OK, had a look at those pages. I bookmarked the SI one for now and did the changes for the UOP one:
The perfectionists among us thank you!
I wanted to post a quick reply on all of those you decided not to implement, but of course it's your decision.
Battle Axe of Fracturing. In every weapon set Dwarven and better, the four Blade weapons have generic Disintegrate Weapon versions, and the four Blunt weapons have generic Disintegrate Armor versions. The only exception is the Glass set, which is missing this weapon.
In order to fix this I'd have to create the item, add the LL0 leveled list and add that into the higher-order one. I'll leave this one.
Yeah, I can understand your hesitation in adding weapons of dubious value. That said, I've already added the weapon, leveled list, etc. in WEPON so you could just import them from there
The point is, the Oblivion generic magic weapon sets are all complete except for this one.
Arrow of Hexing. This is the only ammunition found in the Construction Set that does not exist in-game.
I'll leave this one as well; there are other arrow sets that don't have a damage or even drain magicka effect entry. It doesn't have an LL0 leveled list entry either; if it did I would definitely say it was an oversight and put it in.
That's fair. I debated what to do with this in WEPON as well. In the end I included it, because I decided that if Bethesda left it in the game resources, they probably intended to include it in game. And I wondered if the empty arrow leveled list (which UOP removes) was meant to be for this arrow. I also figured more variety in enchanted ammunition wasn't a bad thing!
Generic magic weapons missing from NPC weapon lists. These weapons are missing from the LL1NPCStaff2Greater100 used in NPC inventories: Greater Staff of the Weary (missing from list entirely), Greater Staff of Corrosion (missing from level 17 of the list only).
Greater Staff of the Weary is a member of LL1NPCStaff2GreaterLvl100, which is a member of LL2NPCStaffLvl100, which is carried by 4 NPC's. Not unused, just not random loot. Greater Staff of Corrosion is a member of 4 LL0 lists, including that of liches. Also not unused.
Is there anything that indicates that they should be a member of any others? Otherwise I should just leave this one.
It is true that Greater Staff of the Weary and Greater Staff of Corrosion are both available in-game to NPCs. However, they are not available as frequently as weapons appearing both on LL1NPCStaff2Greater100 and LL1NPCStaff2GreaterLvl100. I would argue that Bethesda meant to include these two on Greater100, since they are both on GreaterLvl100, and all other "Greater" staffs appear on both lists.
Soul Trap Weapons on NPC weapon lists. The NPC Battle Axe weapon lists include Soul Trap weapons, while the NPC War Axe weapon lists do not. Soul Trap enchantments provide no benefit to NPCs (NPCs will not recharge their weapons even if they are carrying Soul Gems), so these Battle Axes likely are erroneous additions.
I wouldn't get rid of these as I have been in battle with an NPC who used a soul trap effect on the player and it's rather creepy. Adds to the game that they can do things that you'd only expect from the player.
Fine with me! Though if you do leave the Battle Axes alone then I'd recommend
adding the War Axe equivalents to their leveled lists. (UOP does add a few, but not all of them.) It doesn't make any sense to me that the Battle Axe Soul Trap weapons are available, but not the War Axe ones.
Claymore of Jinxing. The Unofficial Oblivion Patch renames this weapon Claymore of Curses. This is likely a mistake.
Nope... well, not to me at least. The Curses items use the 30-magnitude enchantment but the Jinxing ones use the 20. This was a Jinxing one that used a 30, so it either had the wrong enchantment or name. To not weaken it as this wasn't necessary, I changed the name instead.
Battle Axe of Jinxing, Claymore of Jinxing. The Unofficial Oblivion Patch erroneously assigns these weapons the same enchantments as ...of Curses class weapons.
The Claymore unmodified has the 30-magnitude (Curses) not 20 (Jinxing) enchantment so the UOP renamed it to "Claymore of Curses".
Claymore of Jinxing. The Unofficial Oblivion Patch assigns this weapon more charges (1600) than most generic Silver magic weapons have (800).
You're right. I wonder why I thought it was half what it should have been. All of the others are 800. Back it goes.
Here's the reasons why I think the WEPON fix for this weapon are more in line with what Bethesda intended:
- All other silver Damage Magicka weapons are in the "...of Jinxing" class, with 800 charges. The only "...of Curses" weapon in vanilla Oblivion is an Ebony Bow, with 1600 charges. If this weapon is moved to the "...of Curses" class then the Silver group is missing one weapon.
- The UOP fix requires two changes: the weapon's name, and an increase from 800 charges to 1600 (though you did just undo the 1600 charges). My proposed fix only constitutes one change: the enchantment itself. That fix also brings the Claymore in line with all other Silver weapons.
That said, I can understand your thinking on this! I just believe Bethesda screwed up the enchantment, rather than both the name and the charges.
Mace of Doom. This weapon, which is not normally found in game, is incorrectly characterized as a Bladed weapon.
This item was never supposed to be seen by the player as with the whole area it's in, so fixing it would be like arranging tree placement outside the invisible borders. I'll leave this one.
Speaking of which, I do have some floating rocks in Elsewyr you could work on...
Rugdumph's Sword. Most enchanted Silver Claymores have the same base gold value as their unenchanted counterparts. This weapon, however, has a base value of 125 gold instead of 130.
Fixticated. Changified five-fold to one-thirty-point-nilification.
I find myself completely lacking a response here
Arrow of Cleansing, Arrow of Fire, Arrow of Hexing, Arrow of Immolation, Arrow of Jinxing, Arrow of the North Winds, Arrow of Savage Frost, Arrow of Silence, Arrow of Stillness, Arrow of Storm Strike, Stormcall Arrow. These arrows have random enchantment values, and, because enchantments factor into a weapon's gold value, these arrows have gold values that frequently exceed higher quality arrows, or lag behind lower quality arrows.
I don't see the problem... they all have the same value as their base unenchanted counterparts (which you indicated was correct above: "Most generic magic weapons have the same base gold value as their unenchanted counterparts".)
Well, I'm using bad terminology here. First, I should have said "random charge sizes", not "random enchantment values". Second, "base gold values" and "gold values" mean two different things to me. The base gold value is the value of the unenchanted version of that weapon/ammo, and the gold value is the base gold value plus the gold value due to the magic enchantment & charges. So, what I'm saying is that, even though the BASE gold values of all of these arrows make sense, the random charge sizes of these arrows make their final gold values...well, random. That's why in-game we frequently find fairly weak enchanted arrows that are more valuable than much stronger enchanted arrows.
For example: the Arrow of Stillness (Silence 20sec, Elven Arrow base, 156 value) is worth more than the Magebane Arrow (Silence in 10ft for 20sec, Daedric Arrow base, 147 value). This is because the Arrow of Stillness' number of charges is so much higher than the Magebane Arrow's. Setting the Arrow of Stillness' charges lower gives it a more reasonable gold value relative to Magebane.
Most magic staves have a Reach of 0. This can cause game crashes, especially in heavily modified games.
The bow reach crash/BSOD was immediately noticed by thousands of people right after Oblivion was released. It's also an engine fault caused by division by zero so is unaffected by mods (unless of course they change the bow reach!) It would also happen repeatedly and immediately whenever the player or an NPC equipped a bow with zero reach. Never seen anything on this in five years for staffs. I'd need some evidence showing this happens, otherwise have to conclude it's incorrect.
Yeah, I think this was an unnecessary change on my part! Arthmoor & I previously discussed it, and now I agree there's no reason for it in UOP.