Talk:Against the Charr

Bug?

- Not showing up in the Hero's Handbook for some unknown reason. Biz 11:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Shows up in mine. I think you need to have the handbook with you when you actually do the quest. Xapheus 02:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Skill captured an elite skill from 2 of the bosses (1 each) and at the end, the barrage skill is now gone from my skill bar. What gives? 71.235.184.131 17:31, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Anyone know if there's a difference in Vanguard point gain between initial completion, and repeating it? Yukiko 02:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Optional

What's the point in doing anything optional for this quest? I just did it without anything optional and I got the full reward. --Zathic 20:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

It might affect the completion in Hard Mode, or the amount of Vanguard points that you get for doing it. Yukiko 02:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't the option objectives reduce the amount of Charr in the garrison? - HeWhoIsPale 17:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the only point in doing the optional portions is to reduce the number of Charr in the garrison. If you do all the optional tasks, all that remains are 2 hexreapers, 2 seekers, 3 flameshielders, 1 prophet, and the 2 bosses, all in groups of 2. Mohnzh 01:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Repeatable

Seek Guidance from the scying pool in HoM to regain all repeatable quests!!!

I think it would be a good idea to state where to re-collect these quests as they are repeatable, as currently it says its automatically attainable upon entering the area. KaliCanaan 17:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

it is immediately added to your log upon entering. that's all there is to it.Rhydeble 18:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

It was not for me. Once you have completed it once, it does not automatically show up. You must find the vanguard helmet. Mohnzh 01:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Vanguard Helmet

Can we please put something up that tells people that you must talk to the vanguard helmet if you have done it once before? I did make that change, but it got reverted claiming that it was incorrect. The quest does not automatically add to your log upon entering the area, and it took me a while to figure out how to do it. Either include it in the notes, or more preferably add a new line to the infobox. Mohnzh 19:59, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Backsword, there is NO way (other than the obvious exception of the Scrying Pool) to get this quest without talking to the Vanguard Helmet. This follows the convention of other EotN repeatable primary quest articles that list the NPC you talk to to enter/repeat the quest.--Valshia 20:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Check your Quest Logs, Gentlemen. Backsword 20:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I have. Until you talk to the helmet, nada. Talk to it, you get it. --Valshia 20:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Backsword, I did this mission four times over the weekend working on screenshots and details. I checked my quest log EVERY time. It was never "obtained automatically". I never once got the mission in my quest log until I talked to the Vanguard Helmet. Why do you keep reverting it? Mohnzh 21:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Compare the Quest Log entry for this quest with a quest not obtained automaticlly and play spot the difference. Backsword 21:19, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Please don't be vague. What are you talking about? This quest is not obtained automatically upon entering Grothmar Wardowns. That is incorrect. It is not in my quest log. It is never in my quest log until after I talk to the Vanguard Helmet (that has the mission icon over it, just like all of the other repeatable primaries). It is exactly like every other primary repeatable quest that is given by a "NPC". You talk to the NPC, it gives you a yes/no option. You select yes and a video plays, after which you are automatically put into the quest. That is no different than any other primary quest. Mohnzh 21:28, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

"in"!="by entering". Also, try what I said and see for yourself. Backsword 21:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I already said I am not getting what you are saying. I am not seeing the difference you are talking about. Please quit drawing this out. All we need is some way to direct people on how to repeat the quest. This is fruitless if all you are going to do is revert changes and not offer any suggestions. Mohnzh 21:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Look towards the top of the entry, where it lists the location the quest was given in, just above the intial dilogue section. Backsword 21:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm totally not getting it now. All it says it that you have to examine the Vanguard Helmet to initiate the mission, which is exactly what I've been saying. IT doesn't say anything about it being "obtained automatically". Others mission may not say the quest givers name, but how does that change the fact that this quest IS NOT obtained automatically? Mohnzh 21:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Why would that matter? It's quite clear you obtain the quest from the helmet. --Valshia 21:47, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

(Reset indent) If words are not enough, perhaps some pictures will do? vs . Spot the missing bit? Backsword 22:08, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

So what? That is for a quest, not a repeatable primary. Look at all of the other repeatable primaries on the wiki (that you did not set up) and you will see they all give the location for repeating. Also, they have the same format in the quest log. Mohnzh 22:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

That is because they too are automaticlly obtained. Backsword 22:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

No they are NOT. They may be given automatically the first time, but not when you want to repeat it. You are vandalizing other pages rather than taking part in discussion in order to give the appearance that others are following your format, when they are not. Every other primary repeatable quest on this wiki gave the location for where to repeat the primary until you changed them. Why are you removing pertinent, useful information? Mohnzh 22:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

PLease don't make false accusations. It does not further consensus. It is especially silly on a wiki where people can just check the article history. (As in this case, where it was added by Gordon.) I'm not interested in such a mode of discourse. Backsword 22:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm refering to the change you JUST made to Curse of the Nornbear after I posted my screenshot. Yes, I checked the log, that's how I know it was you. Regardless, this is totally avoiding the whole point. The information of where the quest is obtained for repeating it ought to be on the page and I asked you initially for your input. Instead, you ignored my request and reverted someone else's change when they agreed with me, rather than discuss it. Check out the wikis policy on reverting and you will see that that was not a proper course of action. Just because you think it should be one way does not mean you should revert it. If you are not interested in discussion, then do not revert. Otherwise, PLEASE give me input on how we should format repeatable primaries so that we can give the information on how to repeat it. That is all I want. Mohnzh 22:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Backsword, no matter what the quest log says or doesn't say you still need to go to the helmet in any event to get the quest. This is true not only on repeating the quest, but the first time as well because you get the quest from accepting the reward for Search for the Ebon Vanguard from the helmet as well. I'm sure these are facts we can all agree on.

Now, under the the normal definition of obtain it should be clear the the quest is obtained from Vanguard Helmet. This is true even if the normally relevant part of the quest log is blank. Therefore, we should list Vanguard Helmet as the quest giver. This has some advantages over "automatically obtained". It is true in the general case, not just the first run through. And it is informative to players who wish to repeat the quest but don't remember where to go. --Valshia 17:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

As this discussion is pertinent to more primary repeatables than this page, I have initiated discussion on the quest formatting talk page. Let us continue this there. Mohnzh 20:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've already shown you a screenshot proving my point. If you don't want to believe your own eyes, nothing I write is going to sway you, is it?

As for 'informative', if you think something would be useful to readers, add it to the notes section. After all, that's what the note section is for. Backsword 11:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

*sigh* Since when is quest log more definitive than the actual actions you need to perform in-game to fulfill the quest? It's not like there haven't been errors in the log before. In the face of the contradicting evidence your screenshot is irrelevant and proves nothing. If that one screenshot is your only objection to listing the helmet as the quest giver, then you are really picking nits here. --Valshia 18:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Backsword, I understand what you were trying to show me, but that is not in line with current formatting policy which says that you list the NPC from which the quest is obtained (but says nothing about the quest log). It is not even consistent across all repeatable primaries. For example, the Elusve Golemancer does not say the quest name in the quest log, it says Rata Sum. Regardless, if you want to continue this discussion, it needs to be discussed on the quest formatting talk page. If you oppose this suggestion, make it known there so we can get an idea of consensus. I attempted to sum up both sides from an NPOV standpoint. I seriously do not want to be involved in a revert war, so I ask both of you to be patient until more input is given. If you desire, we can specifically request arbitration. I hope that won't be necesary. Mohnzh 18:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Whilst bugs do happen, if you are claiming there is a group of bugs that conspires to make this appear exacttly as if they were X while they in fact is Y, the burden of evidence is on you. The default is to assume the game is correct, as that's the case in the vast majority of situations.

I've added the disclaimer since this clearly is disputed, but, again, this should read as not bugged until it is shown to be. Backsword 15:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Again, until you take part on the formatting discussion page for ALL quests, please quit going against consensus. There are no dissenting opinions on that page. If you would like to add one, please go ahead. Until so, we ought to adhere to what the consensus is on the formatting guidelines. The point is that all of the different primary repeatable show something different. This is one of the issues that came with the developers not really getting a chance to clean it up. It is not a "bug" per se, but an inconsistency that exists in the game. The quest formatting guideline specifically says to list the NPC from whom the quest is obtained. That wouuld be vanguard helmet. Again, if you persist in a revert war and going against consensus reached on a discussion page which you have had plenty of opportunity to take part in, this will be taken to higher authority. Mohnzh 15:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I've clearly the stated evidence above fulfilling the burden you claim I have and see no reason to repeat it. I've made every effort to understand and address your points in this discussion, and I would expect likewise. While reliance on the quest log is understandable, it does seem incomplete. --Valshia 15:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

If you have evidence, that's great, as it would resolve this. But I'd like to see it first. Could you procide a screenshot, as I did. Backsword 16:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Backsword, the issue has nothing to do with what is in the quest log in the game. Please do not avoid this crucial issue. The point is what is listed as formatting guidelines. "Obtained automatically" is not listed as an appropriate format. You either leave it blank, or list the NPC that initiates the quest. As the NPC is Vanguard Helmet (how many times have you initiated this quest without talking to the Vanguard Helmet?), that is what ought to be in the infobox, as per the guidelines. This is the case for all repeatable primaries. None of them list the NPC in the quest log, however, you still must interact with one in order to receieve the quest. According to formatting guidelines, that NPC should be listed in the infobox. If you disagree with the formatting guidelines, disagree there not here. Your argument is not with us, but with current guidelines. Mohnzh 16:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Backsword, you seem to have missed [1] and [2]. Are you are factually denying that you must interact with the helmet to start the quest? If not, then whether the in-game actions or the quest log has priority is an issue of preference, not fact, and should be taken up here. --Valshia 17:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

~

(Reset indent) Prerequisits or objectives are not the issue. Quest giver is- And all ingame data points to automatic. Which would be why Gordon put that in. Again, if you have evidence there is a bug that causes this, I want to see some sort of evidence from the game. Backsword 17:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

(BTW, try talking with the Scrying Pool)

This discussion belongs here. To revert again is to do so against consensus and formatting guidelines until you are willing to take part in this discussion with the rest of the community. This is not only an issue regarding Against the Charr. Mohnzh 17:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

A Possible Explanation

It occurred to me that there may not be a quest-giver listed in the quest log simply because you can receive it from more than one NPC. The first time you must receive it from the Vanguard Helmet (which it gives you at the same time as the reward from the previous quest). Subsequently, you can receive it from either Vanguard Helmet or Scrying Pool. You must talk to the Vanguard Helmet each time (even if it is already in your quest log), this is why I propose that it should be listed as quest giver; but as was said on the quest formatting talk page, I would suggest that Scrying Pool be listed in the notes because it is an alternative quest giver. Would that be satisfactory to you? I hope we can resolve this as it is critical in the formatting of all repeatable primaries in EotN. Mohnzh 17:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Removing Tag

Being that:

1. there has been ample time to reply,
2. a consensus (which is different than unanimous decision) has been reached by all but one editor,
3. this has been discussed on the formatting guides, and
4. the article as a whole has no issues being disputed, but only one piece of information in the infobox

I am removing the "disputed tag". If someone disagrees with this move, please return it once you have posted your reasoning here and (if applicable) on the quest formatting page. Mohnzh 17:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, let me stress that if you believe that the disputed tag belongs on this article discuss it here. As it stands, there is no ongoing discussion over disputed material.
What exactly is being disputed? It is a known fact that you must interract with the Vanguard Helmet to initiate the quest, so how is that disputed? Is what is being disputed what should go in the infobox? In that case, the consensus on the quest formatting discussion page is that the NPC (as is stated already in the quest formatting guidelines) should be placed in the infobox (as it currently is). Mohnzh 18:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Mohnzh, and, in fact, can we delete the whole pointless, unedifying wrangle that caused the disputed tag - it seems to me to be not worth remembering--Son of Batman 20:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I have several points to make. It is not consensus if one person is not agreeable. A consensus is not something that cannot be overturned or challenged once a decision has been made. But I also agree that the disputed tag is likely not warranted, since the disagreement is more one of presentation rather than information inaccuracy. (EDIT: just to clarify, I'm making this comment as an editor)

Despite there being agreement that this quest (and others) is automatically obtained the first time through, I'm not actually seeing any attempt to edit the article to explain such, despite the long discussion above. It does not help move towards consensus when one party is interested in only removing what the other party added. Both sides must meet in the middle. When both points of view are valid and acceptable, the simplest solution is to just put both in. There is no right or wrong here. It doesn't have to be 100% technically accurate and it doesn't have to be 100% guidelines conforming.

Since the formatting talk page has users preferring to list a clickable NPC link in the infobox, let's leave it as Vanguard Helmet. A clickable link on the infobox is undeniably more useful than one that is not clickable. Put the fact that it is slightly different the first time into the "Quest information" section. Don't put it in notes, it's just too far from visibility for something that is important to players who hasn't done this quest before. Just add something like: Note: This quest is automatically obtained the first time through. and be done with it. (And this doesn't need to be back-propagated to the guidelines just for the sake of it.) And finally, as for the part about the Scrying Pool (I didn't know about that!! lol :D), that is info that's better of in the notes section. Again, I don't see that anywhere... let's not let these disputes between well-meaning contributors keep useful information out of articles. -- ab.er.rant 05:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I was primarly considering the issue of it being OK to repeatedly remove the disputed tag from a disputed page.

Reverting is alos why I could not add the info to notes, as suggested by me originally.

As for the original issue, it's been a while and I don't remember the details, but it was a dispute about facts; Valshia claiming to have evidence the quest was obtainable from the Vanguard Helmet despite what the game displayed. (And thus not automaticlly upon entering the questzone). Backsword 07:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I know, I didn't think Mohnzh was in the wrong. I see it as 1 edit, 1 revert, 1 revert. Then I proceeded to read up on all that's happened regarding it (and got carried away). As for the automatically accepted thingy, I don't think Valshia was claiming that the helmet gave the quest, just that the helmet is the interaction necessary to acquire the quest, or at least, to trigger the quest's automatic acquisition. That's why I mentioned technicality. It's really a matter of whether we want to be technically correct as per the quest log (that's sometimes not technically correct unfortunately), or whether we want to be err... "perceptionally" correct. Could it be that the "Given by" phrase is part of what's causing your disagreement? -- ab.er.rant 09:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, could you or Valshia or Mohnzh should just add in all those notes that's been mentioned left and right? I personally haven't repeated any of the EotN primaries (too lazy and too bored, heh), so I'd rather not add it in and get it wrong. -- ab.er.rant 09:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Eh, could you clarify what you mean here? Could should? Backsword 11:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Either. I'm just here hoping someone more knowledgeable than me on repeatable primaries add what I've read to be rather useful and valid info onto the relevant quest pages. The revert issue is not a deterrent to this. -- ab.er.rant 05:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, all reverts are edits, but the way GWW:REVERT defines revert is pretty close to my own; do you disagree with it or do you think it's not met in this situation?

I read Valshia differently, as he claimed to have evidence for it actually being the helmet, tho' it's a bit silly for us two to discuss his thoughts, he can explain it himself, if he wants.

It is of course hard to say what someone would consider "perceptionally correct", as it is entirely subjective. The helmet is a prereq in only one way (out of three), and only one of many prereqs, so I'd guess it's mostly misleading this way. Then again, given the subjective nature, any value would be so. Some less than others, perhaps. I'd think that if people were interested in prereqs, then they'd read that section in the article.

Hmm, had another point, but I forgot it... Backsword 11:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it's not met. I agree that perception is entirely subjective and may not convey the meaning that was intended. It's just that I also feel that it's just better for the infobox to point a user to the helmet with a link rather than explain that it's automatically accepted. Having a reader misunderstand that the helmet gives out the quest (regardless of whether that is correct or wrong) is better than a user misunderstanding that the quest gets added to his log automatically without any interaction from whatsoever. And yep, I agree that they'd most likely go ahead and read the quest information anyway so the point about which of the two goes into the infobox is becoming more a question of what sort of first impression do we want to indicate of a quest. -- ab.er.rant 05:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Hmm, I'm principally interested in precedent,so I'd be interested in why. Since you agreed that the article was disputed (as I found obvious) it should be one of the exceptions, but I can't see how they'd apply. I'd also like to seperate these issues somehow. Perhaps we could move on to another page or section? Backsword 20:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I might agree with your position in that dichotomy if I didn't think it false; neither of those options are any good and there are other options, such as giving a full explanation for those interested. No, that wouldn't fit in the infobox, but a link should. It should also be noted that the value in the infobox is transcluded in DPL lists, so the value can't be partailly true, standalone, as it will then have no accompanying explanation there. Backsword 20:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

From what I experienced, the first time you get the quest, it is automatically added to your quest log. But as with all primary repeatables in EotN, you must interract with an NPC to initiate the quest (ie. cutscene, and modified explorable). This is true regardless of how you get the quest in your quest log. When I was first repeating this quest, Vanguard Helmet was not listed anywhere on the page, I did not know about the Scrying Pool (it also wasn't mentioned), and it took me two hours to figure out what I had to do. Hence the change to Vanguard Helmet in the infobox. Since then, I now recognize that there are three ways to obtain the quest (as Backsword mentioned), and in all three ways the Vanguard Helmet must be interracted with. I still believe that this is an issue with all primary repeatables, and not just this one, which is why I took it to the quest formatting page to begin with. Would it be better to change the infobox to "quest initiated by" rather than "quest given by" since there are three accurate possibilities for the latter? Mohnzh say what? 17:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

My apologies, took a break from the wiki. Since my name is being brought up, I'll say that ab.er.rant's interpretation of my argument is largely correct. I also find his proposed compromise acceptable. --Valshia 19:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Huh. Bloody odd to claim there are bugs and that you have evidence for it if you thought it was correct all along. But at least we have agreement of that, then. Backsword 19:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Yea, "Initiated by" sounds good. Does that mean NPC pages should say "Quests initiated by" as well? Hmm.... -- ab.er.rant 03:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

In either case, is it something that needs to be fixed in the infobox template, or can it be done manually? Mohnzh say what? 14:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

It cannot be done manually, it must be adjusted in the infobox template. I would think that the "initiated by" tag should only apply to the EotN primary quests (they are essentially the "missionss" of EotN). The NPC pages do not have a "quests given" tag (at least for those involved in EotN primaries), but they do have a "quests involved in" section which I do not think needs to be changed. They might could be improved, but I do not see anything readily that would not become obtrusive. I think creating an adjusted infobox template for the EotN primaries would be sufficient. Mohnzh say what? 14:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The "Quests given" is the optional part of a NPC's "Quests" section (or was it the "Quests involved in"?... can't remember which). It is being used on NPC pages, just not the ones in EotN I suppose. I'll go mention it over at the infobox page. -- ab.er.rant 17:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Scrying Pool

I added the Scrying Pool to the notes sections. If I could get a few thumbs up on the wording (or if someone wants to change it), I will copy and paste it into the notes of all the other primary repeatables. I will try to do some research to improve the Srying Pool page. It's navigation menu in-game is not easy to get around. Mohnzh say what? 17:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Just an additional word to indicate that it's an extra way to get the quest. --Valshia 19:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Translation

While I applaud the effort taken in providing this page in two languages, is there a less unwieldy way of presenting it?--Son of Batman 13:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

The anon who added it was just unaware that we're an English wiki. -- ab.er.rant 02:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Quest Giver

The whole reason i clicked on the Discussion tab is because I'm having a hard time understanding why the wiki does not give such a very vital and pertinent piece of information as where/how/who to obtain the quest from.

I don't understand why every single quest entry does not give you the NPC name/location of the quest giver.

When someone asks me if I completed a quest, I have no idea how far off it is for me. Just looking at the preceding quest does not help me. I have to travel back quest by quest til I come to one I've done? If it told me the NPC who gives it and their location, I could then look at the map and see how far away I am from that quest. Also it's just makes sense in a description of a quest, to list the quest giver(s).

Anyway, I thought it was interesting that there happened to already be discussion about this, though it got too catty for me to be able to read it all. How do we fix this?

First off tag your posts with the tilde's. Second, the "quest giver" is the Vanguard Helmet found in the Grothmar Wardowns or the Scrying Pool in the HoM (if repeating). --The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.235.184.131 (talk) at 16:31, 3 August 2012 (UTC).

( I tagged the post, just broke it into sections and forgot to re-tag this section. 71.235.184.131 16:58, 3 August 2012 (UTC))

Skill cap

That shit is impossible. When you kill him the mission ends. what the hell

Repeating the mission in HM

I've got a better way of repeating this mission in HM. Instead of going south-east, like the guide says to do, wait for the near charr group. Kill them on the bridge and then head towards the fort. You will encounter 2 groups of charr before the garrison. It takes me 6-9 minutes to complete it this way. --Monolito 11:37, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Mission or Quest

I think the discussion needs to be had, is this a quest or a mission? There is a mission flag on the map, the "mission map" name changes to the mission/quest title, which it doesn't do for quests, that I remember. When doing quests, the map name shows what area you are in. Also, if memory serves, there are not many, if any, missions that you can repeat. This has elements of both quest and mission. Which one is it? 71.235.184.131 16:31, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Been doing research, and it appears, that unlike missions, you can activate res shrines as well as being able to zone out of the map area. 71.235.184.131 16:35, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Time traveling anomaly

While working on this quest (or mission, whatever the heck it is), Pyre was outside of Longeye's before I started it, making me wonder how that can happen, since a big part of this thing is freeing him. (Added that to the notes/anomaly section.) 71.235.184.131 16:43, 3 August 2012 (UTC)