Forum:Money making AFK-meter

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Money making AFK-meter
Archive
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 26 October 2017 by JaydenKieran.

Hi everyone! I had a suggestion. Over the past couple of years, RuneScape has increased its amount of AFK-able content as well as players finding out more ways to do activities in an AFK manner. I think the RuneScpae wiki should broaden its money making article to acompany this change in players choices. Simply said, I would like to add an AFK-meter to the money making guides.

There are two possible ways we could do this.

  1. We split this into categories (not afk, slightly afk, very afk)
  2. We give each money making guide an AFK-ness in seconds of AFK-time.

Both choices have got their advantages and disadvantages. Here are a few:

  • Categories:
    • Category can be decided relatively quickly.
    • These discriptions are subjective.
  • absolute values:
    • Can require time to find out the absolute value of AFK in some circumstances.
    • These discriptions are objective.

I personally would opt for option one, where deciding the categories has not set value, simular to how rarity categories are decided. I have made an example list here where it is roughly divded as not afk (0-15 seconds of afk), slightly afk (15-45 seconds of afk) and very afk (45+ seconds afk). With the mentality behind it being: not afk requires focus on the task, slightly afk allows for low-focus things to be done on the side (like watching a series) and very afk allows high-focus things to be done on the side (like work etc).

What do you think about this change? Should it be implemented at all? If so, how should it be implemented? Kind regards, --Galian prist (talk) 13:09, October 14, 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

Sure - Seems useful. Maybe find a different word to use besides AFKness? ʞooɔ 22:55, October 14, 2017 (UTC)

"Required attention"? Dragon medium helm! Whaddaya know?Chiafriend12Better than rune!I have 12 friends. 17:20, October 15, 2017 (UTC)
I went with "intensity" for some skill guides. Should probably be quantified in some way e.g. x amount of time between clicks. Magic logs detail.pngIsobelJTalk page 09:46, October 16, 2017 (UTC)

Indifferent - Would be useful to some. I'd rather attention be focused on representing opportunity costs rather than this. Also, I agree with Cook, needs to be called something else. Law rune.png Samberen Nature rune.png 23:04, October 14, 2017 (UTC)

Weak support - not against it. Would this fall under the RuneScape:Be bold policy as well? --Deltaslug (talk) 03:27, October 15, 2017 (UTC)

Support - pls tell me how to make money while afk, mining seren stones doesn't seem to be making bank. svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 03:30, October 15, 2017 (UTC)

Support - If it's not against the rules and our readership base will find it useful, go right ahead. Many of our money making strategies require clicking every few seconds and that's a turn off for some people. Being able to filter by that will be helpful. RS:BOLD. Dragon medium helm! Whaddaya know?Chiafriend12Better than rune!I have 12 friends. 17:20, October 15, 2017 (UTC)

Comment - Why the heck should we measure to what extent content can be played without actually playing it? That's telling players of a game how much they're able not to play the game... User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 Brassica Prime symbol.png 16:52, October 16, 2017 (UTC)

Ok - I can see the relative usefulness to it.1wDmkih.png  Manpaint of the RPU (t)(c) 11:43, October 18, 2017 (UTC)

Support - I would definintely make use of this Superiosity the WikianQuick chat button.png : Yo 10:46, October 21, 2017 (UTC)

Support for option 1 - This will be useful for most veteran players. Newer players might not understand what this means but I think it will be a great addition. Zahti (talk) 18:25, October 22, 2017 (UTC)

Closed - It seems that Galian prist has been bold and started to implement this, and along with the consensus of this thread, it seems that there is no longer a need for a discussion about this topic jayden 14:16, October 26, 2017 (UTC)