Forum:Money Method Metric

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Money Method Metric
Archive
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 11 March 2010 by Gaz Lloyd.

Money Method Metric

There was lots of discussion that led to the below table, which I have now archived to make this page a more reasonable size, it can be found here.

Minimum cash per hour maximum cash per hour Stars
0 49,999 0
50,000 99,999 1
100,000 149,999 2
150,000 249,999 3
250,000 499,999 4
500,000 Plus 5

WikiGuild

See here for the wikiguild proposal. Thanks, Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 12:42, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Table Template

The format for the table that we have converged on looks like this:


Effectiveness
(coins per hour)
Skill Level Requirement Details Risk Factors Other Requirements
3*****

200,000 - 250,000

Level 1 Make stuff, sell stuff

Details on what to make and how to sell it

People could suddenly lose intrest in what you make Functioning brain
1*****

25,000

Level 3 Kill things, take drops

Details on what to kill

Death by monster Decent Combat level
  • The "members only?" column is no longer needed, now that we have split the pages into F2P and P2P
  • Since we don't have JavaScript enabled, tables can't be sorted - so no reason to have "sortable" in the table class.
  • P2P pages can include F2P methods, since obviously P2P players can do everything F2P players can. However, it seems likely that P2P methods will be so much more profitable than F2P methods that there is no reason to duplicate the F2P information on the P2P pages.
  • We can have short comments about experience gained through various methods, but the primary focus of these pages is profit.
  • The agreed-upon term for each row in this table is a "method" (as in money-making method).
  • Profit values should be rounded to 2 significant figures.
  • For many methods, the profit generated depends heavily on the player's skill level. In these cases, the profit value displayed should be a range of values, so that both low-level and high-level players can estimate their own personal profit.

Method options

Some methods of making money have different options within one general thought. For example, there are three different styles of mining gold (see Money_making_guide/Mining(F2P)), but they all come down to the mining of gold ore and selling the ore at the Grand Exchange. How to handle these different options depends on how divergent they are. Ways to handle this are:

  • Include all options in one table row. This is best when the options have very slight differences - for example, if the player can mine gold in two different locations.
  • Include each option in its own table row, naming the rows with the same prefix so readers can easily see the relationship. This is best when the different options generate substantially different profits, or have substantially different requirements. In this case, if the two rows are near each other, the second row can refer back to the first row for some details. However, if the rows end up separated by a significant number of unrelated rows, it's probably best to repeat information rather than forcing readers to keep flipping back to a previous row in the table.
  • Create a separate page describing the method, and a link in the table to the page. This is best when the options are complicated or have lengthy descriptions (such as rune running or Smithing Iron).

(what do you think Serenity, did I accurately capture our now-archived discussion and conclusions?)

Cscooper 16:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Why not sortable? They sort for me... Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 18:15, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

In this table:

Up Down
1 3
2 2
3 1

whether I click on the "bow-tie" next to "Up" or "Down", they same thing happens - it jumps to the top of the page and the order of rows in the table doesn't change (in Firefox 3). In MSIE 7, it gives me a Runtime Error, then it jumps to the top of the page, and the order of rows in the table doesn't change. That works for you?


Cscooper 18:27, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Mm, it used to work. Fails for me too now (Opera 9, Vista). I guess it can be removed for now then... Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 18:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


Overall nicely done, though if i was nit picking i'd say that for method options, surely a different place to mine will produce a different level of profit, also for something like making air runes, should we have a new method for each level of multiple crafting as though the method is identical, it goes from rubbish to okay to awesome... --Serenity1137 07:00, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

My thought there is that if all players have the choice between mine #1 and mine #2, and the profit is better at mine #2, there's no reason to talk about mine #1. If, however, mine #2 requires level 39 magic to access or something like that (so not all players can get to mine #2), then it may become worthwhile to split that method into two rows. Of course, it's often not that clear-cut, mine #2 may have a level 6 thief, in which case players below level 12 can still choose mine #2, but will have to put up with the occasional attack.

With the multiple crafting, I think multiple rows makes sense, you would then have in the "required level" column the different runecrafting levels.

I guess it's all a balancing act - if we have too few rows in our tables, each method will have a range of profits, and players might have a hard time guesstimating what their profit would be. On the other hand, if we have too many rows, it gets hard to read.

So maybe we can come up with a rule of thumb something like this: if a method has a range of profits, and the profit is directly related to the player's skill level (for example, you catch tuna faster at a higher fishing level, increasing your profit), then just leave it in a single row in the table. But if the range in profit is due to some other skill (for example, you make more money mining silver if your crafting level is at least 40) or some other criteria (for example, you make more money mining gold if you've finished the Dragon Slayer quest) or has a sudden jump (for example, runecrafting cosmic runes is considerably different at level 59 vs. level 58) then split the method into multiple rows.

But I would emphasize that's a rule of thumb, and leave it up to individual contributors to figure out the best way to display the information.

That's my two cents worth! Cscooper 14:43, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 16:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


But what about the case where mine 1 is theoretically better and gets you more money when its empty, but is also massively more popular than mine 2, so at peak times mine 2 is better than mine 1. For that situation I would put both down under seperate rows, and add a note to each saying how busy they usually are. --Serenity1137 17:14, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Displaying an average value vs. displaying a range of values

I may be alone in this, but I feel calculation of profit to be a separate issue. Calculation of profit for each individual player is a complex problem, but not the one this thread was set up for. The idea is to simply make it so that by looking in the effectiveness column you can get a vague idea of how good each method is, and it should be a given that with collecting skills, its alot slower when you've just got the minimum level.. We seem to be picking at tiny things before dealing with the massive ones. --Serenity1137 22:50, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the beauty of the proposed plan (having stars plus a profit range) is that different people can look at the chart and get the information they want. You like the stars; I will generally ignore them and go straight for the "gold/hour" values. Having both in the table means we both get what we need.

Regarding the effectiveness column, the question that is in my mind when I look in these pages is, how can I earn money - not how can a level 99 player earn money. So if I can earn 20,000 coins/hour, and a level 99 player can earn 100,000 coins/hour, and if the chart says only 100,000 coins/hour, that's incorrect information for me. Just saying that profit comes "a lot slower" when you are lower level does not really help the lower-level player, since some tasks generate wildly different profit for low-level vs. high-level, while for other tasks the difference is not so great.

216.17.251.34 04:24, 17 May 2009 (UTC) cscooper


Ok, at this point I'm gonna back down on the idea of just putting an approximate value as obviously people do not agree on the idea that the range isn't too massive. We now have a massively larger task ahead of us. We would have to provide not only a maximum and a minimum earning potential, but how this changes with level. For example with mining coal: At level 30 you can mine one ore in around 25 seconds, but level 35 you can it takes less than 15 seconds, which slowly decreases to around 5 seconds by the time you approach level 60 to the level that you are limited by the respawn rate of coal ores outside of the mining guild. From then on your time still slowly decreases to maybe around 2 or 3 seconds by the time you are level 70.
So if we give a range which simply states the maximum and minimum, which would be whatever the earning potential is at level 30 and lvl 99 then you still haven't told the player reading the guide how much they are going to earn. What's more to gather this sort of data accurately (this is mostly from memory and so I wouldn't like to use it on a wiki page) would take the creation of extra characters, which we would have to raise through the levels so we can tell how earning potential changes from Combat 20 to Combat 128 whilst on a PVP world or how agility level affects the earnings on picking up bones dropped by monsters others have killed.
What I'm trying to say here is if we even want to stand a chance of doing this so that a player can tell (to within 2SF) of what they are going to earn from something we are going to need a whole new approach, and this brings up something I've always wondered if we could do. What we really want at this point isn't to have to try all this out, but to be able to crunch the numbers. Jagex has to figure out a players odds of getting an ore in x seconds, so there must be an equation. What if we could - either through asking Jagex or looking at the code of the RS client itself - get a hold of these numbers, so instead of creating new characters and playing of 100s of hours monitoring what each level gets, we simply make a spread sheet using some approximates (on things that are dependent on situation).


This may be difficult to achieve but I see no other way of letting players what they are going to get from a particular method. Sorry if this feels like a rant on my part --Serenity1137 10:05, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Aha! No, definitely didn't feel like a rant to me, what you are saying makes a lot of sense, and I now understand why you were opposed to the idea of displaying a range. You are quite right, so thinking about the mining ore task you mentioned, let's say a level 30 player earns 30,000 c/h, a level 40 earns 40,000 c/h, etc. up to a level 70 earning 70,000 c/h (just to make this discussion easier). We have a few options as to what to display:

  • 50,000 c/h (average of all profits)
  • 30,000 - 70,000 c/h
  • 30,000 for level 30; 40,000 for level 40; 50,000 for level 50; 60,000 for level 60; 70,000 for level 70
  • spiffy equation that takes the user's actual level and does the calculation
  • graph showing the profit earned vs. player level

The last one (the graph) sounds like a ridiculous amount of work. The second to last one (the spiffy equation) I'm pretty sure is impossible. The third to last one (giving several accurate answers, depending on level) is also a lot of work.

My thought was that by displaying a range, a low-level player will assume they will earn something close to the low end of that range while a high-level player will think they can earn something close to the high end of the range. You are right, that doesn't give each player a terribly accurate answer, but it's probably reasonably close.

My concern was that if we say "mining ore earns 50,000 c/h", that's not really true; the low-level player is disappointed when they only earn 30,000, and the high-level player passes it over, not realizing they can earn 70,000 c/h.

So I guess what I was thinking, was to give the user factually correct information - they can earn between 30,000 and 70,000 c/h. Maybe that's not as detailed as they would like, but it is correct information and they can take a pretty good guess where in the range they would fall. And, it's information we can accumulate in a reasonable amount of time (and easily update as new information becomes available).

And just in case I didn't say this earlier, if the profit range for a task is "30,000 - 32,000 c/h" I got no problem saying "31,000 c/h". Little ranges like that aren't worth worrying about.

And you are right, we need to strike the appropriate balance between "providing enough information for players to make a good decision" and "making the whole process so difficult that we never get anything done."

Also notice, I don't know if "people" do not agree with the idea of just displaying the average, maybe it's just me :-)

216.17.251.34 13:59, 17 May 2009 (UTC) cscooper


Can I move that we only display one star value (the average maybe) whether or not the highest and lowest are in different areas. --Serenity1137 18:39, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Works for me! Cscooper 20:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I had some more thoughts on displaying one profit value vs. displaying a range of profits ...

I'm thinking there are two reasons to display a range of profits:

  • Choices that all players have control over (for example, mining ore outside Varrock vs. in the dwarven mines)
  • Choices that players cannot immediately control (for example, mining ore outside Varrock vs. in the crafting guild, which requires level 40 crafting)

In the first case, I think we definitely want to display only one value, and that's for the most profitable choice (Varrock vs. dwarven mines). In the description, we say that the task assumes you are mining outside Varrock, and that mining in the dwarven mines is also possible but less profitable (or vice-versa).

In the second case, I'm very torn between having a range of profits, and splitting it into two rows. I'm starting to lean towards having two rows, that makes it very easy then to add "level 40 crafting" in the "other requirements" column. But this kind of gets back to another discussion about how to handle tasks that get repeated, we don't want to overwhelm users with repeated information and have them miss other stuff.

Cscooper 13:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Differing Profit Calculations

Whether we display profit as coins/hour or as stars (or both), I am already seeing problems when different players calculate the profit. For example, when I bought iron ore and coal and smelted them into steel, I earned 36,000 coins per hour (see smithing iron). But whoever wrote the entry in the money making guide/smithing claims to be able to earn 98,000 coins per hour! For me, it's a zero-star task, for this other person it's very nearly 2 stars. Do we want to just write this as a profit range, or do we want to try to figure out why the two values are so very different? Is there any way for players to write down how they came up with their profit numbers, such that we can try to decipher them later?

Cscooper 03:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I thought of an idea for this last night ... it's easy to add comments inside the editing, so maybe we can suggest that people include a comment with each star ranking and/or profit calculation, making it clear which "path" they took (for example, which mine they used) for their calculations.

Comments look like this: < ! - - comment goes here --> so for one of the mining tasks I have a comment like this: < ! - - F2P player, mining level 40, mining southwest of Varrock, not converting to soft clay --> That way if someone else thinks the number is wrong (or even if I revisit this in the future), I have a record of what I did to come up with the number, and what level I was at the time.

I definitely don't see this as something we want to strictly enforce, I'm thinking maybe just one line on the "Money making guide/adding" page, suggesting that people who edit these pages include such a comment.

Cscooper 12:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking that the user who sorts out the values for current methods (or adds a new method) should give some details about what they were doing/using/whatever on the relative talk page, that was its a lot easier to ask the user questions about the details of their method. Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 13:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

What's Included

I'd like to include a comment on the [/wiki/Money_making_guide/Adding page], something to the effect of this:
The calculation of profit per hour must include all steps necessary to generate the final gold. For example, if one is purchasing iron ore and coal at the GE, smelting them in a furnace, and selling the resulting steel bars at the GE, profit per hour should be calculated using the entire time - including the time to purchase the raw materials, get from the GE to the furnace, do the smelting, get from the furnace back to the GE, and sell the finished bars.

Just makes things a little more clear, makes sure we're comparing apples & apples when looking at profit values. I have seen some people do the calculation just on the middle part (in my example there, the smelting) and it does skew the values noticeably.

Make sense? Good idea, bad idea, overkill?

Cscooper 20:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


The problem is that if you go to the G.E. once every 2 loads it makes a huge difference, but if you buy en mass every 1,000 loads then the difference is negligible, so we now have an extra factor to think about --Serenity1137 22:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

When I have been calculating profit, I've been including one trip to the GE per hour. I guess the trip to the GE isn't as important as making sure people include the trip to the bank (if you purchase 100 bars, you can only carry 28 at a time, so that's 4 trips back & forth to the bank). Do you think a lot of people spend more than one hour earning money with a particular method? My brain goes numb after 20 minutes. So I guess I had been thinking that when I say "coins/hour", I mean that I spent exactly one hour earning money, and here's what I got - which, as you correctly point out, is not the same as earning money for 15 minutes and multiplying by 4. The "fixed time costs" - buying raw materials, getting from GE to work site, getting from work site back to GE, selling finished goods - shouldn't be a huge fraction of the total hour's time, under normal circumstances.

Cscooper 23:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I had another thought on this (well, several more thoughts on this) ...

If it's just you and me calculating profits for money-making methods (M3s), we're probably fine. But if we start getting more people involved in this, it would be good if we all calculated profit approximately the same way.

I'm kind of thinking of it like a game show or some kind of challenge ... the rules I give myself are:

  • Start at any point on the map
  • Can start with any item in bank or backpack, as long as that item is still in the bank or backpack at the end (so no having 300 law runes to start that get used up)
  • Any out-of-the-ordinary item in bank or backpack must be specified (for example, if doing a mining method, you can assume the player has a reasonable pickaxe, you don't have to mention that explicitly)
  • 60 minutes later, money in the bank is counted.

The methods I've been calculating (see Money_making_guide/Mining(F2P)) are all such that if I did the method for 2 hours, the resulting profit would be pretty darn close to twice the profit for one hour. I think it's reasonable to do our profit calculations assuming the player does the method for 1 hour - or do you think people get obsessive with this and mine gold for 6 hours straight? Maybe we can show the profit, assuming the player did the method for 1 hour, and if the method is such that doing it longer provides substantially increased profits, make a note to that effect?

Cscooper 02:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, though I don't have the will power to do one method for more than an hour straight, for mining I bought 1000 nature runes to make 1000 mith bars about a month ago. The way I've been calculating (admittedly I haven't done one in a few days) is I've had.
  • Start at relevant bank, complete one load of method under timed conditions.
  • I must start and finish in the same place with the same materials in my invent.
  • From time per load, and profit per load. Figure loads/hour then profit/hour

I haven't included time it tkes to get to the original bank or time it takes to sell the item (I have checked that the item does sell fast enough though) --Serenity1137 08:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't do any method for an entire hour either, I measure a couple of trips and then multiply it out. After doing a few of these, I'm seeing that the time it takes to buy raw materials (if appropriate) and then sell the finished product at the end is probably no more than 5 minutes, which would mean whether we include that time or not affects the final profit value by less than 10%, and there's no way I'm going to worry about calculating that factor exactly! But maybe we can guesstimate that setup & breakdown takes 4 minutes, and so calculate "round-trips only" for 56 minutes?

So maybe we want to say something like this on the Forum:Money_Method_Metric page:

Most money-making methods involve repeated trips between a bank and one or more job sites. To calculate the profit for these methods, start at the appropriate bank and time how long it takes to complete a couple of round-trips to the job site(s). You can then calculate the number of items per hour by multiplying 56 * (items produced per load) * (# of round-trips) / (# of minutes). The number '56' is used instead of '60' to allow some time to get back to the Grand Exchange and actually sell the finished product. Once you have the number of items per hour, the profit is simply (items per hour) * (profit per item), enter that as an expression in the appropriate Wiki.

  • This assumes earning money for only 1 hour, if you do it for longer your actual profit per hour will be slightly higher, but for these tables please report the profit for just one hour to make comparisons between methods possible.
  • If the method requires more fixed tasks at the start or finish, please time how long those tasks take rather than simply using the default '56'.

For example: you complete 3 round-trips from the bank to the job site in 8 minutes, and each round-trip produces 27 items. 56 * 27 * 3 / 8 = 567 items produced per hour. Enter into the Wiki page for the profit value:
{{formatnum: {{#expr: 567 * {{Exchange:your_item|View=price}} round -3 }} }}

Good? Too much?

Cscooper 13:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Members vs. Non-Members

Page Heading

We've already had one user add a members-only method to a non-members page ... I'm thinking we need headings that go on the F2P and P2P pages, that really stand out, that make it clear what the page is for.

I also think we can get rid of the "Due to constantly changing prices for items on the Grand Exchange, some information in this article may not be current." box at the top, we're all using expressions so the prices on the pages are correct. So maybe we can use that same area for the heading about F2P vs. P2P? I don't know where the "some information may not be current" box lives, the Wiki code is {{mmg}}, I assume that is loading some Wiki code from another page somewhere, but where that other page is I have no idea.

Cscooper 13:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposal for subpages

This discussion is on many different fronts, some of which have not had any contributions to for a long time. Just for conveniences sake, would anyone mind if a created a sub page with parts of the discussion which aren't current (if consensus was reached in that area over a week ago and no edits have been made since). I would start by adding the initial discussion in reference to what the star ratings would be, I would probably also check with the other active contributors for this page before putting anything else into the subpage --Serenity1137 18:02, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree. This page is huge, I can barely edit some sections =/ Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 20:12, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
I've now archived some if it, but am hesitant to archive anything that might be felt to be active, if anyone wants to archive more then I have no problem with it (I've basically memorized some parts of this page just because i skim it before i make edits)--Serenity1137 22:18, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
I added {{archive}} to the page and semiprotected it (per the protection policy). If any other sections get to big we can move them to their own subpage (without archiving them), much like we used to do with the old yew grove. This topic has so many things to contemplate, heh. Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 10:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Automizing rating

A method I put up a couple of weeks ago at 280k/hour and 4 stars rocketed down in earning potential as the gap between the price of items shrank. It went as low as around 40k/hour (0 stars) but is now back up around 100k/hour (1-2 stars). This is all well and good when it comes to the coin/hour bit as that is automated, but the star rating is not, and I think that is fixable.

I've made a formula and this is what it does, where x is your earnings/hour.

(((((((((((((x/50000)-0.5)=> O D.P)/1.15)=> O D.P.)/1.12)=> O D.P.)/1.12)=> O D.P.)/1.12)=> O D.P.)/1.12)=> O D.P.)

Which turns the earning into the relative star rating, if the earning is more than 500,000 then it gives an output of more than 5 which is fine because that gives 5 stars anyhoos. However, if the earning is <0 or =0 it makes a -ve number which is no good because that also gives a 5 star rating. It'd be nice to make this give -ve or 0 earning as all the stars in red, which may require an extra template.

In any case it works fine for normal earning values.

here is the code itself with the earning value replaced by AAAA

{{#expr: (((((((((((((AAAA/50000)-0.5)round-0)/1.15)round-0)/1.12)round-0)/1.12)round-0)/1.12)round-0)/1.12)round-0)}}


I'd like to add this to the guidelines to adding information page, but if there is a better way of doing this (without the now ludicrous amount of formulas that are going to be in the tables) then pray tell. --Serenity1137 21:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


Gaz just sent me a guide to the code, so the above formula is completely obsolete, I'll try and make a better one by tomorrow if not tonight. --Serenity1137 21:54, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Awesome idea! Looking forward to seeing what the formula can look like.

If it's any help, they enabled a feature that lets us define variables, which is really helpful when you have one value (like profit) that is being used in multiple places (displayed as-is, and then used in the star calculation.
For example, on the "smithing iron" page, I calculate the cost of the the raw materials and store it in a variable named "materials":

{{#vardefine:materials|{{#expr: (2 * {{Exchange:Coal|View=price}} + {{Exchange:Iron ore|View=price}} ) }} }}
and then later on use that value in a table:
|- || [[File:Steel dagger.PNG]]|| [[Steel dagger|Dagger]] || 30 || 17.5 || 37.5 || 1
|| {{#var:materials}}
|| {{Exchange:Steel_dagger|View=price}}
|| {{#expr: ({{Exchange:Steel_dagger|View=price}} - {{#var:materials}} ) }}
|| {{#expr: (({{Exchange:Steel_dagger|View=price}} - {{#var:materials}} )/(-17.5-37.5)) round 1 }}<br /> ||

Cscooper 22:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Does that work on the version of the software we're using? If it does then that'll be awesome, I've wondered if I could do that. Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 00:06, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Defining variables is working and in use on the "Smithing Iron" page, they enabled it May 16 in response to a question I had asked.

How about something like this (for calculating the stars):
{{#vardefine:rune_profit | {{#expr: 28*28*({{Exchange:Rune_essence|View=price}}-1) round -3 }}}}
{{Difficulty | {{#ifexpr: {{#var:rune_profit}}>500000 | 5 | {{#ifexpr: {{#var:rune_profit}}>250000 | 4 | {{#expr: trunc({{#var:rune_profit}} / 50000) }} }} }} }}
I haven't tested this thoroughly, no idea if it handles all the "edge values" correctly (49,000 vs 50,000 etc.). I'm sure there's an easier way too ... but I don't think there's any way we can define our own functions (so we don't have to type it in, whatever we come up with).

Cscooper 03:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Ugh. Nope, my equation doesn't quite work. Maybe there isn't any way to simplify the calculation. I'm sending an email to Wikia Community Support to see if there's a clever way we can do this.

I think this might work, but is ugly:
{{#vardefine:rune_profit | {{#expr: 28*28*({{Exchange:Rune_essence|View=price}}-1) round -3 }}}}
{{Difficulty | {{#ifexpr: {{#var:rune_profit}}>500000 | 5 | {{#ifexpr: {{#var:rune_profit}}>250000 | 4 | {{#ifexpr: {{#var:rune_profit}}>150000 | 3 | {{#ifexpr: {{#var:rune_profit}}<0 | 0 | {{#expr: trunc({{#var:rune_profit}} / 50000) }} }} }} }} }} }}

I love the idea of automatically calculating the star values; my concern is that if everyone who enters a profit line has to enter a lengthy and complicated equation, it will get mistyped a lot, and just make the pages really hard to read and maintain. I'm hoping there is some way that we can define this equation once, and then refer to it in all of the money-making pages. I'll let you know what Wikia support has to say.

Cscooper 14:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I just heard back from Wiki support, there's no way to define a function in one place and use it in all of our money-making pages. That means that in order to implement the "automatically updating stars" feature, every row in every table would have to define a variable to contain the calculated profit, copy the expression to calculate the stars, and then output the profit variable itself (for the coins/hour value under the stars).
Do you think all methods have that much variability in them? Maybe we only do this for methods that have great day-to-day variability? That's probably not good, how would we know which methods change that much? Maybe we don't make everybody do the star calculation, but then we go back later and "clean up" what other people do, defining variables and calculating stars?
I'm really torn on this one, I think calculating the stars is a great idea, I'm just trying to figure out the best way to actually implement it.

Cscooper 17:17, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

We could create cross-page materials calculations with a transculsion system; on a page, for example Money Making Guide/Materials, you'd put the calculation needed (be it using {{GEPrice|item|n}} or {{:Exchange:item|View=price}}), then wherever you want the number to be used you put {{:Money Making Guide/Materials}}. This could lead to a large number of pages, so a #switch: system should be used if this is put into effect (this would allow all materials needed on all pages to be calculated from one page).
As for the star-variation, Serenity has come up with the basis of the code we need, and I fine-tuned it:
{{#switch: 
{{#ifexpr: (profits)>=500000|10|{{#expr:(((profits/50000)-0.5) round 0)}}}}
 | 0=0
 | 1=1 
 | 2=2
 | 3
 | 4=3
 | 5
 | 6
 | 7
 | 8
 | 9=4
 | 10=5
 | 0
}}
I'm thinking of making a new template from this (as the raw code on the page would put users off, and any errors would muck up the stars) - Template:Effectiveness, maybe? Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 19:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I have absolutely no idea what "cross-page materials calculations with a transculsion system" are, it sounds like something Scotty would create in order to save the Enterprise :-)

How would it help us to have this Materials page? It sounds like you're proposing to put {{:Exchange:item|View=price}} on a separate page, and then our money-making pages would refer to that page, which then seems like we haven't gained much. If there are a lot of methods that depend on 2*iron+3*cowhide, then it makes sense to put that in its own page somewhere, otherwise I don't quite get it.

I like the updated star calculation, and making a new template sounds like a good thing, how would that work?

Cscooper 19:41, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Minor tweaks to the star formula: consider using 'trunc' instead of 'round', it more accurately states what you're doing, and is shorter:
{{#ifexpr: (profits)>=500000|10|{{#expr:trunc(profits/50000)}}}}
What does 'switch' do if the calculated value is negative? Cscooper 20:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I appologise for my poor clarity. I mean using the same price calculations on many pages (where it is relevant); a quick example: if the cost of one iron ore and two coal were to be used on many pages, rather than writing an appropriate expression everywhere it is needed, we could create a new page with that expression on, and replace wherever in other pages that expression is used with {{:(pagename)}}.
I agree with the fact that there aren't many methods which use the same materials to be able to use this system, but if a few come along we can certainly use it to save time and code.
The above #switch: and #ifexpr: code, if put into the difficulty template (with "profit" replaced by an expression for the profit), would output the relevant number of stars according to the table agreed upon above. I had to check out what trunc does, and I see that is exactly what we want.
Currently, using the difficulty stars, a profit value of 0 or less will return 0 stars. The beauty of creating a new template is that it can be customised much more easily - I'm planning on using 5 red stars for a loss, though that can be changed easily. Maybe using green stars for profits? Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 21:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

A new template sounds very cool, how hard is it for you to put one together - even if it isn't perfect - so we can see what one looks like and how its used?

Cscooper 22:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd keep the blue stars for profit, they fit in with the colour scheme of the wiki, keep us updated on your progress --Serenity1137 07:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Effectiveness - Done!

Done! And from what I can see, it works fine! Here's the input form:

{{Effectiveness
|buy    = value of what you are buying, using GEPrice or :Exchange:item where needed; no need for brackets, they are added automatically
|sell   = value of what you are selling, using GEPrice or :Exchange:item where needed; no need for brackets, they are added automatically
|amount = amount you produce per time period
}}

Here's some examples:

Method Code used Output
Buying 64 battlestaves from Zaff and selling them (bad use, since its 64 a day, but whatever).
{{Effectiveness
|buy=7000
|sell={{GEPrice|Battlestaff|n}}
|amount=64}}
*****
-250,000
Fletching yew shieldbows from logs and bowstrings, 5000 per hour (unrealistic).
{{Effectiveness
|buy={{GEPrice|Yew logs|n}}+{{GEPrice|Bowstring|n}}
|sell={{GEPrice|Yew shieldbow|n}}
|amount=5000}}
*****
4,100,000
Collecting 2000 snape grass per hour and selling (no idea if it is this good or not).
{{Effectiveness
|buy=0
|sell={{GEPrice|Snape grass|n}}
|amount=2000}}
*****
570,000
Buying uncut diamonds and selling cut ones, 500 per hour (just to show results for loss).
{{Effectiveness
|buy={{GEPrice|Uncut diamond|n}}
|sell={{GEPrice|Diamond|n}}
|amount=500}}
*****
-670,000

Remember, if you are going to use GEPrice, you must include the |n parameter as it removes the comma from the number (which is required to be used in #expr:). Exchange:item does not use commas automatically, so it is okay to use it. The value given is automatically rounded to the nearest 1000.

Any changes wanted? Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 10:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Awesome!!!
How does that work? Can anyone create templates, or is it because you (Gaz) are an admin? Can you tell me where the template is defined so I can look at it - this is the first Wiki I've been this involved with, and I would love to learn as much as I can about it (or again, can only admins see them)?

Question ... I've encountered one money-making method (fishing for tuna) that we did end up with a range of profits for (since a player with a high fishing level can catch tuna about 6x faster than I can). If we only a few methods end up with profit ranges, we probably don't need to automate them with a template, or is it easy for you to create a template that handles profit ranges?

One more small issue ... fishing crayfish earns all of 5,900 coins/hour, which is getting rounded to 6,000. I'm guessing you have a hard-coded 'round' value of -3? Is it possible to round, based on the profit value, so we end up with 2 significant figures?

Thanks! Cscooper 12:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, the way it works is basically as follows:
  • it calculates the profit ((sell - buy) × amount)
  • using the switch code above (as a basis) it outputs a star value corresponding to that profit; the #ifexpr: makes all profits of 500,000 be output as 5 stars
  • if the value isn't greater than or equal to 0 (i.e. it is a negative profit), it outputs 5 red stars
  • it then calculates a profit value with a normal #expr: ((sell - buy) × amount again), and rounds it to the nearest 1000
Most templates are in the template namespace; that is, the code used in {{effectiveness}} is at Template:Effectiveness. If another namespace isn't used, it will be in the Template: namespace (e.g. {{:Exchange:item|View=price}} isn't in the template namespace as Exchange: is there, so it goes to the Exchange namespace).
There are very few pages only admins can see; most of them special pages (such as Special:Block). However only admins can view pages that have been deleted.
Anyone can create and/or edit templates. However, some high-use and high-visibility templates are semi- or even fully-protected from editing, like Template:!, Template:* and Template:Hs - semi-protection prevents IPs and new accounts (less than 4 days old) editing them, whereas full protection prevents non-admins editing. However all templates can be viewed and the code viewed by going to their page and clicking edit (or view source if its protected).
RuneScape:Templates and Help:Templates has a lot of info on them, and useful links too.
Now that we have this template, an alternative template for a range can be created fairly easily. It'd basically be the same thing twice with a fourth input (amount2, maybe).
Yeah, it is set to round -3. Its possible to round to significant figures, but not without using huge amounts of code (or at least I think so anyway). I'll have a look around though. Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 14:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Awesomely done Gaz. As for the significant figures, I'd agree it probably is too much code to do it for a large range of numbers, but you could make it round -3 for numbers under 100k, round -4 for numbers over 100k, using an {{if#expr . --Serenity1137 16:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Beautiful!

I just created Template:Effectiveness_Range based on Template:Effectiveness - templates are so awesomely cool! Also look at Template:Effectiveness_Test, I was playing around with the idea of having a single template that can do both single profit values and profit ranges.

Cscooper 21:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Very nice. I like the ln10 usage, very ingenious, I wouldn't of thought of that. I see that there isn't any problems with using #vardefine: as of yet; but if there are then we may need to change it. I'm not sure about the fixed cost field in effectiveness range; since its calculating the value every hour, its assuming you need to buy your 'adamant fishing pole' every hour - which I assume is not true. I would've used two sets of stars, but one set based on the average also works fine. Other than that it looks great. Something should be added to the guidelines, I'll have a go at that now, and I'll remove the construction notices from the templates aswell. Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 21:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I've updated the example, what actually triggered me to add the "fixed cost" was the boat fare to fish for tuna. You are right, a fishing pole that doesn't get used up was a bad example. Serenity proposed having only one set of stars, I agree, it would be too busy with two sets.

Cscooper 22:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I see where you are coming from. Those things aren't really hourly costs though, they're costs per inventory... they could be incorperated into the buy parameter by doing (cost per inv)÷(items per inv), which in effect gives the "transport cost" per item. Most of the time the items per inv is 28, but sometimes its not (e.g. if inv spaces taken up by runes/potions/whatever, or if a Beast of Burden is used), and the cost can be variable (e.g. when enchanting air orbs, I teleport to house to bank, so the cost per inv varies with cost of runes (hence GEPrice should be used)).
I agree with the one set of stars, it would indeed be too busy with two. Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 23:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


This is essentially awesome on a stick, I suggest something vaguely, and minutes later people have come up with better more streamlined ways of doing it. Nice catch with the ln10 whoever that was. As for fixed costs, I'd go for adding a 'cost per item' row which is multiplied by the amount per hour (this would require minor maths on the part of the editor). --Serenity1137 00:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The idea with the "fixed cost" was like this ... let's say that the money-making method is to teleport somewhere, mine a bunch of ore, and then teleport back. No matter how many loads of ore you can mine (which is probably dependent on your mining level or something), you have the fixed cost of two teleports. So it's pretty unpleasant to divide by # of loads, since then you have to re-do the division if the # of loads gets updated.

But maybe that happens so rarely that we don't need it?

Cscooper 02:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


I think a teleport to falador at the beggining of the session and back to varrock at the end is not worth considering, I was think more like 'run from falador bank to air alter, teleport back to falador'. Whilst on the subject, what are we doing for runecrafting? making airs will range from kick ass to unbelivably bad depending on level, maybe a seperate method for making airs, double making airs, triple making airs .... --Serenity1137 09:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


The template is no longer giving me red stars for -ve values, see my talk page for an example --Serenity1137 12:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Ah, I see the problem. It calculated (profit/50000), which and then took the trunc of it (i.e. ignored everything after the decimal point, no rounding applied). For values -49,999 to -1, (profit/50000) comes to -0.something; the trunc of -0.something is -0, which of course is the same as 0, so it output the star value for 0-50,000 profit - that is, 5 grey stars. It now takes all values of proft<0 as 5 red stars automatically. While I was there I clarifed some code with what to do if output= is ommited.
Or, in summary, I fixed it. Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 15:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Imperfect Entries

Somebody just went to the Money making guide/Crafting(F2P) page and typed in "Buy uncut jewlerry then cut em and sell them in g.e". We have no idea whether this actually makes money or not, it certainly isn't in a form that is actually usable. I went in and put it into the table format at least, another user came along and deleted the whole thing as being "Non-wikified, and often the cause for losing money, not making money" which is certainly a justifiable comment.
If people have suggestions like this, what's the best way for them to add those suggestions to the pages? I don't want to lose this idea, I don't want to discourage people from making these suggestions, but it does seem like we need a place for people to make suggestions that isn't right in the middle of the nicely formatted table.

Ideas?

Maybe a section at the bottom with a heading like "Other Suggestions"?

Cscooper

Well that seems like a very extreme case, in which deletion was certainly the right choice. What I would recommend doing normally is if its close just fixing it (just broken formatting), but if it is too much work delete/put into comment form the incorrect entry, and posting on the author's talk page saying something along the lines of 'Your addition to the money making guide did not follow the guidelines for adding information, please consult it before adding any other methods. If you are having trouble understanding the guidelines, just ask on my talk page'. This allows serious editors to get help whilst not making the page too much work to maintain. --Serenity1137 19:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks like someone deleted my entry...

I don't know who hates me so much that they would delete my proposal to this matter altogether, but I find it a very irrational thing to do. I don't care if it's been deleted or not, I'm just asking who did it.

--Fruit.Smoothie 01:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

No one deleted it, it's in an archive because the page was getting long. It's here.Santa hat.png Powers38 おはようヾ(´・ω・`) 01:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
It was archived as we agreed that
  1. the existing table (Serenity's one) was more accurate to the money methods available;
  2. and the page was horrificly long.
As you can see the discussion has moved on leaps and bounds since your last input, we'd be grateful if you could give us your opinions =) Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 09:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposal - Move pages

I'll get straight to the point: For consistency, I'd like to move all the money making guides subpages (maybe not the adding guidelines one, but all the ones about a skill) into their own page, much like the Skill Training Guides - that is, Money making guide/Firemaking(P2P) would move to Pay-to-play Firemaking money making guide, and Money making guide/Mining(F2P) to Free-to-play Mining money making guide. (To be honest I'm not sure about using guide in the title, but you get by my drift.)

I'd be willing to move them all and sort out the links, and maybe knock up a quick template like this. Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 09:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


I'd be ok with this as long as their is still a money making guide page with links to the lot of them and general things on it --Serenity1137 21:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, the main Money making guide page will stay there, as will Money making guide/Adding and Money making guide/Adding/CodingHelp (they can stay where they are, methinks). Any other pages to stay, or any objections? Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 22:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


Shall we put the combined skill methods on each skill or on a seperate page? Also what about the ones that don't require a skill? --Serenity1137 08:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
You could put the combined methods on each page, but that's not what I'm aiming to do here. Basically, I'm going to move Money making guide/xyz (F2P) to Free-to-play xyz money making and Money making guide/abc (P2P) to Pay-to-play abc money making (decided against using guide now). xyz and abc could be a skill, or something else, like 'Merchanting' or 'Gathering'. None of the page content will be changed; just its name. I have an urge to make another template, this time a navbox like this one (since the navigatability (is that a word?) is reduced a bit). Heh. Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 15:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Finished

I Just finished ensuring member money making pages include the ones that f2p players can do too, I was gonna add something on the end of the discussion on it, but it seems to have been archived. So I'm creating this section to help us keep tabs on whats happened so far.


Add stuff to the things that need to be done bit when consensus has been reached on doing them, and move stuff to the things that have been done bit when they are finished


Things that need to be done.
  • Any methods that had effectiveness evaluated before being but under members with f2p skills section should be reevaluated to include member benifits
  • The following sections have not had all their methods evaluated
  • F2P Cooking
  • F2P Combat
  • F2P Firemaking
  • F2P Fishing
  • F2P Mining
  • F2P Runecrafting
  • F2P Smithing
  • F2P Woodcutting
  • F2P Combined
  • P2P Cooking
  • P2P Combat
  • P2P Firemaking
  • P2P Fishing
  • P2P Mining
  • P2P Runecrafting
  • P2P Smithing
  • P2P Woodcutting
  • P2P Combined
  • P2P Construction
  • P2P Fletching
  • P2P Herblore
  • P2P Hunter
  • P2P Slayer
  • P2P Summoning
  • P2P Theiving
  • P2P Farming
  • P2P Magic
  • P2P Crafting
  • F2P methods still include references to members only ways of speeding it up
Things that have been done.
  • Members and Non-members methods have now been split.
  • The Following sections have had all their methods evaluated
  • F2P Magic
  • F2P Crafting



Do you think this section is necessary/useful in any way, and also can people add stuff I've forgotten. --Serenity1137 08:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, this looks quite useful. Everyone, make sure you keep it up to date! Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 16:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Non skill based Methods

There are currently the following sections on non skill based methods merchanting guide:

  • GE
  • GE merchanting
  • Money making gathering
  • Money making using strongholds
  • Other
  • Using quests
  • Using jobs

I propose a clean up in which we sort them into :

  • Merchanting
  • Once only
  • Other


--Serenity1137 08:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Navigation template

Discussion seems to have died down here, so I thought I'd notify everyone that I made a navigation template for the money making guides [[Template:Money making guides|here]]. I think I put on all the MMGs on it, and put it onto all the pages, but if I missed any feel free to add them.

I decided to separate the guides by free/members then by skill/non-skill, and use Clickpic for the skills; opinions? Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 10:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

It looks good to me. Very nice. Looks a bit like the skill guide nav template. Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 07:42, October 9, 2009 (UTC)

So...what now?

Have we reached a concensus? Can I request a closure for this topic? There hasn't been an active post for more than two months now, and it seems we've gotten everything either sorted out or people are just not willing to spend time on a template?

What's the final result? Can I remove the mention of this discussion on the front page of the Money making guide? --Fruit.Smoothie 04:12, December 4, 2009 (UTC)