Jump to content

Talk:RuneScape

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by YOPbottle (talk | contribs) at 22:40, 15 October 2012 (→Edit request on 2 April 2012). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Former good article nomineeRuneScape was a Sports and recreation good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 4, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
June 14, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
June 19, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
August 10, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
July 20, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
October 15, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
March 9, 2007Good article nomineeListed
March 29, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
July 22, 2008Good article reassessmentDelisted
April 16, 2009Peer reviewReviewed
May 30, 2009Good article nomineeNot listed
June 12, 2010Peer reviewReviewed
Current status: Former good article nominee
WikiProject iconVideo games B‑class Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles
BThis article has been rated as B-class on the project's quality scale.
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:
WikiProject iconGuild of Copy Editors
WikiProject iconThis article was copy edited by SMasters, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on May 21, 2010.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles

Template:Maintained

image request

Can someone update the gameplay image? It looks out-of date.

Edit request on 2 April 2012

Today Jagex has reversed a long-standing company policy and began offering in-game items for purchase. Specifically, they are selling spins on the "Squeal of Fortune", a random-reward generator. Effectively, Jagex has created a lottery system that allows players to spend real-world money for a chance to win significant in-game advantages. I believe this change is worth a mention in this article because, as mentioned, this is a reversal of long-standing company policy and because it eliminates one of the key differentiators between Runescape and other MMORPGs.

The news item announcing this game update is located at http://services.runescape.com/m=news/squeal-of-fortune--extra-spins [citation 1]

The old company policy, as stated in the game rules section of the Runescape Wiki, is located at http://services.runescape.com/m=rswiki/en/Real-world_trading [citation 2]. The policy is stated on that page as follows: "We don’t want players to be able to buy their way to success in RuneScape. If we let players start doing this, it devalues RuneScape for others. We feel your status in real-life shouldn’t affect your ability to be successful in RuneScape."

YouTube videos (my apologies, I don't know if these count as a citable source or not) have already appeared showing players gaining significant advantage from Squeal spin purchases, for example: www.youtube.com/watch?v=ga1Te1jEB_M [citation 3]

I propose the following text be added to the end of the History and Development section of the article: On 2 April 2012, Jagex released an update to Runescape's "Squeal of Fortune" [cite 1], allowing players to purchase spins on the Squeal with real-world currency. This update reversed a long-standing company policy, which had stated that "[Jagex doesn't] want players to be able to buy their way to success in RuneScape. If [Jagex lets] players start doing this, it devalues RuneScape for others. [Jagex feels the player's] status in real-life shouldn’t affect [the player's] ability to be successful in RuneScape" [cite 2]. The day the update was released, many players posted videos to YouTube showing their Runescape characters gaining high-level equipment and millions of experience points through the purchase of Squeal spins [cite 3].

--Ponteaus (talk) 15:29, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Doing... Certainly worth a mention; I'll put it in as soon as I've thought about how to word it. Note that the wiki is not a reliable source but news posts are fine, so at some point I want to couple this with a secondary source. (My personal opinion is that Jagex can do what they wish with their own items; the rule has always been against other people selling them.)
I've added a suggested wording. Also, I'd like to note that the link to the RS Wiki is to a "Jagex-approved" page, which should be stable, as opposed to the "Community-powered" pages that can be changed by RS players.--Ponteaus (talk) 15:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done, for the moment. Although "Jagex-approved" pages might well be useful as sources, there's no agreement here on which pages we can use, so to avoid any doubts we don't use it at all. And no, while YouTube isn't banned it needs to be used with care. I'm going to keep looking around other websites and see if anyone has posted a reaction to this update - we try not to rely exclusively on news posts. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 16:01, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this belongs in the Rules and Cheating section of the article, as this is not a change to the Runescape rules but rather a change to Jagex's policy regarding Runescape gameplay. I only used the link to the Runescape Rules page because that is where I could find them speaking to the old policy.--Ponteaus (talk) 16:47, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't make it fit anywhere else (H&D is closest but this is more about the game in general rather than specific updates), and making a new section would be foolish unless there's a lot to write on the subject, in which case it would be a sub-section of Gameplay. I have observed a lot of negative player reception - if that gets covered anywhere I will include that as well. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 16:56, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a good external article: http://www.develop-online.net/news/40387/Runescape-begins-first-microtransaction-experiment. I still favor including it under History and Development. This is a big change the Runescape business plan and gameplay philosophy, as it sounds like your searches are showing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ponteaus (talk • contribs) 18:11, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My searches didn't come to much as nobody had actually written anything yet, so you were ahead of me. I've chosen to quote from the article as it would be unfair to draw conclusions from a single article, but I think I got the spirit of it. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 19:13, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

why is this locked?

There hasn't been any vandalism in years, so whats the problem?140.198.46.138 (talk) 00:20, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because everybody here knows what will probably happen if it's unlocked, and nobody feels a need to change the status quo. Unlock the page and you're potentially inviting a flood of vandals/trolls/players with axes to grind (hence the years-long protection log.) There was a trial for pending protection a couple of years back, which allowed anonymous edits so long as they were reviewed and accepted, and there was a heavy mix of vandalism and edits that were not in the article's best interests so the article just went back to usual protection again. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 11:41, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution Of Combat

Considering that runescape is about to have it's largest update to date, how is wikipedia going to cope with the change? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.122.49.61 (talk) 17:58, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Section title changed to correct a typo) Wikipedia will "cope" as time permits, although I've been looking closely at the Combat section to see what needs doing. By and large the information will still be accurate, although the Action Bar and combat abilities deserve a mention. The paragraph about the beta will also tweaking to summarise its most important aspects - it was written when the beta was first announced and hasn't been changed since. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 18:38, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 25 June 2012

Please change the number of members on runescape from 200 million to 198.5 million because as a runescape player myself, it's a big moment when Runescape hits that 200million user milestone. It's such a big deal that runescape is holding celebrations of it, and I, as well as thousands of others, would not like to provide false information the public.

Shinyemu (talk) 19:17, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure While I know that RS hasn't hit the 200M mark yet, the source currently being used says "nearly 200M". We also can't use the main website as a source because the counter changes too frequently. Until I can find a better source, I'm inclined to leave the numbers as they are. (I've left this request open for someone else to look at. Also note that this article was not written for RS players, but for a more general audience that probably won't care about player celebrations, harsh as that sounds.) 1ForTheMoney (talk) 19:33, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Partly done: I have modified it to say that runescape has nearly 200 million members rather than approximately. Nearly makes it clear that it hasn't met that number yet. Ryan Vesey Review me! 20:45, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Content Restoration Request on September 10th 2012

Content has been removed from this page. the content removed had to do with insight venture partners purchase of stock in runescape, the date some of the creaters left the board of directors, etc. it would be greatly appreciated if you would restore this content as it was particularly useful when explaining the business side of runescape. Note: Runescape hit 200m players as of July 19th 2012. Here is the link. http://services.runescape.com/m=forum/forums.ws?294,295,40,63891131

(Moved to bottom of page to keep things in order.) There are a couple of problems with your statement First, IVP purchased stock in the company Jagex, not in RuneScape, and that article already contains information to this end. Second, RuneScape has 200M accounts, not players - they are not the same thing. But again, we already note the number of accounts created and I'm not sure whether the date is relevant (that sort of information gets old really quickly.) 1ForTheMoney (talk) 22:15, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Request 1/10/2012

The system specs are out of date the ones listed are for the 2008 HD release since then the graphics have been updated in most of the game. Minimum specs: - 512 MB RAM - 1Ghz CPU - For DirectX or OpenGL graphics: 128MB 3D Graphics Card (i.e. Nvidia® GeForce™ 4 or above, or ATI 9800 or above)

There's also a detailed recommended settings/specification table posted.

Source: http://services.runescape.com/m=rswiki/en/Minimum_Specs — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.26.157.40 (talk) 12:11, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done There is a small problem - we can't use wikis as sources (see #12), which has been something of a headache ever since the KB converted to that format. Now if those figures appeared on a fansite that would be fine, otherwise... 1ForTheMoney (talk) 12:49, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: It is a Jagex approved article though which means it came from them originally & features no user content notice the red symbol on the page it means only Jagex staff can edit it. For an explanation see http://services.runescape.com/m=rswiki/en/ it's not like some random person wrote it like with most wiki entries if it came form them it should be ok... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.178.248.98 (talk) 03:17, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm well aware of that and personally I agree with you, but we've discussed this before with no results. Let me quote from the guideline on self-published sources: "For that reason, self-published media...such as open wikis...are largely not acceptable as sources". Another problem is that if this article applies for Good Article or Featured Article status, the reliability of such sources will be questioned. The page may be protected but there's no guarantee it will always be so, so on balance I'm still going to say no. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 10:38, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just toss my uninvited two cents in here and agree with 1ForTheMoney. Whether the article is "Jagex approve" or not, it doesn't appear to pass WP:V. It is unfortunate that much of the KB is out, but so be it... Nolelover Talk·Contribs 15:58, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:RuneScape&oldid=518013338"