When equipped armor is weightless, duplicates are too?

[bsammon]

So, today I had the opportunity to pick up two pieces of Nordic Carved Armor in a short period by killing off the leaders of two different bandit bands. At 37 pounds/kilos apiece, I was concerned about being overloaded.

I was surprised to learn that since I was wearing Nordic Carved Armor, not only did the piece I was wearing not count against my carry limit, but neither did the two others I had picked up. And if I unequipped that one, my carry load went up by 111 pounds/kilos because suddenly all three of them were added to my tally.

Now I'm a little unclear on whether equipped armor is always excluded from your carry load, or if this is an effect of one of my perks (or the steed stone benefit I have in effect). But having all three armor pieces excluded definitely seems like a bug. I wonder if this is documented in the wiki. I'll have to go digging around there later.

This is on Nintendo Switch Special Edition (which means no mods except what comes with it).

[bsammon]

Places in the wiki where I would expect this to be mentioned:

• Skyrim:Carry_Weight

[bsammon]

Later, I tried to use this bug/exploit/whatever to make 12 Forsworn armors be weightless. It didn't entirely work this time. I could get the inventory display to say I was carrying less than my carry limit, but I still moved as if encumbered.

Not sure if this is because the Forsworn Armor is light armor and I have less light-armor perks than I do for heavy-armor.

[Satribe]

There is a bug listed that the “Unhindered” perk will cause this. Perhaps you could make a note under carry weight (because that’s where you notice the bug) and then link to the cause of the bug on the “Skills” page.
https://en.uesp.net/wiki/Skyrim:Light_Armor#Bugs

Apparently also true for the heavy armor “Conditioning” perk.
https://en.uesp.net/wiki/Skyrim:Heavy_Armor#Bugs


P.S. I think I added a bug on carry weight that is also listed as a bug on these two perks. Just noticed because of this forum question. Being encumbered after loading a save. Have to work now, but I’ll try to address that later.

Apparently it was deleted for this very reason. But I agree with you, this is where you notice it, so it makes sense to at least hep others find the cause on this page. Perhaps you could add them together and link appropriately to cause pages. That’s how I would proceed. Your thoughts?

[bsammon]

P.S. I think I added a bug on carry weight that is also listed as a bug on these two perks. Just noticed because of this forum question. Being encumbered after loading a save. Have to work now, but I’ll try to address that later.

Apparently it was deleted for this very reason.

I took a look at the edit history for the Carry Weight page, and I can't find an edit by you that was deleted. Did you do it with a different login from "satribe", or as an anonymous user?

I did, on the other hand, see your edit where you removed a paragraph about a follower carry weight issue. I must say, I don't really think it was an improvement. I don't see the benefit to a slavish adherence to a "no repetition, ever" policy. Especially when we don't have a "canonical" location for the specific item. If we had a "bug tracker" of some sort, and all pages where the "follower carry weight" issue is relevant could link to the "bug-24166-about-follower-carry-weight.html" page, then I might feel differently.

[Satribe]

I must have still been asleep and dreamed I saw that. I did however prepare my notes in the discussion (Talk) page. (I like to include a bit of testing notes before adding a bug.)

Oh my! I wouldn’t really call it an improvement. But I would call it consistent. If it’s duplicated info, it WILL be deleted by someone. And quite often without any regard to why someone is putting the bug in “this” place rather than where someone else placed it at an earlier date. After struggling with that quandary, I’ve taken the path of least resistance. (I hate having my work destroyed.) I can’t say I completely understand it, but I have seen enough notes to understand that this is more an issue when a game is new. These {{Bugs}} are tracked somewhat systematically with the intent of them being answered systematically. This way if one editor has already spent a large amount of time to respond, you don’t have three other people wasting their time answering the same question someplace else.
So if those with higher authority don’t want bugs duplicated, I’d like to avoid editor battles. Referencing a bug seems, at minimum, to cover all bases.

Also my wording felt terrible. I wrote that on my phone on my lunch break. Feel free to improve it.

[bsammon]

So if those with higher authority don’t want bugs duplicated, I’d like to avoid editor battles. Referencing a bug seems, at minimum, to cover all bases.

I would agree on the "if those with higher authority want it". But do you have any reference to somewhere where someone with higher authority actually said this?

Sometimes these arguments get fought between people who both/all are low authority, and they get "won" by people who yell the loudest, or have the most free time for edit wars, instead of actually having authority.

I'm not asking you to change it back, per se... but I may try adding it back myself, and see what happens. If you don't have a pointer to an official ruling somewhere.

[Satribe]

You have been warned.


It’s the sneaky edits that get you. 2 years later, and an IP address cuts your edit due to duplication. They are correct, of course, so it stands. (The moderator people are pretty good at keeping nonsense at bay.)

I tend to enjoy working on somewhat controversial minor topics. Everyone has strongly engrained opinions because no one has been able to back it up yet. So mine will get picked to pieces if I don’t take care to cover my bases and ensure I’m appeasing the potential naysayers.

But I’ll admit waiting a few days If an IP cancels me. You know, to make sure I don’t have a knee jerk reaction….and make sure they’re no longer watching, before I fix it again. If I was actually right; of course.

[bsammon]

It’s the sneaky edits that get you. 2 years later, and an IP address cuts your edit

Yeah... I'm not new to wikis.
Fortunately, two years from now, I'll be done with Skyrim (and Elder Scrolls 6 still won't be out), so I won't care.

[Satribe]

Fortunately, two years from now, I'll be done with Skyrim (and Elder Scrolls 6 still won't be out), so I won't care.

That’s probably true, but I started Skyrim over 10 years ago and I keep coming back. I only started because my son asked me for help with the Lunar Forge. He had an in-game book that mentioned its connection to the moons, but never noticed anything different. So I spent my first month of Skyrim starting a game and running as far east up the mountains I could climb; then simply recorded lunar data. Conclusion: it’s just a story. However, the Skyrim skybox is very interesting. I proved a couple YouTube videos wrong about how Masser and Secunda actually circumnavigate the planet. And the original 2011 release and the Legendary Edition start at different stages of the Lunar cycle. Absolutely pointless information … I loved every minute of it.

[Satribe]

I wasn’t looking, but came across this.

“Handling duplicate information” on the wiki.
https://forums.uesp.net/viewtopic.php?t=39057

No point. Just funny.

EDIT later that day
I believe this is the general location that describes what I was trying to convey about referencing is preferable to duplication.
https://en.uesp.net/wiki/UESPWiki:Styl ... Redundancy
/EDIT

[bsammon]

I did a wiki edit yesterday(ish) that made me think of this thread.

I was reading the wiki article on the Speech skill and saw a reference to a bug that would/could get triggered if a merchant has more than 32767 gold. I'd never heard of this bug before, and I've never had occasion to replicate it. The details weren't very clear in the Speech article, but there was a better explanation in the Merchants article In this instance, I felt that the largish paragraph about the bug was too much for copying-and-pasting from the Merchants page to the Speech page, and the Merchants page was the best candidate to be the "canonical" location for a description of this bug, so I adjusted the Speech article to have links to the bug description in the Merchant page. This also turned into an opportunity to discover the Anchor template which provide a means to make an anchor target for links to a specific section of an article (in this case I set up links to a specific section of the Merchants article).
I had to give the anchor a name, so I chose "16bitGold" for it -- we'll see if there's some wiki-crank out there who objects to that name.

In this case, the item met two criteria I felt were significant to justify de-duplication:

1. The text in question is sufficiently long (I'd put the threshhold at 2 medium sentences)
2. There's a clear/obvious choice (or a consensus/vote in a discussion page) about what should be the "canonical"/primary location for that text.

[Satribe]

I didn’t look too hard, but which discussion appears to make a conclusion about where the bug should be listed? It appears more discussion is on the speech skill page because of recommendation for leveling speech using merchants can reach a bug point with the merchant.

So my opinion only. I have no authority, and I’m not changing anything. It’s clearly a Merchant bug and not a speech bug. Therefore the bug belongs on the merchant page and only a minor mention directing to the bug is necessary on the speech page because it only affects those that will utilize the comment on using merchants to level speech. It’s okay if you disagree. I’m not trying to be dismissive and like I said I’m not changing anything. But it is good to hear other reasoning other than my own, so, I’m glad you shared it.

[bsammon]

I didn’t look too hard, but which discussion appears to make a conclusion about where the bug should be listed?

In this instance, there was no discussion. I felt that this one had the "clear/obvious choice" thing going for it.

It appears more discussion is on the speech skill page because of recommendation for leveling speech using merchants can reach a bug point with the merchant.

So my opinion only. I have no authority, and I’m not changing anything. It’s clearly a Merchant bug and not a speech bug. Therefore the bug belongs on the merchant page and only a minor mention directing to the bug is necessary on the speech page because it only affects those that will utilize the comment on using merchants to level speech. It’s okay if you disagree. I’m not trying to be dismissive and like I said I’m not changing anything. But it is good to hear other reasoning other than my own, so, I’m glad you shared it.

Yeah, we agree here. The merchant page already had a good bug description, so the only priority for me was to add a link to it in the Speech page. I suppose someone with a more strict de-duplication policy would trim the mentions in the Speech page, but it didn't seem necessary to me.

[Satribe]

Sorry; I was reading and responding on my lunch break. I need to stop doing that.

[bsammon]

Probably less likely to cause indigestion than facebook...