Forum:New format for best bonuses tables

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > New format for best bonuses tables
Archive
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 21 October 2011 by Psycho Robot.

So, I've been thinking about this for a while now, and I think our 'best bonuses' series of tables are not really as useful as they could be. We have a table for best bonus possible, and a table for best bonus without pvp world gear (revenant gear now?), as well as a series of foot notes that say "this is technically the best, but this other one is also good..." This is information overload, and it also has to take into account a wide variety of factors that are difficult to express in such a way.

I propose that we switch to a different format that will allow us to account for many more factors that we are simply not able to express in the current format. I don't really have a sample page, but I shouldn't need one... its a pretty simple proposal to demonstrate. First off, we would do away with the "without pvp armour" tables, as in the new format they would be obsolete. Then, we separate the tables so we have one table for each slot. So in the "best ranged bonus" page, we'd have one table for best ranged bonus in the helmet slot, one table for the best ranged bonus in the weapon slot... and so on.

In each table, we would list the top 10, 15, or maybe 20 best pieces of equipment for that slot. Pieces of equipment with the same bonus would not be combined into one row on the table, unless they were different forms of the same item, for example skillcapes would be combined into one row. Godswords... well... maybe. I'm not sure. The reason for not combining them is because there are different requirements and circumstances for each weapon. Combining them would defeat the purpose of the proposal, and stop people from being easily compare different pieces of equipment.

The table would have a small amount of columns. The first one (or two, depending on how you look at it) would be the item name and image. Then would be one stat bonus for which the table was made. No other stat bonuses would be displayed, because they're not really relevant. Not to mention that it would be far too much information. Next would be stat requirements (related skill first, then other skills). Next would be the cost, be it GE price or minigame currency. After that would be additional requirements, like quests, and other notes and restrictions.

The notes and restrictions section probably requires some explanation. This is where we would talk about any drawbacks that the equipment has that are not covered in other columns. We would not talk about how an item costs a ton of money here, because not only is it covered in the cost column, but it its relative. A third age helmet might cost a lot compared to your measly pile of gold, but not to some guy who has a swimming pool full of the stuff.

We would also not mention drawbacks such as "you have to spend a million hours training dungeoneering". Again, that drawback is already covered in the cost column. If it costs 1,000,000 dungeoneering tokens... they already know that they're going to be spending a ton of time in there. Also, it is not neutral point of view. The thought of spending 20 hours dungoneering may be daunting to you and I, but someone else might be tickled pink that they have an excuse to do that.

A valid note/drawback would be armour degrading over time. That is indeed a drawback, it stops you from using it indefinitely. Another drawback is that the item might be dependent on a certain set of circumstances in order for it to function at full capacity, like how Balmung only has extra damage against dagannoths. Another example is how a Crystal bow has a higher range bonus only for the first 250 shots, and then a Rune crossbow with an Unholy book has a higher bonus. This is also where we mention that it is two handed, and therefore cannot be used with a shield.

Here's a small sample table to further illustrate what I'm talking about:

Item Ranged bonus Requirements Cost Notes
Chaotic crossbow.png Chaotic crossbow +120 80 Ranged, 80 Dungeoneering 200,000 Dungeoneering tokens Degrades without losing stats after 10 hours, and must be recharged. Recharging from a fully degraded condition costs 2,000,000 coins, or 200,000 coins and 20,000 Dungeoneering tokens.
Crystal bow.png Crystal bow +100 70 Ranged, 50 Agility 293,003 coins (update) Requires Roving Elves. Ranged bonus degrades every 250 shots, down to a minimum of +64. After the first degradation, it offers a worse Ranged bonus than a Rune crossbow paired with an Unholy book. Once fully degraded it must be recharged for between 900,000 and 180,000 coins, depending on how many times it has been recharged before. Two-handed.
Rune crossbow.png Rune crossbow +90 61 Ranged 12,072 coins (update)

So there you have it, a well thought out and amazing proposal. Feel free to support it below.

Oh, I almost forgot, we would still have separate pages for free to play and members. There's just no way we could reasonably combine them together.

DISCUSS!

kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 07:19, September 29, 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

Support - Seems very logical and makes looking for items better for people that can't use everything. Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 07:48, September 29, 2011 (UTC)

Support - A great way to make the tables more comprehensive. Matt (t) 08:33, September 29, 2011 (UTC)

Support - Looks nice, and will be more informative. Ronan Talk 15:28, September 29, 2011 (UTC)

Support - Yup. Also, we can link to the respective Equipment table for all items of that slot. Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 18:13, September 29, 2011 (UTC)

Support This seems like a good idea but what is this replacing? I took a look at Highest_bonuses#Best_Melee_Attack_Bonuses and it does seem to be in the format you are suggesting unless I missed something (I just skimmed it over atm). If there are other pages that are not like this then they need to be edited.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fofo7848 (talk) on 19:26, 29 September 2011.

The page you linked has all slots mixed together into one table, so only the best piece of that slot can be showed, and any other notes are shown with a footnote, crammed at the bottom of the table. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 20:14, September 29, 2011 (UTC)

Support - looks alot better and it would be more informativeto my talk page! King TALKWer den König nicht ehrt, ist nicht Lebenswert. 00:13, September 30, 2011 (UTC)

Support - But I don't think we should replace the existing "best total bonuses" tables, but instead add this as well. Why exclude the PvP (revenent) gear, though? Sure it degrades, and I would never use it personally, but if it is the best gear, well, it should be on the table, and not as a footnote, but actually... there. Hofmic Talk 03:03, October 1, 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. An interesting idea I hadn't considered. I suppose it couldn't hurt to keep a table of the best possible bonus. Also, the pvp gear would be in the tables same as every other piece of equipment. I just picked three random ranged weapons, so if there's a pvp weapon that's not in there that should be, its not because we won't include it. I was just too lazy to add it in. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 03:58, October 1, 2011 (UTC)

Support - Much more comprehensive and more useful for considering the best given personal requirements, etc. I, too, would still like to retain a table of 'this is the absolute best', but with this new system it would allow a slightly stripped down, simpler version of it. Maybe we could have such a table at the top with each equipment slot linked to the relevent header (in addition to ToC somewhere). --Henneyj 16:34, October 2, 2011 (UTC)

Support - A much needed improvement. --クールネシトークトーク 12:01, October 8, 2011 (UTC)

Support - Looks good to me What I've done Ciphrius Kane Talk 15:27, October 8, 2011 (UTC)

Support, looks great and much better than the old one. ajr 16:11, October 8, 2011 (UTC)

Support - Old: Chathead jolly.gif New: Chathead happy.gif User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 Brassica Prime symbol.png 17:43, October 8, 2011 (UTC)

Request for closure - RS:SNOWBALL --中亚人/中亞人 (Chinasian/Jeffwang16) 跟我谈话 00:53, October 21, 2011 (UTC)

Okey dokey - New format approved, however the "best ever" table should be kept. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 05:48, October 21, 2011 (UTC)