Talk:RuneScape/Archive 8

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  A few seggestions 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Two general reminders 

message: 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? WIKIPEEDIO 15:16, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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... WIKIPEEDIO 15:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm getting the error too. Hyenaste (tell) 15:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ...but I see the page when I log out too. Hyenaste (tell) 15:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Boy, that would sure suck if I could never edit this article from my user again :( WIKIPEEDIO 15:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your talk page shows the same error, so it's not just this page. Hyenaste (tell) 15:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

text: 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 WIKIPEEDIO 15:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  somethings wrong... 

message: 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)
thread_title:  [[Portal talk:RuneScape#My proposal for fansite links.|My proposal for fansite links.]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  /*good and bad*/ 

message: 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)
thread_title:  http://www.runehq.com 

message: 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)
replies: text: Clans are discussed in the wilderness article. Xela Yrag 03:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: clans

message: 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)
replies: text: It only affected the economy. Hence it should go to RuneScape Economy.... J.J.Sagnella 13:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  There should be a section/article on the various glitches... this included. P00rleno 16:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Autorune and party hat duplication incident 

message: Is this section needed? See WP:BEANS... J.J.Sagnella 18:46, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Okay then, I'll revert if I see it again. J.J.Sagnella 19:27, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Cheating in RuneScape

message: 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)
replies: text: since someone didn't laugh at ur lil joke i will... hahahahahahahahahahahahaha i have a gnome ball--Acethebunny 05:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Most popular game sentence 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Player Moderators 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Making Money

message: 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)
replies: text: Curiously, there is no world 126. Hyenaste (tell) 20:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of Servers 

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  Version Five 

message: : 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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. WIKIPEEDIO 15:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  MMORPG v. MMOAG 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Some Sources 

message: 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)
replies: text: yes the updates are buggy... everythings updates are buggy.--Acethebunny 05:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Criticisms section 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Bans from Runescape 

message: 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#Influences on the fantasy genre. RuneScape draws material from LotR, but it certainly cannot be accused of "plagiarising" it. Hyenaste (tell) 14:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. WIKIPEEDIO 15:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Removed edit (2) 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Major improvement 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Date 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Swords and short skirts? 

message: 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)
replies: text: Says the person who went out of their way to look that up... - • The Giant Puffin • 18:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: GOOD GOURD!

message: "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)
replies: text: 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!! WIKIPEEDIO 19:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Critisism...