Forum:Formula guidelines

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Formula guidelines
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 29 May 2014 by Cook Me Plox.

There are a lot of formulas used in this wiki, largely based on what exp reward you get at what level of lamps, bonus exp stars, minigames, etc. However, some of these have formulas like 1.76824637437x^2-26573x+2764376 or some other thing which don't generally give any meaningful information. In fact, for every finite sequence of numbers, there are an infinite number of formulas that can describe it. For example, take the series 1, 2, 3. Almost everyone would say that the next number is 4. However, one could argue that it is 10, and that the n-th term in the sequence is defined as n^3-6n^2+12n-6 (which works for the first 3 terms). However, this information is clearly meaningless if the series is only meaningful for the first 3 terms. So my proposal is this: we should have guidelines for formulas. Formulas should be meaningful, and ideally should give a sense of how the exp goes up as you level, because if someone is interested in the actual exp at a certain level, it is easy enough to look it up on a data table. Here are my guideline ideas:

-Avoid polynomials over degree 3 (polynomials with an x^4 or higher term), and generally be cautious about posting formulas of degree 3, as these can get quite meaningless and/or large.

-Generally avoid functions using the floor or ceiling function (formulas that round up or down). However, in some cases there is good reason to do this, but unless there is a good reason that the function should have a floor/ceiling element to it, it shouldn't happen.

-Avoid functions that go past the second decimal point. Functions like this almost always are too long and don't generally give the reader a good sense of how the exp goes up as your level goes up. Also, try and avoid functions that use any decimal point at all, although it is sometimes necessary.

WoHenRe (talk) 01:45, May 9, 2014 (UTC)


Comment - Why would you want to avoid using exponential formulas? Sure they can be approximated with polynomials, but that sounds like a terrible idea. Suppa chuppa Talk 17:01, May 9, 2014 (UTC)

Where did i say that i want to avoid exponential formulas?

WoHenRe (talk) 20:57, May 9, 2014 (UTC)

A thing i forgot to mention: this is intended to be a rough draft of ideas. Feel free to suggest your own guidelines.

WoHenRe (talk) 21:01, May 9, 2014 (UTC)

Ummm... - Where is this a problem? The only experience lamp that even uses mathtags is Dragonkin lamp, and it's fine. Out of everything you mentioned, the only other math tag is on Mobilising Armies. Again, it's fine. MolMan 21:01, May 9, 2014 (UTC)

After looking through Special:TagsReport, this seems to be a non-existent problem. I don't see a point in making guidelines that discourage users from doing things that aren't being done. If you find a formula, either change or remove it. It's probably wrong anyways. MolMan 21:37, May 9, 2014 (UTC)

Pre-closure question - Does the thread creator, or anyone else, have anything to add? Mol's comment above hasn't been addressed. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 17:47, May 22, 2014 (UTC)

I think it would be naïve to assume that every formula is tagged but there probably won't be many of these types of formulae, if they do exist. Anecdotally, I did feel a familiarity with the ridiculous, decimalised formula used as an example, although wouldn't be able to find a working example and it may something that has been edited away by now. Current wikiisms such as 'be bold', among other dismissive discussion clichés, probably cover it sufficiently, although there doesn't seem to be anything in the guidelines about putting formulae in tags so that may be worth considering. --Henneyj 18:41, May 22, 2014 (UTC)
I should mention I also searched for certain patterns in the first set of pages. Found absolutely nothing. MolMan 14:13, May 23, 2014 (UTC)
I think i agree with The Mol man now. I do remember certain formulas that did have this problem, but they have since been edited out.
WoHenRe (talk) 01:17, May 27, 2014 (UTC)

Closed - No action will be taken to change the guidelines on formulas. Any problematic formulas can be changed on a case by case basis. ʞooɔ 05:03, May 29, 2014 (UTC)