Forum:Favourite and Wiki worlds

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Favourite and Wiki worlds
Archive
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 30 January 2009 by Azaz129.

Do you think there should be a ptp and ftp world that is sort of the wiki's official world? Not anything set in stone, but it would be nice to have a world where most wikians hang out on. It could be used to promote community‎Pumpkin.pngAtlandy 22:36, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a great idea - it would be nice to bump into wikians out and about.  ;-) Shame we can only nominate two favourite servers. I am usually on 84 (UK P2P) for day-to-day stuff. Leevclarke talk Max_logo_mini.png bulldog_puppy.png 03:33, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree, and world 84 happens to be my home world too :-D. Maybe have the home worlds be: World 84 for P2P and World 81 for F2P. - TehKittyCatTalk Wikian-Book 04:35, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Why not have the f2p world be 19, I think those two together would be quite memorable and since 19 is a 'us' world it will span that puddle of water. ~kytti khat 16:55, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
I like it, but let's set some boundries here before we make a final decision. I think these boundaries could easily be agreed on:
  • One F2P and one P2P
  • No QuickChat Worlds
  • No PvP Worlds
  • LootShare Worlds (not really mandatory, but it'd be great for Wiki Events or teaming up in training)
  • Ideally, a "neutral" world, where it has no reccomended activity (less outside intervention for those activities)
  • Ideally, not one of the first 10-20 worlds, as they can be difficult to log into.

Any objections to the above? --Pikaandpi 17:26, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

    • Wish things like this didn't get lost in the huge yew grove page....Any world is fine with me. Perhaps a poll on the front page to let everyone vote on it? ‎Cooked chicken.pngAtlandy 18:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
      • I agree with Pikaandpi's suggestion. Which worlds should we use? White partyhat old.png C Teng talk 02:31, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
        • Arrgh! This is getting lost in the Yew Grove for something that is very useful! I would recommend worlds that are pretty representative, perhaps have lootshare, and an "average" player load (not a world with a whole bunch of players typically like worlds 1 & 2). A further suggestion would be to make the world something in England, USA, or Canada due to bandwidth needs. I agree with the quickchat & PvP restrictions mentioned above! I only suggest America due to a number of Americans who edit on this wiki. How about World 28 for P2P and World 29 for F2P? Worlds 84 & 81 are both in England (not really a big deal for me) and world 81 isn't a lootshare world, although 29 is. Some food for thought. --Robert Horning 05:50, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
          • If we use Worlds 28 and 29, where would we show it? Could we put a link on the Maintop to RuneScape:Wiki world and put something on the Sitenotice? White partyhat old.png C Teng talk 12:39, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
            • i strongly recommend world 80 for a F2P world  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Btzkillerv (talk).
              • Why? White partyhat old.png C Teng talk 12:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
                • Sorry i just remembered world 80 is PvP now, it should be world 81, because it is a transition world and not much people go on it due to regional preferences, but world 81 is also a trade center and my home world, the cons are that it has a medium-high player population

Explorer's ring 3.pngBtzkillerv has entered the building! Cape (blue).png 17:06, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

The reason I was suggestion worlds 28 & 29 have to do with the fact that they have a high bandwidth network connection, are consecutively numbered, neither one is a themed world other than the fact that they are loot-share worlds, and otherwise fit all of the above requirements. Being consecutively numbered helps to keep track of where the member world is at if you are F2P and vice versa. I am also trying to be genuinely neutral in this selection and not just selecting it because it is my "home world" or that i have any special attraction to it. BTW, world 81 isn't a "lootshare world", if that makes this selection any easier.

yeah i agree, but we still need wiki's Special PVP worlds.

Explorer's ring 3.pngBtzkillerv has entered the building! Cape (blue).png 13:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Other "pairs" of servers like this include worlds 47&48 (USA), 75&76(USA), 112&113(Aus/Can), and 117&118 (Sweden). While I'm not calling Stockholm a 3rd world country for its internet connectivity, I don't know if it is the best place for a user base that is scattered around the world. I really think the selection of worlds ought to be restricted to just these five pairs of servers unless there is a very strong rationale other than "it is my home world". Worlds 28&29 are the "first" pair, using an otherwise rational approach rather than trying to get emotional here. Everybody has a world they started on or got attached to for some reason or another. My personal "favorites" are worlds 30 & 66, but I'm not trying to push either one here and only mentioning it due to disclosure of my bias. --Robert Horning 14:48, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

  • I love the idea of "paired" worlds to make it easier to remember ‎Cooked chicken.pngAtlandy 15:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Yeah, let's make the worlds 28 & 29. White partyhat old.png C Teng talk 03:47, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
      • I already default to using world 28 when i just need to play, so I pick that one :P Kabnett 22:13, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I like world 30 (my favorite world ever) and 31 (mem but might be full) (I'm F2P) --Santa hat.png Da Sasuke Man! CHIDORI!(Contribs)(Edits)Wintumber tree.png 01:18, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I support 28/29 even though they will have poor connection for me. We will finalise discussion in a few days to see if 28/29 is still fairly unopposed. Cheers, Chicken7 >talk 13:43, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I'd go with 28&29. Nothing wrong with them - I rarely, if ever, have any lag problems with non-UK servers (as I live in the UK). If I lose connection, its almost always my ISP's fault. But thats beside the point. 28 and 29 are great. Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 17:41, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
I know I'm a wiki noob, but i would like to think that worlds 29/29 are excellent worlds for this cause, especially since they're paired. BTW, how do you get the pictures to appear just near your signiature and not on the side of the screen?Mythomagic5 03:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  • i agree with world 28&29 as its great and i keep going in that world as there is nothing wrong with it....User:Arcbeetle20 13:05 13 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support using World 28 and World 29 as the official worlds. - TehKittyCatTalk Wikian-Book 03:06, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

It looks like the consensus is using Worlds 28 & 29. I made a test project page for the Wiki worlds. See RuneScape:Wiki world. White partyhat old.png C Teng talk 03:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)