From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Inventor
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 27 January 2016 by Cqm.

Inventor is in less than a month. Holy fucking shit. I'll get straight to the point:

If we don't figure out what we want to do now, this is going to be an organizational nightmare.

What we're looking at is changes to God only knows how many pages, but I'd guess at least 5,000.

I'm going to be cool like Cook Me Plox and split this into sections, since it's the right thing to do.

There's no way to tell if any of the important item information (what they break into, etc) will be available in the cache. If it is, that will be absolutely beautiful. If not, we're probably going to have a lot of work on our hands. Either way, we need to get things organized before the shitstorm even starts.

There's been no formal discussion on how we're going to handle this skill. I know I've discussed some of these points with several people, but I'd like this to be open to everyone so that on release, we're all on the same page.

What to discuss


A few thousand items are suddenly going to be able to be broken down. People are going to want to know what breaks down into what. For this, I propose {{Disassemble}}, an already created template that handles the simple stuff we know will apply. Easily changeable. I'm not sure how many components will be universal, if any, but if they are, we may still want to include the template. Universal components can be added later automatically to all tables.

|level = 20
|xp = 200
|components = Thing, Amahjig, Bob [70]

I highly doubt the devs sat down and gave unique components to every single item. What we'll likely see is large item categories that all give the exact same components. Hopefully they'll all be the same level and experience too, in which case we can simply make <code>{{Disassembly (Category)}}</code>.

Support template. MolMan 19:47, December 26, 2015 (UTC)

support - svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 19:50, December 26, 2015 (UTC)

Question/Comment - Isn't this something that would go well into the infobox already on item pages? Adding |disassemble = y/n, if yes use |invlvl, |invxp, and |invcomp, if no, display nothing. Like slayer information on monster pages. Law rune.png Samberen Nature rune.png 20:21, December 26, 2015 (UTC)

Not something I'd want to see. Particularly because that's a lot of extra information that I've already designated elsewhere. The disassemble-able property may be something we could put in infobox item (likely depending on whether or not it is in the cache), but that itself might be pointless with the separate infobox already indicating such. MolMan 20:25, December 26, 2015 (UTC)

Comment What about the estimated rates of components? It might be based on level and the value of the item? Fearthe1337 (talk) 14:02, January 1, 2016 (UTC)

No clue. Unless that's directly in the cache, I'd rather not worry about it at all. MolMan 14:04, January 1, 2016 (UTC)

Comment Some falicy in the idea of level in the template. You can dissasemble anything at any level. So nix that field. Change xp to disassemble xp. I like the idea of including it in the item description template. Need to idetify if the item we are disasembling is level-able, as the level effects what you can get from it. And probably include a class of material. Identify the parts/components/junk as materials instead of everything being materials. Why is because after an item is leveled at level 4 or greater, you no longer receive junk when disassembling. Level effects is somewhat irrevelent, as all levelable items share the same effects per level according to comparing notes between the latest stream and podcast.AoDude (talk) 21:05, January 19, 2016 (UTC)

Much better! The only thing would be identifying whether the item in question is augmentable. AoDude (talk) 21:36, January 19, 2016 (UTC)

Comment should we add to the main info box something like |disassemble = No or |disassemble = Yes, like the Members, Tradeable, etc fields? --Deltaslug (talk) 14:40, January 26, 2016 (UTC)

No. That'd be covered by the existence of the other infobox. MolMan 14:42, January 26, 2016 (UTC)

Comment I just realized there's no standard for what to do in the case of the "default" 98% junk, Simple parts (often) and Variable components (Rarely) situation. Should this be done, or use Template:Default disassemble? Also what should the section header be? "Disassemble" vs "Invention"? --Jlun2 (talk) 06:16, January 27, 2016 (UTC)


We're looking at I don't know how many components, but whatever the amount, I'm proposing a split. The main reason being people will likely want to know what items can be disassembled to find a certain component. With the help of my module above, we can make listing these items completely dynamic. The problem is then the page is simply too large. In addition, I can see components each having their own category. Not only will it facilitate the basic search, it should easily allow us to do more specific queries as well.

Support categories and split MolMan 19:47, December 26, 2015 (UTC)

support - svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 19:50, December 26, 2015 (UTC)

Support Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 21:25, December 26, 2015 (UTC)

Comment - Should we use categories for the items themselves, too? Like Category:Items that can be disassembled or Category:Augmented/augmentable items? There could be some overlap. Achievements Coelacanth0794 Talk Contribs 20:04, December 29, 2015 (UTC)

We could. It could be auto added with the template if we wanted. MolMan 20:05, December 29, 2015 (UTC)

Support - Also support for categories for items that can be disassembled and augmentable items.Fearthe1337 (talk) 14:02, January 1, 2016 (UTC)

List of Confirmed Components to date: (ordered via an "in progress" interface) 1. Simple Parts 2. Support Parts 3. 4. Magic Parts 5. Herblore Parts 6. Spiritual Parts 7. Stave Parts 8. Tensile Parts 9. Head Parts 10. Connector Parts 11. Cover Parts 12. Refined Components 13. Organic Parts 14. Crafted Parts 15. Plated Parts 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. Padded Parts 22. Crystal Parts 23. 24. 25. Powerful Component 26. Healthy Component 27. 28. Stunning Component 29. Enhancing Component 30. 31. Evasive Component 32. Precious Components 33. Pious Component 34. 35. Living Component 36. Ethereal Component 37. Variable Component 38. Dexterous Component 39. Strong Component 40. Swift Component 41. Imbued Component 42. Direct Component 43. Subtle Component 44. Knightly Component 45. Haressed Component 46. 47. Dragonfire Component 48. Fungal Component 49. Explosive Component 50. Corporeal Component 51. Armadyl Component 52. Bandos Component 53. Brassican Component 54. Saradomin Component 55. Seren Component 56. Zamorak Component 57. Zaros Component 58. 59. Resilient Component 60. Silent Component 61. Noxious Component 62. Rumbling Component 63. Augmented Component 64. Pestiferous Component 65. Fortunate Component 66. Ancient Component 67. Culinary Component 68. Shifting Component 69. Refined Component 70. Junk Component AoDude (talk) 22:21, January 19, 2016 (UTC)


As it stands, while there are going to be nearly 100+ perks, I think they should all remain on a single page.

Unlike components, the collection of items that perks can modify is relatively small. I'm not sure if all perks will be available on all equipment, but I think we should at least start out with just a single page.

If perks are exclusive to certain equipment, I will lean more towards a split. It would depend how the distribution is though.

Because of Gaz pls, I think each perk deserves a separate page. There are going to be several parts to describing each, and it won't work well in a tabular format.

Support merge - to begin with. MolMan 20:01, December 26, 2015 (UTC)

support - svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 19:50, December 26, 2015 (UTC)

Comment - I can see perks having a few things: an in-game description, components that can make it, a list items it applies to (unless every item can have every perk), an 'actual effect' which we describe, and maybe an icon. The actual effect could warrant enough info for a page, especially with perks that can proc an effect (for layered analysis), or the Enlightened perk (as of RuneFest, gives a percentage experience buff) having a list of things it does/does not work with, etc. There definitely should be a central [list of perks] page, but I'm not sure if there should only be a list of perks page. Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 21:25, December 26, 2015 (UTC)

Good point. I hadn't considered perks being limited in certain situations. That alone makes me want to split. Like a banana. MolMan 21:28, December 26, 2015 (UTC)
Didn't also read/hear that each type of perk will have multiple tiers? So, even by splitting up each perk there should still be a good deal of info on each page. Law rune.png Samberen Nature rune.png 22:33, December 26, 2015 (UTC)
Yes, but as far as I was aware, it would only increase the perk's effectiveness. MolMan 22:36, December 26, 2015 (UTC)
Yes, but if we're able to find out which combinations of what materials are likely to produce each perk it may change by perk tier, which would create more information for the page. Law rune.png Samberen Nature rune.png 22:43, December 26, 2015 (UTC)

Split - Make one page for a overview and seperate pages for the perks. Pages on these perks could include usefull uses for such perks as well as other perks which they could be useful with when combined. Fearthe1337 (talk) 14:02, January 1, 2016 (UTC)

Augmented items

Following the conclusion of Forum:Reevaluating item granularity, we may have even more items to split. I do believe that augmented items will become untradeable. This will likely mean a new item id. I believe this will warrant a page split. If the in-game name is left unchanged, I suggest we use the title "Item (augmented)".

Based on a discussion with FearThe1337, augmenented items will only have a single id (possibly 2 or 3 if "used" and "broken" end up existing). So regardless of where we put the augmented item's information, I suggest we do either of the following, depending on how exclusive perks are (something I'm not 100% sure about):

  • If any perk can be added to any piece of equipment, I suggest we simply link to the page about perks.
  • If certain perks can only be applied to certain equipment, I suggest we make a template (hosted by a module that contains module data describing each perk).
  • If certain perks are exclusive, and others aren't, I suggest we only list the exclusive perks explicitly.

Support all MolMan 19:47, December 26, 2015 (UTC)

Support - I don't think broken equipment will exist. Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 21:25, December 26, 2015 (UTC)

Tech trees

Each should get its own page. We currently have them set up this way.

Support MolMan 19:47, December 26, 2015 (UTC)

support - svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 19:50, December 26, 2015 (UTC)

Support Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 21:25, December 26, 2015 (UTC)

Support Fearthe1337 (talk) 14:02, January 1, 2016 (UTC)

Miscellaneous interfaces

The following will likely deserve their own pages

  • Disassembly
  • Perks (an article on the interface distinct from the list of perks itself)
  • Gizmo (perhaps? it might be a parent page to the above 2)
  • Energy pack (or whatever the Divination energy charger is called)

Support - ? MolMan 19:47, December 26, 2015 (UTC)

support - svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 19:50, December 26, 2015 (UTC)

Support - pages for all! Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 21:25, December 26, 2015 (UTC)

Support Fearthe1337 (talk) 14:02, January 1, 2016 (UTC)

Misc comment from aodude

Some things missing from your thread. 70 parts/components total as of the latest teased info, 56/70 named on my thread in signature. Parts are common, components are more rare. They all have positive and negative perk affinities. Idea is to combine multiple components with the same positive perk affinities, but different negative perk affinities to dilute the negative perks out of the completed gizmo (non-empty).

Theoretically, you should be able to identify all of the affinities by filling up a gizmo with all of the same part/component (without even baking the perks in), and using those affinities you could likely design a wiki calculator to determine combinations/best combinations that should result in the perks you are looking to make.

This will likely mean updating almost every single item page, adding 70 component pages, adding 100+ perk pages, as well as invention information/skill guide pages, and cross linking all of them together. I don't envy the work that has to go into that, so good luck...

Post-release discussion

Comment - Is this all sorted as far as the discussion goes, or is there more to do? cqm 09:20, 27 Jan 2016 (UTC) (UTC)

we can close MolMan 13:46, January 27, 2016 (UTC)

Comment - Moved/placed the majority of the info on RuneScape:Style guide/Invention to help people keep consistency across pages. I agree this can be closed now jayden

Closed - Closing per the above comments. The result of the discussion has been added to RuneScape:Style guide/Invention. cqm 16:34, 27 Jan 2016 (UTC) (UTC)