Talk:Caudecus's Manor (story)
Surely this'd be better left as a stub article ready to have more information added, than deleted? I presume this is a known location within GW2, therefore this article represents factual information (however small and/or seemingly insignificant)? Or is there a bit of gw2wiki practice and procedure that I've missed? Darke 23:00, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
- As far as I know, stub tags here are for pages where more information is available but hasn't been accumulated (especially relevant when the game is released). We simply don't know much about this dungeon. --ஸ Kyoshi
00:37, 29 August 2011 (UTC) - I could have sworn we had a page for this a while back. Did it get deleted a while back and recreated by a silly IP? --ஸ Kyoshi 00:39, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
- Seems to have been remade by a random IP, as I recall seeing this page before somewhere too. That being said, without a list of "YOU CAN'T ADD THESE PAGES BECAUSE <et cetera>" I imagine it's fairly commonplace to see some pages remade that have already been deleted, thus my suggestion to keep the page but stub tag it, instead of actually making a list of pages to not be remade, which would just get extremely long. Constant remaking and deletion of pages, that are known to contain purely factual information, but aren't quite as informative as we'd like them to be due to a lack of actual information available seems like an arduous task. Dunno what exactly one would do about the "not enough info accumulated" as opposed to "lack of existing information" in terms of page tagging, does a more suitable page tag exist (excluding deletion)? Darke 02:27, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
- It's not like adding a page or two once every few months to the list of pages that the mods have to delete would make much of a difference. Also, there is no suitable tag for a page without enough info to be considered a page. The only solutions would be to leave it, or delete it. Either way, not much is changing. I'm in favor of deleting, simply because that's been our modus operandi for awhile, and I don't think it needs changing. -
02:51, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
- We know its a dungeon; we know it will need to return eventually. We can just state it is a dungeon, tag it as a stub, and leave it until we have good info. Aqua (T|C) 02:51, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
- I don't even necessarily see the need for a stub tag, but that depends on how we define stubs; I was under the impression it meant that there is more info out there but we don't have it here yet. But if we take it to mean that the info is simply not complete enough to meet our ideal standards...well, there are a lot of stubs to tag on this wiki.
- Regardless, I agree with keeping it (with or without stub tag) if only because it makes us look less silly (and avoids silly stuff like this, which I thought happened some time before too) if we at least show that we know it exists, and it'll be created again eventually anyway. --ஸ Kyoshi 05:31, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
- I vote against a deletion,why delete with the only reason being not enough information. and if this get's deleted why not delete 90% of all the GW2W pages.. --
The Holy Dragons 06:20, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
- I vote against a deletion,why delete with the only reason being not enough information. and if this get's deleted why not delete 90% of all the GW2W pages.. --
- We know its a dungeon; we know it will need to return eventually. We can just state it is a dungeon, tag it as a stub, and leave it until we have good info. Aqua (T|C) 02:51, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
- It's not like adding a page or two once every few months to the list of pages that the mods have to delete would make much of a difference. Also, there is no suitable tag for a page without enough info to be considered a page. The only solutions would be to leave it, or delete it. Either way, not much is changing. I'm in favor of deleting, simply because that's been our modus operandi for awhile, and I don't think it needs changing. -
- Seems to have been remade by a random IP, as I recall seeing this page before somewhere too. That being said, without a list of "YOU CAN'T ADD THESE PAGES BECAUSE <et cetera>" I imagine it's fairly commonplace to see some pages remade that have already been deleted, thus my suggestion to keep the page but stub tag it, instead of actually making a list of pages to not be remade, which would just get extremely long. Constant remaking and deletion of pages, that are known to contain purely factual information, but aren't quite as informative as we'd like them to be due to a lack of actual information available seems like an arduous task. Dunno what exactly one would do about the "not enough info accumulated" as opposed to "lack of existing information" in terms of page tagging, does a more suitable page tag exist (excluding deletion)? Darke 02:27, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Earlier on, I was trying to bring up a conversation whether or not this dungeon is actually [[Caudecus' Mansion]] (redlink intentional). Because, well, Caudecus: He owns a mansion, linked to a dungeon, and has a statue of himself in Beetletun. "Lord Beetlestone" is in fact Caudecus, lord of Beetletun, a settlement which expanded under his rule/supervision and where he owns a mansion/estate. The name of this dungeon is most likely not Lord Beetlestone's estate, but I still object to deleting bits of information such as this, as it has a source. It may be outdated, but it's still there. Mediggo 13:43, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure Caudecus' Manor and Lord Beetlestone's Estate were both referred to as separate entities in he dungeon website post. Aqua (T|C) 15:21, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
- This page doesn't even mention the name Caudecus. I've also never heard (or seen) the term Caudecus' Manor/Mansion used. --ஸ Kyoshi 15:57, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
- This page does. Aqua (T|C) 17:07, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
- Well, of course they can both exist. Two Krytan dungeons, when there's total 8 of them? I'd say that's unlikely. Mediggo 20:56, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
- Kryta's a pretty big place, not to mention the fact that it has the city of LA which is the cultural melting pot of the continent; if I was going to give one region two dungeons, Kryta would more than likely be it. My opinion aside, Anet can reiterate, phase in or phase out any thing at any time; while they may have said 8 dungeons, that doesn't actively prevent them from making 9 or more Darke 01:49, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
- I think the problem is that it didn't have much use making this page, but it has even less use deleting it.--So what happens if I have a signature like this?
I bet nothing! 06:14, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- I think the problem is that it didn't have much use making this page, but it has even less use deleting it.--So what happens if I have a signature like this?
- This page does. Aqua (T|C) 17:07, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
- This page doesn't even mention the name Caudecus. I've also never heard (or seen) the term Caudecus' Manor/Mansion used. --ஸ Kyoshi
Possible true name[edit]
Just want to point out, at least one of the name here (Ascalonian Catacombs) has been proven the true name of the dungeon. While here, where the name Lord Beetlestone's estate is from, refers it to Ascalonian Dungeon instead. So personally I think the true name of Lord Beetlestone's estate is Caudecus's Manor. Move suggested. Glastium talk 02:03, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
- Note that the novels' map lists Ascalonian Catacombs as "Ascalon Catacombs" - also, it's Ascalonian dungeon, not Ascalonian Dungeon, indicating they were talking about a dungeon in Ascalon (which happened to be the Ascalonian Catacombs).
- Basically, until we know the name as it is in the game (which we don't know) then it can be anything. While I think Caudecus' Manor is more likely, either or neither is possible. Konig/talk 02:15, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
- Okay. Glastium talk 02:21, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
- Caudecus's Manor is the real name of this dungeon and it is located in the Shire of Beetletun. --Moto Saxon 19:02, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
- Okay. Glastium talk 02:21, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Reward[edit]
Redid this dungeon at level 80 and got 26 silver. Not sure how it scales. Story mode. C The 07:46, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- After the last update level 80 reward dropped to 9 silver. I haven't tested on a level 40, but either after the first time through they drop the value or the 13 silver is now wrong. (Story Mode) C The 23:22, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
- The reward section of this page should be removed until we know what's actually going on with this dungeon; so as not to give people false information. I only got 1s as a lvl 59, first story run in 24 hrs. I think the scaling may be broken. I do think that the reward system is broken as I got 8k xp and 2 silver at lvl 62.
- You only receive the full reward for doing story mode the first time. Doing story mode again will always yield a small reward for additional completions. In explorable mode, you will receive a smaller reward for doing the same path multiple times. You can alternate between two paths to avoid being penalized. This only includes gold and experience rewarded. Dungeon tokens are not affected. 192.168.104.81 05:03, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
- I did for the first time with my necro at lvl 42, and got only 5k exp. Same with AC. On my warrior, i got about 12k for some reason, doing it the second time. Plohek 11:32, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
- I just did this for the first time, Guardian at level 40 (gained 41 part way through). I got 22K XP, 13 silver and some copper, and a fair-sized wodge of Karma, towards 1000. The dungeon itself was stupid hard, though. Cynique 22:28, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
- If this dungeon is like any others, the experience will scale to level. It's based off a percentage nevessary to attain the next level. I believe it's 90% or 75%. I'll have to check. --Kristofferus 23:20, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
- Confirmed, it yield 70% of the experience necessary to attain the next level. --Kristofferus 00:54, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
- If this dungeon is like any others, the experience will scale to level. It's based off a percentage nevessary to attain the next level. I believe it's 90% or 75%. I'll have to check. --Kristofferus 23:20, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
- I just did this for the first time, Guardian at level 40 (gained 41 part way through). I got 22K XP, 13 silver and some copper, and a fair-sized wodge of Karma, towards 1000. The dungeon itself was stupid hard, though. Cynique 22:28, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
- I did for the first time with my necro at lvl 42, and got only 5k exp. Same with AC. On my warrior, i got about 12k for some reason, doing it the second time. Plohek 11:32, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
- You only receive the full reward for doing story mode the first time. Doing story mode again will always yield a small reward for additional completions. In explorable mode, you will receive a smaller reward for doing the same path multiple times. You can alternate between two paths to avoid being penalized. This only includes gold and experience rewarded. Dungeon tokens are not affected. 192.168.104.81 05:03, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
- The reward section of this page should be removed until we know what's actually going on with this dungeon; so as not to give people false information. I only got 1s as a lvl 59, first story run in 24 hrs. I think the scaling may be broken. I do think that the reward system is broken as I got 8k xp and 2 silver at lvl 62.
Hats of Hoelbrak as rewards? Really? What has Hoelbrak got to do with Kryta? (And also this discussion page is very confusing, as if most comments about deleting and lack of info were written before GW2 came out) Vana Runedottir (talk) 00:37, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
Possible Minor Unintended NPC Situation[edit]
With the necromancer's Blood Magic specialization, it allows the user to use Life from Death and/or Transfusion to resurrect the fallen Uzolan. His dialogue is just as it was before you confronted him.
Formatting[edit]
Can someone take the dialogue from the "While gathering rumors" section and put it under the appropriate place for the dialogue options above?
