Forum:Making drops easier

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Making drops easier
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 9 September 2010 by Ajraddatz.

With the release of the new Strykewyrms once again we have come into a area that really needs defining. The use of modifiers after each drop to tell the wikian how rare something is. I know I have addressed this before, but it seems to have absoultly no sembalance of order and is complete chaos. Here are the examples from the new monsters: Very common, common, uncommon,semi-common, quite common, rare, very rare, semi-rare, extremely common, extremly rare. We also have discussed the use of drp logs but this is very impractial. To simlpify this, the wiki has to use less modifiers, not more. Uncommon means rare, what does semi-rare mean? The more modifiers we have, the more confusing it becomes This is what I propose to make it easy:

  • Common (dropped the most frequently)-This can also have a "most common" for things such as coins if the monster drops that the most.
  • Rare
  • Very rare (things like Mystic armour and unique drops, this may also include half keys and clues?)
  • Extremly rare (visages, dragon eggs?)

Using Only 4 would make it easier for everyone to recognise the drops correctly ‎20px‎AtlandyBeer.png 16:10, February 10, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Also, I think the odds of getting an item (Example: Abbysal whip (Rare - 1:250 kills) shouldn't be included. FredeTalk 17:48, February 10, 2010 (UTC)

Agreed..I forgot to add that to the proposal ‎20px‎AtlandyBeer.png 22:17, February 10, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Why can't we use the same system as we have with charm drops with people editing in the amounts/kills? Prayer.png Jedi Talk HS Log Tracker Summoning.png 02:10, February 11, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I like: -Common -Uncommon -Rare -Very Rare. I don't like the extremely at all. Also I think uncommon seems in between common and rare, they don't mean the same thing, just similar (uncommon, rare). scoot4.pngscooties 02:16, February 11, 2010 (UTC)

Comment/Support - makes it much easier, also, something tells me that any attempt at a drop log would fail. people would only add to it when they got rares, people would forget a drop they ignored, etc... 13:08, February 11, 2010 (UTC)

Of course that would happen. But we can revert those edits easily. Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 17:28, February 11, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I think more than 4. Copied this from the old topic, because I think it works the best.

Label Drop rate Explanation
Always 1:1 If the item is received every one kill, it is thus always a drop. You'll probably stop picking them up after a while
Very common 1:2 The way I interperate "very common" is something that you get almost all the time, but not quite every time.
Common 1:4 Something that is common is between being very common and semi-common. 25% is large for a repeatedly-used probability. You're not quite getting it every kill, nor even almost every kill, but you'll get quite a lot of them if you kill the monster for a while.
Semi-common 1:10 This is something that you'll get decent ammounts of when training on a single monster for a while, but only half as often as a common item at best.
Uncommon 1:20 5% is a reasonable probability if you're going to metaphorically roll the non-existance dice of monster drops when training. Training on a monster for long periods of time will get you many of these.
Semi-rare 1:100 If you train on a monster for a period of time, you might get this a few times.
Rare 1:500 Something that is rare is something that not quite everyone will get, and is a reasonable feat to get it. If you train on a monster for at least a few hours, you might get something like this once or twice. Thus, it is a rare drop.

Tell someone that you got one as a drop, and they might compliment you.

Very rare 1:2,000 A very rare drop would be something that would take probably multiple sessions of training on the monster, each being a few hours. It would be an accomplishment to get this.

Tell someone that you got one as a drop, and they'll congratulate you.

Extremely rare 1:10,000 Something that is extremely rare is something that will take either large ammounts of luck, or lots of dedication to get. Getting a Dragon chainbody from Dust devils is a 1:16,000 chance, as I heard. It will take you a long time to get one as a drop, and most people won't ever get it altogether.Tell someone that you got one as a drop, and they'll be in awe.

Construction-icon.png Matt is Me / Harmonising / Lvl 3 skils3 Talk Cooking cape (t).png 18:31, February 11, 2010 (UTC)

Comment That table is exactly what we do not need. To the casual user (or new wikian) can you easily tell the difference between semi-common and uncommon....I know I cant. If you eliminate the semis, you get the table I proposed above. ‎20px‎AtlandyBeer.png 20:06, February 11, 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) That's a bit too many, I think. Why not just "Very common, common, rare, very rare" ? Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 20:07, February 11, 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with Ollie. Very Common is something like crims from waterfiends or adamant bars from aviansies. Common is like fire runes from dust devils, rare is like clue scrolls from most monsters. Very rare is like visage or d-chain from dusties. 16:16, February 12, 2010 (UTC)

I have copied this, and I think semi's should be removed, now I think about it. Construction-icon.png Matt is Me / Harmonising / Lvl 3 skils3 Talk Cooking cape (t).png 08:33, February 13, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I think the modifiers should be limited to very common, common, uncommon, rare and very rare. In extreme circumstances, extremely rare could be used.  Ranged-icon.png Zap0i TalkRune scimitar.png  01:25, February 15, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - This may be besides the point. But I'm pretty sure dragon eggs are really common drops. I've heard 1/5 or so. I will be 99 summoning soon, and if I remember I will post how long it took me to get one. As to the actual topic...I would say Common, Uncommon, Rare, Very Rare (extremely rare can be used for things like d chains/visages/champion scrolls). --HaloTalk 04:27, February 16, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - @ Haloolah123, that's basically what I'm saying. I think it would be good to add very common (e.g. for instances such as coins), as the chance of receiving that drop will often be much higher than something "common".  Ranged-icon.png Zap0i TalkRune scimitar.png  02:35, February 15, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - That chart isn't what we need... What we need is a common law that people should follow such as RuneScape:Drop Rates, etc. --Coolnesse 15:45, February 15, 2010 (UTC)

That policy could be in the form of a chart. Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 19:44, February 15, 2010 (UTC)
Comment 5 could work: Common, uncommon, rare, very rare, extremely rare. Instead of very common, we could make it easier and use most common ‎20px‎AtlandyBeer.png 20:21, February 15, 2010 (UTC)
That would create a bias towards "rare" drops. Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 20:23, February 15, 2010 (UTC)
100%, 90% extremely common, 75-80% very common, 50-60% common, 40-45% semi-common, 30-35% uncommon (semi-rare), 15-25% rare, 5-10% very rare, ~5% extremely rare. --Coolnesse 01:04, February 16, 2010 (UTC)
I don't think that it's a good idea to use percentages or drop rates since these are very difficult to measure without a drop log. The idea of a drop log also seems difficult to implement and unlikely to pass - we're still sorting out charm logs, and that's only five possibilities to deal with. I'm a regular user and I approve this message.  TLUL Talk - Contribs 03:04, February 16, 2010 (UTC) 
Just saying, 5% means that in every 20 kills you get 1. Don't think that means extremely rare. scoot4.pngscooties 03:56, February 16, 2010 (UTC)

Get 'er done - Most importantly, I'd like to see this thread conclude with some sort of standard in place. Personally, I like the more descriptive table even with all the semis and such because it has more specific ranges. But I would much rather that we come to an agreement as a community as to what common, uncommon, rare, etc mean for drops. I also like the idea of a drop log similar to the charm log, but I don't think enough people are up for that yet (maybe later). Anyway, I say, lets make sure this thread actually establish some sort of standard whatever it is. Air rune.png Tollerach hates SoF Fire rune.png 20:57, February 18, 2010 (UTC)


With that is the proposal: Common (with one item listed as "most common"), Rare, Very Rare, Extremely rare. An easy example would be the Ankou:


100% Drops

Armour and Weapons

F2P Items

Members Items


Seeds (members only)

Herbs (members only)

Charms (members only)

Charm log listed here

Other items

Please discuss and we should come to some sort of agreement so we all can move forward ‎20px‎AtlandyBeer.png 20:19, February 19, 2010 (UTC)

{{RFC}} C.ChiamTalk 14:08, April 2, 2010 (UTC)

Slight Oppose - I think there are too many kinds of "Rare". I'd prefer if it was more like "very common, common, rare, very rare". Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 16:12, April 2, 2010 (UTC)

Request for closure - Not a very popular topic, since not many people have commented. However, there is still no consensus. Ajraddatz Talk 20:02, May 27, 2010 (UTC)

Notice - I am actually working on a new format for drop lists, which can be seen here. The main idea wasn't about the rarities, but that is included. You can close this with no consensus, as I'd probably get a group of people together to implement it on a select few pages just to see if the response is positive. Chicken7 >talk 06:41, May 28, 2010 (UTC)

Comment and ideas - I agree with virtually every comment made in this thread although, I would personally like to add my own suggestions into this topic. I've seen large amounts of drop ratios around the wikia, such as (1 in 200) etc. In my personal opinion, The only drops that should be outlined are the most significant drops from specific monsters. Take this for example, The General Graardor drop list has alot of rune items, herbs, ores, rares, etc. Personally, the "Average" drops, such as a rune pickaxe, should just be disregarded and hold no specific title to their name. In other words, only the drops a person would genuinely come onto the wiki to observe and find information about should really contain a rate label. So, on the General Graardor page, The Bandos drops, shard drops, dragon drops and the femur bone drops such contain labels such as: Bandos hilt (Rare), Shield left half (Very rare), Femur bone (Common), Godsword shard 1 (Uncommon). In a nutshell: The drops that a specific candidate would come onto the wiki to find information about, or special drops such as the dragon chain from a dust devil are the only items that should really have a rarity tag. I can furtherly clarify if anyone requires me to. RSN: Warthog Rhys Talk Completionist's cape... Coming soon. 15:25, May 29, 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify, you don't mean completely remove all drops from the monster pages bar the 'notable' ones, just only mention any sort of rarity for those 'notable' ones, correct?
The problem comes when deciding what is notable and what isn't. Taking Graardor as an example: would we use items unique to that monster (bandos hilt alone); items unique to monsters in that area (bandos hilt, bandos armour, godsword shards); items which only a few monsters drop (dragon medium helm, snapdragons); and/or items on the rare drop table (dragon spear, shield left half, gems)? Where would we draw the line?
In any case I completely disagree with drop ratios (1:200, 1 in 200, etc). They're incredibly hard to verify and often vary significantly. At least for now, a mainspace drop logging system is out of the question. Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 23:35, May 29, 2010 (UTC)
I personally think "criterias" and "systems" are a bad idea. Let's just have 4 different rarities (very common, common, rare, very rare) and leave it to a user's common sense on what an item would fall under. All these ratios and categorisations would just confuse users, especially those who are inexperienced with wiki-ing and mathematics. Chicken7 >talk 01:02, May 30, 2010 (UTC)
I think common, uncommon, rare, very rare are better. Very common would be like 1/5 and common 1/10? It doesn't make much sense. You need something in between common/rare I think. HaloTalk 14:07, May 30, 2010 (UTC)
Well, My idea was just a rough sketch, but I will agree with the above idea of around 4 rarity levels, Although my only suggestion would be:
  • Always (1:1) Example: Bones, Quest items
  • Common (1:2-1:10) Example: Herbs, Coins, Runes
  • Uncommon (1:10-1:50) Example: Rune scimmys from fire giants
  • Rare (1:50-1:150) Example: Granite mauls, Abyssal whips, Black masks, Godwars items
  • Very Rare (1:150-1:500) Example: Dragon left halves, significantly rare drops for specific monsters, take dragon meds from godwars bosses for example.
  • Super Rare (1:500+) Example: Champion scrolls, Dragon chains from dusties, etc
RSN: Warthog Rhys Talk Completionist's cape... Coming soon. 14:28, May 30, 2010 (UTC)
Dislike already. Super rare sounds like a kiddy term (no offense). Extremely is a much better choice if anything. Dragon left halfs/med helms are way rarer than 500, trust me. 1/500 isn't all that rare. With regular monsters at least, bosses maybe, but regular monsters no. The fewer terms the better, less to argue about. I think mine has the least arguments, while still being able to communicate the point. HaloTalk 14:32, May 30, 2010 (UTC)
I will agree with the use of Extremely instead of Super, It was just showing my personal view point from a quick idea. I do know the drop rates and tables for many monsters, Im not that stupid, Its just a quick idea... RSN: Warthog Rhys Talk Completionist's cape... Coming soon. 14:36, May 30, 2010 (UTC)
I never said you were stupid ? O_o... I just think in this case less is better. HaloTalk 14:37, May 30, 2010 (UTC)
Degen thinks any more than 3 is bad >.> I think at any more than 4 is too confusing. And as I said, ratios and mathematical equations are just taking it too far. Examples, like the ones Gradiushero supplied are, suffice. Chicken7 >talk 06:35, May 31, 2010 (UTC)


Firstly, this is my first time using yew grove, so I appoligize if some of my formatting or netiquette is incorrect or inappropriate. Moving on, I read above that the proposal for drop tables such as those used for charm logs has been addressed and deemed impractical. I agree that drop tables for all monsters and all drops is impractical, but I have a similar proposal which I believe will prove advantageous.

I suggest we create drop tables for unique drops such as black mask, basilisk head, or even dragon chainbody. These drop logs should work similarly to the charm logs except that the minimum number of kills added to the log at once should be much greater depending on the item undergoing study as unique drops are likely far rarer than charms. Many monster pages with unique drops would be clearer and less debated with this addition.

I also propose a drop log for the rare drop table. As I understand it, the rare drop table is the same for all monsters that grant access to it; only the probability of gaining access changes between monsters. All items from the rare drop table as we know it should be added to the rare drop log. This drop log should be posted on the pages of monsters that grant access to the rare drop table with a percentage of how often the rare drop table is accessed by that monster. Again, the rare drop table is accessed much more rarely than charm drops, so the minimum number of kills required to add to this logg should be much greater than 50. I suggest at least 150 because 150+ kills are common with slayer tasks.

With these additions, the only drop logs will be for charms, unique drops, and the rare drop table. Applying these logs would make it easier to understand the rarity of unique drops and items on the rare drop table. Additionally, the understanding of common, uncommon, etc. would become more clear for other dropped items because there wouldn't be as many labeled rare ouside of these logs.

Questions, comments, and additional suggestions to this proposal are welcome.Quest point cape.pngSk8r dan man Quests 22:52, June 6, 2010 (UTC)

Support Unique Drop Table - I think this would be helpful, but we'd need to make a complete list of what we consider to be "unique." As for the Rare Drop Table, it seems like it would too much work for not enough reward. ʞooɔ 00:08, June 7, 2010 (UTC)
Now that I think about it, it seems like it would be a huge amount of work. The Charm logs are already a bit of a nightmare. I'll leave the unique drops page up. ʞooɔ 01:01, June 7, 2010 (UTC)
I've made a partial list of Unique Drops, found [[User:Cook Me Plox/Unique Drops|here]]. Feel free to add something. ʞooɔ 00:26, June 7, 2010 (UTC)
I deffinitely agree that the rare drop table log would be a big amount of work. Perhaps we could start by just constructing the log itself and posting links to it on the pages of monsters that give access to it. Once we have enough contributions, maybe about 50 of the rarest item, we can start to post it on monster pages and gather data for how often the monster drops items from the table. I forgot to mention it before, but when players contribute to the latter, they musn't have used the ring of Wealth. I think if we do it like that, it should work pretty well and will at least help raise awareness of the rare drop table to users of the ring of Wealth.Quest point cape.pngSk8r dan man Quests 01:39, June 7, 2010 (UTC)
You bring up a good point. There is no real way to regulate this as there is with charm logs. People wouldn't be able to count very well overall, so I think it's not going to work out as well as you guys think it will. There's no harm in leaving these things at very rare. HaloTalk 01:43, June 7, 2010 (UTC)

Comment People aren't going to count their kills accurately for thousands of certain monsters. I think just saying very rare/extremely rare is fine. HaloTalk 00:32, June 7, 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if they'd have to contribute thousands at a time, at least not for all of the logs. I suggested about 150+ because I generally contribute to the charm logs after finishing a slayer task. The only logs I can think of that would require the highest minimum kills would be the extreamly rare items like dragon chainbody.Quest point cape.pngSk8r dan man Quests 01:46, June 7, 2010 (UTC)

Request closure - No consensus. Also, we ought to phase out the usage of semi- too subjective. 222 talk 07:22, July 4, 2010 (UTC)

This request for closure was denied A user has requested closure for Making drops easier. Request denied. The reason given was: Denied

ʞooɔ 09:43, July 5, 2010 (UTC)

Request closure x4 - No consensus. Phase out the semi- prefix. Does requesting closure multiple times actually do anything? 222 talk 01:17, July 19, 2010 (UTC)

Obviously not. Consider there is a reason we haven't closed yet. Chicken7 >talk 07:28, July 19, 2010 (UTC)
I could swear half of your edits are requests for closure Lol I'm a regular user and I approve this message.  TLUL Talk - Contribs 06:53, July 20, 2010 (UTC) 
Me? Cry 222 talk 08:42, July 20, 2010 (UTC)
Seeing as it is being tested/somewhat put into use right now, I do believe it would appear that things are going the opposite way. HaloTalk 07:41, July 20, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Very rare, rare, medium rare, medium, well done, very well done XD 222 talk 08:55, July 20, 2010 (UTC)

Comment I have been going through all the drops over the last 2 months and removing all of the semi-rares and semi-commons. There should be no more of them on any drop. That leaves common, uncommon, rare, very rare, and extremely. I would rather not have uncommon (and just use rare), but 5 may have to do 16px‎AtlandyBeer.png 12:40, July 21, 2010 (UTC)

I change extremely rare to very when I see it.--Degenret01 13:11, July 21, 2010 (UTC)
That is fine.. I will do that also 16px‎AtlandyBeer.png 13:13, July 21, 2010 (UTC)

Request closure - Sorry for requesting again. But most objectives of this thread have been acheived or are in the process. 222 talk 10:49, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

Closed - Discussion has died down long ago, and there isn't consensus to do anything here. ajr 23:52, September 9, 2010 (UTC)