Talk:RuneScape/Archive 8

A few seggestions
First off, the community secsion is a long one. So lets talk about spliting it into its own article. Secend, how about a Runescape scam article? Dr. Good 01:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * A RuneScape scam article shouldn't be written, as it will give people ideas (WP:BEANS), and isn't an incredibly large part of the game. The community section is a bit large though, and might use some work.  Creating a main article for it is a good idea, too. Agentscott00 02:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Two general reminders
Two general things which you should know if bringing up something here:
 * Spelling- RuneScape is a British Game and uses British spelling, so British Spelling must be used. This rule applies to all other articles in the RuneScape Series. J.J.Sagnella 18:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Fansites- Recently all fansites have been deleted. For this reason no fansites can be added whatsoever. J.J.Sagnella 16:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

somethings wrong...
When I try to look at the ar my browser shows the "This page cannot be displayed" error. Its quite odd if you ask me (especially cause every other page seems to work). Does anyone know what is wrong? Is it Wikipedia or is it my problem? W IKIPEE  DIO  15:16, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok I tried logging out and the page was fine. But then I logged back in and, sure enough, there was an error again. Weird... W  IKIPEE  DIO  15:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm getting the error too. Hyenaste (tell) 15:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * ...but I see the page when I log out too. Hyenaste (tell) 15:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Boy, that would sure suck if I could never edit this article from my user again :( W  IKIPEE  DIO  15:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Your talk page shows the same error, so it's not just this page. Hyenaste (tell) 15:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * My talk page doesn't error me, and neither does yours, but User_talk:Deckiller does for me. And so does User_talk:Jimbo Wales W  IKIPEE  DIO  15:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * And Talk:Main Page! Usually when the servers fail the whole site goes down though. Like the error says, I'm sure it's temporary. Hyenaste (tell) 15:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I had the same problem - couldn't get into this page, but all the other pages in the series were fine. It seems to be fixed now. Xela Yrag 18:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Holiday Items & Prices
Holiday items are special items dropped on holidays that are only availible on the day of relese. The more expencive items are items that are wearable for example party hats, h'ween masks and santa hats.The non-equipable items are pumpkins and easter eggs. After all these holiday items were made all of them are non tradeable.

Party hats are the rareist they run from (purple)90 million to (blue) 250 million

H'ween masks- green 11 million, blue 17 million, Red 25 Million

Santa hat- 30 million

Pumpkin-4.6 million

easter egg- 3.6 million

These items are very rare and are wanted my all players.


 * yes everyone wants those. but they aren't as expensive as people are trying to make them. i do not agree with your prices--Acethebunny 00:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * due to the fluid nature of player prices, listing an assumed current price would quickly be outdated. It may be of historical interest to list prices in relation to a date to show progression.

My proposal for fansite links.
Hi guys. I have made a proposal for a decision about fansite links. It applies for this article, the portal, and the rest of the series. Please help me by voting on it. Thank you. Dtm142 23:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that there should be a few links to the fansites such as Runehq which jagex now deems okay to say ingame. However, it may cause visitors to go to the fansite instead of staying on wikipidea.Eugene0k1 15:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree the major 3 should be included possibly more, Zybez, Tip.it, Rune HQ Jrabbit05 18:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree too.

You can say runeHQ in game because you can say "Rune" and "HQ" alone. You can also say Zybez(UNless that changed)

/*good and bad*/
they shouldnt take my changes just because they have the power to delete my stuff but other than than that this is a very good service. the end lol. if anyone agrees they will wright on this and say "yea" later lol.
 * Sometimes edits need to be reverted, particularly if an article is too long. If you're sure your edits were reverted accidentally or maliciously, you can put them back in, or ask the user why they were reverted on their talk page. --Tim 22:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

i wasnt being extra long i just changed he or she to players and stuff like that nothing big and now i cant edit runescape at all just because im new and thats a CRIME? i just dont think its right cause ive done nothing wrong. flare mage22

give it a few days... you'll beable to edit it then. Acethebunny

i have waited for like 1 month now since the begining of may!!!flare mage22

http://www.runehq.com
User 70.72.51.118 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=70.72.51.118 Talk) added a link to http://www.runehq.com on Jagex, where it probably doesn't belong. Should it be added to the RuneScape page or another page in the same category?
 * The decision is currently to have no fansites on the main pages, and to only link to the respective guides on the other pages in the category. It definitely shouldn't be under Jagex though. Dtm142 17:09, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

"RuneScape is known to be unconsistent and have more spelling errors than other major MMORPGs."
Apart from finding one spelling mistake, do you have any other examples? One instance of a spelling mistake hardly makes the game "unconsistent" with "more spelling errors than other major MMORPGs." Unsless you can find... oh, 20 or so, I would say that this does not at all justify this sentence. Is ther any source to back up that it is "known as this"? Clq 11:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * When new things re released on Jagex,like quests, many typos have occured. I doubt I could find 20, but if you search through an unofficial fansite's forums you should find plenty examples. But If you feel that is not a point, then I will remove the statement. Should I remove the image as well? J.J.Sagnella 11:53, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, if it is documented anywhere that RuneScape is known for having more spelling errors than other MMORPGs then I would welcome the statement. However, I am sure that all MMORPGs have spelling mistakes, especially in new updates. If anywhere has some kind of comparison, or there is anything written about it I feel that this statement is simply not true. Clq 12:36, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay then I guess we'll leave it at not being added in. Do you think we should leave the picture in? J.J.Sagnella 14:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * When it comes to images my general opinion is that they dont hurt. I do however know that some think they do. It does fit in a little though, under critisism; "RuneScape spells Staves wrong" as a standalone statement. I say keep it in, at least until someone complains about it. Clq 14:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

If it's a notable fact, add it - • The Giant Puffin •  12:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Remove the "RuneScape spells staves wrong." It sounds like a nine year old trying to say "Nah-nah-nah-nah-nah-nah, RuneScape spells stuff wrong. HA!" It's a minor mistake, and maybe that's just how Zaff spells it.... Anyways, remove the picture.The Runescape Junkie 02:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The image is very suitable to the section, showing proof of one of RuneScape's downfalls, and if you would like to change the caption feel free to do so. J.J.Sagnella 08:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * That quote is pretty inconsistent, whoever wrote it needs a subscription to the online oxford dictionary service. RZ heretic  09:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * What is defines a typo? many are alternate or local spellings, which may seem like typoes. An example (not in game) is things like shoppe/shop. Keep that in mind, as near misspellings may be not spelled incorrectly anyway. P00rleno

clans
I havn't been to active with this article so I problably missed this:why are clans not mentioned at all? Is it a decision like no fan site? ....Coasttocoast 02:03, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Clans are discussed in the wilderness article. Xela Yrag 03:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Still, it's a pretty small reference. Granted Jagex doesn't do quite as much clan support as some other MMORPGs, but it's still a large part of the game. Oh, by the way, the max number of players was 202,000 on June 2. It's all over fansite forums. I'm just really new at this, and not sure how to say that in an official clause-thingy. Valantar 18:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)Valantar

If you think that the part about clans is not complete enough on the Wilderness article, by all means, have a go at it. I am not a member of a clan and have nothing to do with clans if I can avoid them. I don't have anything against them as I am rarely in the Wilderness, but I don't understand why anyone would want to be in a clan other than to have backup when PKing. Maybe you are the one who could enlighten us. Just keep the basic rules in mind, especially neutral point of view and encyclopedic content rather than how-to guide. (Oh, and imho, I don't think you should list any clan names - how would you objectively decide which ones to include and which to leave out; and they change too often - sort of like fansites.) Xela Yrag 16:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

clans are listed briefly because clans are created by players joining together and is not made by any of the staff of jagex! so of corse it is going to be small! if you want it bigger then make it bigger no one is stopping u. flare mage22

Jagex censors some clan leaders name. I'm not in a clan for Pk support. I'm in it for a much closer community than a fansite. There are many events that are non-pking in clans too.

The Autorune and party hat duplication incident
Why is there no information regarding the incident long ago during October of 2004 when an Autorune glitch allowed the duplication of Party Hats. I know it caused a stir in the Runescape world, yet why is it not in the articles?

This is a fair point. It is a significant point in RuneScape's history, and affected a lot of people. And it also allowed me to get a nicer party hat a few months after :D Seriously though, if someone feels the same way as me I think it should at least be mentioned in the article, at least with a few factual sentences. I vote it should be mentioned. Anyone else? Clq 13:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It only affected the economy. Hence it should go to RuneScape Economy.... J.J.Sagnella 13:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, it did, but in a very big way. I know people who quit because of this. I recon this happened before 2004 though, as it was in the first version of RuneScape, and in many ways this incident made Jagex think "Oh darn, we have to hurry up with this RS2 buisness." As, from what I have heard, RS2 is much less, if at all, hackable. Yeah, it belongs in RuneScape economy, but it is a major event in it. Im probably partial in this though. Clq 13:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * There should be a section/article on the various glitches... this included. P00rleno 16:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

ive never heard of it Rdunn 16:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Neither have I. Could someone please explain what it is?~Akroy

if we were to make a section on glitches it would be one way long section and would cause to many areas of open vandalisim oportunities. i agree with jj sagnella it was not a major event. flare mage22 WASN"T A MAJOR EVENT!!?!?!? SOme people duplicated hundreds or even thousands of PHATS that even some players that didn't play classicknow about and it wasn't major??

Cheating in RuneScape
Is this section needed? See WP:BEANS... J.J.Sagnella 18:46, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I think we debated this once before, and that the general opinion was that it wasn't needed. Clq 19:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay then, I'll revert if I see it again. J.J.Sagnella 19:27, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, in case anyone comments on this: When I say general opinion I mean three people against, and two people "If it in encyclopedic it shouldnt be left out for the reason that its cheating". In my opinion it isn't encyclopedic though. Clq 20:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * This page shouldn't lean to any one side. Cheats are sadly a key part of RuneScape's history. Dodian 21:03, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * History is one thing (see the above discussion), but linking to, and naming cheat programs is something else. I would be happy to write something on the history of how cheating has affected the game, but it would all be without any source I could cite. Clq 09:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

$$Insert formula here$$

New Construction Skill
I can't log in to the game at work, but was just told by a friend that the Construction skill is up and running. It would be nice if we were able to get information on here ASAP, at least I think it would be. Anyone up to the challenge? Xela Yrag 15:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

"This week sees the release of our biggest and most anticipated update this year: player-owned houses. No longer must RuneScape members wander the world endlessly, never being able to sit down or have a place to call their own. Members can build their houses and make furniture using the new Construction skill. Start by building a cottage with a few chairs around a fire, and add rooms and gain levels until you have your own palace. Some pieces of furniture will unlock new abilities, magic spell tablets, and even chairs you can sit down in. This incredible update features over 20 rooms, 330 pieces of furniture, 11 new NPCs, 12 dungeon monsters, craftable toys, new armour and shields, trophy rooms, tool racks, different architectural styles, butlers and a whole host of new games to play with your house guests!

Basic houses, rooms and furniture are priced cheaply enough so that most members will be able to afford somewhere to live. We have also made lots of features for our more opulent players to be able to show off their wealth. If you get your construction level high enough and you're rich enough you can build an entire dungeon to challenge your friends, you might even be able to add your own dragon to it! Or how about a throne room? - with a throne of crystal!

Fancy a change of scene? As you go up levels your house can be rebuilt in completely different designs ranging from the Rimmington “Shack” look, the Rellekkan Longhall and the Brimhaven Beach-house.

To start you must buy a small house from any of the estate agents in Seers' Village (north-west of the bank), Falador (between the furnace and the east bank), Ardougne (west of the eastern bank) or Varrock (east of the castle).

A full guide to the skill can be found in the Knowledge Base. Open the door to your new “home from home” today!

Note - we were originally going to call this skill "Carpentry", but the range of activities involved in the skill soon got much bigger than that title, so we widened it to "Construction".

''Please be aware that the Tears of Guthix will not give Construction xp for a while. The god Guthix, in his immortal wisdom, does not wish to pry into your home so soon."''

Changes that ive noticed:

Main login page and music (music avalible in game as homescape and is a mix of the main two themes). skills list has changed so you can see your total level (but not your combat level!) the quest page has changed so you can see your quest point there.

bugs in the update that ive noticed:

some of the items have a level of 0 when they obviously shouldnt be.

Rdunn 16:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * How Great- the One Week I take a runescape Break- and a new skill arrives. Typical luck. J.J.Sagnella 16:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

What items are listed as level 0? I'd like to see that lol RememberMe? 16:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Someone has already edited the Skills article with a little bit of information on the new skill (very little), so we probably don't need much in the main article. I can't wait to get out of here, get home, and check it out! Blasted filters!! LOL Xela Yrag 20:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

wow... runescape people have been waiting for that update for so long. rburp


 * [[Image:Runescape skills construction.gif]]
 * Image:Runescape skills construction.gif
 * Sorry for the late call. I've been pretty inactive in Wikipedia lately.  Since a new Skill has been updated, I decided I have to immediately get this done.  I do not consider it as my best, but it can be deemed as a temporary.  If anyone has any ideas for a better demonstration of Construction, then let me know.  Hope you like it.
 * Tarikochi Gallery Criticize 07:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

http://img93.imageshack.us/img93/8209/chap8qh.png here they are Rdunn 08:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Most popular game sentence
I deleted the phrase that had been readded again, because I had not completely deleted it before. I had only moved it to the preceding paragraph, where I felt that it was a better fit. It shouldn't be in both paragraphs, but which paragraph is better for it is certainly a topic we can throw around (like a gnome ball, maybe?). Xela Yrag 14:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * since someone didn't laugh at ur lil joke i will... hahahahahahahahahahahahaha i have a gnome ball--Acethebunny 05:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Player Moderators
The information that was added and correctly removed on the abilities of and resources for player moderators is classified as confidential information that is not to be published anywhere by anyone for any reason and is copywritten. Whether or not players have a "right" to know is not important. I feel that putting that information in the article would be a complete violation of copyright and is not verifiable without getting someone in a whole lot of trouble. Anyway, most of the important info (player mods can mute people and have access to special forums) is in the narrative paragraph. Xela Yrag 14:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Could it be verified if there were pictures of the Mod Centre and the Mod Forums?

You can't publish pictures of the Mod Centre and the Mod Forums. They are copy-written and confidential and state that they are not to be copied anywhere. I don't see how you can get around that in order to copy them other than getting permission from Jagex, and, just guessing, but I really don't think they'll give permission. Xela Yrag 17:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

we need a P-mod to find a J-mod ingame and ask if they can post a picture of the mod centre on Wikipedia. (more than likely they will say no, but it's worth a try.--Acethebunny 08:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Urm...... can ye read? Rdunn 20:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * yes i can read... can you? if a J-mod says a P-mod could do it then it could be done. duh!--Acethebunny 15:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Jagex will not allow screenshots of the Mod Centre or Forums, no matter what. All that players need to know about Player and Forum moderators is in the Knowledge Base of the RuneScape site and within the current information in this article.

ha Rdunn 17:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I allready saw a picture.

Making Money
Could there be a paragraph on the possible items that someone could merchant or other ways a person can make money? For example in world 66 a member can run laws and make 200k per hour. In world 16, a nonmember could run airs and make 100k per hour. There are also other tips like mining which I could include. Is it okay if I start such a section and how? (Sorry I'm kind of new so I'm sorry if my format is incorrect.)Eugene0k1 15:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Welcome to Wikipedia Eugene0k1. Personally, I think the idea could work and I feel you should go for it. However other people may disagree and you may have ot take it down. To add a new section just add this to the article where you think it should go (To get to the article just go so you can see the article then click "Edit this page" at the top of your screen:

==Making Money== in world 66 a member can run laws and make 200k per hour. In world 16, a nonmember could run airs and make 100k per hour. There are also other tips like mining which I could include...

Best Wishes on Wikipedia, J.J.Sagnella 16:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. (I'm pretty new myself.) Would the information you are talking about be more appropriate for Wikibooks? It sounds like it is more strategy advice and "how-to-play" than descriptive. Just a thought. Xela Yrag 17:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually that's a better idea. Unfortunately I am clueless as to how to get information to Wikibooks. J.J.Sagnella 17:23, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

RuneScape Wikibooks was moved to strategy wiki. If you want to use a wiki, use the very small RuneScapeWiki, hosted on Wikia.

Wikipedia is not a game guid so do not put this. (Koolsen0 01:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC))

Number of Servers
This has been a busy week for server additions. We have a problem that I cannot solve at work today. There are 132 servers and 2 Classic servers, according to the "select your world" screen. However, our list, which agreed with the total yesterday, is off by one when we add the seven new Canadian servers to it. How this happened, I don't know, but I will fix it this evening when I get home if someone doesn't beat me to it today. Xela Yrag 17:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Curiously, there is no world 126. Hyenaste (tell) 20:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I knew someone would solve the puzzle. Thanks for saving me a lot of time!!!! Xela Yrag 20:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

i will try to find out why there is no world 126--Acethebunny 08:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Version Five
I put version five back in and reworked it a little. While it is not exactly a new version, how are we to know what version Jagex actually thinks they are on. This one, while not abvious to the player so much, seems to be one of the bigger changes that have happened. Allowing Jagex to expand the game while not using more memory for the player - that seems to me to be pretty major. I welcome any and all comments, but let's pretty please not get into a battle over it. We get along so well (well, those who don't vandalize do), and I would hate for this article to end up on the lame edit wars pages (LOL). Xela Yrag 20:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, and I was just teasing acethebunny - he is my son. Xela Yrag 20:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * it wasn't my fault... i was watching G4 last night and they were talking about FFII--Acethebunny 20:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Sigh - well if you want to leave the article horribly innacurate. But I can assure you the latest upgrade it not an entirely new version. I'm talking about the distinction between the developer starting an entirely new product from scratch and them just improving what they already have (Which they do almost every week). If you compare the difference between RS2 and rs-classic (or rsclassic and devious mud) they are VASTLY different, i.e they are almost completely different games. It just seems horribly inconsitent to list this upgrade and yet not list countless other equally big upgrades. Please explain the reasoning for this. To imply the latest upgrade is of the same scale as rs-classic->rs2 is wrong, and to imply the latest upgrade is somehow more special than several upgrades which aren't listed is also wrong. I keep a really close eye on the upgrades to the engine and what has actually changed internally because it interests me, and to be honest it's rather frustrating to fix the accuracy of something only to have it reverted based on an opinion rather than facts. Oh and being as you asked jagex's internal name for the current release is #412. The internal version numbers goes up by about 1 or 2 a week, and can be found by examining the bytecode (as can many other things about the engine version). Have you tried looking at the bytecode recently, or are you just reverting my edits on a whim? Runefire 07:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I've been playing Runescape as a non-member for about a year and find the article enlightening. The development of the game was of particular interest to me because of my interest in software.  On another note, Exterior links often contain practically anything on Wikipedia articles, anything in good taste that is.  Enjoyed reading it. Terryeo 23:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for making you sigh, never my intention. I was just going by the news article that was posted on the main page by Jagex at the time they did the update. I can't give a reference right now because I cannot access the game at work, but the article basically stated that this update was different and more important, not necessarily to the player but to the developers. If I have somehow misunderstood this news blurb, I am more than willing to do whatever we need to do to get our article correct. And I am not a computer programmer, so I do not know, or particularly care, about the bytecode. (I have, however, been using computers since the "early days" to play RPG's from Zork forward.) I have never reverted anything on a whim and, if you look at the history, you can see that I have been working very diligently to get the spelling, grammar, and punctuation correct in the entire series of articles on RuneScape. I occasionally make mistakes, and am the first person to admit it when I do. I certainly don't think I deserve to be accused of reverting you on a whim. Xela Yrag 15:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

MMORPG v. MMOAG

 * I think RuneScape is a MMOAG (Massively Muliplayer Online Adventure Game) not a MMORPG because in the Windows Client Window, It says "RuneScape - The Massive Online Adventure Game by Jagex Ltd." Also, Role Playing Games constitute that players must follow a pre-determined path, thisis not such in RuneScape. Therefore, the information on top of the page should be changed. Post if you agree/disagree. p00rleno 14:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * As Jagex refers to RuneScape as a "MMORPG" on their cooporate website, I bealeve this is how Jagex intends the acronym to be, so this is how it should stay in this article. Clq 14:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

A game does not have to be linear to be considered to be a role-playing game (Baldur's Gate is certainly a RPG, but it is not linear; ditto the later Zelda games), so I agree that we should leave it the way Jagex refers to it, as MMORPG. Xela Yrag 15:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * i think it is both. now that doesn't mean it needs to be said everywhere. just on the Genre(s) part--Acethebunny 15:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Disagree: It is technically a Role-Playing game. Add the online part in and its an MMORPG. We need to go by what is true, not just what the game refers to itself as. W  IKIPEE  DIO  15:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Disagree: ..or agree with the previous comment; Jagex refers to RuneScape as a MMORPG, players refer to RuneScape as a MMORPG, everyone refers to RuneScape as a MMORPG. World of Warcraft is referred to as a MMORPG, and it is not much more linear than RuneScape. RuneScape IS a MMORPG, and unless there is another argument than "The client title is The Massive Online Adventure Game by Jagex Ltd.", it IS a MMORPG. Also, as I said earlier, so unless we agree on it here I will be removing MMOAG from the article. Clq 16:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * did i ever say RuneScape was not a MMOAG. no i did not. RuneScape falls into two genres. yes they are mostly the same. but it still belongs to both. i'll just leave it wrong. it's not going to kill me. --Acethebunny 02:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Interesting, a Google Search for "Massively Multiplayer Online Adventure Game" -RuneScape yields only 90 results while a Google Search for "Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game" -RuneScape yields just over 400,000 results. MMOAG isn't very widely used. Hyenaste (tell) 08:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Some Sources
I'm posting here two links about RS found by others in hopes we can use them.
 * http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/06/01/125535.php
 * http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4774534.stm Hyenaste (tell) 19:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

http://www.thestandard.com/article.php?story=200403031708187 Hyenaste (tell) 12:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Criticisms section
Can we get some consensus on this whole section? I am not sure what should and what should not be included. I admit up front that I love this game and don't want to see it criticized. However, I do know that there are legitimate criticisms of the game. But we don't want this to be a list of anyone's pet peeves or a "rant" area where people edit it to post what terrible things happened to them today. That's what the forums are for. After reading the comments on the featured article page, I am thinking that there should be nothing here that cannot be referenced. Anything else is pure opinion and speculation. For instance, how do we know that the "substandard" graphics is a criticism. Yes, we can all see it, but isn't that subjective. I, for one, love the graphics of Myst; they were absolutely awesome for their day. However, the game was sadly lacking in playability. I finished it, but I wouldn't have gone out of my way to replace it if the CD-ROM had broken in two half way through. The graphics on RuneScape aren't awesome, but I would cry, literally, if something happened and I couldn't play. Is there a reference that we can quote, even if it is something from forums or somewhere, that states that "experts" say the graphics are substandard? I would ask the same question of every other criticism listed there - who says so and why should we listen to them? And I am not saying we should eliminate the criticisms section, just reference it and clean up the opinions. Comments and guidance please. Xela Yrag 21:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Put in that it's updates are so buggy it's unbearable. I play the game lots, and it's unbearably stupid. --24.109.206.88 21:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * yes the updates are buggy... everythings updates are buggy.--Acethebunny 05:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, any newspaper or magazine arcticles on the subject would have tons of bad items, I have a friend who I will ask to try to find bad comments on the game. --pevarnj (t/c/@) 00:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Excactly. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, nor a magazine: Its an encyclopedia. Its a NPOV source for information. Clq 21:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Removed edit
Since sometimes it is a shame to let good but inappropriate contributions go to waste, I have reproduced a contribution to this article below. This was written for Wikipedia in good faith, and is not vandalism, so should not be removed from here as such. Standard external links warnings apply. Hyenaste (tell) 05:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * that is compleatly unneeded. it adds no vaule to the page and is unnessary--Acethebunny 15:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree with you, it is quite interesting and shows a potential vulnerability.
 * Interesting perhaps, but completely without any citable source. This belongs on a RuneScape fansite, not in an article that is mainly supposed to be written for people who want information on the game. Clq 17:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Discussed on many of the fansite forums, though I guess it needs a RuneScape F-Mod/J-Mod comment on the official forum to be definitive - The official forum does have guest read access, but is very slow. Ace of Risk 20:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

My two cents - first, how do we know this is real, true, accurate (whatever word is most appropriate)? Just because there is supposedly a video, doesn't mean it hasn't been modified to show whatever the video makers want it to show. As this piece is is written, it is inflammatory, draws an inference that RuneScape has something to do with The Omen, and makes a big deal of a coincidence of dates to get the rabble roused into an uproar. BTW, 06/06/06 happens every thousand years, and it's never been a big deal before; why would it be different in this thousand, and why would it pick a computer game to start on (and a day early besides)? Do we want this article to fall into the "OMG, it's mark of the beast day" mentality? I would hate to see that happen. At best, this seems to me to be a backdoor approach to get a particular player's achievement of level 99 construction into the main article when we have diligently managed to keep it from becoming a hiscores list in the past. However, a legitimate discussion of the effects of the construction skill on the RuneScape economy probably should be added to the Economy page. Xela Yrag 21:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC) -
 * yes the Economy page. and 666 happened once... 2000 years ago.--Acethebunny 02:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

i have seen the 'video' and it looks fake to me.--Acethebunny 14:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

this video is not fake, just edited for entertainment. There is a pinned topic in the rants section inside the offical runescape forums on runescape.com where this inciddent is confirmed by jagex. I myself,fx250, was a witness of this event, having also been a person with the ability to attack other runescape players outside of the wilderness. Everything in the posted story is accurate with the actual events. however it has no connection to this 666 talk, it was merely and error in programming. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.92.209.59 (talk • contribs) 21:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * There is absolutely no way that we are gonna put that section on the article. 6/6/06 is nothing but another day in the world, and we have already proved it because nothing interesting happened on that day. Why must everyone say that 6/6/06 is cursed? You're going to hurt its feelings. :) W  IKIPEE  DIO  13:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Bans from Runescape
You really should mention all the palyers that claim to have been unfairly banned from RS2. I realize that some may be lying but their are just too many complaints to ignore. If you people think that Jagex are perfect and never make any mistakes when banning, then you are sadly mistaken. Maybe you should mention all the unhappy players that are and have voluntarily quit too. Don't flame me and say that Jagex is perfect and that anyone who disagrees with your one sided view points are just lying cheaters.
 * Jagex does make mistakes, no one is denying that. Everyone makes mistakes. However, Jagex does have the right to ban anyone, at any time for no reason at all. that being said: even when they do make mistakes there is often a reason, perhaps not a big reason, but a reason never the less. I myself have been banned (and unbanned) two times. One of the times my account had been stolen through a keylogger, the other time it was just an outright mistake. Both of the times the support was extremly fair and helpful. They do look into cases again when they get ban appeals, and if you are innocent and send a sensible ban appeal you will get unbanned. Clq 13:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Removed edit (2)
Heh, I really need to think of a better headline.

Just regarding this edit, I don't think I should remove the section without explanation. Firstly, RS is not widely criticised for this. Rarely do I overhear someone ingame or read on forums, "Dangit, RuneScape is plagiarising LotR! I mean, both have rings and hammers!" Lord of the Rings is a major influence on the fantasy genre. Just read LotR. RuneScape draws material from LotR, but it certainly cannot be accused of "plagiarising" it. Hyenaste (tell) 14:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I totally agree with the above comment. Just because it has some of the same items doesn't mean it's true. There are many other games with rings and mithril and adamatite. The game is set in a medieval period (the "Renaissance" period), and I think that the Lord of the Rings is set near that period too (but I wouldn't know cause I hate LoTR). Plus, I have never ever heard Runescape criticised like that. That paragraph certainly should not be added back in. W  IKIPEE  DIO  15:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I also totally agree with the above. Almost all RPG's draw on fantasy literature, whether LotR or some other series, and they all draw on each other.  If anything is mentioned at all, it should be the influences of literature on RuneScape, which is a positive thing.  This is definitely not a "criticism" other than the opinion of one person.  Xela Yrag 16:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

adventure quest uses dozens of hitchhikers and alice refrences Rdunn 17:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Major improvement
I havent been on WP for about a week now because of my internet connection. I just got back on here and I was amazed at the improvement that has happened on this article. Its much more summarised, looks more professional and is easier to navigate through. Great job! - • The Giant Puffin •  15:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * That's what protection to this article has odne. Now I fear the article will get savaged by the anons and made rubbish again. J.J.Sagnella 15:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * My advice: semi-protect it. Then make it a Good Article, Peer Review it, and see the objections to it becoming a Featured Article, particularly the Criticism section. Work on addressing these objections, then nominate it for Featured Article. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 16:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Date
The current runescape is the 4th version the first version came out in early 1998 The current Runescape classic is the 3rd version
 * See above discussion, headline Version Five. Hyenaste (tell) 03:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Although you are half correct, the Version 5 section states that it "appears to the player to be basically the same RuneScape as Version 4 as the upgrades are much more low key than previous changes," which shows that it is more of a half-version/update than a whole new game itself (up to version four, the descriptions are correct.) The different versions on the article, particularily the last two, make it easier to differentiate between the massive updates, such as the new game engine and whole game releases. Agentscott00 03:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Swords and short skirts?
Has anyone noticed that there are things from now the past and the future in Runescape? odd....
 * Yep. RuneScape is loaded with anachronisms. Hyenaste (tell) 02:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

dident the plate skirts date back from the greek times Rdunn 17:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

recent edits at criticism

 * Often when reporting a real world trading event or scamming event, moderators do not take action against the offending users
 * * This statement seems to be half true, moderators do take action to offending users, but only some not all. Reporting a bug, sending a query or report abuse reports all subject to the capacity of the customer support unit, which seems to be lacking.


 * RuneScape requires payments, similiar to those of World Of Warcraft, and yet is not professionally made or distributed. The point of a "free" internet game is that it looks/is pretty bad, but its free, and can be fun. To experience most/the good bits of RuneScape you must pay up to ~£5. World Of Warcraft is the same as this, and is a professionally produced game. Guild Wars is completly free (barring initial buying of the game) and also professionally produced.
 * * It did not explain why the billing system is not "professionally made", unexplained criticism seems more likely to be POV.
 * * Some of the content is conflicting point 1(The game's graphics are limited by the fact that RuneScape is designed to be downloaded quickly and run in a web browser.), for which guild wars requires installation and better hardware requirements.
 * * Comparing other pay-to-play mmorpg which is not the charging the same price does not make sense (world of warcraft cost $13-15 per month and while runescape cost $5)

Therefore I made the deletion of these 2 points of criticism at the article. GSPbeetle complains Vandalisms 14:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with the deletion. I didn't notice they were there. They seem very POV, for the reasons you stated. W  IKIPEE  DIO  14:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. However, i was thinking more that World of WarCraft can be ~£6/Month (6 month payment plan) and RuneScape can be ~£5 (if charged to mobile phone).  The "is not professionally made" part was a referance to the game not the billing system.  Can you re-word your second point, as at the moment it doesnt make sense to me(probably just me being stupid) Signed: "The Guy Who Wrote The Second Deleted Criticism"


 * I see your point, you are saying that runescape does not worth the money, by its quality compared to some better graphics games, which charge about the same price.
 * I thought warcraft charge you about £7 per month on the 6 month plan and I am not too sure about the idea of whether £1 is not too much.
 * Anyway, I think it the point make sense to me. Yet just a little thing that both game are made by professional team technically. So "more professional" seems to be POV looking.
 * The second point of that is basically saying that at point 1 of the criticism section had already expressed that the game got lower quality (aka less "professional looking"). Sorry that if I misunderstood you in some parts. GSPbeetle complains Vandalisms  15:53, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, a lot of people seem to be missing the point on this whole criticisms section. Or maybe I am. I thought we were trying to create a section of criticisms that are recognized and reported on by various experts in the gaming field, i.e. gaming magazines, websites, etc. This is not supposed to be a rant section for your or my favorite pet peeve about RuneScape. We all see problems with the game, but the problems you see may not matter to me and the ones that drive me absolutely crazy may not bother you a bit. That's why we try to whittle out the POV part. IMHO, every criticism listed here needs a reference to its source; right now, none of them have them. I am trying to find some sources, but have so far been unsuccessful. And "Guy who Wrote the Second ...", you can put four ~s on there to sign your post, in case you didn't know that. Then we know to whom we are talking. 8) Xela Yrag 16:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * "This is not supposed to be a rant section for your or my favorite pet peeve about RuneScape" That's what I thought. We need to just put criticisms that are widely accepted as bad points on the game and get a source for it - • The Giant Puffin •  18:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * RuneScape not being "professionally made" is false anyway. Jagex is a real company that makes its living off the game, therefore it is professionally made, and any comments as to how "good" it is would be POV. It is definatly made by professionals who really do a good job with what they are doing. Also, I am only paying 5$ a month for membership, and that is significantly less than for WoW. I would also not say the quality of RuneScape is worse than other game, its simply another platform. Another kind of game. One cannot compare games that take a gigabyte of harddrive space and requires 3D GFX cards with online games that load in the matter of minutes and run in a browser. This comparison being made just shows how good RuneScape is for it's genre. Clq 18:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

GOOD GOURD!
This page is the 8th most edited page on the whole of wikipedia. For a fucking computer game. GET A LIFE! 172.166.95.23 17:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Says the person who went out of their way to look that up... - • The Giant Puffin •  18:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Is this talk page section doing anything but being offensive? I say remove this POV section. J.J.Sagnella 18:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I would agree with removing this section; however, it does bring up one point. Since this page does receive so many edits, most of them vandalism and the reverting of such, I would just like to say that it was sooooo nice when it was partially protected.  Siiiggghhhh.  The good old days.  Xela Yrag 19:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Absolutely - not seen a single anon IP edit in good faith, compare the peace and progreass of the semi-protection, with the sheer LUNACY we are getting now. Crazy thing is, these morons who seem to have some problem with RuneScape end up promoting the page to much-edited prominence. Ace of Risk 20:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

OMG YOU LOSERS! YOU GUYS HAVE NO LIFE!!! LOL! --24.109.206.88 13:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

that means the above poster also has no life for bothering to edit our talk page ( and it cant spell god properly ) Rdunn 17:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Critisism...
"RuneScape is also commonly accused of installing malicious software on client computers, because it is a Java game and requires access to a directory on player's systems."

Source? We all know this is false anyway, but is there at least a source that actually claims this other than one user posting his/her view as a common accusation? Clq 18:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It is a common accusation, because RuneScape stores its client data (such as the main RS client and code, MIDI files and WAV files) in C:\Windows\.file_store_32. It is believed that because RS has access to that folder, it could have access to any C:\Windows directory. I am looking for that source as we speak. However, I would like to kindly remind you to watch your attitude after the "we all know this is false anyway" remark you made. I may have no proof that it's true, but you have no proof that it's false. You really need to start keeping an open mind about this section, maybe you start doing some research instead of telling others that their findings are bogus. If anyone is wondering why this criticism section is so small, then this is why!! W  IKIPEE  DIO  19:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I read the featured article arguments, and it was lack of 'cited' critisism. As far as common sense goes I think we should also use that. As huge as RuneScape has become and the media coverage it has been getting one could conclude without it being too much of a stretch that this is not true. If this was indeed a common accusation, and it was true, it would have been confirmed by now. I am open to critisism of all sorts, as long as it has been written about and actually recognised, and is not a thought by a player, or just a small group of players. I am into RuneScape and the community quite a bit, and I have never heard anything like this been mentioned anywhere. Clq 19:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * actually the .file_store_32 is shared and not only runescape use it, it is a temporary dump for java platform applications, just like the temporary internet files at win9x age (now is on documents and settings) or cookies, each party only can create and access their own files at that directory. if they are intent to install softwares, either it will make you install an active x or a plugin. GSPbeetle complains Vandalisms  13:37, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Work on the Criticism section!
The main reason for RuneScape's Featured Article nomination failing was the Criticism section.

'''Most of the criticisms are player opinion. It is very difficult to find a "reliable source" documenting these criticisms.'''

The best references we can find will be websites run by fans or haters, and in-game screenshots (which I can provide).

The WP:V policy is degrading the quality of articles like this, and suffocating me as an editor.

On April 10, I contributed some information to the Criticism section. Back then, it was longer.

I have nominated RuneScape for WP:GA.

The Criticism section should contain the most notable player criticisms. Of course, it should not contain anyone's personal rants about the game. Having played RuneScape for 2 years, I know the most notable player criticisms. I can contribute to the Criticism section and ensure that the most notable player criticisms (I will not let personal opinions cloud my judgement) are written/presented well. Of course, the section will still not meet WP:V, and it never will.

Hopefully you will WP:AGF and trust me. If I need to prove my callibre in RuneScape, I can provide screenshots of two of my accounts.

I have presented the 7 most notable player criticisms below, in point form (my actual contributions will contain elaborations in prose form). If anyone wishes to add to the list, or dispute the notability of these criticisms, please reply. Please note that I will check whether any criticisms you contribute are notable.

1. Low quality graphics

2. In-game "lag"

3. Repetitive levelling

4. Scamming

5. Use of automated programs

6. Ineffective chat filter

7. Lack of free updates

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 10:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I would approve of all these points, if they are written in a NPOV way, however, what should the critisism be on point 5? As far as I know RS2 has made autoing quite rare, and that autoing now is pretty much inefficient. But if you manage to write a critisism on it, go ahead. I am also wondering how long each point should be, as some of them has quite a lot of information baked into them. But yes, I, having played very on and off since 2001, approve of these critisisms. Clq 12:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I will do my best to ensure NPOV. On point 5, I will mention that macroing has greatly decreased due to various measures implemented by Jagex. Most of the points will have one paragraph each, with 2-3 sentences per paragraph. Jagex's responses and defenses will be included where appropriate. Glad to know you're a qualified player. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 15:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

8. Lack of efficient customer support.


 * Oppose the criticism has most of the important points and had been written in a pretty concise and non POV way already, there did not seem to be a need to expand the section. GSPbeetle complains Vandalisms  13:47, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The people who opposed RuneScape's FA nomination evidently did not think so. They thought that the Criticism section was too short. The section needs to be expanded. Currently it's in a mess. It used to be slightly longer and better. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 15:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Have a look at Half-Life_2 and Final_Fantasy_X. Those people want a 3rd party critical response, something like gaming site/magazine review, not making it bigger. Actually the main cause for its opposition, is because the article is lack of reference and itself being unstable. In fact no mmorpg ever get featured, because it get lots of haters.  GSPbeetle complains Vandalisms  02:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Game sites and magazines are unlikely to review a browser-based game like RuneScape! I think it would be more important to note what players think of the game. Of course, this does not mean rants qualify. It means that the most notable player criticisms should go in. In my short time as an editor, WP:V has constantly hindered my progress. As for the unstability, I'm sure every high-profile article gets lots of vandalism. My advice is to permenantly semi-protect it. I nominated it for Good Article. If you semi-protect it, once I get the Criticism section done, it has a good chance of passing. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 03:18, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * ok, i leave that to you if you can get "notable players" cited. well, but just look at footnotes you will notice some game sites did rate and comment about browser games. anyways points 1,3,6 already exist and points 2,4,5 seems not too fit, as it is a bit client side matter, not the game itself. GSPbeetle complains Vandalisms  03:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * "Players" in this case, was used as an adjective, not a noun. I think "notable criticisms from players" would be a better phrase. Some of the criticisms are also shared by other MMORPGs like MapleStory or browser-based games like AdventureQuest, but should still be included because players criticise RuneScape for those reasons. Of course, if you can find sources like online reviews, please post here. I'll get to work on the Criticism section straight away. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 04:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * "Players" in this case, was used as an adjective, not a noun. I think "notable criticisms from players" would be a better phrase. Some of the criticisms are also shared by other MMORPGs like MapleStory or browser-based games like AdventureQuest, but should still be included because players criticise RuneScape for those reasons. Of course, if you can find sources like online reviews, please post here. I'll get to work on the Criticism section straight away. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 04:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I am ignoring #9 as a bunch of bull, but I have problems with some of the rest too. 1, 3, and 6 are already there.  4 is alluded to in the second one that is there (player immaturity), and with a little elaboration there, that would be fine.  How can you include customer support without POV.  I don't know how you, or anyone, can do this without bringing in your own pet peeves or opinions unless we have references.  Like I said above, the things that bother you may not bother me and the things that drive me crazy may not bother you at all.  It's all subjective.  We need more discussion, I think.  Xela Yrag 04:53, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

9. Jagex is incompitent. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.210.2.142 (talk • contribs) 19:08, 10 Jun 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't WP:AGF about anons, given the amount of vandalism from anons who are RuneScape haters. "Jagex is incompetent" seems more like POV-pushing than criticism.
 * actually this point conflicts with point 8 GSPbeetle complains Vandalisms  03:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)