Forum:Money Method Metric/archive

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Money Method Metric/archive
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.

Star metric

Based on some assumptions from some discussions - i made a system to measure a money making method. It is based on some variables:

  1. the minimum and maximum cost of a unit made.
  2. the minimum and maximum value of the unit sold.
  3. the minimum and maximum count of units produced in a specific time interval.

On that basis we can calculate the minimum and maximum profit for a method in a practical and compareable way. So you can do a method a timespan long including the banking time and just count how much you produced - tata you got the profit per hour. The other values could be retrieved from the Grand Exchange Market Watch. Therefore we could include the range of the money making method in a new colum of the guide listing or integrate it in the start-rating of the methods. We only need a page specifing the variables of this method. For example:

The profit range for my spinning flax example is: 171000 - 228000


See User:Rrgogoman/FlaxSpinning for the data and Template:MoneyMethod for the template.

What do you think about it? -- Herblorecontribrrgogomantalk statPiety.png 06:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me - Right now money making guides are not objective enough to be practical. If you bring in more maths that is surely going to help in determining which is the better money making method. A magic scroll.png WejerFeather.png 16:14, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
If we really wanna do this, i need help. We need data for the guides and we need a category or namespace where we can collect them. Any suggestions? -- Herblorecontribrrgogomantalk statPiety.png 08:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

We could start by defining the "star-ranking" template. How much money/hour is 1***** and how much is 5*****? If we just had a standardized system this task would be significantly easier. Discuss! A magic scroll.png WejerFeather.png 08:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok. So we need ranges for the stars! In my opinion it is very easy to make 20k per hour in rs. So 20k or more is 2 stars. All under 20k is 1 star. 3 stars is 30k to 40k, 4 star is 40k to 50k. All more than 50k is 5 stars. Feel free to change table or write other alternatives for a 5-star mapping! -- Herblorecontribrrgogomantalk statPiety.png 15:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Minimum cash per hour maximum cash per hour Stars
0 19,999 1
20,000 29,999 2
30,000 39,999 3
40,000 49,999 4
50,000 Infinity 5
I must say that the table to you have provided is a bit small scale. I know from personal experience that I was able to make up to 90.000 gold per hour in F2P by tanning cowhides (which would generate a possible 9-star rating with your table). In P2P, I can make up to 540.000 gold per hour by tanning dragonhides (by using a "running" familiar; If I wouldn't have had one, it would be perhaps 360.000 gold per hour). Also, one can also make even more money than that: crafting nature runes with level 91 runecrafting is rumoured to cash in at the rate of about 1.000.000 gold per hour. Perhaps you see where this is coming?
My proposal is a bit different that yours, and are as follows:
Minimum cash per hour maximum cash per hour Stars
0 37,499 0*****
37.500 74,999 1*****
75,000 149,999 2*****
150,000 299,999 3*****
300,000 599,999 4*****
600,000 600,000< 5*****
If we had this table instead, we could conclude that most F2P activites would generate only one star 1***** or no star at all 0*****, although in a few cases two stars 2***** (such as tanning cowhides). Tanning dragonhides would be a four star activity 4*****, although more so if using a running familiar. Finally, nature rune running with level 91 runecrafting would be a definate 5 star activity 5*****.
Any feedback welcome. A magic scroll.png WejerFeather.png 16:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Basing a scale on unknown values is kind of silly, isn't it? I'd personally suggest that someone determine the amount per hour and base the scale on the highest value found.

Minimum cash per hour Maximum cash per hour Stars
0 (((X/5)*1)/2) 0*****
(((X/5)*1)/2)+1 (X/5)*1 1*****
((X/5)*1)+1 (X/5)*2 2*****
((X/5)*2)+1 (X/5)*3 3*****
((X/5)*3)+1 (X/5)*4 4*****
((X/5)*4)+1 Infinite 5*****

Where X is the highest value found. If the highest value (X) were, for example, 500,000. The chart would then look like this:

Minimum cash per hour Maximum cash per hour Stars
0 50,000 0*****
50,001 100,000 1*****
100,001 200,000 2*****
200,001 300,000 3*****
300,001 400,000 4*****
400,001 Infinite 5*****

-Byte_Master bytesig2.png bytesig3.png 00:35, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

So you add algebra, eh? I guess I am then forced to translate my own table into mathematical symbols...
V = variable of your choosing
Minimum cash per hour Maximum cash per hour Stars
0 V*(2^0)-1 0*****
V*(2^0) V*(2^1)-1 1*****
V*(2^1) V*(2^2)-1 2*****
V*(2^2) V*(2^3)-1 3*****
V*(2^3) V*(2^4)-1 4*****
V*(2^4) V*(2^4)< 5*****
...which would give the same table as featured by me above, assuming that V = 37,500...
Minimum cash per hour maximum cash per hour Stars
0 37,499 0*****
37.500 74,999 1*****
75,000 149,999 2*****
150,000 299,999 3*****
300,000 599,999 4*****
600,000 600,000< 5*****
So... what comes next? Should we make a poll and determine who has got the best system? At least, I see no objections as of far that a money method metric is not needed, so maybe I am right to assume things in that respect? A magic scroll.png WejerFeather.png 16:27, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


What is the significance of 37,500? Or any value assigned to V? In my chart, the significance of X was it was the highest value found, and thus the table was built around the entire spectrum of values found. I don't understand where you would be pulling V from - it seems random. -Byte_Master bytesig2.png bytesig3.png 23:42, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I personally like Wejer's set up Player moderator crown.png Poppop24 Skillcape emote icon.png


If something is going to be used as a metric, it should use some logarithmic progression than an additive one... to better capture the range and feel of progressive improvements in earning money. The real question that is left is how much it should progress from one tier to the next. For example:

Minimum cash per hour maximum cash per hour Stars
0 999 0*****
1,000 9,999 1*****
10,000 99,999 2*****
100,000 999,999 3*****
1,000,000 9,999,999 4*****
10,000,000 infinite 5*****

this table give a much larger diversity. BTW, I have been able to earn more than 10M coins in an hours worth of effort (yes, it was unusual circumstances, but it did happen). I'm pushing for 1000 coins on the lower end as there are some methods that earn at least thousands for new players that should be distinguished from methods that are just simply time wasters. Keep in mind that the money earning methods have to deal with a wide range of players who have varied skill levels... both of being able to play the game and in-game stats. --Robert Horning 14:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Bounty Hunter, for example, would be rated 0***** - 5*****. Am I correct? dictature 12:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I think its reasonable to use a exponetial setting. Runescape is exponential (logarithmic) too. but 10M is just too much you can repeatable earn in one hour (i think - perhaps i am wrong). 1M seams posbile - so we could make 1M our 5-star border. Here my new proposal for a table. If we all agree on this one, we can figure out the other missing values.

Minimum cash per hour maximum cash per hour Stars
0 u0 0*****
l1 u1 1*****
l2 u2 2*****
l3 u3 3*****
l4 u4 4*****
l5 = 1,000,000 infinite 5*****

-- Herblorecontribrrgogomantalk statPiety.png 14:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

  • It definately seems to me that some of you guys seem to have forgotten what this is really about. Do we want a scale that looks good, feels good or suits mathematical demands? OR do we wish for a scale that actually divides money making methods into classes that really give us a hunch on how good they are? A basic feature of a working scale should be that it spreads the actual methods at least somewhat over the whole scale. What is the use of having almost all methods within one scale step, or none in another? That's just a waste. Therefore we should firstly look at what items (mm methods) we have, and the design the scale to suit these. My hunch is that Mejner's scale would be doing good. Delapaco 22:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

The Problem with here is that 6 different ratings dont seem to be enough, for people of different earning levels each a different scale seems appropriate because a differnet range is relevant. I would go for a 8 lvl system like the following:

k/hour

lvl 1 0-10

lvl 2 10-25

lvl 3 25-50

lvl 3 50-100

lvl 4 100-200

lvl 5 200-500

lvl 6 500-750

lvl 7 750-1000

lvl 8 1000- infinite


This allows for enough accuracy at both ends of the scale. I recognise that this would be annoying due to the fact that the star system can't currently cope with extra lvls added in. Either it would require not using the star system or maybe making it so there can be half stars...

Serenity1137

I really can't see the use of distinguishing level 1-3 from eachother. Face it - less than 50k an hour simply equals really bad, no matter what lvl character you are. Who cares exactly how bad they are? Likewise, how many methods really yield 500k+? And in those extraordinary few cases you could write the figures out in the text, they simply are 5 stars or 500k+ anyway. As I stated earlier, the scale should distinguish the methods that are really usable and in use. Delapaco 18:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


Great topic, the wiki needs something like this - just a quick note. Should the divisions need to be broken down further, you could use two difficulty templates next to each other (e.g. 0***** 0***** to 5***** 5*****). This allows for 10 or 11 values (1 star-10 stars or 0 stars-10 stars). If really needed, a third could be added (for 15/16 levels). Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 21:47, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

In this context, more is not merrier. Five should be sufficient. Delapaco 00:28, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I'll give you that maybe not so many as 10 are needed (6 lvls maybe with o stars as methods under 50k an hour or something) , but as long as the gp/hour is stated beside the rating each time. As for difficulty divisions, this is only really an issue for methods that aren't skill based such as picking up items or merchanting or using minigames as otherwise the difficulty is implied by the required level (correct me if that is incorrect). I agree that in those cases there is can be a large difficulty aspect and maybe this should be placed in the column previously used for required lvl

Serenity1137

p.s. I have found methods such as making item sets to be easily repeatable at around 800k per hour( though you are limited to the fact that you must invest 20 times what you intend to make and must wait in between investments)



(person above me, remember to sign your posts) This would be my idea of a nice and easy table:

Minimum cash per hour maximum cash per hour Stars
0 14,999 0
15,000 29,999 1
30,000 49,999 2
50,000 74,999 3
74,999 99,999 4
100,000 Plus 5

I only pick this set up because I feel that it gives a narrower range of performance without changing the whole star concept. I also picked such high numbers because I found a way to make around 90-100k in about an hour, and it isn't skill related. Money is able to be made and I am sure this table may help players choose the best method.Rune crossbow.png Hess36talk Ancient staff.png 06:27, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

The problem with this is that there are fairly easy and free methods of making 200k, 300k and even 400k per hour. And, if you already have a lot of money to invest, much much higher is possible. I'd say the final star sould be 500k+ (you can't get much better than 500k/hr repeatably). Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 12:11, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

The problem with the above method is it doesnt cover much of the important ground, I know many methods that are over 150k and hour, a few over 300k an hour and 2 around 800k an hour. Anyone should be able to earn around 50k an hour, with the correct instruction, so I feel that it should be more like


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

--86.26.4.15 18:53, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I think this last suggestion is spot on. It does what it should and roughly says: 1 star=crap, 2: not that good, 3: average, 4: good, 5: excellent. Which is what we want? yes? Delapaco 22:10, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Looks great to me. Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 22:53, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I am happy with the reception the above table has got, but am aware that there is a lot of disagreement amoungst editors as to the tables correct range, as such I think it would be good to create 3 or 4 tables, of differing ranges and try to arrange a vote on which to use. I'm not sure how high up you have to be to do such a thing but it would be nice to get this finally sorted - this discussion has been going in circles for two months now - and try to get this metric closer to implementation stage, this of course has its own problems (deciding on the potential earnings of any method has been already shown to be not as clear as one would hope). Does anyone know how this can be arranged? --Serenity1137 15:40, 5 May 2009 (UTC) p.s. it was me who suggested the above table, sorry I wasn't signed in at the time

OK, how about I suggest something completely different, just to make things interesting.

A star-rating table for level 100 players will be pretty useless for level 20 players, as everything that a level 20 player can do will show up as level 0. So why not ditch the whole star idea completely? How about simply display the amount of gold per hour that a specific action can bring? That way, lower-level players can compare "10,000 gold per hour" vs. "20,000 gold per hour" which is obviously a huge difference, but would both be "zero stars" in the latest proposal.

Also, I would like to see, for each occupation, risk factors. For example, I've been buying coal, mining iron, making steel bars, selling steel bars. Works great unless there's a high-level player hogging the iron. Other occupations have other risks - often attacks from unfriendly monsters. Those risk factors will be quite different for lower-level players vs. higher-level players, so we need to make sure we hear from all levels of players, not just the high-level.

--cscooper 15 May 2009

Firstly, it is a bit late in the process to change what we're doing. Secondly and more importantly, we feel that the table is relevant to all players. There are methods for any player that can earn as much as 50k an hour, so differentiating between 20k and 10k is irrelevant. Thirdly, for those that want to know the actual number, it will be stated beside the star rating. Fourthly, if you read all the posts above you will see this argued out and all these points made and decided on.
--Serenity1137 15:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Hum ... I am sorry for jumping in late, but I would point out that since the pages haven't been updated yet, it really isn't too late to change, except for personal emotional investment in a particular idea. The fact that the star idea has been discussed and "decided upon" does not negate a new idea coming in. However, if you are going to include the actual gold value, then I really don't care what star rating you use, I will look at the gold values and I will be happy.

What do you think about the "risk factor" idea? That something that had not been discussed, and is kind of mentioned in a lot of the money-making opportunities, but not in any structured way. I see people are editing tables and adding a "other requirements" column which is also a good idea, so I'm just proposing adding a column title "risk factors" and people can put things there as appropriate.

And I should apologize, I did jump in and say "let's change everything" without starting out by giving you a big "Thank you", I had been looking at those pages and their star values and thinking that I really wasn't getting any useful information, and wishing somebody would clean that up.

If I may, I would like to make one small suggestion ... let's agree to round the profit numbers to a reasonable value ... saying that you can make "261.8k" gold per hour is rather over-precise, no two people will ever make exactly that same number. Round to something nice like 250k per hour. -cscooper 15 May 2009


A risk factor is good, but I don't think we can apply a metric measure to it, as it is all relative. e.g. killing ankous in the stronghold of security for runes/exp/whatever reason: myself (a level 111 member) consider that fairly low risk; however, a level 25 free-player would be hard-pressed to kill one, let alone a kill enough to make a living from - a high risk. Its also very far from NPOV (even though guides are biased, we should still try to provide NPOV information about the methods there). There's a blurb about each method, maybe a short note about any risks there (a new coloumn maybe, if the table doesn't get too messed up).

Yeah, the rounding is good; to the nearest 10k/hr maybe? Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 17:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that giving a precise value is missleading, but the reason I have done that in some cases is because the value of methods change, and the easiest way to keep the guide accurate is to use the formulas with the g.e. prices. I do this because I've occasionally followed highly recommended methods only to notice that they no longer are viable as they have been overdone and the g.e. prices have shifted. However, I don't feel very strongly about this one and would be happy to concede to putting things to 2 S.F Serenity1137 11:13, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Member vs. non-member

Oh, look! A can of worms! I think I'll open it!

As I am going through and calculating profit on non-member tasks, I have found exactly one task that produces more than 50,000 coins/hour (and thus qualifies for a single lowly star).

That means that on most non-member pages, every task shows up as zero stars, leading players to wonder why there are stars at all. The stars really don't help in that situation, if every task you're looking at gets zero stars.

Would it just be ridiculously confusing to have a different star rating on non-member pages?

Minimum cash per hour maximum cash per hour Stars
0 19,999 0
20,000 39,999 1
40,000 59,999 2
60,000 79,999 3
80,000 99,999 4
100,000 Plus 5


Cscooper 01:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

To be blunt, that means all the methods you've tried are shit. Something as simple as making hard leather can earn you around 100k an hour, and something decent like cutting yews is around 400k an hour. It is the case that anyone should be able to earn more than 50k each hour, with less investment than you can pick up from the various strongholds. Can I ask what your mining level is, as it is hard to earn from mining without a decent level... (I wouldn't recommend coal mining for money to someone under 40 at the least). It is a skill that should be power trained at first. Your above table would merge the vast majority of half decent methods. I feel this loop was run around alot in the now archived discussion, some people suggesting a table like yours and others one like mine. Before I tried the methods on this site I probably would've been on your side. Sorry if that all sounds twatish, but I've been through this before and it always ends up with the same conclusion. --Serenity1137 07:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Also, If you're visiting the GE once every hour, then that is going to lower you're methods yields, most people (I think atleast) only sell at GE once they have either reached their target or they need some cash. --Serenity1137 07:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
PPS I was gonna also point out the crafting method of making wizard robes, but in the week and a half since I put that up, its gone down from 250k/hour to 51k/hour : O --Serenity1137 08:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
We need more consistancy within articles, not less. Since we've already decided to use Serenity's table we should stick with it. Since the values are displayed with the stars it doesn't really matter if a lot of them are 0-stars. Just put a note at the top of the page about the stars being zero or something. Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 10:47, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Carefully closing can of worms

  • I'm a mid-level player, mining level 41, combat 52, woodcutting 31.
  • Going to the GE once an hour vs. once every 3 hours only reduces your profit by like 2%, not enough to significantly impact the numbers we are reporting.
  • We need a high-level player (somebody with level 90+ skills) to check out all these methods and see how different it is for them vs. for me.
  • I will not suggest changes to the star system in the future.

Cscooper 12:52, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


Retrospectively looking back on this morning sorry for angry sounding ness. You shouldn't feel you can't make suggestions you think are valid. I'm lvl 66 mining, so i'll try out a couple of the methods (probably coal mining and gold mining)and report back. I think that mining is not as profitable as reputed by comparison to things related to buying stuff from the G.E. and selling it on at a higher price after some simple manipulation.) I would say it is almost definitely the case that someone who is using levels under 70 for gathering could make money better through some other way. --Serenity1137 15:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

hmmm, I tried gold mining at crandor and got 48k/hour just 6k more than you did. There is no point in me trying coal mining, as no one above lvl 60 would go anywhere but the guild, which is stupid to compare to you're ones because there is so many rocks--Serenity1137 08:19, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Table Template

Effectiveness Skill Level Requirement Members only? Details Risk Factors Other Requirements
3*****

200,000-250,000 gp/hour

Level 1 No Make stuff, sell stuff Stuff is ugly Functioning brain
1*****

25,000 gp/hour

Level 3 No Kill things, take drops Death by monster Level 243 magic

Let's have the profit values be rounded to 2 significant figures. The [round] operator isn't smart enough to give us that automatically, so for values being calculated with expressions, the person entering the expression will have to look at the calculated value and then set the "round" value to get 2 significant figures. For example, if the expression says the profit is 251,475 gold/hour, set the rounding to -4 so it displays 250,000 gold/hour.

Some discussion points:

  • What units do we want to show after the profit values? "gp/hour", "GP/hour", "gold/hour", just "per hour" and assume people know it means gold?
  • Why are the star values being displayed using "Difficulty" (only shows up during editing, not viewing)? I'm not up on all the wiki features, not sure how to change that so it says "Effectiveness" (to match the column heading) instead of "Difficulty"
  • It has been proposed that the table be sorted by Effectiveness instead of Skill Level Requirement. Personally I don't care, as long as the tables are made sortable.

216.17.251.34 13:35, 16 May 2009 (UTC)cscooper

  1. Units should be coins per hour as coins in the name of the item. Possibly contracted to (k)c/h or (k)ch-1, though I'd rather not if possible.
  2. Difficulty is the name of the template - Template:Difficulty. Another template could be made (i.e. Template:Effectiveness), but I don't see the point, as it'd be the same in function as Template:Difficulty.
  3. Na, I'd prefer the default sort to be skill requirement; sorting a range of values is kinda hard - e.g. which is more effective, 250k-300kc/h or 100k/h-600kc/h? Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 13:53, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
For units, hows about putting at the top of each table Effectiveness/(coins x10^3 per hour) as you do in scientific tables to avoid the necessity for excessive zeros. --Serenity1137 15:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Effectiveness (coins ×103 per hour) sounds good. Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 17:00, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Hum ... so that instead of showing "200,000-250,000 gp/hour" (as I did in my example above), we would show "200-250" (and let the column heading explain what that means)? It sure cleans up the table, my only hesitation is that while many people will know what "×103" means, I'm not sure all of the people reading the Wiki will, maybe that's OK, but maybe consider saying "×10,000 coins/hour" instead?

Effectiveness (coins ×10,000 per hour) Skill Level Requirement Members only? Details Risk Factors Other Requirements
3*****

200 - 250

Level 1 No Make stuff, sell stuff Stuff is ugly Functioning brain
1*****

25

Level 3 No Kill things, take drops Death by monster Level 243 magic

That's not great, the heading is so much longer than the columns.

Effectiveness
(coins ×10,000 per hour)
Skill Level Requirement Members only? Details Risk Factors Other Requirements
3*****

200 - 250

Level 1 No Make stuff, sell stuff Stuff is ugly Functioning brain
1*****

25

Level 3 No Kill things, take drops Death by monster Level 243 magic
Effectiveness
(coins ×103 per hour)
Skill Level Requirement Members only? Details Risk Factors Other Requirements
3*****

200 - 250

Level 1 No Make stuff, sell stuff Stuff is ugly Functioning brain
1*****

25

Level 3 No Kill things, take drops Death by monster Level 243 magic

To me, the data in the "effectiveness" column looks lost.

Thoughts?

Cscooper 20:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to be a swat, but you just kinda proved your own point ×103 is x1,000. I'd say go for the x1,000 coins as your right, many viewers of the wiki may misinterpret the use of powers of 10. Also, usually you'd put effectiveness/(1000 coin per hour) or even effectiveness x hours per 1000 coins.In this case I'd go for the former to avoid confusion though. --Serenity1137 10:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
After further consideration, the tables with scaled down amounts of coins per hour are kinda annoying to look at so I'm turning my support towards effectiveness/(coins/hour). --Serenity1137 10:12, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Members vs. Non-Members

Where did the idea come from, to have (for example) a "Mining money making guide" separate from a "Members mining money making guide"? So now members have to look in two different places to find all of their options? Or will we repeat the non-members tasks in the members task area (which means that we either have to enter all of the non-member information twice, or one of the pages will be out-of-date or incorrect)? Were there a lot of complaints from non-members at having to look at members-only tasks?

I was kind of thinking that I would like a better way to differentiate between members-only and free-to-play items, a lot of pages put members-only items in italics but it's not always obvious. I was thinking maybe a lightly-colored background or something. But in any case, I am not sure that splitting these pages into members and non-members is the right way to go.

Cscooper 14:45, 17 May 2009 (UTC) cscooper

As a f2p player, I would go for completely separate guides for members and non members, the way there is for skill training guides. This is because even if a f2p player can do some of the methods, they aren't always anywhere near as effective (a guide that says fishing for swordfish is great because of the closeness of a bank to catherby means nothing to a f2p player who has to go the whole way to karmajara) --Serenity1137 10:11, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

If all of the f2p methods are inferior to p2p methods, such that a paying member has no interest in f2p methods, then splitting them into two pages makes perfect sense. I'm too cheap to buy a membership, so I'm f2p, so I have no idea what it's like to be p2p.

Cscooper 14:45, 17 May 2009 (UTC) cscooper

I believe they were split from the original one page because it got too huge to edit (or even view for older computers). Here it is, in all its garantuan glory. Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 17:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

The p2p guides could of course include methods that are doable on f2p servers, but the current split between members and non members skills instead of members and non members methods is kind of annoying (at least it annoys me from time to time) --Serenity1137 22:20, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

If we're going to do this, maybe we can clean up the tables by removing the "Members Only" column? We can put something in the header of each page to make it clear whether the tasks listed are p2p or f2p. Cscooper 03:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Fruit smoothie has already split the two section, much as we suggested, I am currently adding the f2p guides to the p2p section in order to ensure that p2p players don't have to look at two pages (Some methods such as mining adamantite ore are applicable to members despite being available on f2p servers). And I am removing the members only column as i go. It'll be a while before I'm done on that at my current rate, so help would be appreciated. --Serenity1137 14:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

So this seems like a change ... my understanding was that we had 3 options (for f2p skills):

  • Have one page that includes both f2p and p2p jobs
  • Have one page for f2p, and another for p2p that does not contains f2p
  • Have one page for f2p, and another for p2p that also includes f2p

The last time I looked, we were on option 2 (p2p pages didn't include f2p jobs). Now you're saying option 3 (p2p pages do include f2p jobs). Maybe what I saw previously was just a temporary stage during the process of splitting p2p and f2p? I'm not crazy about having to enter information twice (for f2p jobs, we have to enter them both on the f2p page and and on the p2p page) but it's a relatively painless copy & paste edit job. Sure wish the Wiki gave us better tools to use - I could imagine having a checkbox at the top of the page for "include p2p jobs", and having the table change its contents based on the value of that checkbox, but I don't think such a thing exists.

I'm OK with any plan, but please verify that we are going with option 3 (p2p pages do include f2p jobs). Cscooper 14:44, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

thats certainly where i am at... --Serenity1137 22:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Profit vs. Experience

I'm also assuming that we are in agreement that the purpose of the money making tables is to give players information on making money (duh) - so although for many of these tasks, there are ways to modify them to reduce profit and increase experience earned, we're not going to show any of that in the money making tables. For sufficiently complicated tasks, we can always have a separate page with more details (like we have for smithing iron).

Cscooper 15:39, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I think so, people looking to train can go to those guides. Though saying under information what the approximate xp/per hour is just to within a few zeros isn't a bad idea. --Serenity1137 15:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. A rough exp/hour value can be found, but its not hugely important. Maybe a note along the lines of "This page is about making money with the [skill name] skill. For methods of training this skill, see [link to relative skill trainign guide|here]. Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 17:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Should I just put in those notes now?, as they apply with or without the metric. --Serenity1137 18:06, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


Go for it. Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 20:12, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Terminology

Alright, this may sounds like a stupid question, but I keep running into it and I'm tired of not having a good answer.

When I look at the rows in these money making tables, what do we call the activity that a single row describes (e.g. mining iron ore to make steel bars) - an occupation? A job? A task? A venture? A pursuit? An enterprise? A profession?

I want to add a comment at the top of each money making guide (F2P), saying "Notice that all occupations in this table are available for free-to-play players." but they aren't really occupations. "Job" can be confusing, that's what an NPC give you. "Profession" sounds too long-term. "Task" doesn't imply to me something that you earn money for.

Cscooper 13:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


I've been going with "All methods in this table are available for free-to-play- players." --Serenity1137 13:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Excellent! Will do.

Cscooper 13:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

There must be an end to this

Ok guys, here's the deal: this is getting way too complicated and sidetracked, so if there is ever going to be a standard Runescape Wiki metric, it should ONLY be used for articles related to money ratings/money calculations. Anything else is unrelated.

Secondly, I feel that there should only be 5 stars, like there is now. 1 star would equal something terrible in money-making, 2 would equal something below average, 3 is average, 4 is decent, 5 is excellent, and so forth...you get the point.

Now, for the point of making an EXACT metric, I don't think that's entirely possible. Today's economy is changing so much and so vastly (I'm talking about Runescape here folks, not the real-world economy) that it's impossible to list accurate measures every single time we see a money-making rating. So, please, for the sake of accuracy, I beg of you Wikians to ignore the idea of having a metric dealing with exact GP/hour and that kind of stuff, because that's just kind of going too far.

I think that the 5-star rating we have now is simple and easy to use, and anyone can know what it means. Listing out the money you make ( like some people are doing right now to the money-making guides) is good, but in the long-run, it will just need constant revision to keep up with the market fluctuations.

Now, if you've gotten this far, bare with me a little longer.

There shouldn't be any 0 stars or 10 stars, or anything of that sort. That will be just a little too "prejudiced" if you know what I mean. So, without further ado, I propose that we stick with today's money-making metric. The guidelines for each star follows

1 star = 1-50k/hr 2 star = 50-100k/hr 3 star = 100-200k/hr 4 star = 200k-300k/hr 5 star = 300k-anything more/hr

HOWECER, I think (credits to whomever suggested this guideline) that this metric is also pretty good.

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

--Fruit.Smoothie 01:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello! Thanks for jumping in, a little on the late side, but the more the merrier. Yes, that's the table we've been discussing and had pretty much settled on, glad you agree. As for displaying "exact" coins/hour figures, I'm not sure about how other people are doing it, but I use calculations so that on pages I edit, when they display a "coins/hour" number, it automatically follows GE prices.

What you missed, earlier on in the discussion, is that for lower-level players (and remember, Wikis need to have a neutral point of view with regard to player level), everything they can do is in the "zero star" category. Not terribly useful. Plus, there are some tasks that have a wide range of possible profit values, depending on various factors, and you really can't capture that in just the stars. Serenity likes the stars, I don't, we compromised by having both.

The other things we're discussing may seem too complicated, but they are the things we are actually encountering as we start updating the money-making tables. Just saying "don't make things complicated" doesn't make the problems/questions go away.

Welcome on board, hope to hear more from you (and that you will add a signature next time too)!

Cscooper 23:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


What we are discussing here are issues worth talking out fruit smoothie (can I call you fruity in future?), as implementing this sort of thing one detail at a time is a million times more work. As for accuracy, Gaz Lloyd said that we can use the rounding tool in our calculations to make it only accurate to a certain degree whilst still auto updating. Slightly hypocritical of you there Cscooper complaining about you being a late comer, especially what with the fact he didn't turn up till around 3 hours into my last attempt at implementation. ; ) --Serenity1137 10:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Guilty as charged! In my own defense/defence, I was only 3 hours late, fruity is 3 days late, not sure how much difference that actually makes. I did feel like most of what fruity had to say was kind of repeating what we had already discussed (where I came up with something very new and different, irritating you greatly in the process <g>), but fruity did propose not having a "0 star" category which I think has some merit, I can see people getting confused and thinking 0 stars = 0 coins, but since we show the approximate coin value beneath the star, I think the current proposal is still good.

I've started calculating profits for the non-member mining tasks, and I feel like we've got a pretty darn complete plan here. I'm thinking that maybe it's time to take the ideas discussed here that seem to have reached consensus, update the "Money making guide/Adding" page, and then archive those sections?

  • The table to convert profit to # of stars is solid, and is already on the "Adding" page.
  • I think we've converged on the table to use, including "Effectiveness (coins/hour)" for the first column and having a "risk factor" column.
  • Showing profit only, and only briefly mentioned experience, if at all
  • Splitting into p2p and f2p pages, even for skills available to f2p players.

Yes?

Cscooper 12:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd say the following should also be included on your list

  • P2P guides for F2P skills should include F2P methods if they are still applicable
  • Hourly profit should be estimated using the formulas, but should be rounded to around 2S.F.

With the possible addition that money making methods along the same lines should have separate sections. Though the problem of repeats I suppose has not quite gotten as far as consensus so maybe not. Also, we should put up a notice explaining that the page has been updated yet to fit with the new standards for adding information --Serenity1137 14:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Methods with sub-methods (e.g. smelting vs. superheating) that have significantly different skill levels requirements, or generate significantly different profit values, should have each sub-method listed on a separate row.

However, I don't think we've converged on what those rows look like (how much information is repeated each time).

Aha - sorry, should have read all the way through the page before commenting on the P2P guides for f2p skills earlier. I'm cool with entering f2p skills twice (once on the f2p page, one on the p2p page), maybe we give Gaz & Fruity a little time to check in, and then call those items "decided on"?

BTW, take a look at the "money making guide/adding" page, I've enlarged the section on estimating hourly profit to include information on how to write expressions, and the stuff about 2 sf. See if it makes sense.

Cscooper 14:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


I'm gonna slightly edit your last paragraph on that, for what players should do if they can't figure. Feel free to complain at me for it --Serenity1137 20:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC) p.s. I'd appreciate if some others added this page to their watch list as I won't always be available

Looks great, thanks! Cscooper 20:41, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Effectiveness and Profit

We now have a very solid definition of the stars to be displayed in the "Effectiveness" column, but there are still some smaller questions swirling around what to display for the gold/hour value that appears underneath the star value.

Goals:

  • Display useful information for both low-level and high-level players
  • Have information displayed react to changes in Grand Exchange values for items

For methods where the same task produces significantly different results depending on player level, I propose that we display a range of profits rather than a single value averaged over all players. When possible, the information as to which factors affect the individual player's actual profit could go into the "Details" column.

216.17.251.34 13:35, 16 May 2009 (UTC)cscooper

  1. Yeah, a range of values is good.
  2. {{GEPrice|item|n}} and {{GEPriceUpdate|item}} should be used for items dependant on GE prices. Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 14:15, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I've been using { { :Exchange:Coal|View=price}} - is that better/worse/different than :#{{GEPrice|item|n}}?

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

{{:Exchange:[item]|View=price}} and {{GEPrice|[item]|n}} do the same thing. The "|n" bit removes the commas from the number (if it has more than 3 digits). You may use your choice, but in my opinion {{GEPrice|[item]|n}} is easier to type =D.
In :#{{t|GEPrice|item|n}} the colon (:) is an indent (as long as its on a line break), the hash (#) is a numbered list (as long as its on a line break/colon) and "t|" is Template:T (displays templates like this: {{GEPrice|item|n}})). Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 17:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Calculating profit

Looking at a simple task like "Buy Black robes and blue dye from the G.E., use the dye on the robes to create wizard robes and sell for a profit". I suspect that there are no differences between low-level and high-level players, and that the only thing that would affect a player's profit is how quickly they can click the mouse. So for this one we could probably put in expressions that calculate the profit using current GE prices, maybe even put in a small range to account for slow-mouse-clickers and fast-mouse-clickers, and then use the "round" operator to round the calculated values so they display nicely. But if after all that, the profit range is something like "30,000 - 40,000 gold/hour", it's probably overkill to display a range, just pick a mid-range mouse speed, display "35,000 gold/hour", and be done with it.

But then looking at a task like "smelt iron into steel bars and sell them", trying to come up with an equation to calculate the profit that includes current GE prices seems daunting. An individual player's profit depends on a lot of different parameters:

  • Buying coal and iron vs. buying coal and mining iron vs. mining both
  • If mining either or both ore, player's mining level (if some higher-level player is grabbing all the iron)
  • Where mining (affects time taken)
  • Walking/running vs. teleporting
  • Smelting vs. Superheating

I'm not enough of a Wiki guru to know whether it's even possible for us to have a way to ask the user questions - for example, have a checkbox for "teleport (yes/no)" and an edit field for "mining level", both of which we would need to have for an accurate profit calculation.

I guess that even in this case, we can probably come up with an expression for calculating the profit based on current GE prices, but it would be rather complicated. For example, teleporting reduces the overall time taken (which would tend to increase profit) but also increases costs (thus decreasing profit). I would propose for now that for complicated tasks like smelting iron, we simply display a profit range with non-calculated values, and maybe include a note saying "assuming GE price for coal is X and selling price for iron is Y".

Cscooper 14:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

For this example, I'd have 3 different methods: Normal furnace, blast furnace and superheating.
  • Normal furnace would be buying ore and making bars at a normal furnace, using GE prices.
  • Blast furnace would be using the blast furnace in Keldagrim - reduced cost (less coal), increased time. Primary value would be whichever gives greater profit/hour: running back and fore to bank for ore (slow) or using the unnoting service (more costly), with a note about the other.
  • Superheating would cover using the superheat item spell on the ore; nature runes bought.
For all methods, ore (and nature runes for superheat) is assumed to be bought; both because getting the ore/runes takes a significantly greater time (therefore profit/hour decreases), and to take into account of oppertunity cost.
Currently we cannot use checkboxes/whatever else for calculating these things (nor can we have a calculator where you input your stats and it returns the best methods for you) at the moment - There is an ongoing discussion on if we should have java calculators, which theoretically could do these things, here. Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 14:15, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

So if I may summarize ... the proposal (which, if I understand it correctly, I agree with) is that if a method of making money has some options that significantly affect the profit, or require different skill levels, or depend on being a member, then we want to split that method into multiple rows in the table. So instead of one row in the "mining money making" table that says "smithing iron into steel" that describes the various options in the "description" column, we would have three rows, one named "smithing iron into steel (normal furnace)", one named "smithing iron into steel (blast furnace)", and one named "smithing iron into steel (superheating)". This also enhances understandability since the blast furnace is members-only.

Cscooper 14:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, if a generalised method (another example: making molten glass) has multiple significantly different ways of doing it (e.g. normal furnace or Superglass Make), or otherwise differs significantly, then it should have a new row for clarity (in my opinion anyway). Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 17:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree with this one too, though it would be nice not to have the same information written out several times, how about a system somewhat like this:
Effectiveness/(Coins/hour) Method information
Making steel bars

1. Buy coal ore of the grand exchange 2. Buy Iron ore of the grand exchange Then one of the subsections as below Then sell steel bars on g.e.

30,000 SuperheatingSteps 1-2 as above then

3. Buy nature runes of the grand exchange 4. Superheat the ores into steel bars

15,000 Normal furnace

3. Smelt at furnace

Serenity1137 18:31, 17 May 2009 (UTC) p.s. I know that looks terrible but I'm no good with the formatting on tables, hopefully you can get the idea of what I meant

I understand what you're trying to do and I definitely agree, we want to avoid repeating information multiple times. However, what happens if some other task gets sorted in-between "making steel bars" and "making steel bars (superheating)"? And if the tables are sortable (which had been proposed as a way to satisfy both people who like the tables sorted by level, and people who like the tables sorted by effectiveness), then the connection between the task options would really get lost. I was thinking about this ... for tasks that have options like this, we give that task its own page (like [smithing iron]), and then for each row for that task in the money table, we give a very brief description and a link to the task page. But I'm not sure, my idea has its problems too ...

Idea Description Pros Cons
Idea #1 Have subsequent "subtasks" refer back to the first "subtask" All information is right there in the table, no unnecessary repetition of information Gets confused if table is resorted, or other tasks inserted between
Idea #2 Have all subtasks give a brief description, give the full description in a separate page Works fine if table is resorted Player has to click to see details, doesn't get all the information on one page
Currently Repeat information on each subtask Simple Repetition, information on the different subtasks can get "out of sync", makes the table unnecessary longer

So I'm not sure quite how to solve this one. Your thoughts? Cscooper 12:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm beginning to think the best thing to do is just to have repeats, other methods seem too complicated --Serenity1137 22:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

This can probably be something we handle on a case-by-case basis, see what we run into as we start filling out the tables. If we run into a situation where repeating the information every time seems wrong, we can try something else for that particular case. Cscooper 22:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

It'd be nice to have a standard thing to do (especially as we're gonna want to add all this to the guide to adding information, but if we can't come up with one, case by case is livable. Hows about having


Effectiveness/(Coins/hour) Details
15,000 Making steel bars using furnace

1. Buy coal ore of the grand exchange 2. Buy Iron ore of the grand exchange 3. Smelt at furnace 4. Sell on G.E

30,000 Making steel bars superheating

Follow steps 1-2 of guide to making steel bars using furnace but replace step 3 with 1. Buy nature runes of the grand exchange 2. Superheat the ores into steel bars Than continue to step 4 from making steel bars using furnace

[no signature]

This looks really confusing to me, especially if those two rows end up separated in the final table (because some other task earned 25,000 profit, for example). Then I'm switching back & forth between the two rows, trying to remember which step to replace and which are new ... I don't like the idea of repeating the information, but I like the idea of having to refer to two rows even less :-)

Cscooper 12:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Whoops, sorry about not signing earlier, I disagree with you in that I would prefer something along the lines of the above table, but am willing to shift with the majority --Serenity1137 14:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


Majority? Until we hear from Gaz and Fruity, it's one vote one way and one vote the other way :-)

Here's what I am thinking:

Level Effectiveness/(Coins/hour) Details
30 15,000 Making steel bars using furnace

1. Buy coal ore of the grand exchange
2. Buy Iron ore of the grand exchange
3. Smelt at furnace
4. Sell on G.E

32 20,000 Something else

1. Blah
2. Blah
3. Blah
4. Blah

35 25,000 Something else

1. Blah
2. Blah
3. Blah
4. Blah

40 30,000 Making steel bars superheating

Follow steps 1-2 of guide to making steel bars using furnace but replace step 3 with
3a. Buy nature runes of the grand exchange
3b. Superheat the ores into steel bars
Than continue to step 4 from making steel bars using furnace

I just don't see that as being a lot more compact or readable than

Level Effectiveness/(Coins/hour) Details
30 15,000 Making steel bars using furnace

1. Buy coal ore of the grand exchange
2. Buy Iron ore of the grand exchange
3. Smelt at furnace
4. Sell on G.E

32 13,000 Something else

1. Blah
2. Blah
3. Blah
4. Blah

35 14,000 Something else

1. Blah
2. Blah
3. Blah
4. Blah

40 30,000 Making steel bars superheating

1. Buy coal ore of the grand exchange
2. Buy Iron ore of the grand exchange
3a. Buy nature runes of the grand exchange
3b. Superheat the ores into steel bars
4. Sell on G.E

I will admit, as I look at these tables, there is a bit of confusion in my mind as I read "Making steel bars superheating", I'm thinking to myself, didn't I already read about this job somewhere?

And maybe this isn't the best example, the amount of overlap between the two "flavors" of the "making steel bars" job is pretty minimal, so the text to say "see the other job" is about as long as the text to just list the step again.

Hum ... I've been concerned about sorting, and what happens to these rows if the user sorts the table. However, right now, tables don't sort right for me anyway. Do tables sort for you? If we give up on sorting, and have the tables always in order by skill level (so we give up on allowing visitors to sort by "effectiveness"), then the rows are always right next to each other, and then I like not repeating the information a lot better. Why don't these tables sort when I click on the headings?

Aha! According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Sorting, sorting of tables requires client-side JavaScript, and I seem to recall that wikia doesn't support that. Does sorting of tables work for you (making sure it's not just my computer)? If you click on the little "bow tie" icons in that last table, does it do anything useful, or just jump you to the top of the page? If sorting isn't happening, then I am much less worried about having a secondary row referring to a primary row. It would be cool to find some way to graphically indicate the logical connection between the two rows, but I can't think what that would be.

Cscooper 15:07, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Take a look at Money making guide/Smithing(P2P), I've tried to implement this having two rows for the task that has two options, I'm not sure I like it, but I'm not sure what to do to make it better.

Cscooper 21:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)