Smart Content first and not readding it until it does finally come out or is announced, which sounds plain stupid and unprofessional to me.
You seem to have a funny definition of skipped content. Future content =/= skipped content. Skipped content means, for one reason or another, things that were originally supposed to be in an implemented patch (emphasis on the implemented) were excluded and that we may or may not receive it in the future. What you're describing is getting one patch before another, in which case, we wouldn't have to worry about "skipped content", as there's no content to even skip at that point. This is the wiki for mabi NA, so obviously there are going to be differences in how things are implemented between NA and KR. Now...please explain your logic on how a change in the ordering of future major patches, which have yet to even been implemented in the NA version of mabinogi, translates into skipping an entire major patch, because you've honestly lost me at this point.
This was also mentioned in one of the earlier threads by Blargel:
You're saying it as if we are guaranteed to get the Diva update, that's falling to the fallacy of entitlement. NA could in their own right chose to have only released Druid and Vate. People are questioning if NA will ever get Ninja simply because it is JP first and not KR first, what if it was KR first and NA just never chose to release it? If we don't get the update in KR's order, we should then remove it? I honestly don't see how this is different from "Skipped Content", this is what the purpose of the Skipped Content section is, updates we may never get or have not yet got in the expected timespan.
If we get Smart Content next patch, and NA has yet to announce Treasure Hunter, are we going to remove the patch notes of Treasure Hunter from this page or move it to skipped content? That's the important question.
I can't predict what Nexon NA will do. When we get it, things will change accordingly and anything we did not get will be removed. However, if it gets implemented later, then it will be put back in, but the content will be in its proper patch as NA got it. Unreleased ≠ Skipped by any means. We either get it, or don't get it. The original intention of skipped content was that the content was not in its proper patch from its origin and has not been seen. Since it was established that Skipped Content does not exists, it simply means Nexon NA has either no intention of bringing it to disturb the balance or it was a decision from a business standpoint. I can't tell you what they are thinking, but whatever we get, we'll list, and any unreleased content we didn't get, can be left until implementation. I want to say if we don't get by the next major patch, we can remove it.
You don't have to tell me what Skipped Content's purpose was. If you look in the page's history, I was the one who added the section. (Yes I now regret using the term "Skipped" rather than something like "Unreleased".)
Ignore for the moment that definition of skipped content or what is currently in the skipped content section. You're saying if we get Smart Content patch next in NA and then the Saga 2 like KR did but not get Treasure Hunter next update, or possibly ever, we're just going to completely remove the patch notes for Treasure Hunter from this page and only rewrite it there once and assuming if NA ever announces it or does a surprise patch with it? Really?
Please reread everything that you've said up until this point, because you are either contradicting your previous statements at every turn, or pulling arguments out of thin air.
Nope, I'm saying it as if it's future content. Also, the fallacy you're looking for is the appeal to probability, which doesn't apply in this case. Funny how you try to say that I'm falling for a fallacy when you, yourself, have been using kettle logic for three threads and counting.
Thank you for repeating what I said earlier. Keeping that quote in mind, that means that it's not decided by KR when we get the patches, correct? So how would that make diva skipped content if said content was not meant to be added before the vates patch in NA? Answer: It wouldn't.
Pyro, please read the following sentences until you understand them; "This is the wiki for the NA version of mabinogi. The patches are released based on the discretion of the ones running the game, not on the release schedule of KR. Saying that content is 'skipped' solely because it was added in a patch different from the KR version is false."
As for the important question you asked: There is no more skipped content section/page. The patch notes would remain in the unreleased contents section.
Yinato, please stop. I am not referring to what your'e saying, I am addressing Lexis. I may be misunderstanding what she is saying, but by what I understand of what she is saying, she is not saying "The patch notes would remain in the unreleased contents section." like you are. She is saying the Admins have decided and the patch notes would then be removed from the page entirely until/if NA ever announces it.
I'm not speaking on behalf of our admins by no means. So far, unreleased content can stay, but skipped content is another story, as Saiyr explained.
Also, can you ask the admins to make a post about their supposed decision you said they made? Most wiki users and wiki readers cannot hear these private conversations and do not want to take the word of semiadmins, rather hear some official announcement.
I asked Kadalyn last night and she thought we agreed to remove skipped content from this page and rename it to something like "foreign content" or something similar. In my opinion, this should include "unreleased content". There was no decision on an official name.
So we keep a skipped content section just not use implicit euphemisms like "Skipped", say it is unreleased, like it is?
I'm not a fan of the word unreleased, either, because it could easily be misconstrued. But if by "section" you mean not on this page, then yes.
My opinion is that it doesn't need clever nomenclature, so it could be an article called "Content on other regions" or "Patches in other regions" or "Patches (other regions)". It's a bit out of line with the typical page on this wiki, but it's pretty normal for other wikis. I proposed "foreign content" as the "clever" name, but I don't like it too much. I just came up with the (other regions) idea, but I think I like it. Regardless, it should focus on geographical naming rather than release state.
Edit: Actually, I guess using "Patches" implies a specific article structure like this one, so maybe it's not the best. Regardless, this is a minor detail and the name can always be changed later. Just pick a name for now.
Permission to make a "Foreign Content" page immediately? Or should I wait until you guys come up with something more decisive?
What about things that were supposed to be released, but because of some bug or something, they didn't get released like the auction renewal.
That would be under skippd content unless it was specified as a bug by a nexon employee/representative.
The royal diamond leather items and the auction house are both listed as bugs.
So if we have proof of it being meant to be implemented but through some "bug" is not yet, would we then include it on this page or just the current bugs page? Assuming the answer to the previous question is just current bugs page, what if it specifically says it was supposed to come up in a specific patch (that is listed in the Patches page).
At the top of the page:
If it wasn't mentioned in the patch notes, then it shouldn't be on the page. Including things we didn't get (for whatever reason) could lead to confusion. With bugs, such as being able to place kiosks in another bag, mentioning it on the current bugs page is probably enough, but mentioning it on that specific page probably wouldn't hurt either. However, if it's something like the exclusion of the diamond leather set, then it'd be sufficient to just mark those items as unimplemented on their respective pages.
I have a minor disagreement. On occasion, a change takes place without being mentioned in the patch notes. If a change is observable, should it not be noted? (for example, at some point when the stores were updated to carry elf and giant gear after the introduction of Taillteann, they also removed several items like the Wooden Club)
The thing about those kinds of additions/removals is that since it isn't explicitly stated, one can only make an educated guess as to when it happened (ie. renaming of the Premium Adventurer Newbie Wear) if/when it's noticed. There may also be changes made that aren't part of a major patch, in which case the page would end up becoming messier since you'd then be pointing out specific patch versions.
So you suggest we strictly follow NA's patch notes, assuming they have any, and only paraphrase what they have? That would make most of this page pointless, NA doesn't go into nearly enough detail.
Once again, you're overcomplicating things and completely missing the context of a message. You asked, "So if we have proof of it being meant to be implemented but through some "bug" is not yet, would we then include it on this page or just the current bugs page?"
My post was in response to the skipped content that you were referring to in your question. Is skipped content ever mentioned in the patch notes? Nope, hence the "If it wasn't mentioned in the patch notes, then it shouldn't be on the page."
tl;dr no, that's not even remotely close to what I was suggesting.
The special inventory tab was included in patch notes, and the special inventory was "skipped" content.
@Shroom Fonzerelli - Just because something is hard to make look clean does not mean its an excuse to exclude that information.
I agree, I really want to just rename "Skipped Content" into something more politically correct but it would be wrong to add or remove anything to the section until the admins say something decisive and final.
Did you even bother reading the rest of his reply? No matter what you call it, you are referring to things that were not implemented when they were supposed to be. Who decides when they should be added, NA or KR? Saying that something was skipped based on KR will cause more incidents [this thread] to surface.
Yinato, you need not repeat yourself. Everyone in every discussion, including me, you, admins, have agreed that calling something "skipped" is incorrect and is player-opinion. However, we all agree that it is "unreleased", that neither means it will be released or will never be released. The question is whether we will include that on this page or its own page, which is a decision left up to admins, not you nor me. So please stop.
When in the name of Mother Mary who gave birth to Jesus Christ did I ever agree to renaming Skipped Content or that it was a "player opinion".
I wanted that thing gone, totally different from renaming it.
Mikaya wanted that thing gone as well and she's pretty much against any sort of Foreign Content. Unreleased is a different story however.
Kad said herself that she can't think of a good replacement for it and she was mostly up for removal on this page.
Yinato was also up with removal.
I said everyone agreed calling it skipped content is incorrect. I never said everyone agreed it should remain anywhere on the wiki or that it should be renamed. All to anything to a similar effect I said it that we all agree that such content is not released. Not that we should call it "unreleased", just that it is unreleased.
If everyone is in agreement, then why do you keep calling it skipped content? The reason why I'm repeating myself is because, although you say we're all in agreement on the matter, your comments say otherwise. And again, while you say that it's up the admins, you still continue to post why it should be on the page.
I continue to call it Skipped Content because the admins have yet to give it a new name. I sometimes call it Unreleased Content instead of Skipped Content, but that won't make a difference in discussion.
Yea you're right, I stopped and asked Lexis/the Admins to speak up, but you continue to post about this. That being said, if you reply to this, I probably will won't reply back.
He means given patch notes we should elaborate only on what was actually presented. For example a patch with a combat revamp. Simply saying combat revamp is not enough detail, so instead we state many skills have faster load times and added cooldowns. In response to mine, if something unnoted changes, it may be too messy to try to include it in a particular major update, so we should avoid that kind of announcement.
Also never call anything skipped content.