Jump to content

Talk:RuneScape/Archive 25

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20←Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27→Archive 30

200m xp cap mention?

Was wondering if that should be mentioned in the article in the "skills section". Theman98 (talk) 16:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Not really, as no values are mentioned in article at current. Also see WP:NOTGUIDE ۩ Dracion ۩ ✎ ✉ 16:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC) Egsample (talk) 08:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

Recently, the infobox was vandalized to say RuneScape Classic was released in 1492 and RuneScape 2 in 1504. I have fixed this, and am requesting a higher protection rating.Cheesefee (talk) 01:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Lol - that is a pretty good one. Also funny was when they redirected it to "Gay". I'm a fan of the game, but those are pretty funny. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.10.221.206 (talk) 02:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Images

No offence or anything but should the combat images and images with people in it be done with a male model... 'cause most players on runescape is male...?Jackchen123 (talk) 08:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see what the difference is, both characters essentially attack the same way. Also, there are many girl characters on RuneScape, whether they are actually male or not is up for debate. :p 207.190.244.74 (talk) 18:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


Your assumption that most RuneScape players are male may be true, but if so, then only barely. Many girls and women play RuneScape, and many of the higher levels players are female. Xela Yrag (talk) 04:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Very true. Whilst most RuneScape characters may appear to be male, that does not mean that the people controlling them are necessarily male. Same for female characters being controlled by males. 207.190 is correct as well, since both male and female characters attack in the same way, it doesn't really matter which gender you use for the picture. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 20:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Still, it would be helpful if perhaps both male and female skill clips were present.204.185.177.250 (talk) 23:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

While it is true that some characters are created by people of the opposite gender, Jagex does state when you create a new account that they would prefer that you make your new character your gender.Crotalus Atrox (talk) 22:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
And I believe Zela Yrag is an in game moderator, correct? Max38 —Preceding comment was added at 02:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

You shouldn't assume only males play RuneScape. I played for a good deal of time (I don't anymore), and I am female and proud of it! Perhaps, rather than featuring solely male clips, both male AND female avatars could be shown. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.83.127 (talk) 23:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Fansites

Why must there only be 'Major Fansites', what about minor fansites? That's just my two cents. (Samywamy10 (talk) 02:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC))

If minor sites were to be added, the list would be long, and some people may think, "Oh boy, it would be nice to advertise my site on Wikipedia!", causing the possibility of many people everyday adding links to sites practically no one's ever heard about, and could care less about. It's just easier. ÇɧĭДfrĪĔпd12 (talk) 06:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


As of December 30, 2007, Zybez is ranked behind RuneScape-Tip.com, tip.it, and Runehq.com, in order from left to right. Based on Alexa.com. Cheesefee (talk) 17:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll elaborate a bit more on the fansite issue here. Right now, the consensus is to include the three largest fansites, which are RuneHQ, Tip.it, and Zybez. This has been determined using Alexa ranks; all three are listed because their ranks are fairly close and Alexa is very rarely perfect. There are several medium-sized fansites, such as RuneVillage and Sal's Realm, but there is a difference of several thousand ranks between those and the three sites listed above.

Like I wrote in the FAQ, consensus can change, and if you would like to revive discussion on this topic, you are welcome to do so. There has already been quite a bit of discussion on this topic, however, so please try to bring something new to the table. You can see old discussion here, here, here, here, and here. Possibly more, as I haven't dug past archive 18. Comrade Tux 22:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Is there a point to adding fansites? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place to advertise fansites. Legend Talk 00:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
They are given because they provide players of the game with further information. The three sites linked are the largest according to Alexa; there would be only one, but Alexa isn't always very accurate, so it was decided to include all three. This section is here because many, many people have suggested that smaller fansites be added. Comrade Tux 09:31, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, don't bother with "rsfansite-x.com is so much better" or "rsfansite-y.com" has loads more members" arguments. Wikipedia does not make judgements of quality, and having more members than another site is irrelevant - we're not linking to the forums, we're linking to the homepages, and the number of members a site has does not affect it's Alexa rank. Simply asking for more fansites isn't a good idea either: Wikipedia is not a mere repository of external links. We keep three as a reasonable number of sites to have. Finally, Wikipedia uses nofollow, so links on here do not affect a site's PageRank. CaptainVindaloo t c e 22:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd also like to note, that there is no need to bother around with RuneScape wikis. Those have been determined to be left in the article, mainly because those are wikis and are hosted by Wikia. If you look around in many other articles, if Wikia hosts a popular space for the subject, there is an extremely high chance there will be a link to the Wikia. ~Iceshark7 23:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I dont reccomend runehq... I ave gotten multiple viruses from that site... not to mention a keylogger that made me lose my account O_o Javascap 01:33, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

all add trane306 and k_man2.0 and main_man779 and chewy123 and gale rider!service. We need a level playing field. 88.111.167.125 19:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's purpose isn't to support fansites or level the playing field between those sites. Wikipedia is not a directory of links to other sites, so only the most highly used and most useful fansites should be included. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 20:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
As much as I hate reviving dead topics, there's something that I can't just leave unfixed.

"The traffic generated from this provides extra support for these popular fansites even though they might not offer a better service."

By any chance, did you notice Captain's post as to that links from Wiki do absolutely nothing to a sites ranking? ----Jump! Slash! Dash! Ouch! Super Mario SonicBOOM! 16:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to be bold and remove Rune HQ and Zybez because they could compromise visitors' computers (as experienced by Javascap and myself) OhanaUnitedTalk page 16:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
funny, i've been playing RS since well before 2002 and been using runehq and zybez without any problem. Zybez had a problem a few years ago when they forgot to renew one of their domains and a domain squatter got hold of it, but they recovered it and since then it was mostly problem-free with the occasional server hiccups when they were updating the server software. I was on zybez's forums since they decided to use the new host name, it used to be called simply runescapecommunity and was a simple forum and the main site was not widely known. They switched the forum to being a section of the website sometime in 2005-2006. Also, if you look into it, Javascap seems to have been astroturfing at that time (notice the similarity: runescape - javascap), he created the account just a few hours before he made that edit. Galaad2 (talk) 18:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

AND A LOT MORE TO COME!!!!!!! =D =D :D —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diet222 (talk • contribs) 22:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Javascap is referring to his experience with Rune HQ while you're talking about Zybez. Surely you can't compare apples to oranges. Regardless, check out his contributions, his main focus isn't even Runescape! I would say it's coincidence based on his contribution history as well as AGF. As for Zybez, I experienced the problem myself (and on two different computers so it's not coincidence). Please remember that I did this NOT because I want certain websites on and certain websites off. I did this because I don't want their computers compromised. OhanaUnitedTalk page 20:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Why remove them again? First, they are not giving people viruses and keyloggers as you say. That is a ridiculous claim, because if that was true, then NO ONE would visit those sites anymore. But all three sites (tip.it, runehq, zybez) have continued to be within the top 5k ranking for over a year according to Alexa. They have not fallen in rankings as would happen if the site's security is compromised. Please give more susbtantial evidence. It is okay to discuss the nature of fansites role in an enxyclopedia, but not false claims. Yialanliu (talk) 17:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
That is a really bad violation of assume good faith. If one says there're viruses and keyloggers on those sites, then you can claim that it's false. But if it's 2 or more, the chance of false claim is very slim. OhanaUnitedTalk page 15:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)]
I also have to assume good faith with major websites. Just like posting an article without references is considered a poor method of posting, same thing with accusations. I am not saying that you can't make this claim. But I am asking for evidence. With a ranking in the top 5k, there are over 5,000 unique visitors everyday, and I am sure that if there are keyloggers, than I would expect to see many claims with evidence backing it up. Provide the evidence and I will assure you that people will remove the sites. But until that is done, the websites are "innocent till proven guilty". Yialanliu (talk) 00:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I've said this many times: Alexa is not an accurate measure of traffic. Just do a google search for "alexa inaccurate" and you'll see what I mean. It is common knowledge that Alexa is just a rough GUESS and tricky website owners can easily inflate their rank (i.e. they get their staff to download the alexa toolbar - and alexa thinks another million people visited). Also, Alexa isn't the only company that provides this flawed service. There are others like Compete.com (just comparing results between Alexa and Compete show how inaccurate they both are). There is also Quantcast - this is slightly more accurate because it gives the website owners an option to place traffic tracking code on their website. I've done this on Zybez.net and thus, Quantcast is now showing fairly accurate traffic information ( http://www.quantcast.com/zybez.net ). According to Quantcast, Zybez.net is the most popular Runescape website.
Another method of knowing which site is more popular is simply looking at the forums. How many people are browsing the forums? (usually this number is written like this: "800 people active in the last 5 minutes" - be careful though because some forums show the active users in the last 10 minutes, or 15 minutes). Also, check how many new posts were made, and in which duration. If you see that the forum is mostly dead (with posts made last week still on the first page), then it's obvious that the website isn't very popular.
--Zybez (talk) 10:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Isn't Alexa the creator of Avast! antivirus? Sorry for being off topic.

--µWiki Talk / Contributions (YouWiki) 00:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Someone seems to have removed Zybez from the Fansite list under the guise of the last round of vandalism. There really seems to a lot foul play here due to the competition between the fansties. Recommend article protection. (Jimbobzeway (talk) 08:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC))

As far as I know the RuneHQ and Zybez sites are perfectly safe themselves. However, they may link to unsafe sites, (usually through adverts). I've cleaned up the comments section and added the site back, because those were the 3 sites agreed upon the last time the subject was discussed. ۩ Dracion ۩ ✎ ✉ 08:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Private Servers?

I think we should mention something about the private server community because it is a very large and active. Either talk about it here or make a new topic I dunno, but I think it should be mentioned. Led zeppelin033 (talk) 05:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Are there any independent reliable sources that can be used to cover private RuneScape servers? Nishkid64 (talk) 07:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Jagex would probably request for it to be removed - they're against the rules

They are not against the rules however they are frowned upon because of there semi-legal nature —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.238.154.8 (talk) 10:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry i just had to bring this in from the archive(its relevant to the discussion)

Erm, "the code in them is not Jagex's source code"? It is, I'm afraid. They wrote it, so they own it and the copyright, and they have chosen not to release it to the public domain or under a free licence like the GNU General Public Licence. That makes downloading the source code, reverse engineering it and providing one's own version of RS a copyright violation. Private server operators own just the code of any modifications they have made. CaptainVindaloo t c e 19:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid your completely wrong there, First of all they never reverse engineered runescape's server, they reverse engineered the client and built a compatible server from scratch.(Found out what each packet did and built a case for each of them). Therefore private servers are completely legal, and as i said above Unauthorized use/manipulation/commercialization of the client is illegal. Private servers, by themselves are perfectly legal and deserve to be mentioned in the article, the reverse engineered clients are not.(So you may omit them if nessecary). WhiteFang happens to be a friend of mine, and i have been in private server development for nearly 4 years so i know what i am talking about(In case you were wondering). To put it into perspective, OPEN XDK - Microsoft's XDK == Runescape Private Server - Runescape's Server. And there are fully open source clients out there that do not use any jagex code,models or cache at all the only reason you don't see them is because they are not public. In conclusion 100% non-jagex server + 100% non-jagex client = legal server. They deserve to be listed, Period.

And yes there are reputable site's that could be used as references, however most of them have been shutdown. WhiteFang is in the process of making WhiteScape's Official site, which will feature a wiki, on which will have all the references you need, from the guy who pratically invented private servers.


From the Runescape Rules, Third Party Software: "2. What type of third party software is NOT allowed? ... Modified or replacement versions of our game applets." I think that says enough? Shouldn't be added to this page. Make a new page, but don't link this page to it. Would cause more problems than would make people satisfied. Furthermore, the games would no longer be "Runescape", because they are not by Jagex. 60.241.58.161 (talk) 11:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

"Upgrade" of Combat Picture

There is an editor who wants to replace the animated picture of a character attacking a NPC monster with one of 4 identical players, quadruplets, with no weapons, kicking each each other. It doesn't seem to reflect anything in runescape as there are no incidences of identical players, no player would attack another one without a weapon. PVP combat is confined to certain mini-games at the moment and the depiction in the picture does not reflect any scenario one would encounter in a PVP minigame. I believe the picture before was much more effective in displaying a combat situation whether it was a special attack or not.Mysteryquest (talk) 00:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

PvP is not restricted to only minigames, as there are still areas of PvP combat after the updates. Also, players can fight without weapons against each other, as such options in places like the Duel Arena allow "No Weapons" fighting. Finally, in terms of usage, if you are not a RuneScape player, you would not notice a difference between a multi-way fight with weapons and one without them. The unique appearance allows readers to know that they are not NPC. Tarikochi 00:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
The point is its not a better picture than the other one and not reflective of what takes place in combat, its true that player CAN fight other players without weapons but they seldom do. I see no reason to substitute a picture of four identical players kicking each other which is not at all representative of combat or PVP combat for a picture of a player using a weapon on an NPC. It's a step backwards and adds nothing to the understanding of the game because 90% of combat is with weapons. If you insist on putting it up it should be in addition to the previous picture not in lieu of it, but again, it adds nothing to the article.Mysteryquest (talk) 01:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
If you paid attention to the image, you would know that not all four players were kicking each other. Also, recording animations involving multiple players in combat is hard enough with the same attack rate, let alone the varying attack rates with weapons. Finally, as previously mentioned, readers who do not play RuneScape will not notice the difference. If weapons want to be displayed, there is already other images on the article doing such.
As long as it is a player versus player, especially multiples of them, it is PvP, and it is easily acknowledged as such. Going further into detail would only be adding fancruft that these articles tend to hate.
It is a better picture simply for it explains multiple topics at once. A player versus NPC image already exists and another one is not necessary. Also, the previous image, when I uploaded, was originally intended for an article listing Special Attacks, which clearly do not exist anymore. It was never intended for an image to represent Combat in the first place, and while the GFDL allows it to be used as such, I released an updated image to better represent this subject.
Finally, because of fair use, these images cannot be placed side-by-side without causing further issues like it has in the past. Tarikochi 01:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
K, well I wasn't suggesting we go into more detail, I just feel that an image of 4 identical players, which never occurs, kicking each other, which almost never occurs considering the multitude of weapons available, doesn't really display anything indicative of the game and therefore doesn't contribute anything to the article. If anything, in my opinion, it gives the wrong impression. It would be better to simply describe what goes on and have no image instead of one which is so far removed from what happens in a PVP combat situation. Just my opinion.Mysteryquest (talk) 02:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I'd replace the picture we have of the pvp combat with something much more simplier, like 2 unidentical players attacking each other. ALso, while I feel that anyone here is free to contribute, can we PLEASE use different pictures of players doing actions? I dont care if it is the same player, I just want the appearences to look varied.--71.116.20.253 (talk) 18:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree. This picture isn't something that would actually occur in the game. Adding weapons would show just how varied attack styles could be, such as one person using a bow and arrow, one using magic, and one using an axe. Not only would the no-weapon attacking occer, but neither would the multiple players. I think they should have at least a varied appearance, even if they are the same player. And yes, someone who does not play Runescape would certainly notice the difference. It talks about how many varieties of clothing and armor you can have, and even shows this in other pictures, but you don't think they would notice quadruplets that have exactly the same armor? That's someone who needs to get their vision checked...(φ§φIt's not the begginging of the end, it's the end of the begginingφ§φ (talk) 20:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC))

Speedy

My Syrnia page was justy deleted for having no point. Neither does this. They are both games of the same genre. Mine was probably deleted for having not very information, but it was just started and I was getting to it. I think that if Syrnia cant exist, this cant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rickjamesinmyveins (talk • contribs) 02:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

That's not a valid argument. RuneScape is one of the most popular MMORPGs in the world, with millions of players worldwide. Its notability is unquestionable. Syrnia, on the other hand, appears to be a small, little known MMORPG that does not meet Wikipedia's notability requirements. Saying that all MMORPG articles should be deleted because a page you created on some non-notable MMORPG was deleted is just silly. If someone made a virtually unknown search engine used by maybe a few dozen people and created a Wikipedia page for it, which was then deleted, does that mean the Google article should be deleted too? Of course not. If you don't want a page you create to be deleted, make sure it meets the notability requirements and is sufficiently well-sourced. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 03:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Kid skipping school to play RS

Is this really notable? Many kids skip school to shop and play other games but it isn't mentioned on their articles? --Armanalp (talk) 09:11, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

i agree 20p (talk) 17:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

This is not an article about a student just skipping school, this person was addicted to the game and his entire life changed. I would think that's relevant. Maybe its not in other articles because its never been reported.Mysteryquest (talk) 20:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Lol I've seen kids skip school. When certain users reached 99 summoning, not kids, but university students skipped school to play and post their videos to Youtube —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.87.231.162 (talk) 02:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Lame... -.- --O Soroush O (talk) 20:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The fishing picture

Though I appreciate the efforts of whoever added the animations, shouldn't we put a different picture of fishing? It might give the impressian to reader that all fishing is done with bare hands in runescape. You can only fish with your bare hands after "barbarain training" on a member's server and you need to have much higher fishing to originally catch the fish so many players don't or can't. Also only 3 of the dozens of types of fish in runescape can be caught by hand. --Armanalp (talk) 12:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree with this, the fact being is fishing is done in many ways... We would have to put them all or none, and what about other skills we should have all of them too... But reality being it's not that easy. It's just a demonstration, no big deal. Cloudsfinalh (talk) 18:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Well I would recommend that the image is changed to show a more stereotypical view of fishing, closer to what someone may expect. Or to show two varieties of fishing, that of rod fishing and that of Barbarian fishing, to show two extremes of the spectrum, as it were. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.204.74.139 (talk) 18:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

-Perhaps we should show the fishing skill cpae emoote. It will show that you can harpoon for fish instead of just reaching into the water and getting one. --Royalmate1 (talk) 01:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Story About RS addiction

An editor wishes to remove a well sourced story on a teenager's addiction to Runescape because it doesn't make sense in that context. I'm not quite sure what is meant by that. The story is listed in a section called Reception which is about how the game is regarded. The fact that it has created an addition in a boy, a story which is from a main stream paper, certainly belongs and is quite relevant.Mysteryquest (talk) 15:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

It goes from describing the article on Twitchguru to some random boy's addiction. There's no transition between the two items at all. Furthermore, how is one boy's addiction (which isn't out of the ordinary or surprising) to RuneScape something worth mentioning in an article about the game's reception? Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 18:32, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Well if the paragraph or section needs to be reworked to make for a "smoother transition" then that should be done. A story about the potential addictive qualities of a popular game is completely compatible with the game's reception. However, if a new section needs to made then fine. But deleting information which is well sourced and extremely relevant doesn't make sense. The addictive qualities of these forms of games has been an issue for some time and should be included in this article.Mysteryquest (talk) 20:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Nishkid64 that it doesn't make sense in context. It is hardly "relevant" if it's phrased as a nonsequiteur in the middle of a paragraph about something else. Nandesuka (talk) 22:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I dealt with the "contextual" problems my making the paragraph smoother. I could put it in another section. However, because you have a problem with the flow of the text does not mean the material is not relevant. It means that it should be placed somewhere else or the paragraph should be reworked.Mysteryquest (talk) 22:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
We shouldn't be including one case of addiction detailed in some Australian newspaper. What the father says doesn't even matter since it is just his opinion. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 22:56, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
The fact that the person is in Australia is no reason not to include it. The game is played worldwide. I did not realize that only references of things that go on outside the United States are irrelevant. If we exclude sources that have opinions in them, we would have no reliable sources. The article is an independent and reliable source, in fact, it is easily as reliable as most of the sources in the article. Many of them would not qualify as reliable per Wikepedia guidelines and this is a mainstream newspaper. So that is not a good reason to exclude it. I will start a new section called addiction since you don't think it flows well in reception even though it follows text from a weak source that states that the game is addictive.Mysteryquest (talk) 02:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I did not oppose this because it came from Australia. I opposed this because you have only one person's story of addiction. Also, is it even possible to make something meaningful out of this story? All you can report is that this kid had an addiction to RuneScape. There's no analysis of the game's effect on the addition at all. Also, not all mainstream publications are in accordance with WP:RS. Some, like The Christian Science Monitor, are not used because of the biases they have. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 03:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Well this is the first substantive objection I have seen, though I am not sure I agree with your analysis. There are plenty of articles on how addictive these games are, and how they take the place of normal social relationships and interactivity. I don't see how a mention of addiction from a reliable source does not fit especially when it follows a sentence which states the game is addictive. It is certainly part of the "Reception" of the game, which centers on how it is received in the gaming community and what it's social impact is. An entire section doesn't need to be made but the mention of one addiction is certainly relevant. I am not sure that it is necessary for an analysis of exactly why the game is addictive.Mysteryquest (talk) 15:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Mysteryquest, this article only refers to comments made on Twitchguru about the unsuitability of the game for children. Addiction is mentioned in the Twitchguru article, but it's not mentioned here. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 17:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Alternate article, and a suggestion

No need to include more than a mention of potential addiction here, with a link to the video game addiction article - if even mentioning that much. Saying more here is just redundant to the other article that covers the disputed subject of video game addiction in greater detail. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
(More) Maybe a compromise solution, add a "See also" section to the article, with links to both Massively multiplayer online role-playing game and Video game addiction? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree, that appears to be a workable solution. At the time I insisted on having mention of addiction in this article I was unaware that there was an article on video game addiction which had explored the subject so throughly. I will go with Barek's suggestion of the see also and put the article about the Australian boy in the Video game addiction article. Thank you Barek for your help!Mysteryquest (talk) 16:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

my two pennies

Rs private servers are illegal, not just frowned upon. Gender doesn't mean a thing, just include both genders. Addiction shouldn't be included. There is "rs suck balls" in the article. Rs2 was made more for anti-cheat than extra dimension, to 3d. Also, there doesn't seem to be anything about the new minimap and things to the side of that (hp, prayer, energy and summoning lvl). Nor anything about how frequently it is updated. 81.155.85.98 (talk) 14:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I expect the main reason we don't have detailed information on the various skills, mini-games, etc. is because this is an encyclopaedia, therefore it must appeal to a general audience, not just RS players. As I recall, there used to be an article going into detail on the RS skills, but it was deleted (i don't know the reason, but it was probably for being too game-guidey.) 1ForTheMoney (talk) 15:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Early History of RuneScape

  • 28 September 1998: Andrew Gower announces on Usenet that he is half way through writing his own graphical MUD (source).
  • Circa February 1999: Andrew's personal website discusses DeviousMUD and says it has been in development for 7 months. In August 2001 Andrew re-posts the map from this website and comments that "The world-map is quite interesting, as you can see things have moved from their originally planned locations somewhat, but many locations still have the same names. Also the central part of the map is an aproximate (sic) mirror image of the current map!" and reveals that since then its inception it had been "completely re-written several times" (source, source).
  • 28th March 1999. Beta version of DeviousMUD goes online (http://web.petabox.bibalex.org/web/19991223072424/http://www.fitz.cam.ac.uk/users/acg29/mud.html source]). —Preceding unsigned comment added by RS Ren (talk • contribs) 17:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Circa April 1999: Andrew updates his website and states: "Well I've put the beta version of devious-mud online, and a few people have tried it out. However I'm having another break from writing it to give me more time to do the other java games I'm working on. It's not really anywhere near finished yet, so I've removed the address from this page. Try again in a few months time! :-)" (http://web.petabox.bibalex.org/web/19991223072424/http://www.fitz.cam.ac.uk/users/acg29/mud.html source]).
  • 9 January 2000: The RuneScape.com domain is registered (source).
  • Circa March 2000: RuneScape went into alpha testing, with the test population mostly consisting of people who played on Andrew's other creations (source).
  • 17 March 2000 or before: RuneScape is on the coming soon page on the Jagex website (source)
  • 7 October 2000: Andrew Gower announces that he will pay for sprites for the upcoming game RuneScape (source).

--RS Ren (talk) 12:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

people would fight other people without a weapon if they don't have enough gp. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yooo360 (talk • contribs) 02:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Thats some nice stuff you've got there. --Arain321 (talk) 12:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Effects on Youth

doesn't working hard for acheiving the "goal" mean that you're addicted? What kind of University name is that I don't see any study proving it, just the university name. Based on what statistics is it good for labour marketing? --☯µWiki☯ Talk / Contributions (YouWiki) 12:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Infobox

I've been looking for an infobox for RuneScape players to put on my userpage. If anybody knows of one, please reply both here and on my userpage (as I will check that more frequently).--Muzekal Mike (talk) 20:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

{{User:Scepia/RuneScape}} --RS Ren (talk) 20:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!--Muzekal Mike (talk) 20:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Edits by Jagex?

With the quality and animation of the images shown, the duplication of the singular character in the image of combat, and the sheer volume of data available, is it possible that Jagex themselves are editting this for their own benefit despite warnings of removal of data?  :(

It doesn't really matter... If they did, they would be just another Wikipedian. 72.241.3.225 (talk) 00:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, that would be a gross violation of WP:COI. --Hojimachongtalk 04:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
You know, that's a good point. Many of those animations are difficult to reproduce without source codes. OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
If you'd actually take the time to look around, you'd see that Tarikochi[1] from the RS Wikia is responsible for creating these images. It's called Video Screen Capturing with a screen recorder, then importing the recorded movieclip to something like Flash and editing it, then exporting it as an Animated GIF. And OhanaUnited, if I didn't have to assume good faith, I'd be giving you an earful about your "source code" comment. Something X (talk) 16:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Something X, I am just replying to a user's comments. I said "that's a good point". Did I say it's a good thing or a bad thing? Please don't put words into my mouth when you're speculating my opinions. OhanaUnitedTalk page 16:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm just saying that your statement "Many of those animations are difficult to reproduce without source codes." was made with no technical knowledge at all. Something X (talk) 16:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry? I am quite knowledgeable in computers (especially programming). See my userpage userbox. OhanaUnitedTalk page 16:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
VB and HTML qualifies as advanced programming? Since when? Something X (talk) 17:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Hooray, flame war ensues... Please stop. Also, on the topic, it's actually very easy to produce these animations from the game itself - earlier revisions of User:Tarikochi even tell you how they were made - and the information is cited - if it wasn't, then how come this article is qualified as a good one? The regular editors' user pages look quite... humane. I don't think Jagex has a hand in this. Litis (talk) 08:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
As stated above Jagex did not make that picture. However, Jagex employees have contributed to Jagex-related articles in the past. --RS Ren (talk) 02:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I can't see anything here that'd be using things not accessable by normal players. Besides, so long as they aren't breaking WP: COI or NPOV (or anything of the like), is it that big of a problem? (Note: 2 month break might have lead me to be mistaken) ----Jump! Slash! Dash! Ouch! Super Mario SonicBOOM! 17:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Deleted gameplay information. There's already a summary on the top about how the gameplay is.

? --☯µWiki☯ Talk / Contributions (YouWiki) 01:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Huh? I'm confused. What is the point of this subsection? Are you confused about your own edit? ÇɧĭДfrĪĔпd12 (talk) 02:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Big Gap...

I just read over the article, and (at least for me) there seems to be an oddly large gap between the title "History and Development and the text following (the first sentences and such), most likely caused by the ToC. I'd take a run at it myself, but I'm really worried about messing it up. Could anyone a bit more skilled and sure of themselves try to fix it? ----Jump! Slash! Dash! Ouch! Super Mario SonicBOOM! 18:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Just be bold OhanaUnitedTalk page 19:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I've inserted a line break under the ToC and it seems to be aligned now. Does that work? 1ForTheMoney (talk) 21:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
No. It's still there for me... ----Jump! Slash! Dash! Ouch! Super Mario SonicBOOM! 18:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm looking at it using IE, so if you're using another browser that could be the issue. I don't know if we can get a solution that works for all browsers (more line breaks could be inserted, but then the gap between the opening paragraph and the "History and Development" heading might look odd.) 1ForTheMoney (talk) 18:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I suppose it might because I'm using IE6, I think... you using IE7? That *could* make a difference. I'll see about going to IE7 soon... or I could come on using my home PC as it has it. ----Jump! Slash! Dash! Ouch! Super Mario SonicBOOM! 18:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, yes, I do use IE7, but I don't have a way of comparing it to IE6 so I'll have to take your word for it. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 19:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Yep, it works fine in IE7 (working at home). Now, since we know that we can't find a solution for ALL browsers... do we leave it as is or work on trying to fix it for IE6 as well (I don't know if enough people use IE6 to justify prodding around) ----Jump! Slash! Dash! Ouch! Super Mario SonicBOOM! 23:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I think something may be wrong with the link to the runescape wiki.....either that or they changed something...99.248.191.107 (talk) 20:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Fixed, although it's now classed as an external link ۩ Dracion ۩ ✎ ✉ 16:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Departure of 60,000 paying members

Although backed up by an article, I disagree with the way this has been put. I reckon many of those 60,000 paying people would have been bots/gold farmers, which should get a mention in the article ۩ Dracion ۩ ✎ ✉ 19:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Added: The article in question doesn't actually say whether these are real players or not, so I don't think we can assume they are. There were many paying bots, so it should be mentioned in my opinion. ۩ Dracion ۩ ✎ ✉ 19:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The article says what it says, if the reader wants to assume they are bots then they can assume that. I don't see a reason to read that into the story. If you can find a story that says 60k bots quit or some of the 60k that quit were bots, then you could cite that.Mysteryquest (talk) 20:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
If we don't know whether or not those were paying bot or real members, then the information may lead to people thinking that only real members quit. Instead, that section of the wiki article could read that a total of 60,000 paying members and paying bot left the game. Either that or that piece of information should be deleted, because it doesn't tell that most of the numerous paying bots left, too. Nicoli20 (talk) 21:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The article in question says 60,000 subscribers and nothing more, any interpretation of that is personal opinion. This was a momementous event and exactly the kind of thing which should be here on wikipedia, we can't dictate how much depth reliable sources go into, what they give is what we've got. Someoneanother 02:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it says what it says, and its a reliable source, reading anything else into it would be original research. The article does not say 60,000 paying members and bots left. As I stated earlier, if the reader wants to believe they were bots, let them do it. Moreover, how would one even determine if they were "bots"? One presumes only Runescape would know that and I haven't found a reliable source stating that some of the 60,000 were bots. Find one, and then you could justify putting in 60,000 paying members and bots.Mysteryquest (talk) 02:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Riots

The riots were "virtual" riots in the game itself, for example, the "rioters" gathered in certain towns and in text expressed their dissatisfaction with the updates, particularly the abolishment of the wilderness and the ban against unbalanced trades.Mysteryquest (talk) 03:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Eh, I wouldn't really say the riots are notable if that's what you're asking... I mean, it was just a bunch of players voicing anger. *shrugs* ----Jump! Slash! Dash! Ouch! Super Mario SonicBOOM! 12:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Was just clarifying that the rights were "virtual" in response to another editors question as to whether they were riots in the "real world".Mysteryquest (talk) 12:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Ah. I didn't realize. ----Jump! Slash! Dash! Ouch! Super Mario SonicBOOM! 23:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
These riots were notable in my opinion, for the fact that it showed how little regard for the players jagex used when putting these updates into place. If you were at any of these riots, you would begin to realize the large amounts of players angered at this change. If it would help a topic on them, I have quite a few pictures of the biggest riot there was....can't remember what world it was at the moment, but the whole screen was filled with text at times. This was going on all over runescape. If this isn't noteable, I don't know what is. (φ§φIt's not the begginging of the end, it's the end of the begginingφ§φ (talk) 21:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC))
Just don't get too closed to the riot or you might be sent to virtual prison. OhanaUnitedTalk page 21:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, just give me my phone call. Anyways, I went and looked again, and the pictures I took are from the world 66 riot in falador square, which according to the runewiki, was the largest there was. I have plenty of pictures....I'm sure I can find some without any offensive language.

(φ§φIt's not the begginging of the end, it's the end of the begginingφ§φ (talk) 20:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC))

The riots seem very noteworthy to me. And I believe the Falador world 66 riot lasted over a week, if I'm correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.215.182.58 (talk) 02:27, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. It even restarted a few times. I think it should at least be mentioned that riots occur whenever players don't like an update enough. The Pest Control riot, the Duel Arena riot, the 'Pay to PK' and Unbalanced Trade riots were all large, and were started for players hating an update. -ÇɧĭДfrĪĔпd12 (talk) 03:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Couple of items for reception

Channel 4, Ten Ton Hammer, about.com and Common sense media (by Net Mom!). May that be a lesson. Someoneanother 06:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Ten ton hammer is outdated. No more Pk'ers unfortunately =( --Armanalp (talk) 16:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

RuneScape/Jagex in the media

Have I missed anything? --RS Ren (talk) 11:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Nice. Looks like a few of those refer to FunOrb; perhaps the FunOrb article would be interested in them? 1ForTheMoney (talk) 11:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Posted over at FunOrb. Also added GI.Biz articles on the Cambridge-based Eden group of which Jagex is a part. --RS Ren (talk) 16:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

While not an article, I found a presentation on a study carried out regarding RuneScape at http://www.ssagsg.org/doc/2007_MakPresentation.pdf and an analysis at https://www.uktradeinvest.gov.uk/ukti/fileDownload/Finalpdf(LR)AD2695Mono2Games.pdf?cid=410529 and report at http://garnet.acns.fsu.edu/~teb05/Assets/PDF/Economy%20in%20a%20Virtual%20World.Runescape.pdf and study at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1082797 --RS Ren (talk) 15:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Can the forced TOC piggybacking be removed?

Not sure of the exact term, but the command that's pushing up the text to ride alongside the table of contents, as opposed to just letting the TOC follow the lead and the body of the article following on from that. The article could do with some fixing, there's some short couple-of-sentence paragraphs and subheadings, the images need looking at etc. Images aren't supposed to be directly opposite each other, in the beginning of the article this is partly caused by the text being forced next to the TOC - all the text between the infobox and the TOC is space that could be used to stagger images. Someoneanother 14:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Anyone? Someoneanother 15:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Done. If, of course others don't like the new look, feel free to revert me. Mayalld (talk) 15:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, it looks miles better and isn't causing issues with the images now. Someoneanother 23:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
You must be looking for the code __TOC__ OhanaUnitedTalk page 16:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Economy Changes

Since the release of the Grand Exchange, trading of items in all of Runescape has been restricted, and the prices of all items are now controlled by Jagex. I think that the terms "inflation" and "deflation" are no longer valid and should be changed (or added on to) to represent the current state of Runescape's virtual economy. 72.175.107.49 (talk) 16:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Prices aren't controlled by Jagex as such. They are still controlled by supply and demand, Jagex has simply placed a limit on the price variation. So inflation and deflation are still valid Philipwhiuk (talk) 23:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Technically, both of you are correct. Jagex does in fact, control the entire economy now, as far as prices go, but they do so by looking at the trends of buying. Such as if there are a thousand people buying item x at maximum price, while there are only ten buyers of item y, and they are all at the minimum price, Jagex would likely raise the price of x, and lower y. So while I think inflation and deflation still apply, they cannot be compared to the old economy.

(φ§φIt's not the begginging of the end, it's the end of the begginingφ§φ (talk) 20:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC))

Jagex doesn't control the prices completely, as the process most likely is automated. The problem with it is that it doesn't work like supply and demand in all cases. If thousands of players want to buy an item at maximum price and no-one wants to sell, the price won't go up because the price change seems to be based on completed trades, instead of buy/sell offers. (88.195.104.204 (talk) 14:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC))

Quest Release

The article states "A new quest is released each month". I wonder about the wording of this as the number of quests released vary from month to month. Including the possibility of no quests released which happened as recently as December. Green ManaWizard (talk) 00:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Then we can just edit it to say "New quests are usually released every month, with a few exceptions" Iner22 (talk) 16:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Jagex CEO Geoff Iddison is reported to have said that there are "new updates every two weeks" on GI. --RS Ren (talk) 06:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Planned Graphics Update

I've added a small bit in the 'Graphics' section regarding the major update that Jagex have just released a preview of. Here's a link to their news post. [2] Problem is, I don't exactly know how to add citations. Could someone more experienced clean up my edit please, and add a citation? Thanks. --Mrug2 19:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I've added the citation you wanted. As for cleaning it up, I'm prepared to leave that to someone else, but it looks good to me. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 20:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for that. :) --Mrug2 21:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality and Adverisement tags

Parts of this article seem to be written like advertisements for Runescape. Parts also seem to be one-sided, speaking from a pro-Jagex perspective, for example, on the graphics section. Because of this, I have marked the articles as lacking neutrality and advertising. Please do not remove them if you believe otherwise but discuss here why they do not apply. Ecopetition (talk) 19:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, Wikipedia isn't a strategy guide or an advertisement. Orangemango (talk) 03:16, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Can I add that a criticism section would be a good idea. The World of Warcraft and Maplestory (etc) articles have them. Ecopetition (talk) 18:52, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Criticism is in the reception section. If you find other, cited criticism, you're welcome to add it, and then it's possible it will overweight the possible reception so much that it will need a section on its own. Litis (talk) 08:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Honestly, the only bit of criticism that I can see is "the graphics may not be perfect", which is directly followed by justification as to why they're not as bad as made out. Ecopetition (talk) 18:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't see the issue in the graphics section, nor elsewhere. It discusses how the graphics are improved versus the *older* RS graphics - it's *not* comparing it to any other game or presenting any kind of "rah-rah" that I can see. Could you clarify and/or give some specifics? I am disappointed to see this entire article suddenly marked as "advertising" and am hoping we can work this out. -pokemama- Tkech (talk) 05:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but in order for a neutral article it must compare it to other games in the market. If it simply says "Runescape is better than it used to be as the graphics are better", it lacks integrity in the eyes of Wikipedia. It must be compared to the likes of competitors so as to not read like an advert. If it were to say "Runescape is better than it used to be as the graphics are better, but it still lacks merit when compared to World of Warcraft", it would be much more neutral. Ecopetition (talk) 18:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Please quote something from the Graphics section that reads like an advertisement, because I just read it and haven't seen anything like that. Litis (talk) 08:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Please read my original comment. I wrote, "Parts of this article seem to be written like advertisements for Runescape". I did not say, "the graphics section seems to be written like an advertisement". The whole article lacks criticism, and where things lack criticism they tend to follow a more advert-based objective. Ecopetition (talk) 18:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Simply quoting people saying things about the game does not constitute neutrality. If quotes are to be used, they must be sourced and a widespread range of views should be published. Ecopetition (talk) 18:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Take the "Effects on youth" section of the article. It states that Brunel University's study concluded that Runescape is beneficial to players in that it educates them. There is then a sentence discussing the findings. At the end, it states that another study did not find Runescape beneficial. There is no sentence for its findings, and people must click a link to find the story. Sections like these require a rewrite in order to be neutral. Ecopetition (talk) 18:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

My two cents on these confounded Neutrality tags.

  • The Effects on Youth section - first off, this isnt much of a section since it is basically two sentences however, it has one positive reference and one negative reference, so I fail to see how it is not Neutral.
  • The Reception section - the things that are there are cited, so should remain; if you can find other articles (legitimate articles - not someone's blog or rant) that support your opinion, post them, because this whole section is opinion. The difference here is that it CANNOT be MY opinion or YOUR opinion (which basically would come down to my pet peeves about the game versus your pet peeves about the game) (and let me state EMPHATICALLY) that the your in the sentence is not directed at any one person but at everyone else besides me). There are things I love about the game and things that I hate. But the things that I love may be your pet peeve and the things that I hate might be the things that you love. I have said this before on this page. We can't just go posting everything that that someone hates about the game. Talk about losing our neutrality. Therefore, we have to post what the EXPERTS say about the game - citable quotations that have been published in a location that we can count on being there six months or a year or ten years from now. And, I repeat, not in someone's blog or rant or even personal praise for the game. It's hard to find sources.
  • I don't like the tags because they detract from the article and make it appear to be less than it can be. This article, while still far from perfect, has come a long way. Having those tags on there for any period of time is a detriment to the article, and I think they should come off IMMEDIATELY.
  • I hope that I am able to monitor this article more often again. I have been to busy levelling my character, I guess, lol.

Can we now get on with the business of getting those tags off the article???

Thanks! Xela Yrag (talk) 22:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

East Asia

Jagex never said cheaters were based in East Asia. Ever. They said that cheaters are based in sweatshops in China. Which has a totally different meaning. Eugeniu B (talk) 21:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I deleted the following statement from the rules section because it was unsubstantiated and would be difficult to prove. It might be worth including if any evidence is found. "However, this rule is virtually useless as Jagex is unable to track down which users block advertisement banners." Sten for the win (talk) 00:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

The text-based RPG RSBattle contains much of the same content and is based heavily off if it, should it be mentioned?--Relyk (talk) 03:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Nope, per WP:NOT OhanaUnitedTalk page
Which one?--Relyk (talk) 01:26, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Picture under PvP combat

Can anyone please delete the picture of Runescape classic fighting under PvP fighting, or do you think it is necessary? Sorry, but i do not know how. (Unsigned comment added by The Limerick at 00:24, May 15 2008)

Leave it in. It's a picture which shows how the game was, which is one of the whole purposes of an encyclopaedia. ۩ Dracion ۩ ✎ ✉ 13:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Advertising in runescape

In the "Gameplay" section there's a line that says 

Players are given a chance to explore a whole new world and can do almost anything they want.

Sounds like advertisement to me, or at least highly unneutralized. It could be deleted, the whole line, if you ask me. Anybody think otherwise? Bluepaladin (talk) 19:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I've decided to just be bold and removed it. The introductory paragraphs already state that the game is divided into many kingdoms and areas, and that there are different types of activity that can be done. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 11:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, yet more reasons for the advertisement and neutral tags at the top of the page. All of these Runescape devotees are really angering me with respect to this. Ecopetition (talk) 21:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Skills section

When listing the skills in the "skills" section, shouldn't this literally be in a list form? It would be a hell of a lot easier to read. Bluepaladin (talk) 20:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Someone has put it into a list format, which I'm undecided about. But what I don't think we need is examples of what you can do at different skill levels. I worry it's too game-guidey, and what we don't need is more reasons to leave the Neutrality/Advertisement tags that the article is lumbered with right now. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 09:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I really agree with you there; if someone wants such specific information on individual skills, s/he can go read Runescape's knowledge base. For now I'm going to leave the list, but take off the specific level examples. I'd be interested to hear some other opinions on how we can make the section informative but not too game-guidey. Sten for the win (talk) 21:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I was going to do it myself, but wanted a second opinion. As for making the list informative, one of the tasks in the To-Do List at the top is to "describe skills in a non-fictional perspective", which doesn't seem to be the case right now, so we do need to discuss ways of improving it. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 21:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Comment: I have attempted to have a go at rewriting the descriptions for each skill. Most of it is changing "you" to "the player", so it fits more with the rest of the article. I still have reservations about its layout and what it says. Hopefully it's an improvement. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 22:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

3d rendering

Is Runescape considered to have full 3d rendering? or only partial? just wanted to clarify. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Partial in the way that the food and items used on the characters are to be 2d. Also, fighting splats and effect remain 2d. 70.64.78.207 (talk) 16:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

5million free-to-play?

I'm pretty sure it's 9million. Vandalism? --Royalmate1 (talk) 01:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, the article says the game was created in 1998. Thats when Gower created DeviousMUD but I he made the actual game in 1999. Check the bottom of the website it says 1999-2008.--Royalmate1 (talk) 01:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Look under History and Development it basically says the same thing i just stated. --Royalmate1 (talk) 01:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Earliest evidence I have of Andrew working on a game called RuneScape was Jan 2000 when he registered the domain. The private alpha didn't come out until around March 2000. Its copyright runs from 1999, but that could also be attributed to its use of Jagex's core library which was used in multiple games. this source says RS has 6 million active users. --RS Ren (talk) 14:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, what do you mean as active? So many players quit before even finishing tutorial island. Can they be considered active members? Not quite. There is also the fact that members worlds are nearly always fuller than nonmember ones, despite that there are a few more member worlds than nonmembers. That means the number of nonmembers must be less than members. Because there are about 1,100,000 (my guess) or so members, there can't be 9 million nonmembers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luckytoilet (talk • contribs) 12:51, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I feel your reasoning is flawed. To say "members servers are busier than free servers, therefore there are more members" assumes that all active players play for the exact same amount of hours per day. --RS Ren (talk) 15:28, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

new graphics update

as soon as the new graphics come out on runescape then all of the pictures on the runescape wikipedia will become obsolete.AMERICAN MIGHT (talk) 15:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

At which point they will be updated. See Wikipedia:WIP. Ecopetition (talk) 16:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

"choobs"

Some person put the word "Choobs" instead of Players engaging each other in combat in RuneScape. on the animation of the fighting people...And this page is semi-protected, so I can't change it. 68.192.12.173 (talk) 20:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Fixed it. Nice catch!¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 20:46, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:RuneScape/Archive_25&oldid=1142444899"