Talk:RuneScape combat
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Massively multiplayer online games, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of massively multiplayer online games. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. | ||
 |
This article is also under the scope of our RuneScape Task Force, a collaborative effort of WikiProject Massively multiplayer online games focusing on RuneScape-related articles. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the the assessment scale. | ||
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. | |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale. | |
| Low | This article is on a subject of Low priority within gaming for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0. | |
|
CVG To-do:
|
||
 |
Quick guide to Fancruft on RuneScape subpages.
Remember: Wikipedia is not a game guide, all content must be of a neutral point of view, all content must be verifiable. In these subpages, we are not writing for RuneScape players; we are writing for everybody in the world. Very few of people need to know things like "abby whips cost 2mil" or "zammy prayerbooks are a reward from horror from the deep quest". This is Fancruft, in that it only appeals or means anything to players and fans of RuneScape, and will "bore, distract or confuse a non-fan, when its exclusion would not significantly harm the factual coverage as a whole". It makes a poor article to be filled with fancruft. Instead, a more basic explanation is more often required, as readers may not know as much as you do! In short, fancruft includes things like:
Avoiding Fancruft
Instead, use inline citations, linking to the relevant RuneScape knowledge base article. Wikipedia is not the place to guide people through every detail of playing RuneScape, as such a level of detail is inappropriate. It is appropriate at the RuneScape Wiki, a version of Wikipedia intended for players. Furthermore, read Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Then read it again. You may also wish to read the Wikipedia Introduction in full. Make it easier on your fellow contributors before you click the Save button; click the Preview button, Wikilink to other articles (for example, Wikilink to Sword), make sure your spelling and grammar is absolutely immaculate, don't ask readers to message you ingame, and don't ever use shorthand! Ur nt in rs anymore, you are writing an Encyclopedia! |
 |
This article was nominated for deletion on 19 July 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
|
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed merger of the article below. Please do not modify it.
[edit] Merge with RuneScape_skillsIt is rare to have an MMORPG in wikipedia to have an individual section on combat. Combat itself is a kind of runescape skill and the RuneScape skills have a subsection about combat which i suggest to expand it with this newly spilt section. any suggestions? Gspbeetle 08:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC) Agree Not much more to say. J.J.Sagnella Merge Makes sense. Comabat isnt part of the RS series either - |
Disagree, but too late - In danger of making the skills article far too long, or triggering another bout of brutal slashing Ace of Risk 18:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
WHO THE .... THOUGHT OF THIS? DEFINATELY NO!Combat can be between NPC and F2P and P2P, so it would be ignoring the fact that NPCs can fight.Kingalex56 T C W U
- RuneScape combat is spilted to reduce the size of the main article, RuneScape
-
- the article RuneScape skills had already got a section of melee, range, magic and prayer before the merger, which is overlaping with the article, RuneScape combat, therefore the merger is suggest.
-
- the result of the merger was a smaller article size, as some section of the original RuneScape skills article had parts overlapping with RuneScape items.
GSPbeetle complains Vandalisms 10:03, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Lists
I am proposing that we remove the following lists from the article, since they are more appropriate for the portal or a game guide, and not for this encyclopedia article:
- Basic magic
- Ancient Magicks
- Table of what prayers can do
- Prayer bonuses
--Hetar 01:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC) Agreed- Just sum it up in one paragraph, no need for a table. J.J.Sagnella 07:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Combat level
How, exactly, is combat level determined? For instance, my current levels are:
25 attack 25 strength 25 defense 2 ranged 25 prayer 11 magic 26 hitpoints
But, my combat level is 32.
What's the deal? I'd just liked this explained. DL 21:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
- Jagex has never released the exact formula, even though it doesn't seem like confidential information. Some people have created a formula close to the real one (within .5 combat levels) at websites such as http://www.rsbandb.com. Average players do know some pieces of the formula, though. For example, I can see that your ranged and magic levels do not factor into your combat level. Hyenaste (tell) 05:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- All that I know is that combat is completed with the following: 99 strength, 99 hitpoints, 99 attack, 99 defence and 99 prayer, 99 range and mage are not important in achieving 126 combat, (the max) however they give expierience towards hitpoints —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Laras friend (talk • contribs) 19:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC).
-
- One fan site, Rune Tips, is believed to have found the exact formula, which they have not released. Or at least, if they don't have it, it's so close that it's never made a mistake as far as I know, and they've tested thousands of results. What I do know is that since your attack, strength, or defense levels or higher than either your magic or ranged levels, magic and ranged don't factor in. Also, I think defense, prayer, and hitpoints always factor in; attack and strength for meleers only, ranged for rangers only, and magic for mages only. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pyrospirit (talk • contribs).
Attack, Strength, Defense, Magic, Ranged, Prayer, and Hitpoints always factor in. How would Jagex program in if you're a pure or not? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.213.179.21 (talk • contribs).
- I can't program in Java, and barely in Visual Basic, but I can imagine how it is done. Maybe they calculate the ratio of melee:mage:ranged (where melee is an average of attack, strength and defence, and hitpoints ignored) levels, and if one of those is equal to or greater than n above the rest, then a decision making script (an If or Select Case conditional statement, in Visual Basic) will mark that person as a pure in that skill. Sign your posts! CaptainVindaloo t c e 00:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] State of play?
Just wondering what's going on with this article? There's so much going on with the RS group recently that it's difficult to keep up. Noticed the merge 'thing' at the top of the talk page, is that decided or moot? This article seems like a good place to put some info from the melee weapon/armour pages, I don't see how this can be assimilated into skills along with the tiddly skill pages due to size constraints. A heads-up would be appreciated. BTW, I've 'reverted' three changes made by an anon. user via editting the page (a paragraph had gotten chopped, then there was false info or possibly vandalism), there was an auto-message left about one of the images on the page being removed, so I didn't want to muck about with the revert. QuagmireDog 19:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- Basically, the article was totally rewritten, and RuneScape Armor and Weapons were merged into it (they were total fancruft). All essential information from the weapon and armour pages was incorporated into this article, and those pages were deleted. The merge 'thing' is outdated, as it says, and the decision was not to merge with skills. Combat and skills will most likely not be merged (hopefully), and we've removed almost all redundant information between them. I was confused too when I saw Weapons and Armor gone and Combat totally different. Pyrospirit 01:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Keep it named Combat
This is one of the categories of runescape such as crafting, fletching, and woodcutting/firemaking. Lets leave it at that. Do not merge it with runescale skills! It may be forced for cleanup and I don't want that.
--Storkian 12:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Styles and equipment
I think it would look a lot better and cleaner if melee equipment and styles were put under a heading 'melee' as for the other two classes to keep the same things grouped together. Also nothing is mentioned about the fight pits, so we can work on that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by M3tal H3ad (talk • contribs) 03:57, 14 November 2006.
[edit] Merge with Wilderness (RuneScape)
The large majority of the wilderness article is either unverifiable or fancruft, and what's left is short enough to just be merged here. I'm not sure why the wilderness should get its own article. -Amarkov blahedits 03:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- The wilderness is the biggest part of the game for many players. It's really the only time when you can openly fight against other players with normal loss of items and no special rules. I think it should remain separate; also, Combat would become too large with the information from Wilderness. Pyrospirit 16:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- Wouldn't it be better as a major section in RuneScape locations? CaptainVindaloo t c e 16:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- Maybe. I would consider it more a part of combat than a location. As for Pyrospirit, the wilderness being the biggest part of the game for players isn't really a reason to keep a seperate article for it. We don't have an article for quests, which are really the only reason I play. -Amarkov blahedits 22:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree with captain vindaloo --Storkian 22:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- I don't really care, but it should be merged somewhere. -Amarkov blahedits 00:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- I'm working on a Locations page rewrite to clear out the cruft and add a bit more order to it. I could make the Wilderness section larger if needed so that it could replace the Wilderness article. The rewrite can be found here. --Pyrospirit Talk Contribs 19:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
- Agree, seeing how article is crufted, but not bad enough to deserve afd list. See below topic for support of my claim: → p00rleno (lvl 77) ←ROCKSCRS 12:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- By itself, fancruft is a reason for cleanup, not deletion. Just so you know. CaptainVindaloo t c e 14:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
It does seem to be realy on the fancruft side. As stated previously, even though it is the bigest part of the game for many people, doesn't mean it should have its own artical, in my mind. I mean, my favorate part of the game is questing, and I dont see a big old artical about that, and it would probably be better if it were merged with combat, and simplified to a few objective paragraphs. --Seth109876
Perhaps we can merge part of it with the combat section, and part of it with the area section? Like the sections about pures, clans etc in combat, and the areas with um... areas? Just a thought... --Seth109876
- I agree, as the Wilderness is just a location for combat, PvP or normal. There already is a PvP section under RuneScape combat and a Wilderness section under RuneScape locations. There's no need to go into so much about one type of PvP and locations/NPCs, which really only seem to contain mostly, if not all, members-only information. -Squids and Chips 04:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
The Wilderness article looks too big to merge with Combat, another large article. Maybe it should just be cut back a bit to make it more encyclopedic - • The Giant Puffin • 13:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
My comment on the last AFD for Wilderness:
What worries me about the wilderness article is that up till now the 'experiment' of letting the articles run free had resulted in this article being stuffed to the roof with non-notable info, 'storytelling' wording and more focus on wandering NPCs than the nitty-gritty of what the wilderness -is-. The wilderness is two things, it's a very large location, a considerable slice of RS' map, it's also the only free-for-all PvP area of RS where players stand to lose most or all of what they're carrying. Those two sections, -in- their respective articles put some weight behind those articles and give a subject worthy of writing-up in detail. If the article should be kept, I see no outcome apart from two other articles being considerably weaker than possible and a whole article ready to be typed back into a non-notable mass. Regarding locations, it is now the last bastion of unchecked, just-like-mamma-used-to-make fancruft still present in the RS series. Should it be trimmed, I would be extremely surprised if it couldn't accomodate the relevant information.
^ Which, at the time, echoed what some other participants were saying (but in more detail). The mass cull of articles has carried away most of the fancruft, and with the total rebirth of the combat articles (nice work guys, real nice) and Pyrospirit's excellent work on a new locations article, this merge seems more relevant than ever. Size really isn't an issue (it was quoted as being in the last AFD), since the current locations article does not resemble the new one in any shape or form and since the Wilderness article can easily be cut down to size. QuagmireDog 14:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- Currently, the wilderness section is one of the sections I haven't written yet, Misthalin being the only section that's really finished, but if you want, I could have a large section on the Wilderness that could possibly replace the current article. Pyrospirit Talk Contribs 17:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- I'm thinking that a piecewise merge might be best. The stuff about combat in the wilderness can go here, and the rest can go into the locations article. -Amarkov blahedits 18:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
- That'd be the icing on the cake. Not only would it keep the wilderness info tidied up and cruft-free, the combat and new locations articles are profoundly better than any of the older articles barring the main article. All that would remain are three excellent and useful sub-articles and a car crash called Gods, which will doubtless end up gobbled by AFD in the future anyway. QuagmireDog 19:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- I'm thinking that a piecewise merge might be best. The stuff about combat in the wilderness can go here, and the rest can go into the locations article. -Amarkov blahedits 18:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Gods was kept pretty strongly in that AfD as an encyclopedic character/story overview (not a mere plot summary though) since the Gods are the most recurring characters and are usually involved with all the game history somehow. It could be moved to RuneScape history or similar instead - adding a history section to cover the gaps, or a new separate history article outright in case of size problems. Gods is the current collab at WP:RUNESCAPE - when everyone comes back after new year, some progress should be made. It just doesn't seem to have had the same attention as the worst offenders; armour and weaponry for example. CaptainVindaloo t c e 01:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- This merge gets my full support. Greeves 22:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
I think you're onto something there Captain, but rather than me spamming this dicussion further I'll drop a note on your talk page. Anyone else have an opinion on the merge? Be sure to have a look at the combat, (new) locations and wilderness articles to get a feel for the suggestions. QuagmireDog 03:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Progress
I've gone ahead and done the part-merge with the locations article. Actually, it removed lots of content, because apparently the section got overloaded with random unverifiable cruft. There isn't really that much important, or verifiable, about the location... -Amarkov blahedits 00:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
- And I've gotten the stuff merged into here now, which actually didn't result in removing anything. Something else? -Amarkov blahedits 05:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Looks dandy. Nothing else to suggest except seeing what others think then redirecting the wilderness article. QuagmireDog 21:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
- I'll work on polishing up the part in RuneScape locations. I'm all for the merge and redirection. Pyrospirit Talk Contribs 21:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Is the article ready for redirection yet? Is the merge done? Greeves (talk • contribs) 21:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Black and White armor
Black and White armor sets are not counterparts; Black is simply a metal better than steel, while White gives a prayer bonus and is associated with Saradomin. The materials of either one are unknown. --Pyrospirit Talk Contribs 15:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Ya, I agree. Not that I have much exp with eather of them, I know they are very different, and should be viewed as seperate. But thats just me. --Seth109876
- Well to be quite specific about it there are 3 distinct types of white armor, and there is also barrows armor. :þ clsours ¡Æ! 04:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
To be honest, the encyclopedia reader to whom we are writing, doesn't care.Xela Yrag 11:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] So much to do!!!
This article was supposed to be merged into the weapons and armours article, not the other way around. We (myself and several others) had already done most of the work needed to remove all the fancruft and crap from that article, but here it is all back again in this one. All that needed to be done to that article was a name change and a few things from this article moved to it (such as the combat triangle section and a few other minor details). Does anyone by any chance still have a copy of the old Weapons and Armour article, so we don't have to reinvent the wheel to clean this one up? Xela Yrag 11:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
There is still a TON of cleanup to do, but it is at least somewhat better. Xela Yrag 13:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Holy class/style removed
I think this deserved a better explanation since someone took the time to write a nice little section:
As much as possible we put information in that can be sourced (either from reliable sources or the primary source, which is the RS site), whereas the combat triangle is widely recognized a fourth 'class' of fighter is not (as stated in the text).
I believe 'monks' are basically pure warriors, so a (very brief) mention in the pures section (which is currently part of the wilderness article) may be needed to cover that base.
Just thought it'd be better to state why I removed it from the article. QuagmireDog 01:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
- The combat triangle had been deleted by a naughty anon! I was wondering when it had gone and why.. and another anon had helpfully started a new section about it (which I replaced with the deleted material). Sorry to replace your work anon, but at least the info you've written has been incorporated. QuagmireDog 08:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh, sorry bout adding the holy thing. Didn't see the triangle at all when i viewed the page and included it. Mostly did it because a friend of mine almost solely specialized in prayer when he was playing. BlazingSleet 02:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- Don't apologize, without contributions the WP wouldn't have 1.5 million articles :) I just wanted to explain. Some cheeky monkey had removed the combat triangle which didn't help matters at all. Thanks for your understanding. QuagmireDog 13:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Prayer Magic
Isnt it true the more you pray you get powerful spells (as ive been to Edgeville in the Wilderness and I saw a player do a powerful magic attack achived by his prayer points. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.156.224.238 (talk) 20:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC).
Please remember that this is an encyclopedia, not a discussion forum. Only the Smite and Retribution prayers can deal damage to opponents. Xela Yrag 23:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I apolagize I assure you. Thankyou for answering (as I havent got the greatest of knowledge about Runescape!).
[edit] Prayer in combat level
To clear up some erroneous information that has been posted in this article as well as the Skills article, here is some information that is way too specific for the article, but I hope it helps keep errors from creeping in. Prayer is a very important element of combat level. At higher combat levels, earning eight prayer levels without increasing levels in any other combat skill raises a player's combat level by one. At lower combat levels, the number is sometimes seven instead of eight, depending on the relative levels of the other combat skills. If ranged and/or mage levels are higher than melee skill levels, the player's combat level is based upon them rather than upon the melee skills. Therefore, saying that prayer, ranged, and mage levels do not affect combat level is totally erroneous. Xela Yrag 16:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- According to Rune Tips, your combat level is determined as follows:
-
- If your attack, strength, or defense level is higher than your magic or ranged levels, you are melee-based.
- Melee-based characters' combat level is determined by hitpoints, attack, strength, defense, and prayer.
- The magic and ranged levels of a melee-based character are ignored when finding combat level.
- If your magic level is higher than your attack, strength, defense, or ranged levels, you are magic-based.
- Magic-based characters' combat level is determined by magic, defense, hitpoints, and prayer.
- The attack, strength, and ranged levels of a magic-based character do not matter.
- If your ranged level is higher than your attack, strength, defense, or magic levels, you are ranged-based.
- Ranged-based characters' combat level is determined by ranged, defense, hitpoints, and prayer.
- The attack, strength, and magic levels of a ranged-based character do not matter.
- If your attack, strength, or defense level is higher than your magic or ranged levels, you are melee-based.
- As far as I know, this is how it all works. Of course, this doesn't belong in the article as it is total gamecruft, but hopefully it'll be helpful here. Pyrospirit Flames Fire 17:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Melee section
The melee picture that is representing a fighter attacking a black knight is kinda unfullfilling.
all the other classes such as mage and ranger show the character doing some damage and even killing the opponent however the melee skill shows the character sadly missing in a endless cycle. i suggest we change the image to show a character at least killing or using a special attack on a enemy, showing a armed warrior missing is kinda sad snd looks bad while everyone else is causing damage. Maverick423 17:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- Does it really matter? People won't (or shouldn't at any rate) be influenced on how or if they play by whatever Wikipedia shows them. Besides, showing that attacks don't always deal damage might be considered useful information. DiscordantNoteCntrbtns 20:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
ah yes that is true and in reviewing the article i cannot find any info on such details so i take it the picture will have to do for displaying such info. Maverick423 21:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, I'm afraid I have to agree with DiscordantNote. It shows a player fighting and miss or hit, it still shows it. J.J.Sagnella 18:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- I agree with DiscordantNote as well. It really would only make a difference to RuneScape players. Pyrospirit Flames Fire 17:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
