![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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))
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. C omrade T ux 22:14, 12 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)
"The traffic generated from this provides extra support for these popular fansites even though they might not offer a better service."
AND A LOT MORE TO COME!!!!!!! =D =D :D —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diet222 ( talk • contribs) 22:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
-- 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
-- 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)
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)
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)
Thanks!-- Muzekal Mike ( talk) 20:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
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)
? -- ☯µWiki☯ Talk / Contributions (YouWiki) 01:43, 27 March 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)
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 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. Someone another 02:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
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)
( 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)
Channel 4, Ten Ton Hammer, about.com and Common sense media (by Net Mom!). May that be a lesson. Someone another 06:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Ten ton hammer is outdated. No more Pk'ers unfortunately =( -- Armanalp ( talk) 16:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Have I missed anything? -- RS Ren ( talk) 11:55, 9 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)
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. Someone another 14:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
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)
( 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))
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)
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. -- Mrug 2 19:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
My two cents on these confounded Neutrality tags.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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))
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. C omrade T ux 22:14, 12 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)
"The traffic generated from this provides extra support for these popular fansites even though they might not offer a better service."
AND A LOT MORE TO COME!!!!!!! =D =D :D —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diet222 ( talk • contribs) 22:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
-- 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
-- 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)
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)
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)
Thanks!-- Muzekal Mike ( talk) 20:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
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)
? -- ☯µWiki☯ Talk / Contributions (YouWiki) 01:43, 27 March 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)
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 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. Someone another 02:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
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)
( 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)
Channel 4, Ten Ton Hammer, about.com and Common sense media (by Net Mom!). May that be a lesson. Someone another 06:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Ten ton hammer is outdated. No more Pk'ers unfortunately =( -- Armanalp ( talk) 16:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Have I missed anything? -- RS Ren ( talk) 11:55, 9 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)
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. Someone another 14:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
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)
( 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))
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)
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. -- Mrug 2 19:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
My two cents on these confounded Neutrality tags.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)