Talk:The Curse of the Pharaohs - Revision history

imported>Cristophorus35: Update sent

2023-07-12T23:26:03Z

Update sent

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:26, 13 July 2023
Line 54:		Line 54:
	:::::Also I advise against pestering Aymar too much about this because given that the other fans in that thread were respectful towards the sentiment that this was a minor issue and Aymar expressed acceptance of rhe 38 BCE date in the final product even though it wasn't his intent, and because he felt the need to explain that it is impossible for him to have proofread every line in ''Origins'', I think reviving this question to him while referencing this thread can come across in poor taste. It may send the message that despite the fact he did address the question in the thread, saying "we are set", it is never enough for us. He may wonder when any answer would be satisfactory. Formerly, we had asked him about the canonicity of ''Discovery'', and he was receptive to my letter asking for it to be recanonized. That was a greater matter for us, and we were grateful for his consideration to it. But given his opinion that the dating of THO is a minor detail and something that has been set and that we can now move on from it, pestering him about it can mean a loss of capital in future inquiries with Ubisoft, as we seem like a group that cannot help but nag them and fuss about every minute detail and also can never be satisfied even when a question has been addressed. It's of course important to us, but we need to be mindful about the relations. In my opinion, when a lore question has been asked and answered, without new information compelling it to be asked again, we shouldn't keep on bothering Ubisoft for a "clearer" response again and again. [[User:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#990000;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:17px">'''Sol Pacificus'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#D4AF37;font-family:Californian FB;font-size:11px">(Cyfiero)</span>]]</sup> 17:53, 11 July 2023 (UTC)		:::::Also I advise against pestering Aymar too much about this because given that the other fans in that thread were respectful towards the sentiment that this was a minor issue and Aymar expressed acceptance of rhe 38 BCE date in the final product even though it wasn't his intent, and because he felt the need to explain that it is impossible for him to have proofread every line in ''Origins'', I think reviving this question to him while referencing this thread can come across in poor taste. It may send the message that despite the fact he did address the question in the thread, saying "we are set", it is never enough for us. He may wonder when any answer would be satisfactory. Formerly, we had asked him about the canonicity of ''Discovery'', and he was receptive to my letter asking for it to be recanonized. That was a greater matter for us, and we were grateful for his consideration to it. But given his opinion that the dating of THO is a minor detail and something that has been set and that we can now move on from it, pestering him about it can mean a loss of capital in future inquiries with Ubisoft, as we seem like a group that cannot help but nag them and fuss about every minute detail and also can never be satisfied even when a question has been addressed. It's of course important to us, but we need to be mindful about the relations. In my opinion, when a lore question has been asked and answered, without new information compelling it to be asked again, we shouldn't keep on bothering Ubisoft for a "clearer" response again and again. [[User:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#990000;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:17px">'''Sol Pacificus'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#D4AF37;font-family:Californian FB;font-size:11px">(Cyfiero)</span>]]</sup> 17:53, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
	:::::It does appear though that he did not answer about ''The Curse of the Pharaoh''{{'}}s date, only that of ''The Hidden Ones'', so perhaps that could be a reason to bring this up with him again. [[User:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#990000;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:17px">'''Sol Pacificus'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#D4AF37;font-family:Californian FB;font-size:11px">(Cyfiero)</span>]]</sup> 17:58, 11 July 2023 (UTC)		:::::It does appear though that he did not answer about ''The Curse of the Pharaoh''{{'}}s date, only that of ''The Hidden Ones'', so perhaps that could be a reason to bring this up with him again. [[User:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#990000;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:17px">'''Sol Pacificus'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#D4AF37;font-family:Californian FB;font-size:11px">(Cyfiero)</span>]]</sup> 17:58, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
			::::::Update on the CotP situation:
			::::::I reached out to Ubisoft support to inquire if other employees could assist me with the CotP issue, as Ubi-Cosmos has not been active on Steam since 2020 according to their activity on Anno Discussions. Despite my attempts to communicate with them via Steam, I received no response, leading me to believe that they are no longer working with Ubisoft. Fortunately, Ubi-Dastan and Ubi-Galaxy agreed to help me. However, the response provided by Ubi-Dastan was not entirely reliable, as their argument was based solely on their memory. Ubi-Galaxy responded shortly thereafter, stating that their Assassin’s Creed expert confirmed the 4-year gap between THO and CotP, with the latter occurring after the former. Screenshots posted on our ACWiki Discord server.
			::::::I also emailed Anne Toole, former lead writer of CotP, to see if she could help us but she left me on read. :c [[User:Cristophorus35\|Cristophorus35]] ([[User talk:Cristophorus35\|talk]]) 23:26, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

imported>Sol Pacificus: /* Date finally confirmed */

2023-07-11T17:58:49Z

Date finally confirmed

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:58, 11 July 2023
Line 46:		Line 46:
	::::Now, while it's true that games take authority over subject of discussion like this one, I agree it doesn't hurt to search for other sources that confirm continuity. I'll ask around, see if other fellas can help me, and then update you all with the findings I get![[User:Cristophorus35\|Cristophorus35]] ([[User talk:Cristophorus35\|talk]]) 08:49, 11 July 2023 (UTC)		::::Now, while it's true that games take authority over subject of discussion like this one, I agree it doesn't hurt to search for other sources that confirm continuity. I'll ask around, see if other fellas can help me, and then update you all with the findings I get![[User:Cristophorus35\|Cristophorus35]] ([[User talk:Cristophorus35\|talk]]) 08:49, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

	:::::I'm not sure if you accidentally made a mistake, but Aymar in that Twitter thread doesn't agree with the date 40 BCE. He is clear that his intent and in internal documents circulated was that ''The Hidden Ones'' is ~~ser~~ 4 years after the end of the main story (which would be 40 BCE not 38 BCE), not realizing that the DLC is officially dated 38 BCE in the final product. When LazerzZ points out that it is set in 38 BCE according to the opening scene, Aymar said (perhaps rhetorically) that he would have to have "a few talks with DLC team 1" but that "we are set!" He adds that he "would have loved the other way around but meh" (i.e. for THO to be set in 40 BCE but it is w/e). He also says in a subsequent tweet that "it [was] a surprise, but it [does] make [his] job easier", i.e. the question has already been answered by the game.		:::::I'm not sure if you accidentally made a mistake, but Aymar in that Twitter thread doesn't agree with the date 40 BCE. He is clear that his intent and in internal documents circulated was that ''The Hidden Ones'' is set 4 years after the end of the main story (which would be 40 BCE not 38 BCE), not realizing that the DLC is officially dated 38 BCE in the final product. When LazerzZ points out that it is set in 38 BCE according to the opening scene, Aymar said (perhaps rhetorically) that he would have to have "a few talks with DLC team 1" but that "we are set!" He adds that he "would have loved the other way around but meh" (i.e. for THO to be set in 40 BCE but it is w/e). He also says in a subsequent tweet that "it [was] a surprise, but it [does] make [his] job easier", i.e. the question has already been answered by the game.

	:::::To me, this sounds like Aymar is saying that although he did intend for ''The Hidden Ones'' to be set 4 years after the main story, i.e. 40 BCE not 38 BCE, he is accepting with the final date having been set in 38 BCE. He does not try to reject the 38 BCE because he sees this as a minor issue, and it makes things simpler that the date is already given in the game.		:::::To me, this sounds like Aymar is saying that although he did intend for ''The Hidden Ones'' to be set 4 years after the main story, i.e. 40 BCE not 38 BCE, he is accepting with the final date having been set in 38 BCE. He does not try to reject the 38 BCE because he sees this as a minor issue, and it makes things simpler that the date is already given in the game.
Line 53:		Line 53:

	:::::Also I advise against pestering Aymar too much about this because given that the other fans in that thread were respectful towards the sentiment that this was a minor issue and Aymar expressed acceptance of rhe 38 BCE date in the final product even though it wasn't his intent, and because he felt the need to explain that it is impossible for him to have proofread every line in ''Origins'', I think reviving this question to him while referencing this thread can come across in poor taste. It may send the message that despite the fact he did address the question in the thread, saying "we are set", it is never enough for us. He may wonder when any answer would be satisfactory. Formerly, we had asked him about the canonicity of ''Discovery'', and he was receptive to my letter asking for it to be recanonized. That was a greater matter for us, and we were grateful for his consideration to it. But given his opinion that the dating of THO is a minor detail and something that has been set and that we can now move on from it, pestering him about it can mean a loss of capital in future inquiries with Ubisoft, as we seem like a group that cannot help but nag them and fuss about every minute detail and also can never be satisfied even when a question has been addressed. It's of course important to us, but we need to be mindful about the relations. In my opinion, when a lore question has been asked and answered, without new information compelling it to be asked again, we shouldn't keep on bothering Ubisoft for a "clearer" response again and again. [[User:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#990000;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:17px">'''Sol Pacificus'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#D4AF37;font-family:Californian FB;font-size:11px">(Cyfiero)</span>]]</sup> 17:53, 11 July 2023 (UTC)		:::::Also I advise against pestering Aymar too much about this because given that the other fans in that thread were respectful towards the sentiment that this was a minor issue and Aymar expressed acceptance of rhe 38 BCE date in the final product even though it wasn't his intent, and because he felt the need to explain that it is impossible for him to have proofread every line in ''Origins'', I think reviving this question to him while referencing this thread can come across in poor taste. It may send the message that despite the fact he did address the question in the thread, saying "we are set", it is never enough for us. He may wonder when any answer would be satisfactory. Formerly, we had asked him about the canonicity of ''Discovery'', and he was receptive to my letter asking for it to be recanonized. That was a greater matter for us, and we were grateful for his consideration to it. But given his opinion that the dating of THO is a minor detail and something that has been set and that we can now move on from it, pestering him about it can mean a loss of capital in future inquiries with Ubisoft, as we seem like a group that cannot help but nag them and fuss about every minute detail and also can never be satisfied even when a question has been addressed. It's of course important to us, but we need to be mindful about the relations. In my opinion, when a lore question has been asked and answered, without new information compelling it to be asked again, we shouldn't keep on bothering Ubisoft for a "clearer" response again and again. [[User:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#990000;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:17px">'''Sol Pacificus'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#D4AF37;font-family:Californian FB;font-size:11px">(Cyfiero)</span>]]</sup> 17:53, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
			:::::It does appear though that he did not answer about ''The Curse of the Pharaoh''{{'}}s date, only that of ''The Hidden Ones'', so perhaps that could be a reason to bring this up with him again. [[User:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#990000;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:17px">'''Sol Pacificus'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#D4AF37;font-family:Californian FB;font-size:11px">(Cyfiero)</span>]]</sup> 17:58, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

imported>Sol Pacificus: /* Date finally confirmed */

2023-07-11T17:55:04Z

Date finally confirmed

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:55, 11 July 2023
Line 45:		Line 45:
	::::About the thread. Yes, Aymar, after being corrected about the date THO's story is set, seems to agree with someone's reply that sets CotP in 40BCE. They mention no source for their claim but from what they talk in the thread, I suppose they also think Septimius' murder is the event Amunet refers to in her letter by writing "laid the last to rest". Of course, this claim is entirely based on speculation and it doesn't seem to acknowledge other elements that could prove otherwise, like the ones I list. I'll share screenshots of the thread with the team on our Discord server.		::::About the thread. Yes, Aymar, after being corrected about the date THO's story is set, seems to agree with someone's reply that sets CotP in 40BCE. They mention no source for their claim but from what they talk in the thread, I suppose they also think Septimius' murder is the event Amunet refers to in her letter by writing "laid the last to rest". Of course, this claim is entirely based on speculation and it doesn't seem to acknowledge other elements that could prove otherwise, like the ones I list. I'll share screenshots of the thread with the team on our Discord server.
	::::Now, while it's true that games take authority over subject of discussion like this one, I agree it doesn't hurt to search for other sources that confirm continuity. I'll ask around, see if other fellas can help me, and then update you all with the findings I get![[User:Cristophorus35\|Cristophorus35]] ([[User talk:Cristophorus35\|talk]]) 08:49, 11 July 2023 (UTC)		::::Now, while it's true that games take authority over subject of discussion like this one, I agree it doesn't hurt to search for other sources that confirm continuity. I'll ask around, see if other fellas can help me, and then update you all with the findings I get![[User:Cristophorus35\|Cristophorus35]] ([[User talk:Cristophorus35\|talk]]) 08:49, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

	:::::I'm not sure if you accidentally made a mistake, but Aymar in that Twitter thread doesn't agree with the date 40 BCE. He is clear that his intent and in internal documents circulated was that ''The Hidden Ones'' is ser 4 years after the end of the main story (which would be 40 BCE not 38 BCE), not realizing that the DLC is officially dated 38 BCE in the final product. When LazerzZ points out that it is set in 38 BCE according to the opening scene, Aymar said (perhaps rhetorically) that he would have to have "a few talks with DLC team 1" but that "we are set!" He adds that he "would have loved the other way around but meh" (i.e. for THO to be set in 40 BCE but it is w/e). He also says in a subsequent tweet that "it [was] a surprise, but it [does] make [his] job easier", i.e. the question has already been answered by the game.		:::::I'm not sure if you accidentally made a mistake, but Aymar in that Twitter thread doesn't agree with the date 40 BCE. He is clear that his intent and in internal documents circulated was that ''The Hidden Ones'' is ser 4 years after the end of the main story (which would be 40 BCE not 38 BCE), not realizing that the DLC is officially dated 38 BCE in the final product. When LazerzZ points out that it is set in 38 BCE according to the opening scene, Aymar said (perhaps rhetorically) that he would have to have "a few talks with DLC team 1" but that "we are set!" He adds that he "would have loved the other way around but meh" (i.e. for THO to be set in 40 BCE but it is w/e). He also says in a subsequent tweet that "it [was] a surprise, but it [does] make [his] job easier", i.e. the question has already been answered by the game.

	:::::To me, this sounds like Aymar is saying that although he did intend for ''The Hidden Ones'' to be set 4 years after the main story, i.e. 40 BCE not 38 BCE, he is accepting with the final date having been set in 38 BCE. He does not try to reject the 38 BCE because he sees this as a minor issue, and it makes things simpler that the date is already given in the game.		:::::To me, this sounds like Aymar is saying that although he did intend for ''The Hidden Ones'' to be set 4 years after the main story, i.e. 40 BCE not 38 BCE, he is accepting with the final date having been set in 38 BCE. He does not try to reject the 38 BCE because he sees this as a minor issue, and it makes things simpler that the date is already given in the game.
	:::::While he did say he'll "have a few talks with DLC team 1 :D", this could have been rhetorical. This is a common English expression to say "wow, they messed up, I will have to 'scold' them" but not really mean it. Or, he might have really meant he'd talk to the team more about it, but
	it immediately precedes the comment "then we are set!" like the matter is settled. Notwithstanding this, he never returned to the topic, and his attitude in the thread about this is that it's a minor issue.		:::::While he did say he'll "have a few talks with DLC team 1 :D", this could have been rhetorical. This is a common English expression to say "wow, they messed up, I will have to 'scold' them" but not really mean it. Or, he might have really meant he'd talk to the team more about it, but it immediately precedes the comment "then we are set!" like the matter is settled. Notwithstanding this, he never returned to the topic, and his attitude in the thread about this is that it's a minor issue.
	:::::Also I advise against pestering Aymar too much about this because given that the other fans in that thread were respectful towards the sentiment that this was a minor issue and Aymar expressed acceptance of rhe 38 BCE date in the final product even though it wasn't his intent, and because he felt the need to explain that it is impossible for him to have proofread every line in ''Origins'', I think reviving this question to him while referencing this thread can come across in poor taste. It may send the message that despite the fact he did address the question in the thread, saying "we are set", it is never enough for us. He may wonder when any answer would be satisfactory. Formerly, we had asked him about the canonicity of ''Discovery'', and he was receptive to my letter asking for it to be recanonized. That was a greater matter for us, and we were grateful for his consideration to it. But given his opinion the dating of THO ~~being~~ a minor detail and something that has been set and that we can now move on from it, pestering him about it can mean a loss of capital in future inquiries with Ubisoft, as we seem like a group that cannot help but nag them and fuss about every minute detail and also can never be satisfied even when a question has been addressed. It's of course important to us, but we need to be mindful about the relations. In my opinion, when a lore question has been asked and answered, without new information compelling it to be asked again, we shouldn't keep on bothering Ubisoft for a "clearer" response again and again. [[User:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#990000;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:17px">'''Sol Pacificus'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#D4AF37;font-family:Californian FB;font-size:11px">(Cyfiero)</span>]]</sup> 17:53, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
			:::::Also I advise against pestering Aymar too much about this because given that the other fans in that thread were respectful towards the sentiment that this was a minor issue and Aymar expressed acceptance of rhe 38 BCE date in the final product even though it wasn't his intent, and because he felt the need to explain that it is impossible for him to have proofread every line in ''Origins'', I think reviving this question to him while referencing this thread can come across in poor taste. It may send the message that despite the fact he did address the question in the thread, saying "we are set", it is never enough for us. He may wonder when any answer would be satisfactory. Formerly, we had asked him about the canonicity of ''Discovery'', and he was receptive to my letter asking for it to be recanonized. That was a greater matter for us, and we were grateful for his consideration to it. But given his opinion that the dating of THO is a minor detail and something that has been set and that we can now move on from it, pestering him about it can mean a loss of capital in future inquiries with Ubisoft, as we seem like a group that cannot help but nag them and fuss about every minute detail and also can never be satisfied even when a question has been addressed. It's of course important to us, but we need to be mindful about the relations. In my opinion, when a lore question has been asked and answered, without new information compelling it to be asked again, we shouldn't keep on bothering Ubisoft for a "clearer" response again and again. [[User:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#990000;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:17px">'''Sol Pacificus'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#D4AF37;font-family:Californian FB;font-size:11px">(Cyfiero)</span>]]</sup> 17:53, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

imported>Sol Pacificus: /* Date finally confirmed */

2023-07-11T17:53:10Z

Date finally confirmed

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:53, 11 July 2023
Line 45:		Line 45:
	::::About the thread. Yes, Aymar, after being corrected about the date THO's story is set, seems to agree with someone's reply that sets CotP in 40BCE. They mention no source for their claim but from what they talk in the thread, I suppose they also think Septimius' murder is the event Amunet refers to in her letter by writing "laid the last to rest". Of course, this claim is entirely based on speculation and it doesn't seem to acknowledge other elements that could prove otherwise, like the ones I list. I'll share screenshots of the thread with the team on our Discord server.		::::About the thread. Yes, Aymar, after being corrected about the date THO's story is set, seems to agree with someone's reply that sets CotP in 40BCE. They mention no source for their claim but from what they talk in the thread, I suppose they also think Septimius' murder is the event Amunet refers to in her letter by writing "laid the last to rest". Of course, this claim is entirely based on speculation and it doesn't seem to acknowledge other elements that could prove otherwise, like the ones I list. I'll share screenshots of the thread with the team on our Discord server.
	::::Now, while it's true that games take authority over subject of discussion like this one, I agree it doesn't hurt to search for other sources that confirm continuity. I'll ask around, see if other fellas can help me, and then update you all with the findings I get![[User:Cristophorus35\|Cristophorus35]] ([[User talk:Cristophorus35\|talk]]) 08:49, 11 July 2023 (UTC)		::::Now, while it's true that games take authority over subject of discussion like this one, I agree it doesn't hurt to search for other sources that confirm continuity. I'll ask around, see if other fellas can help me, and then update you all with the findings I get![[User:Cristophorus35\|Cristophorus35]] ([[User talk:Cristophorus35\|talk]]) 08:49, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
			:::::I'm not sure if you accidentally made a mistake, but Aymar in that Twitter thread doesn't agree with the date 40 BCE. He is clear that his intent and in internal documents circulated was that ''The Hidden Ones'' is ser 4 years after the end of the main story (which would be 40 BCE not 38 BCE), not realizing that the DLC is officially dated 38 BCE in the final product. When LazerzZ points out that it is set in 38 BCE according to the opening scene, Aymar said (perhaps rhetorically) that he would have to have "a few talks with DLC team 1" but that "we are set!" He adds that he "would have loved the other way around but meh" (i.e. for THO to be set in 40 BCE but it is w/e). He also says in a subsequent tweet that "it [was] a surprise, but it [does] make [his] job easier", i.e. the question has already been answered by the game.
			:::::To me, this sounds like Aymar is saying that although he did intend for ''The Hidden Ones'' to be set 4 years after the main story, i.e. 40 BCE not 38 BCE, he is accepting with the final date having been set in 38 BCE. He does not try to reject the 38 BCE because he sees this as a minor issue, and it makes things simpler that the date is already given in the game.
			:::::While he did say he'll "have a few talks with DLC team 1 :D", this could have been rhetorical. This is a common English expression to say "wow, they messed up, I will have to 'scold' them" but not really mean it. Or, he might have really meant he'd talk to the team more about it, but
			it immediately precedes the comment "then we are set!" like the matter is settled. Notwithstanding this, he never returned to the topic, and his attitude in the thread about this is that it's a minor issue.
			:::::Also I advise against pestering Aymar too much about this because given that the other fans in that thread were respectful towards the sentiment that this was a minor issue and Aymar expressed acceptance of rhe 38 BCE date in the final product even though it wasn't his intent, and because he felt the need to explain that it is impossible for him to have proofread every line in ''Origins'', I think reviving this question to him while referencing this thread can come across in poor taste. It may send the message that despite the fact he did address the question in the thread, saying "we are set", it is never enough for us. He may wonder when any answer would be satisfactory. Formerly, we had asked him about the canonicity of ''Discovery'', and he was receptive to my letter asking for it to be recanonized. That was a greater matter for us, and we were grateful for his consideration to it. But given his opinion the dating of THO being a minor detail and something that has been set and that we can now move on from it, pestering him about it can mean a loss of capital in future inquiries with Ubisoft, as we seem like a group that cannot help but nag them and fuss about every minute detail and also can never be satisfied even when a question has been addressed. It's of course important to us, but we need to be mindful about the relations. In my opinion, when a lore question has been asked and answered, without new information compelling it to be asked again, we shouldn't keep on bothering Ubisoft for a "clearer" response again and again. [[User:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#990000;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:17px">'''Sol Pacificus'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#D4AF37;font-family:Californian FB;font-size:11px">(Cyfiero)</span>]]</sup> 17:53, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

imported>Cristophorus35: Reply sent.

2023-07-11T08:49:36Z

Reply sent.

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:49, 11 July 2023
Line 30:		Line 30:
	First, the CotP (DLC) page stated that it was "set four years after the conclusion of the main game"; this is wrong. While this DLC doesn't seem to confirm a date, there are some hints that support the idea of CotP happening after THO: the upgrades we can get for Bayek seem to be of higher quality than the ones seen in THO, the level cap is increased from 45 to 55, and the [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VlmTpk47pdI official CotP launch trailer] features Bayek wearing his Hidden Ones robes. I'm aware that these are not strong arguments by their own, but with my recent finding I think we can confirm this is the case.		First, the CotP (DLC) page stated that it was "set four years after the conclusion of the main game"; this is wrong. While this DLC doesn't seem to confirm a date, there are some hints that support the idea of CotP happening after THO: the upgrades we can get for Bayek seem to be of higher quality than the ones seen in THO, the level cap is increased from 45 to 55, and the [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VlmTpk47pdI official CotP launch trailer] features Bayek wearing his Hidden Ones robes. I'm aware that these are not strong arguments by their own, but with my recent finding I think we can confirm this is the case.

	Now, where does the '''"four years after they laid the last to rest"''' part come from? I was actually referring to THO's last memory and CotP's first memory. In THO, Bayek and Amunet split up once again in good terms realizing that they have done good and their past as a family is long gone; in CotP, the first memory starts with a dialogue spoken by Amunet explicitly saying that "''four years have passed since we laid the last to rest''". I think she's speaking about the final known instance she met Bayek, that being THO's last memory. It could also refer to the moment they founded the Hidden Ones Brotherhood or when Amunet killed Septimius and Julius Caesar, but the math is wrong in both cases. Since it's a fact that THO is set in 38 BCE, CotP would be set in '''34 BCE'''.		Now, where does the '''"four years after [they] laid the last to rest"''' part come from? I was actually referring to THO's last memory and CotP's first memory. In THO, Bayek and Amunet split up once again in good terms realizing that they have done good and their past as a family is long gone; in CotP, the first memory starts with a dialogue spoken by Amunet explicitly saying that "''four years have passed since we laid the last to rest''". I think she's speaking about the final known instance she met Bayek, that being THO's last memory. It could also refer to the moment they founded the Hidden Ones Brotherhood or when Amunet killed Septimius and Julius Caesar, but the math is wrong in both cases. Since it's a fact that THO is set in 38 BCE, CotP would be set in '''34 BCE'''.

	About UbiCosmos, they are a verified Ubisoft employee that represented the Origins team in Steam's Discussions, and recently they've been working with the Anno team. I wouldn't discard their comments at all. Not only because they are a verified member but also because I found [https://twitter.com/AymarMtl/status/983424314119684096?t=S2E0VN141OBfkPloK2NXnQ&s=19 Mr. Azaizia's tweet] Lacrossedaemon mentioned. He does state that ''both'' THO and CotP take place four years after Origins' storyline, but that's not accurate with the info we see in the game. And as a matter of fact, other AC fans correct him in further tweets, saying that the THO DLC clearly states that it's set in 38 BCE. He says he's gonna talk with the team but for the time being, we haven't seen any source of information that changes or retcons THO's date. My respects to the man, but his imprecise claims make his tweet not reliable.		About UbiCosmos, they are a verified Ubisoft employee that represented the Origins team in Steam's Discussions, and recently they've been working with the Anno team. I wouldn't discard their comments at all. Not only because they are a verified member but also because I found [https://twitter.com/AymarMtl/status/983424314119684096?t=S2E0VN141OBfkPloK2NXnQ&s=19 Mr. Azaizia's tweet] Lacrossedaemon mentioned. He does state that ''both'' THO and CotP take place four years after Origins' storyline, but that's not accurate with the info we see in the game. And as a matter of fact, other AC fans correct him in further tweets, saying that the THO DLC clearly states that it's set in 38 BCE. He says he's gonna talk with the team but for the time being, we haven't seen any source of information that changes or retcons THO's date. My respects to the man, but his imprecise claims make his tweet not reliable.
Line 42:		Line 42:
	::We can contact Aymar and UbiCosmos about this, sure, but I don't think it is necessary. Personally, I think we should bother Ubisoft more selectively, in cases where we really cannot figure out the answer. I dont wish to wear out Ubisoft with our constant pestering about what to them would be every minutiae about the lore and to re-verify every answer they've already given on a question since we know they are truthfully not very attentive to and patient with the lore in the first place. We should reserve our capital for the most critical of cases. In this case, we have an answer already. I'm not saying that you guys can't contact them, just that there isn't any compelling reason to convolute the matter more by rehashing questions for which on their end they've already given answers to—weak as they may be. [[User:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#990000;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:17px">'''Sol Pacificus'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#D4AF37;font-family:Californian FB;font-size:11px">(Cyfiero)</span>]]</sup> 16:23, 9 July 2023 (UTC)		::We can contact Aymar and UbiCosmos about this, sure, but I don't think it is necessary. Personally, I think we should bother Ubisoft more selectively, in cases where we really cannot figure out the answer. I dont wish to wear out Ubisoft with our constant pestering about what to them would be every minutiae about the lore and to re-verify every answer they've already given on a question since we know they are truthfully not very attentive to and patient with the lore in the first place. We should reserve our capital for the most critical of cases. In this case, we have an answer already. I'm not saying that you guys can't contact them, just that there isn't any compelling reason to convolute the matter more by rehashing questions for which on their end they've already given answers to—weak as they may be. [[User:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#990000;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:17px">'''Sol Pacificus'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#D4AF37;font-family:Californian FB;font-size:11px">(Cyfiero)</span>]]</sup> 16:23, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
	:::Well Cristy's option still relies on supposition as we don't know what "last laid to rest" actually refers to. He thinks it means Aya and Bayek parting ways in THO but when has Ubisoft ever referenced the events of one DLC in a later DLC? Cristy's solution fits but it is still based on assumption which is why I think it should be last resort if dialogue falls through. Again I can't see the full thread but Aymar's tweet seem to be the official (but erroneous) Ubisoft stance on the matter that is present in game which is later acknowledges as a mistake and mentions a possible fix. I don't think it hurts to follow up on that and loop UbiCosmos in as well. [[User:Lacrossedeamon\|Lacrossedeamon]] ([[User talk:Lacrossedeamon\|talk]]) 02:00, 10 July 2023 (UTC)		:::Well Cristy's option still relies on supposition as we don't know what "last laid to rest" actually refers to. He thinks it means Aya and Bayek parting ways in THO but when has Ubisoft ever referenced the events of one DLC in a later DLC? Cristy's solution fits but it is still based on assumption which is why I think it should be last resort if dialogue falls through. Again I can't see the full thread but Aymar's tweet seem to be the official (but erroneous) Ubisoft stance on the matter that is present in game which is later acknowledges as a mistake and mentions a possible fix. I don't think it hurts to follow up on that and loop UbiCosmos in as well. [[User:Lacrossedeamon\|Lacrossedeamon]] ([[User talk:Lacrossedeamon\|talk]]) 02:00, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
			::::No, that's not exactly true. While I list Amunet's letter as a hint that could confirm CotP comes after THO, and it is based in a speculation of mine, I also mention other hints. As for when Ubi has referenced DLC's events in later ones, that has happened a few times actually. ACII's DLCs are an example by mentioning stuff that happens with the Apple of Eden, Tyranny of King Washington refers to the Benedict Arnold DLC, and some of Valhalla's DLCs have also referenced each other. It's not usual, but it happens. Bear in mind that this is not an argument by itself either. With this, we can only speculate about the team's intention. Which is not the same when having official claims from other Ubisoft employees.
			::::About the thread. Yes, Aymar, after being corrected about the date THO's story is set, seems to agree with someone's reply that sets CotP in 40BCE. They mention no source for their claim but from what they talk in the thread, I suppose they also think Septimius' murder is the event Amunet refers to in her letter by writing "laid the last to rest". Of course, this claim is entirely based on speculation and it doesn't seem to acknowledge other elements that could prove otherwise, like the ones I list. I'll share screenshots of the thread with the team on our Discord server.
			::::Now, while it's true that games take authority over subject of discussion like this one, I agree it doesn't hurt to search for other sources that confirm continuity. I'll ask around, see if other fellas can help me, and then update you all with the findings I get![[User:Cristophorus35\|Cristophorus35]] ([[User talk:Cristophorus35\|talk]]) 08:49, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

imported>Lacrossedeamon: /* Date finally confirmed */

2023-07-10T02:00:52Z

Date finally confirmed

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:00, 10 July 2023
Line 41:		Line 41:

	::We can contact Aymar and UbiCosmos about this, sure, but I don't think it is necessary. Personally, I think we should bother Ubisoft more selectively, in cases where we really cannot figure out the answer. I dont wish to wear out Ubisoft with our constant pestering about what to them would be every minutiae about the lore and to re-verify every answer they've already given on a question since we know they are truthfully not very attentive to and patient with the lore in the first place. We should reserve our capital for the most critical of cases. In this case, we have an answer already. I'm not saying that you guys can't contact them, just that there isn't any compelling reason to convolute the matter more by rehashing questions for which on their end they've already given answers to—weak as they may be. [[User:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#990000;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:17px">'''Sol Pacificus'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#D4AF37;font-family:Californian FB;font-size:11px">(Cyfiero)</span>]]</sup> 16:23, 9 July 2023 (UTC)		::We can contact Aymar and UbiCosmos about this, sure, but I don't think it is necessary. Personally, I think we should bother Ubisoft more selectively, in cases where we really cannot figure out the answer. I dont wish to wear out Ubisoft with our constant pestering about what to them would be every minutiae about the lore and to re-verify every answer they've already given on a question since we know they are truthfully not very attentive to and patient with the lore in the first place. We should reserve our capital for the most critical of cases. In this case, we have an answer already. I'm not saying that you guys can't contact them, just that there isn't any compelling reason to convolute the matter more by rehashing questions for which on their end they've already given answers to—weak as they may be. [[User:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#990000;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:17px">'''Sol Pacificus'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#D4AF37;font-family:Californian FB;font-size:11px">(Cyfiero)</span>]]</sup> 16:23, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
			:::Well Cristy's option still relies on supposition as we don't know what "last laid to rest" actually refers to. He thinks it means Aya and Bayek parting ways in THO but when has Ubisoft ever referenced the events of one DLC in a later DLC? Cristy's solution fits but it is still based on assumption which is why I think it should be last resort if dialogue falls through. Again I can't see the full thread but Aymar's tweet seem to be the official (but erroneous) Ubisoft stance on the matter that is present in game which is later acknowledges as a mistake and mentions a possible fix. I don't think it hurts to follow up on that and loop UbiCosmos in as well. [[User:Lacrossedeamon\|Lacrossedeamon]] ([[User talk:Lacrossedeamon\|talk]]) 02:00, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

imported>Sol Pacificus: /* Date finally confirmed */

2023-07-09T16:27:52Z

Date finally confirmed

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:27, 9 July 2023
Line 40:		Line 40:
	::I think there is also a tendency for our editors sometimes to go off of our supposition about authorial intent rather than the facts as given to us, as was the case in the discussions for Washington's burning of Connor's village and for the concept of "proto-Assassins". Narration in an opening cinematic cutscene of a finished product is quite authoritative because it is the primary source. The belief that it is an error because we think that the dev team most likely meant something else or had a different intent is, well, speculation.		::I think there is also a tendency for our editors sometimes to go off of our supposition about authorial intent rather than the facts as given to us, as was the case in the discussions for Washington's burning of Connor's village and for the concept of "proto-Assassins". Narration in an opening cinematic cutscene of a finished product is quite authoritative because it is the primary source. The belief that it is an error because we think that the dev team most likely meant something else or had a different intent is, well, speculation.

	::We can contact Aymar and UbiCosmos about this, sure, but I don't think it is necessary. Personally, I think we should bother Ubisoft more selectively, in cases where we really cannot figure out the answer. I dont wish to wear out Ubisoft with our constant pestering about what to them would be every minutiae about the lore and to re-verify every answer they've already given on a question since we know they are truthfully not very ~~invested and~~ attentive to ~~these questions~~ in the first place. We should reserve our capital for the most critical of cases. In this case, we have an answer already. I'm not saying that you guys can't contact them, just that there isn't any compelling reason to convolute the matter more by rehashing questions for which on their end they've already given answers to—weak as they may be. [[User:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#990000;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:17px">'''Sol Pacificus'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#D4AF37;font-family:Californian FB;font-size:11px">(Cyfiero)</span>]]</sup> 16:23, 9 July 2023 (UTC)		::We can contact Aymar and UbiCosmos about this, sure, but I don't think it is necessary. Personally, I think we should bother Ubisoft more selectively, in cases where we really cannot figure out the answer. I dont wish to wear out Ubisoft with our constant pestering about what to them would be every minutiae about the lore and to re-verify every answer they've already given on a question since we know they are truthfully not very attentive to and patient with the lore in the first place. We should reserve our capital for the most critical of cases. In this case, we have an answer already. I'm not saying that you guys can't contact them, just that there isn't any compelling reason to convolute the matter more by rehashing questions for which on their end they've already given answers to—weak as they may be. [[User:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#990000;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:17px">'''Sol Pacificus'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#D4AF37;font-family:Californian FB;font-size:11px">(Cyfiero)</span>]]</sup> 16:23, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

imported>Sol Pacificus: /* Date finally confirmed */

2023-07-09T16:25:00Z

Date finally confirmed

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:25, 9 July 2023
Line 36:		Line 36:
	In conclusion, with the proof we see in the DLCs plus the claims of a verified Ubisoft employee meant to represent the Origins team in Steam's Discussions, that would leave the timeline as follows: Origins ended in 43 BCE. THO is set in 38 BCE (5 years later), and CotP is set in 34 BCE (9 year later). I think I've elaborated my thoughts better now. Please, let me know yours. And again, my apologies for my poor elaboration.[[User:Cristophorus35\|Cristophorus35]] ([[User talk:Cristophorus35\|talk]]) 02:50, 9 July 2023 (UTC)		In conclusion, with the proof we see in the DLCs plus the claims of a verified Ubisoft employee meant to represent the Origins team in Steam's Discussions, that would leave the timeline as follows: Origins ended in 43 BCE. THO is set in 38 BCE (5 years later), and CotP is set in 34 BCE (9 year later). I think I've elaborated my thoughts better now. Please, let me know yours. And again, my apologies for my poor elaboration.[[User:Cristophorus35\|Cristophorus35]] ([[User talk:Cristophorus35\|talk]]) 02:50, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
	:I still think best course of action is to contact both Aymar and UbiCosmos personally laying out all the info and then ask if they have specific dates/years for the DLCs. If we don't get anything useable from them then I say we go with your proposal. But as it is I don't think Aya's letter is a great source because the info is most likely tied up with the mistake originally made by the dev team with the "last laid to rest" probably meant to be Septimius given the phrasing. [[User:Lacrossedeamon\|Lacrossedeamon]] ([[User talk:Lacrossedeamon\|talk]]) 10:10, 9 July 2023 (UTC)		:I still think best course of action is to contact both Aymar and UbiCosmos personally laying out all the info and then ask if they have specific dates/years for the DLCs. If we don't get anything useable from them then I say we go with your proposal. But as it is I don't think Aya's letter is a great source because the info is most likely tied up with the mistake originally made by the dev team with the "last laid to rest" probably meant to be Septimius given the phrasing. [[User:Lacrossedeamon\|Lacrossedeamon]] ([[User talk:Lacrossedeamon\|talk]]) 10:10, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
	::I don't think that a developer's statement always overrides the actual facts given in a finished product. In this case, I see no reason why the fact that ''The Hidden Ones'' is set in 38 BCE and subsequently ~~that~~ Aya ~~mentions in the~~ opening ~~scene~~ of ''The Curse of the Pharaohs'' would be overrided by a confused tweet by Aymar where he admits he forgot that ''The Hidden Ones'' is set in 38 BCE. Cris is correct that his confusion demonstrates he had not himself verified all the facts when he tweeted, and thus it cannot be treated as a reliable point. As it is, we have another Ubisoft spokesperson whose clearer statement supplements rather than contradicts the facts as given in the finished product, hence both are stronger than Aymar's tweet.		::I don't think that a developer's statement always overrides the actual facts given in a finished product. In this case, I see no reason why the fact that ''The Hidden Ones'' is set in 38 BCE and subsequently Aya's opening narration of ''The Curse of the Pharaohs'' would be overrided by a confused tweet by Aymar where he admits he forgot that ''The Hidden Ones'' is set in 38 BCE. Cris is correct that his confusion demonstrates he had not himself verified all the facts when he tweeted, and thus it cannot be treated as a reliable point. As it is, we have another Ubisoft spokesperson whose clearer statement supplements rather than contradicts the facts as given in the finished product, hence both are stronger than Aymar's tweet.

	::I think there is also a tendency for our editors sometimes to go off of our supposition about authorial intent rather than the facts as given to us, as was the case in the discussions for Washington's burning of Connor's village and for the concept of "proto-Assassins". Narration in an opening cinematic cutscene of a finished product is quite authoritative because it is the primary source. The belief that it is an error because we think that the dev team most likely meant something else or had a different intent is, well, speculation.		::I think there is also a tendency for our editors sometimes to go off of our supposition about authorial intent rather than the facts as given to us, as was the case in the discussions for Washington's burning of Connor's village and for the concept of "proto-Assassins". Narration in an opening cinematic cutscene of a finished product is quite authoritative because it is the primary source. The belief that it is an error because we think that the dev team most likely meant something else or had a different intent is, well, speculation.

	::We can contact Aymar and UbiCosmos about this, sure, but I don't think it is necessary. Personally, I think we should bother Ubisoft more selectively, in cases where we really cannot figure out the answer. I dont wish to wear out Ubisoft with our constant pestering about what to them would be every minutiae about the lore and to re-verify every answer they've already given on a question since we know they are truthfully not very invested and attentive to these questions in the first place. We should reserve our capital for the most critical of cases. In this case, we have an answer already. I'm not saying that you guys can't contact them, just that there isn't any compelling reason to convolute the matter more by rehashing questions for which on their end they've already given answers to—weak as they may be. [[User:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#990000;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:17px">'''Sol Pacificus'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#D4AF37;font-family:Californian FB;font-size:11px">(Cyfiero)</span>]]</sup> 16:23, 9 July 2023 (UTC)		::We can contact Aymar and UbiCosmos about this, sure, but I don't think it is necessary. Personally, I think we should bother Ubisoft more selectively, in cases where we really cannot figure out the answer. I dont wish to wear out Ubisoft with our constant pestering about what to them would be every minutiae about the lore and to re-verify every answer they've already given on a question since we know they are truthfully not very invested and attentive to these questions in the first place. We should reserve our capital for the most critical of cases. In this case, we have an answer already. I'm not saying that you guys can't contact them, just that there isn't any compelling reason to convolute the matter more by rehashing questions for which on their end they've already given answers to—weak as they may be. [[User:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#990000;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:17px">'''Sol Pacificus'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#D4AF37;font-family:Californian FB;font-size:11px">(Cyfiero)</span>]]</sup> 16:23, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

imported>Sol Pacificus: /* Date finally confirmed */

2023-07-09T16:23:53Z

Date finally confirmed

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:23, 9 July 2023
Line 36:		Line 36:
	In conclusion, with the proof we see in the DLCs plus the claims of a verified Ubisoft employee meant to represent the Origins team in Steam's Discussions, that would leave the timeline as follows: Origins ended in 43 BCE. THO is set in 38 BCE (5 years later), and CotP is set in 34 BCE (9 year later). I think I've elaborated my thoughts better now. Please, let me know yours. And again, my apologies for my poor elaboration.[[User:Cristophorus35\|Cristophorus35]] ([[User talk:Cristophorus35\|talk]]) 02:50, 9 July 2023 (UTC)		In conclusion, with the proof we see in the DLCs plus the claims of a verified Ubisoft employee meant to represent the Origins team in Steam's Discussions, that would leave the timeline as follows: Origins ended in 43 BCE. THO is set in 38 BCE (5 years later), and CotP is set in 34 BCE (9 year later). I think I've elaborated my thoughts better now. Please, let me know yours. And again, my apologies for my poor elaboration.[[User:Cristophorus35\|Cristophorus35]] ([[User talk:Cristophorus35\|talk]]) 02:50, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
	:I still think best course of action is to contact both Aymar and UbiCosmos personally laying out all the info and then ask if they have specific dates/years for the DLCs. If we don't get anything useable from them then I say we go with your proposal. But as it is I don't think Aya's letter is a great source because the info is most likely tied up with the mistake originally made by the dev team with the "last laid to rest" probably meant to be Septimius given the phrasing. [[User:Lacrossedeamon\|Lacrossedeamon]] ([[User talk:Lacrossedeamon\|talk]]) 10:10, 9 July 2023 (UTC)		:I still think best course of action is to contact both Aymar and UbiCosmos personally laying out all the info and then ask if they have specific dates/years for the DLCs. If we don't get anything useable from them then I say we go with your proposal. But as it is I don't think Aya's letter is a great source because the info is most likely tied up with the mistake originally made by the dev team with the "last laid to rest" probably meant to be Septimius given the phrasing. [[User:Lacrossedeamon\|Lacrossedeamon]] ([[User talk:Lacrossedeamon\|talk]]) 10:10, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
			::I don't think that a developer's statement always overrides the actual facts given in a finished product. In this case, I see no reason why the fact that ''The Hidden Ones'' is set in 38 BCE and subsequently that Aya mentions in the opening scene of ''The Curse of the Pharaohs'' would be overrided by a confused tweet by Aymar where he admits he forgot that ''The Hidden Ones'' is set in 38 BCE. Cris is correct that his confusion demonstrates he had not himself verified all the facts when he tweeted, and thus it cannot be treated as a reliable point. As it is, we have another Ubisoft spokesperson whose clearer statement supplements rather than contradicts the facts as given in the finished product, hence both are stronger than Aymar's tweet.

			::I think there is also a tendency for our editors sometimes to go off of our supposition about authorial intent rather than the facts as given to us, as was the case in the discussions for Washington's burning of Connor's village and for the concept of "proto-Assassins". Narration in an opening cinematic cutscene of a finished product is quite authoritative because it is the primary source. The belief that it is an error because we think that the dev team most likely meant something else or had a different intent is, well, speculation.

			::We can contact Aymar and UbiCosmos about this, sure, but I don't think it is necessary. Personally, I think we should bother Ubisoft more selectively, in cases where we really cannot figure out the answer. I dont wish to wear out Ubisoft with our constant pestering about what to them would be every minutiae about the lore and to re-verify every answer they've already given on a question since we know they are truthfully not very invested and attentive to these questions in the first place. We should reserve our capital for the most critical of cases. In this case, we have an answer already. I'm not saying that you guys can't contact them, just that there isn't any compelling reason to convolute the matter more by rehashing questions for which on their end they've already given answers to—weak as they may be. [[User:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#990000;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:17px">'''Sol Pacificus'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#D4AF37;font-family:Californian FB;font-size:11px">(Cyfiero)</span>]]</sup> 16:23, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

imported>Lacrossedeamon: /* Date finally confirmed */

2023-07-09T10:10:59Z

Date finally confirmed

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:10, 9 July 2023
Line 35:		Line 35:

	In conclusion, with the proof we see in the DLCs plus the claims of a verified Ubisoft employee meant to represent the Origins team in Steam's Discussions, that would leave the timeline as follows: Origins ended in 43 BCE. THO is set in 38 BCE (5 years later), and CotP is set in 34 BCE (9 year later). I think I've elaborated my thoughts better now. Please, let me know yours. And again, my apologies for my poor elaboration.[[User:Cristophorus35\|Cristophorus35]] ([[User talk:Cristophorus35\|talk]]) 02:50, 9 July 2023 (UTC)		In conclusion, with the proof we see in the DLCs plus the claims of a verified Ubisoft employee meant to represent the Origins team in Steam's Discussions, that would leave the timeline as follows: Origins ended in 43 BCE. THO is set in 38 BCE (5 years later), and CotP is set in 34 BCE (9 year later). I think I've elaborated my thoughts better now. Please, let me know yours. And again, my apologies for my poor elaboration.[[User:Cristophorus35\|Cristophorus35]] ([[User talk:Cristophorus35\|talk]]) 02:50, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
			:I still think best course of action is to contact both Aymar and UbiCosmos personally laying out all the info and then ask if they have specific dates/years for the DLCs. If we don't get anything useable from them then I say we go with your proposal. But as it is I don't think Aya's letter is a great source because the info is most likely tied up with the mistake originally made by the dev team with the "last laid to rest" probably meant to be Septimius given the phrasing. [[User:Lacrossedeamon\|Lacrossedeamon]] ([[User talk:Lacrossedeamon\|talk]]) 10:10, 9 July 2023 (UTC)