Talk:RuneScape/Archive 24

Archive 20

←

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

→

Archive 30

MechScape

The article on Jagex's MechScape has been nominated for deletion - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/MechScape --RS Ren 10:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... I believe we should surely keep it. There is much evidence saying that this is going to be a real game. Normally I wouldn't believe such a thing but when you look at all the evidence supporting MechScape it seems obvious to me that Jagex is working on this. MooMix1 02:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

"Much evidence" or not, the article is unverifiable and pure speculation until Jagex actually announces or releases it. I agree that it's probably true, but that alone is not enough to merit inclusion on Wikipedia. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 03:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The domain name records aren't unreliable, they're fair enough for demonstrating that something's going on. The major problem I see is the lack of mainstream media coverage so far - a situation that won't last forever. If we merge to Jagex (which necessitates keeping the redirect and edit history, per the GFDL), and simply point out the records and letting the reader draw their own conclusions, we'll be fine. If we just keep the redirect and edit history, it'll give us a head start on the day we do create the full article, saving messing about getting the page restored. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 20:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

a bit on evidence: The information are there. My concern is whether they're consider original research. launch a couple of new titles., Here, concept arts, and mock up ad, site mockup , trademark registration Primadog (talk) 02:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Alas, to put 1 and 1 equals two together is considered WP:SYNTH. --RS Ren (talk) 14:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

1 + 1 = 1, right? Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 01:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, the information appear to be collected and published here, so it no longer is original research? (Not mine) Primadog 05:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmmmmmm... We'll need an admin to prove that the above link is original research..

GuthxMastr7 02:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Templates for deletion - Template:RuneScape_Wikia_Link

The Template:RuneScape_Wikia_Link used a lot in the main RuneScape article is currently up for Templates for deletion at the moment.

With the deletion of the previous Wikipedia RuneScape articles, these templates with the Wikia links would be a great replacement and would prevent deletion in the Wikia articles alongside preventing its recreation on Wikipedia..

I would appreciate it if you take the time to leave your comment on its TfD. Thanks. Tarikochi 15:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

New BBC News article

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7090490.stm

Interesting read, especially on the MechScape front. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 18:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

It has some useful stats about RuneScape, such as the annual growth rate for accounts and the average number of hours paying members play a week. - • The Giant Puffin • 20:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Runescape Realm!!!!

This is a VERY large RS fansite and I think it needs to be added to the fansites. Please check this site out.

First off, I've only heard of RuneHQ, Runetip, and Runescaperealm. That one starting with a Z, I've nenver even heard of it before reading the article. So this list should have Runescape Realm added as the 4th link, or have he Z one replaced.

--Gold disk (talk) 17:05, 17 November 2007 (UTC)Gold disk

Adding more fansite links has been discussed numerous times in the past. See this discussion for why the current consensus is to have only the top 3. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 17:28, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I just went there, and there wasn't anything unique there, and it didn't even have all of the quests listed in the guides section. The final decision is no. Tavix (talk) 00:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Just to give some facts from Alexa.com. As of January 18th, tip.it ranked 3452 runehq.com ranked 3008 zybez.net ranked 3149 Which are all similar in size. runescaperealm.com ranks 7,997,327 which is not close at all to the size of the other 3 sites. Some sites which are decent sized but who are still small in comparison are runescape.salmoneus.net ranked 10,876 and even that I believe is not big enough to warrant an add. Yialanliu (talk) 15:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

RUNESCAPE REDIRECTED FROM ZEZIMA

NOT 1 MENTION OF ZEZIMA IN THE ARTICLE THAT HAS IT AS A KEYWORD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.188.17.249 (talk) 00:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Zezima isn't notable. Since people continually created articles of Zezima, they "salted" it, and made it redirect here. Zezima is just a player, and needs absolutely no reference here. ----Jump! Slash! Dash! Ouch! Super Mario SonicBOOM! 13:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

What Mario said. It only redirects here to deter people from trying to recreate it. You left caps lock on, by the way. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 18:11, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I Agree, remove the Zezima redirect and just keep zezima locked. That's irrelevant because I have a friend named Zezima from Pakistan so there's no point of redirecting a proper noun to a totally unrelated MMORPG. --µWiki Talk / Contributions (YouWiki) 21:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

He is no more notable. Until a notable case of an alternative Zezima occurs, the redirect should remain Philipwhiuk (talk) 19:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Deities 2

What happened to the god guide? I spent too long editing that page removing all the fancruft and only keeping the truthful data, its not my fault ALL INFO ON THE GODS are only spoken of IN GAME, as I said, runescape.com is where the info was gotten, go there and look for yourself, its impossible to get more direct links, I even offered for anyone to ask me where the info was from and I would tell them the quest and the NPC that gives it, this is just so idiotic that I think I may quit wikipedia felinoel 05:08, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I myself have also given quite a bit of time editting and improving the God Guide some weeks/months ago. Sad to see a compilation of work disappear just like THAT. 124.244.235.206 16:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Seeing as how my question was left unanswered, then archived, I felt the need to bring it back, the above is a quote from the archives felinoel (talk) 08:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I guess they just figured that it was too game-guidey, and that most people who don't play Runescape would have no use for it. Sure, it was great for us players, but... ----Jump! Slash! Dash! Ouch! Super Mario SonicBOOM! 17:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Not gameguides this time, ever since we spent weeks clearing it all out. "Gameguide" got the usual token mention, but was never cited, even when I asked it to be. This time it was on the basis of the notability guidelines. The AfD is here, and a follow-up discussion on this talk page is here, if you want to read them. Personally, I think - and the text of the guideline itself implies - that WP:N has as much relevance to subpages of clearly notable topics as WP:RS has to the Wikipedia: namespace, but, you know, that's just my opinion... CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 19:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I agree with you on that, Cap'n. I wasn't even aware that it was being considered. I think they had a bit of ground on a couple ones, but there were a few that deserved to stay. Good info was deleted, and we don't have space for it here on the main article. Sticky problem, eh? ----Jump! Slash! Dash! Ouch! Super Mario SonicBOOM! 20:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

RuneScape Classic Launch Date

According to Tip.It, Andrew Gower stated that "in exactly 7 days time runescape will be exactly 1 year old (1 year since launch) " on the 2nd of January 2002, which would mean that RuneScape Classic was launched on the 9th of January, but Wikipedia states 4 January 2001 as the release date. --RS Ren (talk) 22:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I did some more research and the First RuneScape Newsletter, dated the 21st of January 2001, states "we only launched just over 2 weeks ago". If correct, this would place the launch date somewhere before the 7th of January 2001. --RS Ren 18:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

There should be a skills section of its own.

There should be a skills section of its own because there are many skills and a lot more that can be mentioned about the skills, such as what skills there are what they can do and what they can make, in fishing alone there are about 50 items(fish and chests) that you can catch and levels required to catch them.Rscreator (talk) 15:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

That's something for the RuneScape Wiki. Here, we don't want the article to read like a game guide, which is what the article would become if the material you suggested was to be added to the article. Nishkid64 (talk) 16:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, we once had an entire article to it, but it was deleted. Like Nish said, it'd be like a game guide, which Wiki is not. ----Jump! Slash! Dash! Ouch! Super Mario SonicBOOM! 17:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

But, if we had that it would not be a guide it would more so tell what the skills can do and what level which is information and not a guide so bang take that.Rscreator 14:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

You pretty much defined a game guide right there. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information or a place to put information on every tiny detail of every game it covers. Remember, this article is targeted at a general audience, not players of RuneScape. If someone wants to learn more about RuneScape and looks it up on Wikipedia, they're more likely to want to know a general summary of the game rather than a table of statistics that is almost certainly meaningless to them. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 16:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

However, if there was a skills section of its own the people that wanted general information would know what skills there are and what they can do, which is not for guides but a general summary, because then they would know what they could do in the game and why it would(or for some) would not be fun. Which is already on the runescape website and many other fan sites.Rscreator 21:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I somehow doubt the casual reader will be interested in what each individual skill does. Perhaps the concept of skills in general, which the article already has, but not a guide to all the skills. And since, as you mentioned, the information is already displayed elsewhere, we can simply link to it in a footnote, where readers looking for more in-depth information will be able to go to it. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 02:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

That would be a good idea, since then you would be able to tell what skills there are and what they do without actually having it on the site, which would help the people trying to find what the skills can do.Rscreator (talk) 21:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks like footnote 34 is what you're talking about. So I guess the article's fine on this point, then? We already link to the detailed knowledge base information on skills without getting overly detailed in the article. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 22:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no need to go into detail about this because Runescape has a knowledge base that you can visit and there is already a runescape wiki. Please keep the content summative or in simple words, encyclopaedic. --µWiki Talk / Contributions (YouWiki) 23:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Members

Members have to pay but non-members don't. Members get spetial benifets though.--71.57.97.121 01:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

from:Derek Allen

p.s. i hpoe you will think of this idea..if so you can tell me if you need me to tell you more ideas to make runescape a better...i have one million ideas

*Pokes* The game forums are thataway, down the corridor, third door on the left. This is Wikipedia. :-) CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 21:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

It says mebers must pay $15 US per month, its $5. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.126.42.145 (talk) 23:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

errors

In the duel arena section it states that before the update only 2 people could fight at 1 time; rephrase to 'only 2 people could fightn a battle at a time'? also you don't have to pay an entry fee. Check the wiki article for more at http://runescape.wikia.com/Duel_Arena. I'd do it but im prohibited from editing =P Morphy hunts 18:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

RuneScape Wiki

For people who wish to get a more detailed view of RuneScape, perhaps we could make a link to that wiki? Just a thought.--Royalmate1 (talk) 02:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

It's already right here for a long time. Litis (talk) 08:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The Grand Exchange...

In the article, under the 'Grand Exchange', it is mentioned that 'Players can buy, sell, bank, and do *many other things* at the Grand Exchange.'

Apart from making armor sets, what are the 'many other things'? I think that statement should be removed. The Ash Lad (talk) 16:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Due to the fact that there is a bank, people are able to train skills easily and the large open space makes skills such as Firemaking easily manageable, so the many other things could imply numerous skills. Mentioning armour sets (or nothing) rather than 'many other things' would certainly better. Neo Avatars (talk) 16:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

This section should be removed or moved to another section in the article. It has absolutely nothing to do with "Gameplay" like skills and combat do. The Grand Exchange is rather a place in the game, and no other mentions of any other places in Gielinor are present. Also, one should note "many other things" is too non-specific for any Wikipedia article and should be changed or removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.55.218.30 (talk) 19:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I think he meant the Grand Exchange which is located in the North West Varrock Area, you can buy sell make sets and set price rates. Vis a vis, it's a stockmarket system in RuneScape. The items are usually sold at average player prices rather than store prices. The higher the price of buy the higher the price of sell. ok again, as i said, it's some sort of Stock Market system in RuneScape. --µWiki Talk / Contributions (YouWiki) 02:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Well you can check item prices i guess but that's only 1 thing. 12/9/07 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Superbob3450 (talk • contribs) 01:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I guess we could throw it in somewhere... it doesn't need its own SS, at least. ----Jump! Slash! Dash! Ouch! Super Mario SonicBOOM! 16:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

It looks rather tacky right now to have a specific part of the game listed alongside "combat" or "skills." Perhaps combined the Grand Exchange section and the "RuneScape's economy is based largely around item" paragraph (currently under community) into a "Trade" or "Economy" SS? Primadog (talk) 13:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow this article is clearly advertising/reviewing the aspects of the game

{{advert}}

--µWiki Talk / Contributions (YouWiki) 02:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Could you explain exactly which parts of the article you feel are biased? Someone another (talk) 02:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Just part of Wikipedia. Image:Size of English Wikipedia broken down.png

I feel like the member's section is written in an advertising tone. I don't know but please remove those price rates and put an external link because Wikipedia shouldn't be used as a third party price rate monitor. --µWiki Talk / Contributions (YouWiki) 02:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure mentioning the pricing is advertising. You can eliminate some of the price tags, if you want. Other MMO articles mention subscription fees, so it's pretty standard practice. The wording of the section seems OK to me - it's cited to a reliable source, and really, why would there be a disadvantage in subscribing to members (apart from having to pay for it, obviously)? CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 16:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Someone just removed the whole subsection. Unless we decide to reinstate it (IMO, we should), the problem's dead in the water right now. ----Jump! Slash! Dash! Ouch! Super Mario SonicBOOM! 20:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I see no advertising nature to the article. Is there support for the tag to be on there? I (talk) 05:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I started a discussion on the topic here. Only one person has responded so far, but hasn't contributed much. I think he agrees with me, but I can't be 100% sure, as he changed the subject to WP:GAMEGUIDE. SharkD (talk) 03:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I was advised to move the discussion to Editor Assistance. You can find the new discussion here. SharkD (talk) 04:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

References

I have to agree with the original poster. I have the same impression after reading the article. I can't nail it down to anything specific. One thing I'll mention is the overuse, IMO, of unreliable sources (such as the Jagex thing and forum posts), that serves to promote services affiliated with the game and author. It's not the same as citing a game manual. You buy the game and get the game manual with it. In this case, they serve to, in part, lure you into downloading the client and becoming a member of the community. I'll post a question asking for guidance on this very issue to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources when I get the chance. SharkD (talk) 06:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Those are reliable sources, as per WP:SELFPUB. AFAIK, only factual game details are coming from the JaGeX site directly. That is perfectly fine, as long as the material is not being used to cite biased claims. Nishkid64 (talk) 07:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The refs raise several issues mentioned in the page you linked to:

"* it is relevant to their notability;"

I'm not exactly sure what this means; however, most of the references support facts regarding game rules and mechanics, as well as events in the game's history, not the article's notability. The first Jagex reference is an example of where it does support the article's notabilty (e.g., "RuneScape reaches one million members!"); the rest of them mainly do not.

"* it is not unduly self-serving;"

That is the topic of this discussion.

If any gaming website decides to cover RuneScape news, they would just be citing the items posted on JaGeX.com. It all leads back to JaGeX, so I don't so why there's any harm when the article only cites JaGeX material for factual details. Nishkid64 (talk) 18:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Journalists often cover the White House. Does the fact that all the news goes back to the White House eliminate the need for independant verification and editorial review? SharkD (talk) 18:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Point taken, but journalists do their own research into the issue. They don't just look at White House press releases and decide to paraphrase everything previously stated. The only thing gaming sites could do is add their own commentary, and that could be used as a source if you're trying to reference a criticism/comment. Nishkid64 (talk) 19:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

"* there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it;"

I'm not sure who wrote the articles on Jagex. I'm doubtful the author of the game wrote them. This point seems more relevant to biographies. I'm not sure how it applies here.

Someone from the JaGeX staff wrote it. It might be Andrew Gower. He has written the updates/game news in the past. Anyway, I do not think this is an issue for this particular article. Nishkid64 (talk) 18:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see now that Jagex is the company behind the game. That makes a little more sense. I though it was just some fansite that had considerable data on the game. SharkD (talk) 06:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

"* the article is not based primarily on such sources."

Most of the references are self-published (e.g., either from Jagex or from RuneScape News). 33/72 are from Jagex alone.

Basically, two of the stipulations associated with using self-published sources were already mentioned in this discussion. SharkD (talk) 17:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Forum posts? That shouldn't be. Where? CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 16:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any forum posts. The only JaGeX material is from Game Update News and Knowledge Base. Nishkid64 (talk) 17:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I thought some of the URLs looked suspicious; but on second examination the links don't actually lead to forums. SharkD (talk) 17:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The "suspicious" URLs tend to lead to forum-like sites, which is another reason to doubt their notability. SharkD (talk) 19:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Which ones? Are you referring to Sal's Realm? Personally, I don't think Sal's Realm should be used as a source. Nishkid64 (talk) 19:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm referring to any URL with "php" in it, specifically the "Tip" sites. I guess there really aren't that many of them. SharkD (talk) 18:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Quotations

One other thing I noticed was the overuse (IMO) of quotations in the Reception area. This issue is discussed here; there's an essay on the subject here. The comment in the linked discussion, "We talk about our subjects, we don't let our subjects talk about themselves", especially applies. Generally, I'm more lenient on the issue when the quotes are from secondary sources. However, there's still a lot of them. SharkD (talk) 18:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Just to be clear (because this has been brought up in previous discussions), it's not the absolute amount of quotes that is the problem (IMO); rather, it's their density. If the same number of quotes were spread out over a longer passage, it would be OK. SharkD (talk) 19:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Note, the "We talk about our subjects, we don't let our subjects talk about themselves" quote applies to overuse of self-published references, as well. (This just occured to me.) SharkD (talk) 06:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Heads up

I hope you guys resolve the advertisement tag as soon as possible, cause any types of tag (whether it's cleanup, NPOV, citation needed, or advertisement) are considered to be one of the criteria for quick-fail. It will be boldly delisted from the list of Good Articles without the waiting 7 days on hold. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 05:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Other issues

I'll list other issues here as I come across them. SharkD (talk) 06:32, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

• Firstly, the article starts off talking about how popular it is rather than describing what it is. Just because an article needs to establish the notability of the subject doesn't mean it has to do so prominently in the opening paragraph of the article. SharkD (talk) 06:32, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
• Secondly, there was a reference to the game being rated as being immensely popular, which was unduly vague. The source only mentions one origin of this rating; the original text made it appear as if it were common. I fixed this. Also, I'm not sure how reliable MMOGCharts.com is. The BBC seems to think so. I've started a discussion on the topic here. SharkD (talk) 06:32, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
• Thirdly, I think that the Gameplay section should be moved up ahead of the History and Development section, and all History/Dev talk should be constrained to the related section. It's common in developer press releases to mention development talk to make them appear more "newsy" or "newsworthy". I'd hate to see this article emulate this style. SharkD (talk) 06:51, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
• There's a sentence in the article which has been described as "pushy", here. "RuneScape offers both free and subscription content and is designed to be accessible from any location with an Internet connection and to run in an ordinary web browser without straining system resources". I take issue with this statement because the fact that the game runs in a browser automatically means that it taxes the system hardware more so than it would if it were a compiled executable composed of machine language. SharkD (talk) 04:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying the issue, as requested. I will try to look into this matter over the next few days. Nishkid64 (talk) 09:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

We've got major issues!!!

Well, due to some major renovations by Jagex Inc., the PVP combat is not valid anymore. Let me show you this with this banter:

• There is no more fighting in the Wilderness!
• Instead, you have to fight in the Bounty Arena, which is a crater in the Wilderness.
• You are skulled as you enter this area, so you cannot play without the "skull", losing all of your items upon death.
• How it works is that you enter the arena and you have to seek out your "bounty". This bounty is a player you must kill. You can kill anyone, but you have to kill your bounty before killing another person as a bounty. You get ranked in this game, whoever has the most bounty kills is top, whoever kills random people goes on the "rogue" list.
• This is to remove the influence of Real World Traders from within RuneScape.

By the way, if anyone plagiarizes this information, I will be enraged. Wiki-Stress will inflate exorbitantally... Give me contribution credit for this stuff, please.

Over and out, Fishdert (talk) 20:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that announcement too. Though I haven't played Runescape for such a long time. Someone please rewrite to reflect the current situation. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 22:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for me just throwing it out there but the number of real world item traders (aka advertisers) I reported is not even funny! I probably reported 60 advertisers. The lvl 3 bald male macroers are just too obious, so lets make that 150 reports :)... Anyways, can any of you players pitch in and report these erroneus players that are nothing but server lag causers? Please, the last thing we want Wiki to show about runescape is how totalitarian it will be evolving into lol --µWiki Talk / Contributions (YouWiki) 23:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you can kill anyone regardless of whether you kill your bounty. The difference is that if you pick up stuff from a "wrong" kill, you can't leave the area for a few minutes, unless you also kill your bounty, in which case you can leave any time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.107.0.73 (talk) 00:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Another future update goal of RuneScape is that it will have a lend item system where you can give your items to another person and it will automatically return to you. I think its useful to add that there :). --µWiki Talk / Contributions (YouWiki) 21:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Keeping WP:CRYSTAL in mind, I'd recommend we leave that out until they actually release the update. Even then, it probably needs at most a brief mention. After all, we don't have to cover every feature of the game. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 22:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Woops, sorry I'll keep that in mind :). --µWiki Talk / Contributions (YouWiki) 00:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

RuneScape vs. Real Money Trading

Should there be a new section in regards to the radical steps RuneScape made to eliminate Real-money_trading? It's known that this is a major problem in MMORPG, and as JaGeX said plainly in this article, they have taken steps "that no other MMO developer has attempted." The steps taken can be found neatly listed here, and in many respects as radical (but on the opposite side of the spectrum) as SOE's Station Exchange. Primadog (talk) 02:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Definitely. Could we get someone to work on this section? Nishkid64 (talk) 02:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Can we get secondary verification that no other developer, in fact, has attempted this? SharkD (talk) 19:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

You can say that Jagex claims no other developer has implemented something to this scale. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.204.146.9 (talk) 03:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

That will do for now. I don't think any reliable gaming news sites have covered this update so far. Nishkid64 (talk) 07:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually I'm not sure, but I've seen other anti-"Real-world item trading" implementations but I cannot claim which one is better so just leave this out because it might be biased. --µWiki Talk / Contributions (YouWiki) 22:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

In fact, two of their steps already are listed in the article. The removal of the Wilderness is in the Combat section, and I added a line of text at the bottom of the Economy section referring to the 3k trade limit. EDIT: Someone deleted the reference of the 3k trade limit I had. Oh well.

Alter most of wilderness section?

The beginning of the wilderness section is now inaccurate, and should at least be altered to indicate that it is no longer the case. I am aware that it explains that later on, but shouldn't current information for how the feature works be placed at the beginning, before going into when and what changes were made from an older system? I don't mind it explaining how it used to work, but a person looking for quick information is likely to only read the first paragraph(which talks about old wilderness, before the update, and does not indicate that it no longer works that way) would be lead to a a false understanding.

Just reword the parapraph so current gameplay is presented first, preferably explaining how the level system has been reused for the new revenant monsters (data on the Runescape Knowledge Base, on their site), and then add afterwards that the entire wilderness was once used for PvP combat, and that jagex has plans to return it to some specialized areas in the future (which they did say). 74.226.72.127 (talk) 21:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Alright, well, we all agree. I'll rewrite part of the article so that this information is valid and include a lot of citations to their website and all that so people do not get the wrong impression. This'll take some time, but I am determined. Thanks for all of your help, now I'll begin. Fishdert (talk) 16:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Did it all...

Alright, I modified the entire PVP combat article. I revised it and added a new section on the Wilderness and how the old PVP system worked. Someone had written good information there, without giving their name to me, so I revised it and added all prevalent information. Quite important, in my opinion. The entire article was spell-checked and checked grammatically by me, so I definitely believe that it has been revised for the better. Now, it reflects important information instead of old nonsense. Good job on whoever made the first part of the article, you gave me a great base to work off of.

Done as it can be, Fishdert (talk) 17:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Very nicely done! ----Jump! Slash! Dash! Ouch! Super Mario SonicBOOM! 17:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

i edited the lvls of the wild for free and membersEatbetter (talk) 18:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment! Nice, Eatbetter, I did not know if I had the levels right, so I half-guessed. Thank you for correcting those. Fishdert (talk) 20:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I'd like to see it cleaned up a bit. The section has only three paragraphs, but en masse of text. Some wikilinks would be appreciated, and splits into multiple paragraphs/narrowing away some text wouldn't do any harm either. Plus, some extra sources wouldn't be too bad either.

But, this is a good alternative at the moment. Nice job! ~Iceshark7 (talk) 00:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

the faldor masscre

has anyone ever heard of thr faldor massacre? its a gitch in which a guy gets level 99 construction and then all of a sunnden players in the house he was in could kill other players so these people went to faldor and started to kill many people if you want to see it go on youtube4.236.120.172 (talk) 01:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)sponge6

Please see the notice at the top of this page. Per WP:NOT#FORUM, this is not the place for general discussion of the RuneScape game. We have forums for that sort of discussion. Please only discuss the actual article on this talk page. Thanks, Nishkid64 (talk) 02:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record, that was not how the glitch worked. The player had a party in his house to celebrate achieving 99 construction. When he decided to end the party he kicked everyone from his house. The resulting load on the server(there were easily 200 people at the party) caused a glitch in which those who had been in the fighting ring retained the attack option that would appear when you right clicked on a player. (basically the server was so busy that it didn't get a chance to turn off the fighting options) Thus a bunch of people abused this, killing random people around Falador.(where the house was) 74.226.72.127 (talk) 16:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

actually knowing this glitch and abusing it is called hacking. (hacking means to take advantage or exploit software or more specifically its flaws; also means breaching security) --µWiki Talk / Contributions (YouWiki) 22:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

As has been revealed long since this event occurred, the glitch was due to faulty coding in the fighting ring arenas, not any sort of "server overload". Videos have shown that the bug could be produced long before the massacre; in one, a player produces the bug and is disconnected by a Jagex mod. When he logs back in, he no longer has the ability to target other players.

It's not relevant, but because the bug was discovered so long before the event, it's a possibility that the celebrating player and the attacking players (there were certainly more than one) planned it out beforehand. (It also explains why the celebrating player decided to kick out everyone from his house for no otherwise apparent reason.) 71.185.105.127 (talk) 08:40, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

There is an aperant reason. I was in the celebration at that house, somone was making racial comments at Curesed You (the owner of the house). He threatened to kick everyone out if he wouldnt stop, but he continued and Cursed You kicked everyone out. Thats how it happened.--Royalmate1 (talk) 23:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Communism? Totalitarianism

Despite not actually playing the game myself, the description of the recent updates sounds more like fascism than communism totalitarianism. Acceptable (talk) 02:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I corrected what he was trying to say above --µWiki Talk / Contributions (YouWiki) 19:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

It still needs a reference, which is going to be hard to find, but I think it's talking about the government-determined prices in communism. As a player of the game myself, I've seen lots of mentions of communism in game and on the forums, but none of fascism. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 03:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

It sounds like sensationalism when talking it like that, saying that it is "Communism" or "Fascism" often has a negative taint to it. Plus, all owning companies have obvious total control over specific aspects of the game, but that doesn't make it a fascism, it's just moderation. Comparing like this could be like saying that the owners of Google are fascists for controlling how the search engine works. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.136.7.97 (talk) 22:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

The game is far from communism, the person who wrote that doesn't even know what the word means. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.183.106.150 (talk) 06:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, ist an insult to people who suffered under communism, and those comments should be disallowed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.159.186.169 (talk) 12:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm kind of being off topic but the game is "anti-facist" because you can't say hitler or kkk or nazi in the game but you can say communist and socialist. --µWiki Talk / Contributions (YouWiki) 18:02, 30 December 2007 :(UTC)

Btw, I think by communism or facism, he (acceptable) probably meant Totalitarianism but I don't blame him for not knowing political terms because I hate politics too :P. --µWiki Talk / Contributions (YouWiki) 18:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Seeing as how the players themselves modify the prices by selling for higher and lower, I don't see much of a comparison with totalitarianism. It's not like people bought stuff for extravagant prices before the GE, right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.69.233.123 (talk) 16:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually many players bought items for prices much higher than what Jagex decided they should sell for in the GE. Moreover, inasmuch as players can only move the price such a small amount in the GE any price increase or decrease moves very slowly, only a player with a lot of money or product could move the price significantly in one direction and that wouldn't be quickly.Mysteryquest (talk) 05:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

"rated by MMOGCHART.COM"

Is this really necessary to be added into the lead section? I think that it doesn't really serve any purpose, because any rating site could rate RuneScape as one of the best MMORPGs in the world, and this site doesn't differ from the others in any way.

Besides, the domain in ALL CAPS is a bit pointy to readers. If the consensus is to keep, it should be at least transferred to a possible "Notes" section - a word in ALL CAPS may disturb some readers, even if the information is useful. ~Iceshark7 (talk) 19:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll just quote myself since you seem to have trouble following discussions here:

"Secondly, there was a reference to the game being rated as being immensely popular, which was unduly vague. The source only mentions one origin of this rating; the original text made it appear as if it were common. I fixed this. Also, I'm not sure how reliable MMOGCharts.com is. The BBC seems to think so. I've started a discussion on the topic here."

SharkD (talk) 04:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see it as a trouble to follow discussions if there is a single bit of information I've missed. I do not have time to read every single comment on every article page I edit, and I do indeed expect to make some errors when joining into a discussion.

Still, "rated by MMOGCHART.COM" shouldn't be really left in the article as an unknown site without a lot of notability. I've moved the string in question straight into the reference itself - so that people interested in the reference can view the note when looking down the reference note itself. ~Iceshark7 (talk) 15:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but you stated in your edit comment when reverting the change that this issue should be discussed first in the talk page. Maybe you should check first whether something has already been discussed before stating that it needs to be discussed. My points were a) that the original text made it appear as if (or were ambiguous regarding whether) several sites were doing the rating, when in fact there is only one according to the source, and b) the rating itself is coming from a source that might be considered unreliable; readers should be prominently notified of this fact, just as the BBC themselves have done. Further more, the BBC isn't doing the actual rating; MMOGChart.com is. If you feel uncomfortable with citing MMOGChart as a source, then maybe the remark should be removed completely. I'm changing it back. SharkD (talk) 18:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Once again, I've solicited third-party opinions on the issue (here). SharkD (talk) 18:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll keep your comments at my mind the next time something like this happens. I do completely agree with your points about why should the MMOGCHART.COM be included into the article.

However, I still see the domain in ALL CAPS very pointy to me when compared with rest of the article - so if it's safer to remove the complete clause regarding rating the MMORPG one of the most popular in the world, then in my opinion it should be done. ~Iceshark7 (talk) 19:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Admittedly I know peanuts about HTML, but isn't it possible to still link there without the caps? ----Jump! Slash! Dash! Ouch! Super Mario SonicBOOM! 20:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

URLs aren't case-sensitive, as they're descended from unix-like operating systems. SharkD (talk) 03:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I thought I was just being true to the website author's original intentions, as the title of the site is in ALL CAPS. Feel free to change it, though. SharkD (talk) 03:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Wilderness all over

I don't think this is a forum type question, but rather an encyclopedeic question. Nonetheless:

A friend told me that in early versions of the game, players could attack other players all around the world (except in banks), not just in the Wilderness. He said that's why it's called Runescape (the name having been read somewhat like Run&Escape). I've been playing since the classic version of the game, and I know that players could DUEL each other all over the world, but can anyone back up my friend's story of player-vs-player combat all over the world? Even in early versions of the game? --Codell^Talk 22:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe so... ----Jump! Slash! Dash! Ouch! Super Mario SonicBOOM! 13:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I do. I was actually playing at the time and players could attack anywhere, regardless of level. At character creation there was a check box that you checked if you wanted to be attacked, or left blank if you did not. There was, in fact, no wilderness area. Not sure if this is relevent enough for a mention in the article though as it was so long ago, I don't think the feature survived past the beta and first few months of the game. Moneybucks (talk) 11:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, wasn't there that whole system where you chose to be PvP or non-PvP, and you could only change 3 times? Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 14:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Could you change? I never did. Unless someone wants to write a beta section, it's all just history though. Moneybucks (talk) 17:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I read somewhere (not on Wikipedia) that it was a duel system anywhere but banks, where you could stake items, then fight. If you died, you lost nothing (unless you had staked items), and got a free trip to Lumbridge. -ÇɧĭДfrĪĔпd12 (talk) 19:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. Can someone available comb the K-Base on that, because I figure that if it occured, they'd have at least some note. If that's the case, we can put it in the PvP section (only 2-3 sentences at most) with that article as the source. ----Jump! Slash! Dash! Ouch! Super Mario SonicBOOM! 20:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Can't find anything in the KB, but I know that dueling occured although I think it was members only. What other sources could one use as a reference because I doubt that there's anything that old in the KB. After all, the KB is fairly new in comparison to the game itself. Moneybucks (talk) 01:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, then can we find any other reliable sources that source this? ----Jump! Slash! Dash! Ouch! Super Mario SonicBOOM! 13:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we could ask jagex?--Royalmate1 (talk) 00:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

How about this?: "http://www.freewebs.com/runeduel" Moneybucks (talk) 01:53, 23 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.143.63 (talk)

I was playing back then and I can safely say all of above were true at some point in time: pvp game wide, change pvp for three times only, and duel anywhere. PVP gamewide exists when the game was first released, then pvp/non-pvp appeared. Eventually, all the player killing made it difficult to skill at all, so wilderness is introduced to replace that. Dueling was introduced soon after membership came up, but was changed with RS2. Primadog (talk) 23:15, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thank you --Codell^Talk 00:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Question

hi what is biased (im virangadippita and im new to wikipedia but i dont get what is biased? please tel me is it the people editing it agaisnt the new wieldernes update etc? because couple of weeks ago it said that it was communism that jagex changed the rules thanx hope u reply plus im really really new to wiki. im not stupid i know what "biased" means but what exactly was biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Virangadippita (talk • contribs)

It's not something as blatant as that; there have been a few people who tried to insert complaints about the update into the article, but they were reverted since that really doesn't belong in Wikipedia. The concern is that some of the language used in the article sounds too much like advertising or marketing for Jagex; to fix that, we need to make the article better conform to the neutral point of view policy. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 19:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Reference, sources major issue

There are many dead references and unreliable ones such as http://deviousmud.tripod.com/ and http://games.infoseka.lt/autorune.html

Some just need updating as the URL of pages on runescape.com change, like the news articles get archived, e.g. the RS2 news article http://news.runescape.com/lang/en/aff/runescape/list.ws?cat=1&page=8 needs to be changed to the direct link http://news.runescape.com/lang/en/aff/runescape/newsitem.ws?id=204.

That is just the tip of the iceberg, if I went through and deleted all dead & unreliable references the article size would probably be cut in half.

I would also suggest cutting down the size of the article as a whole by removing trivial/cruft-like information, the level of detail in many sections has gone over-board, for example Gameplay section.--Seriousspender (talk) 00:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The gameplay section definitely needs cutting down. As for the references, perhaps the Web Archive has some of the dead ones stored? For those of you who use Firefox, there's an add-on that automatically searches the Web Archive when you get a 404 error; we could probably use this to recover some references. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 19:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion

The article should be re-factored with the historical elements coming out of the other sections. Rich Farmbrough, 15:13 29 December 2007 (GMT).

Could you clarify please? I'm not entirely sure what you think the layout should be. I was recently considering refactoring some things in the article too, but I was thinking more along the lines of what Final Fantasy VIII does; that article has a separate development section. Is that a good idea, or is there a different layout that might work better? Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 19:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

RESUMMARIZE THIS ARTICLE

For the second time, I am requesting that this article is written in an overly promotional tone and it is reviewing a lot of the aspects of the game. If I were to rewrite the RS article, I would make it half of what is written right now. If you want a runescape wiki... then go to wikia.com and search up runescape. FOR THE LAST TIME resumarize this article. (i apologize for my anger) --µWiki Talk / Contributions (YouWiki) 18:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Be bold and do it yourself. Many of the recent additions are to blame for the tone of the article, so if we could get more eyes watching the article, that would be great. Nishkid64 (talk) 01:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, but I encourage you guys to do it too! --µWiki Talk / Contributions (YouWiki) 19:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

"I would make..." Then go make it yourself. I have been trying to condense the new updates myself because it is too much but why don't you help out rather than complain? Yialanliu (talk) 15:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok whatever... as long as somebody doesnt oppose me!!! (runescape wiki members ehem) —Preceding unsigned comment added by YouWiki (talk • contribs) 02:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

emots

the moving captions screw up th page mabey stils would be better. the captions do not add to the article and slow down loading and scroling down the page, almost like a bad frame rate(211.31.189.93 (talk) 14:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC))

Do you mean the animated GIF files slow down scrolling down the page? I think that's related to the computer you are using. Litis (talk) 17:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

We should keep in mind that people using this site will have widely varying computer specs. Less is more when using animations. For slower computers, these gifs will interfere with the scrolling of the page. The animations don't really add to the article, IMO. Untenable (talk) 05:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Gielinor?

Where exactly is the name "Gielinor" mentioned? I've been playing the game for roughly three or four years, and I've never heard that name anywhere... I always understood the name of the land in which RuneScape takes place to be simply RuneScape, as many NPCs in the game have said so. Sincerely, Thrashmeister [ U | T | C ] 22:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

It's the official name of the game world according to some various stuff Jagex put up on the website. Inside Gielinor, the name "Gielinor" is an obscure name that's rarely used by common folk and is mostly known by scholars and such; that's why most NPCs refer to the game by its common name, "RuneScape". In this article, it's useful to use this term because it creates a distinction between parts about the game (RuneScape) and parts describing the world the game takes place in (Gielinor). Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 17:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe its the name Guthix gave the land, a god in the game.--Royalmate1 (talk) 04:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Locking

Should this be locked? There are clearly some things needing fixing such as the advertising and the out of date ness.

No, I have nothing to contribute as of now, but does anyone else think that makes no sense?

75.119.16.95 (talk) 06:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The article is already semi-protected so that newly registered and unregistered users can't edit it. Full protection won't do any good; that'll just prevent the issues from being resolved. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 17:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

No reliable references for this

I will soon deleted the following:

DeviousMUD, the forerunner to RuneScape, was created in 1998 by Andrew Gower. The game, which was never publicly released, used isometric graphics. In 1999, Gower completely rewrote the game, albeit with no improvements to the graphics or several other aspects of the game. This version was released as a public beta version for approximately one week before it was withdrawn.

As user-created tripod.com pages are not reliable sources and never will be. Unless a link to the tripod page is found on a reliable page then it will be deleted, along with Image:Devious2.png. There is no reliable connection between DeviousMUD.tripod.com and Jagex/Andrew Gower.--Seriousspender (talk) 17:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

• Much of the DeviousMud information ultimately derives from http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=13769 & Andrew Gower's old personal homepage as archived at http://www.gowerarchive.com/documents & http://www.runescape.com/veryold/mud.html as archived at http://tip.it/runescape/?news=view_year&year=2001 --RS Ren (talk) 01:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

  Still not enough...

  http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=13769 - DeviousMUD is not mentioned anywhere in the article, only text-based MUD

  gowerarchive.com - This site is unofficial and has not been, nor does it purport to be, endorsed by Jagex Limited or Andrew Gower.

  http://www.runescape.com/veryold/mud.html - dead

  http://tip.it/runescape/?news=view_year&year=2001 - reliability is questionable here, there are many problems with this source, over use of !, the publishers name is instead their internet alias name (Silverion), in the content that isn't quoted there is various grammar mistakes including the title. Is there any reason there's 3 copies of it on this page? This could be used with another source, but is no good by itself.

• So far we have established that he began programming text based MUD's.--Seriousspender (talk) 09:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

• While http://gowerarchive.com is unofficial, it provides faithful archives of Andrew Gower's old website. If you need something more verifiable, try the Wayback Machine archive of Andrew's Amazing Homepage: http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.fitz.cam.ac.uk/users/acg29/mud.html --RS Ren (talk) 13:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

• With the link you mentioned, it still isn't a reliable enough source. But is probably enough until one is found.--Seriousspender (talk) 13:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Age

This game is for pre-teens and teenagers. It was never meant for kids, but pre-teen to us is 10-12. You should be atleast 10. We havent yet updated the age part in the registering part of the site. Even though younger players do lie about there age we try to keep runescape as safe as possible. click here to go the official runescape website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.119.233 (talk) 21:45, 11 January 2008

Hi. Just a note about the age of the players, you really don't know how old the players are. I've seen people turn 12 or 13 then push this game to their past childhood, then move on to other rated-teen or even rated-mature games, even though they're effectively not old enough. I think I saw on the site a few years ago that the game is intended for age 13+ people. The thing is, I know a couple of early teenagers that play rated-mature games as ones they play most often. Someone I know told me that they knew someone that was like, 6 or 7 that plays a rated-mature game. IMO this isn't very localized, but it's becoming all too common these days. Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 22:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I've moved this discussion to a separate section and restored the comment that was partially overwritten. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 22:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

How can the game be for "10-12" year olds if you have to be 13+ to create an account. You'll find that quite a few of the members are 16+.Arain321 (talk · contribs) 22:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

If I could note, this game is not meant for kids only. On the official RuneScape Website here, you'll see a disclaimer that the game is developed for everyone and some points of the game require maturity which is likely for adults to have more than 10-12 year old kids. ~Iceshark7 (talk) 16:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

In order to create an account you have to be 13 or else you will not even be able to play. Thus, this game is for people 13 and up or people who are in their teens. Yialanliu (talk) 15:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Are there really parts in runescape that can prove too mature for 10-12 year olds? If so, then why is the required age 13? If mature content is existent in runescape, then the shouldn't the required age have been set higher? Shika8 (talk) 22:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

RuneScape did not set the age requirements laws, 13 is simply the age most of the governments in the countries RS is played in agree is a safe age to interact with strangers online. On another note, RuneScape is certainly meant for people of all ages. Not many 10 year olds have the patience to figure out the correct path in the Sorcoresses' Garden, or the dedication and brain-power to solve the light puzzle of Mournings Ends Part IIDirt Tyrant (talk) 03:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Portal:RuneScape

This portal has been speedy deleted as empty. That's probably because the portal has been very unmaintained and lacked concent, such as images.

I feel it's the best to leave this portal deleted. No-one is really going to have a reason to use this portal anymore, as the only article remaining about RuneScape is RuneScape, along with some other Jagex-specific articles such as Andrew Gower. ~Iceshark7 (talk) 16:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

No criticism

Okay, there needs to be criticism, an article about criticism, this game is probably the most criticized game of all time, yet has not criticism! 68.201.4.62 (talk) 21:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Maplefan. DEVS EX MACINA _pray 23:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

And is there any reliable sources that have critism alone? No, judging from what I've seen. Some have had critism mixed in with the positive stuff. There you go. And yes, I hate to be a bit jumpy, but I echo Machina's sentiments above... ----Jump! Slash! Dash! Ouch! Super Mario SonicBOOM! 13:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

My criticizm is that its totalitarian over the language system and provides absolutley no guide thats intriguing or interesting and entertainning enough for a player that is aiming for being a successful runescape player. --☯µWiki☯ Talk / Contributions (YouWiki) 03:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

However your criticism is neither notable nor relevant. The only thing you can do if you want to place critical comments on the page is to find notable sources. Philipwhiuk (talk) 22:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Summoning

Should we add anything about Summoning, or just keep the page as it is? Cheesefee (talk) 22:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Either take off every skill name in the article and be more general about describing the skills or turn wikipedia into a runescape wiki (sarcasm)... Heres my idea for skills summary

"RuneScape has many skills which benefits a player economically and characteristically. Most of them require laboring whilst you can also earn rewards via combat levels. Quests can help to reward a player experience because of the player's heroic / heroine effort."

If you have additional details to add then please do so.

--µWiki Talk / Contributions (YouWiki) 00:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, technically, there's three types. It's either combat, raw gathering of goods, or refinement of raw goods. Yialanliu (talk) 20:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Trading Updates

I might recommend adding a section talking about the newest updates to the trading system. Look at runescapes homepage for it. ArmoredPersonel (talk) 21:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

They are minor updates, what needs to be mentioned about the new trading updates is already in RuneScape#Rules_and_cheating.--Seriousspender (talk) 19:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

there are currently 159 servers (worlds)

The article states there are 140 servers but there are currently 159.Whatevur123 (talk) 18:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed that; it now says over 150 instead of over 140. Although I suppose it's TRUE that there are over 140... -Amarkov moo! 18:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Just because the numbers go up to 159 does not mean that there are 159 worlds available. Several of the numbers are not in use at this time. There are currently 146 normal worlds and 4 german worlds, which makes exactly 150 worlds. This is the reason why we decided over a year ago to NOT list the exact number of worlds. Xela Yrag (talk) 15:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm very much in favour of keeping it at 150 until there's a big boom of worlds (or a shut down likewise) ----Jump! Slash! Dash! Ouch! Super Mario SonicBOOM! 16:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Recent Updates

You may or may not know by Jagex has updated the game for summoning and includes new pets. Might recommend updating the page. ArmoredPersonel (talk) 19:37, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

This is not a forum about the game, it is simply a guide for people who may no nothing about the game at all. If you wish to get a detailed view of the game, try the RuneScape wiki.--Royalmate1 (talk) 04:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks whoever cleaned up the article. It really needed to be.--Royalmate1 (talk) 04:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it was me and User:Mysteryquest, but you could just check the history. And I still think some places need adjusting.--Seriousspender (talk) 11:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

More junk about criticism

We need to mention it. RuneScape has been highly criticized by its own forum and the MMORPG community at large very heavily recently, and we need a bigger mention of this in regards to the update that started it (I don't know the date off the top of my head, and I'm too lazy to check. I would if it were important, but it isn't.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.43.164.23 (talk) 22:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

If you can find notable sources, feel free to add sections concerning the updates. Otherwise don't because it will just end up being reverted by peer review Philipwhiuk (talk) 22:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

...Did, by chance, you read what we said before, like... 3 sections above? Nothing has changed from that. ----Jump! Slash! Dash! Ouch! Super Mario SonicBOOM! 13:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and I guess I should mention... there is critism in the article. See the lines like "Twitchguru has stated that some lessons in the game are non suitable for young children." Or "...it's not as easy on the eyes compared to some MMORPGs..." or even "...won't have the big boys sweating in their shoes of +2 subscriber gathering". Yes, there is critiism of the game, but there are also positives, and lots of them. We have enough on both sides, unless some big, notable review site or something releases something on either side. ----Jump! Slash! Dash! Ouch! Super Mario SonicBOOM! 16:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Runescape Clansites

Resolved

 – Spammer blocked.--Seriousspender (talk) 13:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

hi i think there should be a clan site part added to give the option for people new to the idea of runescape a chance to get stuck in with a clan so tht people who are interested in playing are not alone when they first enter the world of gielonor —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ranger Boi L (talk • contribs) 10:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

This is supposed to be an encyclopedic article though, not really a fan site or a site designed to stir interest in Runescape.Mysteryquest (talk) 10:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:EL and WP:SPAM. I also just think you want clan sites added so you can add your own. Clan sites provide information about the clan, not the game.--Seriousspender (talk) 11:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I stand by my edit summary when I reverted last time. Unnotable, unneeded, and it'll just open the door to a million other problems. Not to mention unencyclopedic. ----Jump! Slash! Dash! Ouch! Super Mario SonicBOOM! 13:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Ranger Boi L (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) only wants his link there, and has been blocked twice for spamming it. I think we've already wasted enough time.--Seriousspender (talk) 15:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Servers section problems

"Each of the RuneScape servers allows 2,000 players to connect simultaneously, allowing a maximum of more than 280,000 players online at any given time."

This is currently wrong. There are 159 servers, and 159 x 2,000 is 318,000, not 280,000. Also, it says more than, how could it be if that was the maximum? This section needs rewriting.--Royalmate1 (talk) 04:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). .--Seriousspender (talk) 14:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

For now, I've changed it to 300,000 players, since it says 150 servers and 150 x 2,000 = 300,000. You go ahead and change it again if you want to. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 18:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Dissatisfaction with Updates

If you read the source carefully, it clearly indicates that there was dissatisfaction and that the message to the players was partly in response to the dissatisfaction, e.g. "We were also aware that the updates may not have been perfect the first time around, or that they may not have functioned as an ideal replacement for what we have changed or taken away. This is not a reason to roll them back or remove them, but it IS a reason to keep improving them until they DO work as a full replacement." There are other indications in the text that there was dissatisfaction and that word is chosen carefully. In reality, many players were very angry especially pkers and pures who were deprived of the reason they played the game and felt Bounty Hunter was a weak alternative to the Wilderness. Other players were angry that they could no longer give gifts to their friends.

The forums were lit up with and many players threatened to quit. The source states that Jagex will not be gaining members which is an allusion to players quitting. Also, "We would really like you to make your feelings known, not in a negative manner that offers no potential solutions, but with constructive criticism and suggestions that we can draw ideas from. For example, if something is broken, don't just demand that we put it back to what it was - instead, tell us your ideas to make the new system work." It's apparent that these are references to "dissatisfaction" and I think the word is a fair compromise and is alluded to in the source enough to to be supported by the source.Mysteryquest (talk) 21:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I changed the text of the article to better reflect the source, I thought that simply stating that there was "dissatisfaction" about the updates was adequate, however, the word "dissatisfaction" is not in the source and I inferred it.Mysteryquest (talk) 00:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

It may imply it, but you are still assuming many facts. I doubt this is the only update where there have been unhappy players.--Seriousspender (talk) 09:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Economy

"Historically, inflation and deflation have caused some instability in the game economy. Inflation is caused by the large number of resources put into the game by macroing. While deflation occurs as the more expensive items, such as certain weapons and armor, lose value over the time since their release into the game due to the fact that they become more prevalent, and newer items start being used. This has a huge impact on the day these items are released, with their prices being in the tens of millions for the first few hours, and then decreasing to a few million by the end of the day."

First, Inflation is not caused by increasing supply. If macroers are adding more goods such as logs, then the prices go down because since supply is not a factor of demand, demand moves along the curve and the shift of supply causes prices to go down. If prices go down, then it's not inflation where it means prices are going up. But more importantly, why mention inflation and deflation? This is a game and inflation and deflation are not a big aspect of it. First, merchanters don't profit from inflation or deflation, they profit from supply and demand, in which prices go up because of increased demand. Also, deflation isn't caused by the fall of prices of new items. That is due to an increase in supply since new items tend to be rare because people have only had a short time in attempting to attain it. Yialanliu (talk) 23:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.157.33.45 (talk) 01:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Alternating Equipment Image Discussion

It is appreciated if editors contribute to the discussion regarding the appropriateness of the Image:Runescape_equipment-equip.gif image in this discussion. Tarikochi 00:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

PvP minigames?

Are there really currently any PvP minigames that are still existant in runescape? If it's a members only option, then shouldn't that be noted? Shika8 (talk) 22:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and a sub-section of the article (PvP Combat in the Gameplay section) is given to PvP minigames. The first paragraph states which games are for all players and which are only for members. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 17:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)