15,030 Pages

The Crimson Eagle

aka Crimson Knight

Discussions Moderator

MainTalkBlogsSandboxSandbox IISandbox IIISub-pages


Hey, Crimson. I've seen you've been absent for quite a while -- I wanted to check in and make sure you're doing alright. How're things? I hope you're planning to rejoin us soon. Hope to hear from you! DarkFeather Raven's NestRaven's Hunt 04:21, February 2, 2017 (UTC)

Hey there Cream. Hows things old friend, life treating you well? (Sorry for piggy-backing off of this Dark :>) --Fragment -Animus- 18:33, February 2, 2017 (UTC)

Apologies for the absurdly late reply, but I am doing well, thank you. I think I might start being active here again, as I have nothing but free time right now, and I've recently gotten back into the series. I finally got around to finishing Unity last month, and I'm mopping up side activities before I get Syndicate. --Crimson Knight Intercom 20:57, July 26, 2017 (UTC)

Weapon articles issues

Hey Crimson Eagle, so since you said that you're the one who handled most of the weapons articles, I was thinking perhaps you and I could just discuss some of the unresolved issues and resolve them given that no one else seems interested enough in the matter or ever responded to discussions I set out about them.

1) I noticed at Common Sword that you have already decided on one of the issues, that is whether an article should concern a specific model of a sword or whether it should concern that type of sword in general. You chose the former, and I'm fine with that precedent. I think my only hesitation about that route initially is that I thought having to proper noun the names was a bit awkward grammatically even though it'd be correct if they're about specific models.

However, I'm not sure if that necessarily should be the case with all weapons, such as some of those in Unity. For spear, I have already chosen the article to represent spears across all media, not just the specific Spear in Unity. We should also remember that there are also weapons in novels and comics too, not just the games.

A compromise might be to have both articles on the weapon in general and articles on specific models of weapons, so Spear in general and Spear (Unity). This would resolve the confusion over how at this point, it would probably be better to have an article about pistols or flintlock pistols in general, but then flintlock pistols of different games are different models. (I personally find that the article firearms is simply too broad).

2) I might add here that I am firmly opposed to our practice of using articles that represent general categories titled in the plural. Part of this is because it's a bit arbitrary now. For example, we have firearms in the plural because users argue that it's a "group" as opposed to more specific weapons, but "pistols" can also be argued to be a group. As well, the distinction between what constitutes a group/category and what does not is purely a gameplay element—the examples brought up by one of the editors being mercenaries—and also we have extended this practice to many articles in general, a group or not, such as foxes and eagles. Moreover, anything can be "grouped".

Are maces general enough to be a group? What about long swords since there are several types? I think that it is arbitrary to say that "firearms" is 'groupey' enough to be in the plural, but more specific guns are not, such as pistols, even though there are more specific types of those as well. I think we should just go by Wikipedia or Wookieepedia's practice of not arbitrarily assigning each specific things as a tier in categorization (e.g. would tables be on the same tier as firearms?) that warrants pluralization. We originally had this practice to emulate the way of classification in Assassin's Creed games, but they are not consistent across all media. Unity, for example, distinguishes "rifles" and "pistols" rather than having the category "firearms". Just like there is an article on blaster, articles on blaster rifle and blaster pistol, and an article on DC-15A blaster rifle, not to mention an article on lightsaber, double-bladed lightsaber, and Anakin Skywalker's first lightsaber, we should just have an article on "firearm", an article on "pistol", and articles on specific models of pistols. We shouldn't feel like we have to have two exact tiers: a "group" one and an article on the specific model of a weapon in that group. This is too limiting for our articles to represent the reality and is not the practice of any academic source as far as I know.

These are the first two issues off the top of my head. I think there are more though. Sol Pacificus(Cyfiero) 05:50, August 11, 2017 (UTC)

I like your idea on having Spear and Spear (Unity) as separate articles, as I think that's a fair compromise. We do have a Long weapons article though, so that should be considered here. As for the second issue, I have no objection with changing articles to say "Pistols", "Rifles", or whatever have you instead of "Firearms". That sounds good to me. In my defence, when I wrote those articles, pistols were the only firearms we had, and I didn't think we'd get rifles in Unity. I also don't mind if we create articles for Rifle and Pistol, since we do have a Blunderbuss one, I think. As for titling articles in plural or singular (as in Swords, Blunt weapons, Firearms), I don't have much of an opinion on that matter. I can see justification for using plural and singular, so I'll just roll with whatever it is we use. There'd be a lot of redirects for me to fix though, if we revert to singular. --Crimson Knight Intercom 11:57, August 11, 2017 (UTC)

Hey I just wanted your quick opinion on this. So I've figured out the weapon stats for the weapons in Unity, and there's one parameter that I think we should include in the table which is the rank of the weapons. I'm wondering if in table I should use asterisks for the ranking or a numeral. The official name by the way I think is "Level" not "Rank" though I think "rank" clarifies what its gameplay function better. Here is an example:

Level Damage Parry Speed Range Cost Modifiers
** 2 2 3 4 250₣ Additional damage: +25%
Level Damage Parry Speed Range Cost Modifiers
2 2 2 3 4 250₣ Additional damage: +25%

I know using a numeral would be consistent with the rest of the table, but the Level is actually a parameter aside from the other stats and represented by number of diamonds in the game. I was thinking maybe using the asterisks instead would more accurately represent that its aside from the four parameters that indicate the actual stats of the weapon. Whereas the four stats determine the quality of the weapon, the level or rank is determined by the quality of the weapon or the stats. Sol Pacificus(Cyfiero) 02:00, August 28, 2017 (UTC)

That looks good to me. And yeah, I think using asterisks might be more accurate. I'm sure casual readers will be able to understand it, so it shouldn't be an issue. Excellent work; this is something I wasn't able to figure out myself (though admittedly I hadn't tried very hard). --Crimson Knight Intercom 14:18, August 28, 2017 (UTC)
There's actually an issue that complicates matters. According to the tutorial entry, the maximum score is out of 6. However, when you look at the meters, its clear that 4 is the midpoint. Furthermore, what is supposedly the max score of 6 is twice the size as the score for 4. What is supposedly the score of 5 seems to be two steps up from 4 compared to the distance between scores of 3 and 4 or 1 and 2 or 2 and 3. Since in the main game, there are no weapons that have scores of 5/8 or 7/8, with level 5 weapons jumping in stats from 4/8 to 6/8 and 8/8, I surmise that they decided to just say 6/8 = 5/6 and 8/8 = 6/6 even though the meter does not reflect that. Their error is more apparent when the Dead Kings DLC does actually have weapons with stats of 5/8 and 7/8 if you count the progression of points, but taking the tutorial entry by its word, it would mean that these weapons actually have stats of 4.5/6 and 5.5/6 even though its clear from looking at the size of each advance in the meter that it's actually 5/8 and 7/8. In other words, the tutorial entry is wrong. There's clearly 8 points in the meters. This is all so confusing, and I thought that we should explain it, so initially, I actually explained it in a note for the weapons, as can be seen here. However, I'm afraid that might be too pedantic, so I removed it. I'm not sure if it's necessary to explain, but if readers somehow knew from the game manual that the maximum score is actually said to be 6 not 8, they might be confused. I think that cutting down the explanation won't make it clear enough though. Sol Pacificus(Cyfiero) 23:11, August 28, 2017 (UTC)

Well, that's confusing, and annoying. In my opinion, we should just go by what the game tells us, and ignore what the game guide and tutorials tell us, if they contradict everything like this. --Crimson Knight Intercom 18:18, August 31, 2017 (UTC)

Games list

Going through that list of games you have on your userpage, might I take a moment of your time to highly suggest you get the Witcher games, or at the very least The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt? -- Master Sima Yi Clogs 14:07, August 11, 2017 (UTC)

Well, you wouldn't be the first. I'll look into it at some point, but I haven't had an awful lot of time for games this year. I've been busy with other things. I've only recently finished Unity's main story, and I don't own Syndicate yet. From what I hear about it, I'm not even sure I want to. --Crimson Knight Intercom 13:06, August 12, 2017 (UTC)
That's fair. For what it's worth, I enjoyed Syndicate way more than I did Unity. The game doesn't take itself too seriously, which works to its benefit. -- Master Sima Yi Clogs 17:49, August 14, 2017 (UTC)

I actually didn't dislike Unity too much. I think my negative feelings at launch were due to the fact that it was quite messy at launch, and series fatigue. Since I took two years away from the series before sitting down and playing the game properly, I think it was easier for me to enjoy. It has its problems, for sure, but it's not a completely awful game. As for Syndicate, I suppose I'll just have to wait and see; I might actually enjoy it, and it's mostly the subreddit that is making me feel uneasy about it. --Crimson Knight Intercom 15:18, August 15, 2017 (UTC)

Alexios and Kassandra Equal

Alexios and Kassandra should have equal respect when it comes to story.

I did research into Greek history and there is no historical records of female heroines except for gods, not even demi-gods, in spartan culture the only way a woman could be given a headstone when she died was to die during childbirth because that was her dying in service to the state and the only reason women had a vote in spartan culture was to give there house a vote cause there husbands were away fighting wars. In Athenian culture women had no rights they could not vote, go to plays, or speak without the permission of men, women in all greek cultures were not allowed to compete in or even attend Olympics games. So it just doesn’t fit well to me yet when you go onto Assassin’s Creed Wikia they refuse to acknowledge any of this and say the developers have said that Kassandra is the Canonical Character because she’s the person that is being followed in the book yet when you look at many other novelizations they have followed other people other then the characters you played like Blackbeard, Haytham Kenway, Elise de La Serre, and Henry Greene so i dont see her being the canonical character as a good reason to wipe Alexios completly from being the main character in the game. So I feel what ever information you guys add to Kassandra's page it should also be added to Alexios' page for both to be seen as the main character. unsigned comment by AndyC89 (talk · contr)

That's all well and good, but if Kassandra is the canonical protagonist of the events of Odyssey (and she is) then that's what we've got to stick with. For the sake of writing, if nothing else. --Crimson Knight Intercom 14:44, October 1, 2018 (UTC)


What do you mean, "The memory articles need updated then"? The date is right there, in the Memory Infobox of Fall of an Empire, Rise of Another: Date 46 BCE; 15 March 44 BCE; 17 March 44 BCE. And that's all the dates said memory features. In the memory's dialogue part, it also specifically states "Two years later" when it's Ides of March, and "Two days after" regarding the scene with Cleopatra and Ceasarion. Sadelyrate (siniath) 19:54, October 6, 2018 (UTC)

I confused Septimius with Flavius. That's all. --Crimson Knight Intercom 20:01, October 6, 2018 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.

Fandom may earn an affiliate commission on sales made from links on this page.

Stream the best stories.

Fandom may earn an affiliate commission on sales made from links on this page.

Get Disney+