Forum:Quest difficulty ratings

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Quest difficulty ratings
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 14 November 2010 by Liquidhelium.

Who decides how difficult a quest is rated? Is this taken from the Game Guide? Personally, if this is just the opinion of an editor who started the article, I think the quest difficulty rating system really needs to be reworked. For example, our guide for Roving Elves lists it as being 5/5 difficulty, as hard as Desert Treasure and While Guthix Sleeps. I just finished that quest, and I didn't really find it difficult at all. It wasn't especially long, nor was there an excessive amount of difficult combat.

My proposal: rework the rating system so it is consistent. I would do this by having polls on the main page as to how difficult quests are considered. Any other suggestions for this are welcome - I'm not too sure of it myself.

Thanks, ~ Fire Surge icon.png Sentry Telos Talk  12:04, November 10, 2009 (UTC)

To view the current proposal, click here. 222 talk 02:25, October 24, 2010 (UTC)

General Discussion

Most of the ratings for quests are derived from the official Jagex game guide, where Jagex has listed the difficulty level. I would have to agree that at times those ratings are at times off the mark, as I've come across some incredibly difficult tasks that are listed as "medium difficulty" and some rather easy "hard" quests.

For consistency sake, it would seem that sticking with the "official" ratings would be useful unless there is some other metric involved that can more easily be used for comparison. Checking with the Jagex game guide can help... and the quest difficulty is usually listed by Jagex even on the day of its release, so this isn't too challenging to find those official ratings.

If we would like to set our own ratings on these quests, some other guidelines can be developed to set these ratings. Certainly aspects for what makes one quest easier than another can include the skill requirements to complete the quest, the difficulty in obtaining or gathering required materials used in the quest, the difficulty of puzzles or challenges in the quest, the difficulty in defeating "the boss" (usually near the end of the quest), and if cooperation with multiple players is required to complete the quest or not (those tend to be much more difficult than quest you can do completely solo... think the Shield of Arrav quest as an example). --Robert Horning 12:27, November 10, 2009 (UTC)

Isn't our quest ratings based on how Jagex classifies the quest? If they aren't, then we could just follow them:

  • Novice = 1/5
  • Intermediate = 2/5
  • Experienced = 3/5
  • Master = 4/5
  • Grandmaster = 5/5

According to Jagex's classification, Roving Elves should be 4/5 as it is listed as a "Master" quest. However, Jagex's classification isn't perfect either. Monkey Madness is supposed to be 5/5 is listed as a "Master" quest, and Catapult Construction which should be 3/5 but also listed as a "Master" quest.

If we want to standardise things, however, following Jagex's quest classification is the best option, IMO.   az talk   12:32, November 10, 2009 (UTC)

Comment - I don't think we have been following Jagex's rating system. There has been 5 stars for a while, although not as long as While Guthix Sleeps. At least, I never remember a four star system Lol I think it'd be best to give it Jagex's difficulty rating, and then The RSW's one, which I'm unsure on how we'd determine. Cheers, Chicken7 >talk 12:47, November 10, 2009 (UTC)
Maybe on each quest's talk page there could be a discussion? But of course, it is still all very subjective. I found Dragon Slayer easy (at combat level 50, with crappy armour), while some people might consider it very hard. Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 20:05, November 10, 2009 (UTC)

Comment - I agree that we should use Jagex's classification system, since quest difficulty is mostly opinion. I think I read on a thread in the official forums that Jagex rates quests according to skill requirements.  Tien  00:34, November 11, 2009 (UTC)

I think it was in a developers blog that they said that. They said that they take the requirements into account when they are deciding on the difficulty they rate the quest. Unicorn horn dust.png Evil Yanks talk 07:23, November 11, 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering this too. A few days ago, I was walking through a quest with my friend, Underground Pass. She asked if it was hard.

I didn't know what to tell her, it's really all based on user preference. I found Underground Pass easy, however it did take me a while. For her, as she ran through some traps and is is lower leveled than when I did the quest, it was probably harder/longer. I checked RSW and it said 5 stars... I was confused, the quest really is not that hard, WGS and MEP2 are 5/5 worthy, underground pass was 4/5 imo, so I changed it. Also, in a clan I go to alot ( or used to ) people complained that DT and WGS were both so very hard and boring, while I thought them both to be easy and very fun! It's simple, a person who hates quests is gonna think they are hard. As I love quests ( and have the cape ), I think them all to be easy, as they were. The only quest/s I found even remotely hard were MEP2 ( it was very tricky and took me 4.5 hours to finish ) and the Balance Elemental at the end of WGS.

We definitely need to work out a system, as it's all based on user preference and how well the player prepares (levels, item req's, recommended items). Quest point cape.pngLil Diriz 77 Talk Summoning-icon.png 07:43, November 11, 2009 (UTC)

Displaying both difficulty ratings

What do you guys think about having our own system, PLUS having the Jagex rating too? So like the star ratings, and then "Jagex rating: Grandmaster", etc. Also, a system would be reaal hard to work out... Cheers, Chicken7 >talk 08:57, November 11, 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I was thinking about that earlier. Sounds good, Support Chicken's idea. Quest point cape.pngLil Diriz 77 Talk Summoning-icon.png 09:20, November 11, 2009 (UTC)
This could viably work but then how to we classify the quests ourselves in a standard fashion? [[File:OldAgility.gif]] Blazel 21:48, November 12, 2009 (UTC)
That is what we need to work out. But RS:CONSENSUS#Not_all_or_nothing says that if we can agree on one area but not another, do not hold back the one that was agreed upon. Smile Cheers, Chicken7 >talk 06:07, November 13, 2009 (UTC)

Coming up with a "custom" metric for scoring quest difficulty

In the interest of trying to be pro-active here, I'm trying to come up with something that might work with at least providing a scale for deciding if one quest is more difficult than another. Here are some thoughts:

Quest skill prerequisites:

  • +0 - Max skill level < 20
  • +1 - Max skill level < 40
  • +2 - Max skill level < 60
  • +3 - Max skill level < 80
  • +4 - High level skill requirements (80+ skill levels needed)

Quest boss level:

  • +0 - No boss or combat required
  • +1 - Boss combat level < 50
  • +2 - Boss combat level < 100
  • +3 - Boss combat level < 200
  • +4 - Boss combat level < 400
  • +5 - Boss combat level < 800
  • +6 - Gnarly tough boss creatures (they have been hinted at by j-mods on the RSOF)

An additional +1 rating for combat if you have to deal with multiple "waves" of creatures rather than a single boss.

Quest resource items:

  • +0 - No resources needed/can all be purchased on the Grand Exchange cheaply (< 5k coins)
  • +1 - Expensive items from GE (> 5k coins) and/or requires outside assistance from high level skills not listed as skill prerequisites
  • +2 - Resources require access at hard to reach areas and/or searches in "dangerous" areas like the deep wilderness.

Multi-player cooperation:

  • +0 - No cooperation needed
  • +1 - Players must exchange/trade resources to complete the quest
  • +2 - Players must cooperate to defeat a common enemy (no quests of this nature exist... yet)

Puzzle solving:

  • +0 - No puzzle to solve
  • +1 - A chain of events to follow that isn't necessarily complex, but does require some planning (aka One Small Favour)
  • +2 - A task that can be arguably a mini-game in its own right, and requires some strategic planning and planning ahead
  • +3 - A very difficult challenge that many players would consult a guide over, or often takes assistance from a friend via clan chat to solve (aka Ernest the Chicken quest task to obtain the oil can)

Quest NPCs: (note, this is the number of NPCs that you need to "talk" to in order to complete the quest, not the number of creatures you may have to slay)

  • +0 - one NPC that you have to interact with
  • +1 - < 4 NPCs for interaction
  • +2 - < 8 NPCs for interaction
  • +3 - < 16 NPCs for interaction
  • +4 - < 32 NPCs for interaction

I don't know if the above metric has any merit or not, but it is a starting point to "score" how difficult a quest might be and to make some comparisons. The combat level comparison might be over stated for high-level players, as might the skill requirements. Of course, I've seen some high level players complain about a quest saying it was too easy when really it is a bit of a challenge... only that their skill levels have made it easy. The Knight's Sword quest is a good example of something that high combat levels and skills make easy, but it is a very difficult quest for low-level players. I'd like to see some other ideas for what makes a quest difficult or easy. --Robert Horning 14:05, November 13, 2009 (UTC)

I like what you've come up with Robert. I don't believe you mentioned time, but I don't really think that actually comes into difficulty. Whether a quest goes for 10 hours or 5 minutes, it depends on the content I guess. Chicken7 >talk 14:33, November 13, 2009 (UTC)
I think length/amount of time of a quest plays a very large part in how hard a quest is (for example, Sheep Herder has no bosses, a small amount of NPCs to talk to, etc, yet many players have found it very annoying and difficult attempting to herd the sheep. I haven't done it myself, but judging by the amount of players who said "Sheep Herder" here [1] it's extremely annoying). ~ Fire Surge icon.png Sentry Telos Talk  19:34, November 13, 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Looks like a good metric you've come up with. I would agree that we should also add length of time for completion to this quest. For example, One Small Favour, while not particularly challenging, was quite long, and makes it harder than say Cook's Assistant. I like this system especially because the measurements are pretty objective, that will make classification simple, without the need for trying to find consensus on each ranking, which would take long. This way, a single editor can review the quest and rank it easily, quickly, and consistently. Air rune.png Tollerach hates SoF Fire rune.png 20:33, November 13, 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid measuring time would be very hard. Certain quests can be done quickly if you know what to do, but are longer if you do not. If you don't know what an egg is or where to get it, Cook's Assistant might take you quite some time. I spent 3 weeks on Tutorial Island. Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 20:38, November 13, 2009 (UTC)
How about the following concept for "time" based on "scenes" or "number of locations" covered:
  • +0 - < 4 locations
  • +1 - < 8 locations
  • +2 - < 16 locations
  • +3 - < 32 locations
  • +4 - 32+ locations
On this basis, One Small Favor would clearly get increased difficulty based on having to travel to so many places, and Doric's Quest would get the 0 ranking that it clearly deserves. This is suggesting that having to travel to multiple locations makes a quest much harder than going to a single location to solve a puzzle. Cook's Assistant might get a +1 on this basis... barely more difficult than Doric's Quest. --Robert Horning 21:02, November 13, 2009 (UTC)
It looks good to me, Robert. As Oli said, it is hard to measure by time, as it varies. But locations is a good one. Maybe we should test this metric on a few quest articles that are known for their difficulty (WGS, Cook's Assistant, Desert Treasure, etc.), just to see that it actually works properly. We don't want Cook's Assistant getting similar to WGS! Cheers, Chicken7 >talk 02:30, November 14, 2009 (UTC)
What would count as a location? A town, an island, a kingdom? Or something as small as a pig pen? Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 09:43, November 14, 2009 (UTC)
I like the metric. I went ahead and scored Cook's Assistant, Desert Treasure and While Guthix Sleeps with it:
Cook's Assistant:
  • Skills: none = 0
  • Boss: none = 0
  • Resources: cheap/easy = 0
  • Co-operation: none required = 0
  • Puzzles: none = 0
  • NPCs: one or two (Cook, possibly milk a cow (interaction)) = 0-1
  • Locations: all fairly close by (less than 4 in any case) = 0
  • Total: 0-1
Desert Treasure:
  • Skills: level 10-53 required = 2
  • Boss: 4, level 103-174 = 4 (3 for level; +1 for multiple)
  • Resources: more expensive (getting by self requires higher levels (75 woodcutting)) = 1-2
  • Co-operation: none required = 0
  • Puzzles: none as such, but maybe some planning = 0-1
  • NPCs: ~11 NPCs to interact with = 3
  • Locations: ~12 locations = 2
  • Total: 12-14
While Guthix Sleeps:
  • Skills: level 23-75 required = 3
  • Boss: level 454 = 5-6 (5 for level; possibly +1 for demons too, but you are invincible then)
  • Resources: more expensive, higher levels for self-gathering = 1-2
  • Co-operation: none required = 0
  • Puzzles: Movario's base and the Ancient Guthix Temple (guides usually used) = 3
  • NPCs: 29 NPCs to speak to (increased to >32 if you count each guardian separately) = 4-5
  • Locations: ~34 locations (counting each visit to Falador as a separate location) = 4
  • Total: 20-22
Just my interpretation of them, debate at will.
The maximum is 26; maybe ignore the 'gnarly boss' until its release, to get a nice number out of 25?
As a side note, thats round about what I'd give the quests out of 25-26 for difficulty Smile Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 17:09, November 14, 2009 (UTC)

Here are a couple other quests to compare:

Dragon Slayer:

  • Skills : Level 30-50 suggested = 3
  • Boss : Level 83 (Elvarg) = 2
  • Resources : can get over the 5k threshold = 1 (pre GE for F2P would be 2 due to going into wilderness to get the planks)
  • Co-operation: none = 0
  • Puzzles: Melzar's Maze = 1-2 (arguable on difficulty here, but the guide isn't strictly needed)
  • NPCs: 7 NPCs (8 if you consider the cabin boy) = 2
  • Locations (counting return visits as separate locations) 13 locations = 2
  • Total = 10-11

That would put Desert Treasure just a fair bit harder than Dragon Slayer, but not by much.

Knight's Sword:

  • Skills : Level 10-20 = 0
  • Boss : none = 0
  • Resources: Blurite in the Asgarnian Ice Caves for low level players (dangerous) = 2
  • Co-operation: none = 0
  • Puzzles: Trying to get the portrait from Sir Vyvin = 1
  • NPCs: 4 NPCs = 2
  • Locations: 8 locations = 2
  • Total = 7

It is interesting that Jagex classifies Knight's Sword as an "intermediate" quest, but I'd put it as an advanced-beginner quest instead. Sort of proves the metric here a little better. Certainly it is more difficult than Cook's Assistant, but comparatively easy.

Perils of Ice Mountain:

  • Skills : Level 10-11 = 0
  • Boss : none = 0
  • Resources: Easy to obtain/can get everything from GE for cheap = 0
  • Co-operation: none = 0
  • Puzzles: none = 0
  • NPCs: 5 NPCs = 2
  • Locations: 8 locations = 2
  • Total = 4

Arguably a bit easier to complete than Knight's Sword. Now for a tougher one:

Swan Song:

  • Skills : Level 66 Magic, 101 quest points = 2
  • Boss : Sea Troll Queen (level 170) = 3
  • Resources: Easy to obtain = 0
  • Co-operation: none = 0
  • Puzzles: Repairing walls = 0-1 (hardly even counts as a puzzle)
  • NPCs: 6 NPCs = 2
  • Locations: 8 locations = 2
  • Total = 9-10

Now this is a surprise if you look at the "official" rating. Actually, for me it isn't as it seemed like a rather simple quest.... deadly if you don't have the required combat level, but I haven't heard of too many players getting "stuck" trying to solve this quest. It is indeed interesting that this metric makes this quest just barely more complicated than Knight's Sword. --Robert Horning 18:50, November 14, 2009 (UTC)

This looks very good to me. Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 21:56, November 14, 2009 (UTC)
I like it. Maybe the metric is more exponential than linear - e.g. rather than the difficulty of a 8-rated quest being the difficulty of a 4-rated quest doubled, the difficulty of the 8-rated quest is that of the 4-rated quest squared. Though maybe thats not completely right either. Hard to work things like this out when you have no proper numbers to use. Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 00:19, November 15, 2009 (UTC)
I like it too, it seems to be working slightly good. To my mind, there are still some little inconsistencies; I don't think Desert Treasure got the rating it deserved. Cheers, Chicken7 >talk 00:54, November 15, 2009 (UTC)

Comment - For a new player, there's a big difference between a level 15 boss and a level 30 boss. Shouldn't we have more points for bosses? Also, should we put points in for specific areas a player neeeds to go, like being more dangerous in the wilderness?Didn't see the resources section White partyhat old.png C Teng talk 13:59, November 15, 2009 (UTC)

I'd have to agree that there is a difference between a level 170 boss (the Sea Troll Queen) and level 83 (Elvarg), but I don't get what you are trying to say here. While it could be argued that bosses do make a quest harder, I suppose the question you are trying to raise is how much weight in this quest difficulty scale should a boss have overall. I gave an effective max of 5 points for the toughest bosses so far, with the possibility that perhaps a quest might come out with the equivalent of trying to solo against a Corporal Beast. If you are trying to split hairs between Count Draynor (level 34) and Delrith (level 27), I fail to see the difference for even new players. Is there a level 15 boss? This point system does give an extra point for Elvarg over Count Draynor, or do you think there should be a larger spread? --Robert Horning 14:51, November 15, 2009 (UTC)
OK, I suppose there is the level 13 skeletons for The Restless Ghost and Ernest the Chicken, but you don't have to actually complete the combat against them in order to complete the quest. I would treat aggressive creatures sort of like a boss in terms of using this scale, which would raise the quest difficulty level for these two quests by a point, and it could be argued that Prince Ali Rescue is slightly harder with the level 26 guards that you have to defeat/run past... but I'm not sure that for the purposes of a "boss" creature that there is a difference. Still, there is a point in terms of comparing the Jail guards to Delrith that perhaps for the purposes of being a boss Delrith should get extra consideration. Hmmm... I need to think about that a little bit more. --Robert Horning 15:27, November 15, 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Some quests are quite an obvious choice, as While Guthix Sleeps will obviously be a 5/5 or the highest rating, and things like Monk's Friend and Cook's assistant will be ranked as 1/5 or the lowest way of rating. Though some will be debatable. Desert Treasure and Monkey Madness could arguably be 5/5 or 4/5, while some quests could be 1/5-2/5 and so on. Mostly, its a matter of opinion.--Cheers, Off-hand ascension crossbow.pngYodaAscension crossbow.png 23:32, November 22, 2009 (UTC)

Support per all --Akthanakos camel chathead.png Karimabuseer Talk Azzanadra ghost.png 22:28, February 26, 2010 (UTC)

Formalizing Metric

In an attempt to clean up my previous proposal, I have written the above ideas with some modifications gleaned from the discussions and have written the whole thing up as RuneScape:Quest complexity rating.

My proposal:

This project page be given the status of a style guide and be recommended for use when creating quest guide pages. As time and circumstances may allow, I'd like to encourage members of this community to apply this metric to all of the existing and future quest guide articles and include it as an additional value that can be used to gauge quest difficulty. Furthermore, I'd like to have this quest complexity rating be included in any lists of quests where quest difficulty ratings are also used. Discussion for application of this criteria and metric to individual quests can and ought to be on the talk pages of the respective quests.

Note: as with all things that are on a wiki, this criteria can be modified and updated. Particularly during this time while the discussion is happening, I'd like to encourage the larger community to "tweak" the criteria and perhaps modify the concept to include other areas of quest complexity that perhaps have been missing from the discussion so far. Once quests start to be evaluated using this criteria, it may be difficult to make major changes to the criteria without forcing a major update of all quest rating values.

BTW, I want to thank User:Telos for starting this discussion and giving me an excuse for coming up with this document. It wouldn't have happened without him. --Robert Horning 14:29, November 25, 2009 (UTC)

Metric Discussion

Support - Now our quest guides will have ratings that actually suit the difficulty of the quest. BTW, thank you for saying thank you, and thank you for coming up with a suitable metric. Smile ~ Fire Surge icon.png Sentry Telos Talk  20:49, November 25, 2009 (UTC)

Support - I can't find any flaws. Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 20:52, November 25, 2009 (UTC)

Question - Once we use this system to rate a quest, how will we be displaying the rating? Will we be putting something like [Rating]/[Maximum rating]? Would it be better instead if we gave a range for the ratings (1-10 rating = 1 star)? It would be better for general quest guide users to see the usual ratings of 1-5 that we have right now. Also, for extra clarification, under puzzle ratings, how would you rate puzzles like the one in Monkey Madness#Chapter 1? C.ChiamTalk 03:33, November 26, 2009 (UTC)

Suppoet & Question - Sounds good to me, but I would like Caleb's question answered. Also, will we include our own "wiki rating" and then the official Jagex rating too? In an article:

Wiki rating: 4*****
Jagex rating: Master

Like that? Cheers, Chicken7 >talk 08:07, November 26, 2009 (UTC)

As far as displaying both the internal wiki rating and the Jagex rating.... absolutely! It is useful for everybody to see both ratings, and it would be particularly informative if our internal ranking is showing a quest to be easier to accomplish than Jagex claims it should be. As far as how to display the difficulty.... I suppose we could display stars for consistency. I'd like to include "half-stars" or even partial stars if we would go that route, and make each star == 4 rating points. The current maximum score is 30 (no quests currently would score 30 point, however), but this is an open ended rating system with no real upper limit. Keep in mind that even Jagex had to introduce the "Grand Master" level to its own rating system as some quests have become far and away more difficult than what has been previously offered. Changing how it is displayed, however, is something that can be modified and adapted over time. --Robert Horning 10:53, November 26, 2009 (UTC)

Support - Awesome stuff. Some sort of star-based system for displaying it sounds good, too. Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 20:32, November 26, 2009 (UTC)

Support - It should be fixed a little though so there isn't a 'maybe' level. For example: a rating being 4-5 or 0-1. scoot4.pngscooties 17:39, November 27, 2009 (UTC)

Support - Seems good. The star system is needed, though: just a number would be too obscure and require the reader to read the actual policy. And what for 'maybe'-ratings (e.g. 4-5), it's up to the writer's decision. dictature 16:30, November 30, 2009 (UTC)

Comment - I would support this system, but I would prefer if we displayed the actual numbers rather than the stars. Under the star system, both 10/30 (1.7) and 14/30 (2.3) would have 2 stars if we rounded up the ratings. But under our system, the 14/30 quest is 4 "levels" harder than the 10/30 one. I thought one of the reasons why we needed our own system was to be more accurate in our quest classification. If we used the stars, we would be following Jagex's footsteps as the stars would simply "dilute" our actual rating of the quest...

Or, we could something like the progress bar in Template:Goal. At least that would be more accurate compared to stars.   az talk   09:30, December 1, 2009 (UTC)

Comment - I agree that stars innacurize (word? Lol) the rating, but I don't think a written rating (28/30) would be good. I like Az's idea of using something like the Goal template, I think that'd work very well. Also to show through colours as well, I think it should be a gradient that changes depending on difficulty (green->yellow->orange->red...) Cheers, Chicken7 >talk 09:40, December 1, 2009 (UTC)

Comment - As a suggestion here, to keep the stars for consistency with previous efforts but also try to introduce "half-stars" or partial stars to show a difference between a 10-rating and a 14-rating quest, I created a new template that might at least be considered:

*Cooks Assistant (1 rating): {{Quest Difficulty|1}} *Desert Treasure (12 rating): {{Quest Difficulty|12}} *While Guthix Sleeps (22 rating): {{Quest Difficulty|22}} *Dragon Slayer (11 rating): {{Quest Difficulty|11}} *Knight's Sword (7 rating): {{Quest Difficulty|7}} *Perils of Ice Mountain (4 rating): {{Quest Difficulty|4}} *Super Uber Quest (30 rating): {{Quest Difficulty|30}} *Basic 10 rating quest: {{Quest Difficulty|10}} *Basic 14 rating quest: {{Quest Difficulty|14}}

This is based on 5 rating points per star, which mostly keeps in tact our 0-5 star rating that currently exists but considers that there might be some future quest that would put in the sixth star. Partial stars are awarded and displayed to note that it isn't a complete star. A bar can certainly be used, but this doesn't change much other than the raw appearance. --Robert Horning 13:24, December 1, 2009 (UTC)

Support - It looks really nice, but there doesn't seem to be any difference between the 11-rating and 10-rating quests. I actually had to squint to notice any difference.

:{| class="wikitable" style="text-align:center" ! 0/5 star ! 1/5 star ! 2/5 star ! 3/5 star ! 4/5 star ! 5/5 star |- | [[File:Star-0.svg|0/5 star]] | [[File:Star-1.svg|1/5 star]] | [[File:Star-2.svg|2/5 star]] | [[File:Star-3.svg|3/5 star]] | [[File:Star-4.svg|4/5 star]] | [[File:Star-5.svg|5/5 star]] |- | [[File:Star-0.svg|16px|0/5 star]] | [[File:Star-1.svg|16px|1/5 star]] | [[File:Star-2.svg|16px|2/5 star]] | [[File:Star-3.svg|16px|3/5 star]] | [[File:Star-4.svg|16px|4/5 star]] | [[File:Star-5.svg|16px|5/5 star]] |- | Okay | Too close to 0/5 star | Okay | Hard to tell; could be 1/2 or 4/5 | Very close to 5/5 star | Okay |} Hmmm... maybe if we "coloured" each point of the star, then it would be better IMO. But this system is still okay as it is... Nice job!   az talk   10:11, December 2, 2009 (UTC)

It looks good to me, Robert! Like Az said, maybe a few minor changes are needed. Yet, I am unsure if it'd really matter what the difference is between 10 rated and 11 rated quests. Cheers, Chicken7 >talk 06:01, December 3, 2009 (UTC)

Desert Treasure is renowned because it has not one, but four fairly difficult bosses. Perhaps it would be slightly more effective if we considered the cumulative total combat level of all of the bosses faced. Counting Damis twice, this would give DT 5 points based on boss combat level instead of 3 (which is currently a 4 because of multiple). If we give it another point for multiple then it's a +6. Of course, this would also drive quests such as Dream Mentor way up. Slayer-icon.png Gangsterls Divination-icon.png talk 10:19, December 4, 2009 (UTC)

In DM, you have to do all the bosses at once, without getting new supplies. In DT, you can get new supplies - this makes it a lot easier. Therefore I think that DT should not get extra points because there are so many bosses. Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 15:15, December 4, 2009 (UTC)

I think we could add more stars - Dragon Slayer's 2 stars sounds as if it is easy, and for some quests you can barely see the star at all. White partyhat old.png C Teng talk 19:25, January 18, 2010 (UTC)

But compared with the likes of BRD, WGS and NR, it is easy. How many stars are displayed is down to the rating defined RS:QCR|here.
I like this star system... colouring each point (as well as a bit of the middle) of the star may make it look better/clearer than the horizontal shading, per az. Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 20:45, January 18, 2010 (UTC)

Support teh stars - I'm with the stars.Youdead00 20:56, January 18, 2010 (UTC)

Support per all. White partyhat old.png C Teng talk 19:13, February 19, 2010 (UTC)

Support per all. I wish I had seen this when it was being discussed a month ago, I would have supported it then. It sounds like a much better idea. The stars look awesome. I'm a regular user and I approve this message.  TLUL Talk - Contribs 21:08, February 19, 2010 (UTC) 

New Metric Suggestion

I don't want to be rude or anything, but I think that the current metric has some missing points/flaws and that it should be improved to a more accurate version.


For the skill prerequisites, I think it should be changed to include other categories of prerequisites.


Keep the current system for skill requirements, therefore:

  • +0 - Max skill level < 20
  • +1 - Max skill level < 40
  • +2 - Max skill level < 60
  • +3 - Max skill level < 80
  • +4 - High level skill requirements (80+ skill levels needed)

For a maximum of 4 extra points awarded (with atleast one skill required above level 80).


For quest requirements, add points depending on the difficulty of the hardest quest requirement. If there are more than one quests of that difficulty, add an extra half point per quest for a maximum of an extra point.

  • +0 - No quest requirements.
  • +1 - Novice quest required.
  • +2 - Intermediate quest required.
  • +3 - Experienced quest required.
  • +4 - Master quest required.
  • +5 - Grandmaster quest required.

For a maximum of 6 extra points awarded (with 3 grandmaster quests as a requirement).

Finally, take those points and multiply them by 2 to have the total extra points awarded.

Therefore, a quest can earn up to 20 extra points for prerequisites.


For the bosses, I think that definetly needs to be changed


First of all, the points awarded for the level of the boss should be changed:

  • +0 - No boss or no challenge at all (Delrith anyone? 7 hitpoints, come on!)
  • +1 - Boss Level < 30
  • +2 - Boss Level < 50
  • +3 - Boss Level < 70
  • +4 - Boss Level < 100
  • +5 - Boss Level < 150
  • +6 - Boss Level < 200
  • +7 - Boss Level < 300
  • +8 - Boss Level < 450
  • +9 - Boss Level < 600
  • +10 - Boss Level above 600

For a maximum of 10 extra points awarded (with a boss of combat level above 600).


Extra points should be awarded if the boss prooves to have extra difficulties:

  • Award an extra point if the boss is defencly intelligent (i.e switches prayers) and an extra one if he is offensively intelligent (i.e switches attack styles).
  • Give an extra point if the boss is in a hostile environement (i.e monsters around/events damaging player. An example that comes in mind is the fight during TokTz-Ket-Dill).
  • Award an extra point if a special matter to fight the boss must be used (i.e attack style, weapon, defence style or other must be specified, again, an example is the fight during TokTz-Ket-Dill).

For a maximum of 4 extra points awarded (with a boss which is intelligent (defencly and offensively), in a hostile environement and which requires to be fought with a special matter).

Multiple Fights/Encounters

Multiple bosses counts as having to fight them back-to-back. Unless the secondary boss is of caliber around equivalent as the main one (+- one extra combat level point), it does not count as an extra boss.

In the case that it is of similar level, each extra boss awards and extra point, for a maximum for 3 points. If they are fought back-to-back, award double the points they would have.

Extra bosses therefore give a maximum of 6 extra points.

If your math is good, you have found out that the maximum number of extra points for a quest's boss is 20'.

Quest ressources would, in my opinion, belong better in the others section (covered later), same for the cooperation.


Puzzles are almost fine the way they are, they only need a little tweaking to make everything alright (again, in my opinion).

  • +0 - No puzzle
  • +1 - A chain of events to follow that isn't necessarily complex, but does require some planning (aka One Small Favour)
  • +2 - A task that can be arguably a mini-game in its own right, and requires some strategic planning and planning ahead. Most quest puzzle will situate itself in this category.
  • +3 - A challenge that is present in real-life (sliding puzzles) and that most people wouldn't bother to do. (i.e Monkey Madness sliding puzzle)
  • +4 - A very difficult puzzle, which demands an exact knowledge of how every piece works and in which a map would make most people's biggest joy. In these kind of puzzles, most people would mostly take a guide (An example of this is the Ernest the chicken's puzzle, in which we must know what door which lever affects of the Mourning's End Part II puzzle, which is downright impossible without a guide or a strong will to do it alone!)

For a maximum of 4 extra points awarded (with a very difficult puzzle).

(You'll notice this part remains somehow the same)


Same as for the bosses. these extras make the puzzle harder.

  • Add an extra point if the puzzle can't be done with a guide (i.e is different for each player).
  • Add an extra point if the puzzle damages the player (i.e Underground Pass' grid of doom!)
  • Add an extra point if the puzzle is surrounded by monsters which render doing the puzzle harder, with an interruption being quite often (i.e MEP2's light puzzle, Barrow's puzzle, Nomad's requiem's water cubes).

For a maximum of 3 extra points awarded (with an un-guidable puzzle which is damaging and surrounded by monsties)

Therefore, puzzles count for 7 total points.


Locations are the areas we must go in, the dungeons and everything that makes getting around in the quest hard.


Traps are always a pain in dungeons! Therefore, they are an indicator of difficulty! The points are based on the number of traps, the way they're hidden and their damage done.

Damage - No one likes damage, here's how the difficulty is made for it:

  • +0 - No damage
  • +1 - Traps that barely damage (1-2).
  • +2 - Traps that do moderate damage (3-4).
  • +3 - Traps that do slightly high damage (5-6) and that after a while will annoy you!
  • +4 - Traps that inflict high damage (7+) and which will annoy you from the start.

Add an extra point if the draps poison/disease you.

Number of - I'd rather have one high damage trap than thousands of small ones, no?

  • +0 - There aren't any traps.
  • +1 - The traps are placed in an unfrequent manner and probably won't be triggered much by you.
  • +2 - The traps are quite oftenly seen, and are starting to be strategically placed (i.e in the middle of the road and not the sides).
  • +3 - The traps are quite often, you should require a few pieces on food on them and they are very well placed (i.e in a one square wide hallway or so).

Visibility - A hidden trap is much more dangerous than a visible one, right?

  • +0 - There are no traps.
  • +1 - The traps are very badly hidden and easily avoidable.
  • +2 - The traps are slightly well hidden, but should be no challenge to find if you pay attention (i.e Xs in Underground Pass).
  • +3 - The traps are extremely well hidden and melt away in the scenery. It should be difficult to find these and you must have a keen eye to see them (i.e traps in Isafadar)

For a total of 10 extra points awarded for traps (with 7+ dmg traps which are often and well hidden).


Monsters are very annoying in dungeons and sometimes cause your death! They are therefore a clear indicator of difficulty in locations.

  • +0 - No monsters
  • +1 - Monster Level < 30
  • +2 - Monster Level < 50
  • +3 - Monster Level < 70
  • +4 - Monster Level < 100
  • +5 - Monster Level < 150

The damage they deal also awards points.

  • +0 - No monster/no damage
  • +1 - 1-2 damage max hit.
  • +2 - 3-4 damage max hit.
  • +3 - 5-6 damage max hit.
  • +4 - 7-8 damage max hit.
  • +5 - 9+ damage max hit.

For a total of 10 extra points awarded for monsters (with level 150+ and 9+ damage max hit).

So, the maximum extra points awarded for locations is 20.


This includes pretty much every other aspect a quest can include, so cooperation, ressources items and npcs.

This brings the grand total of points a quest can hold to 75.

I know this way to rank quests can be confusing and long, but I think it is much more clear as to what is what in a quest. It could do with a few improvements but, oh well, I need to know how others think of it first before we can change it!

Also, if it ever gets accepted, a link saying "why?" next to the rating should be added with the formula to find the difficulty.

--Quest point cape.pngTalk Newbie856 edit count Nomad guideMusic icon.png 06:58, February 26, 2010 (UTC)

Support Newbie's ideas - Yes, very sensible. I'm not sure why I didn't think of some of these myself... ~ Fire Surge icon.png Sentry Telos Talk  09:14, February 26, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Although, it is missing a few things such as how multiple bosses work and I think we should re-tweak the score so that every major category (puzzles-bosses-requirements-others-locations) counts for as much (each 20 for a total score of 100?) I wanted to do these yesterday but I had no idea how so I thought it would be better to let the community decide. --Quest point cape.pngTalk Newbie856 edit count Nomad guideMusic icon.png 19:06, February 26, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - While I do not at all oppose the general idea of a system or even your system, I think that there are still flaws. Should a quest requiring only one skill at 60 be harder than a quest, that requires ten skills at 40? No. Also, fighting 5 level 200 bosses in a row without banking is much harder than fighting 10 level 300s with banking between them. Therefore I think systems like this that only look at the maximum are flawed and it should be changed. Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 19:25, February 26, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I see where you come from. For the skills, might I suggest taking the total xp required? Although, some skils do remain harder than others, such as slayer being harder than cooking, but that would be somehow hard to figure out how much is a skill worth more than others, so I think that should remain untouched. Though, the points for skill could be something like:

  • +0 - no skill
  • +1 - xp needed < 100,000
  • +2 - xp needed < 250,000
  • +3 - xp needed < 750,000
  • +4 - xp needed higher than 750,000

Not sure at all about those xp numbers though, I'm probably way out of range, but you get the idea.

Concerning multiple bosses, I don't really know how to make an algorithm for that, but someone could probably find one good enough for this easily enough. --Quest point cape.pngTalk Newbie856 edit count Nomad guideMusic icon.png 19:36, February 26, 2010 (UTC)

Add up the levels of the bosses? I like the XP idea, though the scale might need to be adjusted in the future. Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 20:34, February 26, 2010 (UTC)
How about:
Skills - Take the xp needed for each of the 20 levels integrer and add 50% then round to the nearest cool number (you know what I mean). So:
  • +0 - no skill
  • +1 - xp needed < 60,000 (or 37k (xp for level 40) x 1.5 rounded down to cool number)
  • +2 - xp needed < 400,000 (or 273k (xp for level 60) x 1.5 rounded down to cool number)
  • +3 - xp needed < 3,000,000 (you get the picture)
  • +4 - xp needed higher than 3 million
Although, the slope for this might be too big, so we can instead use the levels 10,30,50 and 70. So:
  • +0 - no skill
  • +1 - xp needed < 25,000 (or 13k (xp for level 30) x 1.5 rounded down to cool number)
  • +2 - xp needed < 200,000 (or 101k (xp for level 50) x 1.5 rounded down to cool number)
  • +3 - xp needed < 1,500,000 (you get the picture)
  • +4 - xp needed higher than 1.5 million
That's sorta better, not perfect though.
Multiple Bosses - How about, we give each extra boss one half the score they would get (rounded to nearest integrer) and half that score if they are not consecutive. The maximum score extra bosses could get is 16 (so it gives bosses a nice 30 number). After we have the score/30 for bosses, we divide it by 3 and then multiply by two to give it a score on 20. So:
5 consecutive bosses above level 200 and last one above 450 would give 12 for extra bosses (since there are four extras and one final and 4*6/2=12) and the normal +8 for the boss. Giving it a 13.3 ranking for bosses (20/3*2=13.3)
Quest requirements - I realized that for the quest requirements I gave them the difficulty Jagex gives them, but that is wrong. I think we should instead use the score it would get (i.e 60/75) and divide it by 15. Then, that score would be the extra points awarded for the quest that requires it. (if we ever change the max score a quest can get to, say, 100, we will divide it by the appropriate number so that 5 remains the highest possible score (not counting the number of quests at the same difficulty).
--Quest point cape.pngTalk Newbie856 edit count Nomad guideMusic icon.png 22:08, February 26, 2010 (UTC)
The bosses one still sounds a little confusing... I'm a regular user and I approve this message.  TLUL Talk - Contribs 03:55, March 4, 2010 (UTC) 
I think the jump from 4K to 3M is a bit to high. However, the jump from 200k to 1,5m is pretty low... Frown Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 10:14, April 3, 2010 (UTC)

{{RFC}} C.ChiamTalk 03:29, April 3, 2010 (UTC)

i'm really glad this is being done i think another to start including in quest descriptions is how much it could cost, but that could be kind of complicated. Also about boss fights like said before it is much easier to kill monsters with banking in between, however this could make a quest a lot longer so i think that options like that should also be included on quest descriptions, any ways a little example; it was much harder to kill 10 ice trolls in a row then the final boss. Also how the description of boss fights usually make them seem much harder than they (dream mentor especially) an occassionally make them sound easier than they are. Any ways thats probably for another thread.

sorry i wrote the above but forgot to sign Briod the Bean 21:19, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

I don't think a formula will work

... You're working too hard. Really, I can appreciate all the hard work that's going into making a solid metric, but "Difficulty" isn't measurable; it's subjective.

Yes, the combat level required and the maximum damage of the monsters can be divided by the reciprocal of the number of locations to come up with a number, but a player with 90 combat is going to find it easier than a player with 50 combat. Why do you think Jagex's guide ratings are off sometimes? What's the reason for having a particularly easy master quest? ... They're trying to use a metric to give their guides a standard "Difficulty" rating, and I'm sure they have some formula like the one above. However, measuring the actual difficulty is impossible. The player's combat level, his real-life intelligence, and how much money he has in-game are a few variables that I can think of immediately. You can't have an accurate formula without measuring the variables for each player, so anything but a calculator is useless, and even then an actual difficulty formula involving all the variables will be mostly trial-and-error and maybe even different for each quest; for example, level 90 combat won't make Ernest the Chicken much easier than level 70 combat.

All of that said, you're working too hard. The player knows how much money he has, and he knows how strong he is. He knows the answer to every variable involved in the quest, so list the adversities - bullet point them. Consider the following: "This quest requires: an iron chainbody (X coins), a bronze med helm (Y coins). This quest involves: level 30 Black Knights (7 max damage), a multi-combat zone, interaction with 1 NPC in Falador..." Give him all the information there is. Link to the relevant articles.

Honestly, I'd bet that any formula we can come up with will end up giving particularly easy or particularly hard ratings just as often as Jagex's. Let the player decide how difficult the quest is; it's his decision, anyway. Leftiness 15:14, May 24, 2010 (UTC)

Let me get this straight. Not only do you think this is a silly idea, you would actually block or revert any contributor to this wiki trying to perform the calculations listed above and to put them into the quest guides? While I'm all for "tweaking" the standards and coming up with something that gives a good rough guess for how difficult a quest may be, it shouldn't stop those wanting to work for this effort.
It is merely a suggestion, nothing more. It has not official standing anywhere but on this wiki, and is only an attempt to "rank" the difficulty levels of the various quests. It isn't to replace bulleted items in the quest guide or to change anything other than to include this additional "quick glance" reference item, and perhaps to put this rating score in a list of quest on this wiki too. BTW, I don't think that Jagex really puts too much thought into what difficulty level they rank each quest... it is more of a "gut" call rather than anything else.
I was actually going to start implementing this idea into some quest guides, but if there is resistance to the idea, I guess I'll just have to say the hell with it. I don't want to waste my time contributing to a wiki where I'm not welcome.
BTW, I think a level 70 combat player doing Ernest the Chicken is likely overkill anyway. If you are talking combat level 10 vs. 30 it might make a slightly more believable argument about difficulty level. --Robert Horning 23:23, May 25, 2010 (UTC)
Comment - I didn't say anything about blocking, reverting, or resisting, and I didn't say anything about not using the formulae. All I said was that I think it's just as likely to be "particularly easy" or "particularly hard" as anything else due to variables not included in calculation like the player's combat level, money, and actual intelligence. We can certainly compare quests based on the number of monsters and the price of the ingredients, but true difficulty isn't measurable because everybody's different; it's subjective. Listing the adversities would allow everybody to decide how difficult they think it would be based on the variables of which only they know the values. The level 70 combat level was an example; the 20 combat-level difference between 70 and 90 makes little difference in the difficulty while the 20 combat-level difference between 10 and 30 makes a big difference, and the difference in the amount of change in difficulty with these two 20 combat level differences would have to be accounted for in a formula of true difficulty... and I didn't say anything about you not being welcome. I wasn't even being hostile; I opened the page and posted my opinion... Leftiness 00:29, May 26, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Oww, textwall. Can we archive part of this? It's beginning to hurt my brain almost as much as an RSMV discussion. I'm a regular user and I approve this message.  TLUL Talk - Contribs 06:44, May 31, 2010 (UTC) 

Suggestion - I think this may have been mentioned but not in the same way. How about setting up a poll on every quest page so we get the opinions of those players who have just recently finished the quest instead of higher level players who only have a faint idea of how hard they thought the quest was. This shouldn't be the entire rating system but maybe make it worth a few points? [Pharos] 08:33, June 6, 2010 (UTC)

I think this was suggested before, but the idea wasn't popular due to the potential for abuse. If it were made only part of the system, then I think it could work. I'm a regular user and I approve this message.  TLUL Talk - Contribs 09:08, June 6, 2010 (UTC) 
Yeah i can see how it could be abused but what i meant it to be is a sort of frustration factor? Like Underground pass wouldn't rate very high as it had pretty weak bosses and req's and only really rates high on traps/location. But it is still considered by a good amount of high levels as a difficult quest. [Pharos] 09:28, June 6, 2010 (UTC)
I think we're really taking this a bit too seriously. We don't need a formula or a poll, we just need to do it. I don't feel like we need some huge, in-depth project to establish ratings. If someone has a problem with the rating, BE BOLD and change it. If someone disagrees strongly, they can bring it up on the quest's talk page. ʞooɔ 21:37, June 6, 2010 (UTC)
Support Cook's idea - >.> I agree; all these formulae would just get confusing and making a big hassle. I'm going to propose a Quest Improvement wikiguild soon, anyway, so if there is more formula ideas, they could be discussed there. I'm not so against the poll idea, as long as we note that it is not entirely accurate. But I'm not for it either. Chicken7 >talk 06:59, June 7, 2010 (UTC)

Request closure - Discussion has ended. Not anymore.222 talk 07:20, July 4, 2010 (UTC)

This request for closure was denied A user has requested closure for Quest difficulty ratings. Request denied. The reason given was: There is further discussion taking place, and great new ideas being brought forward.

ʞooɔ 09:42, July 5, 2010 (UTC)

"The player's combat level, his real-life intelligence, and how much money he has in-game are a few variables that I can think of immediately. You can't have an accurate formula without measuring the variables for each player…" Um, of course. That's the whole point of a quest rating system, so the player can determine himself if he's strong and smart enough to complete a quest. White partyhat old.png C Teng talk 16:35, August 11, 2010 (UTC)

Multiple (separate) difficulty ratings in the template?

Suggestion - What if there were, instead of 1 difficulty rating, 2 or 3 of them? Such as a "Combat difficulty," a "Puzzle difficulty," and so forth?

This could be simple to read, fairly easy to determine, and helpful to people who play the game differently. For example, there were a lot of people who complained about how "extremely" hard Elemental Workshop III was, and that could be placed completely in the Puzzle Difficulty bar, and there would be no confusion for people who might see "This has a high difficulty" and only think "I'm high levelled, I can handle it."

Jagex's rating of difficulty also includes required levels, as has been noted, but for some quests you can have that minimum and the quest itself will be no trouble. Perhaps some rating of how much levels higher than the minimum are needed (Such as higher than minimum agility for Underground Pass) would help. Ryndinovaia 08:29, July 10, 2010 (UTC)

Now why the heck did nobody think of this before? I'm a regular user and I approve this message.  TLUL Talk - Contribs 08:53, July 10, 2010 (UTC) 
OMG, what an epic idea. How did we not think of this? We could have 1 main rating which could be the average of all the aspect ratings, which can be hidden until a user clicks the extend button or something. We should get to work on what aspects to include straight away. Chicken7 >talk 08:56, July 10, 2010 (UTC)
Dis is 1 of the most brilliantest ideas i haf ever herd, ive even forgoten how to spel! XD222 talk 09:12, July 10, 2010 (UTC)
im 12 and what is this i dont even I'm a regular user and I approve this message.  TLUL Talk - Contribs 09:14, July 10, 2010 (UTC) 

Comment - I've recovered my spelling skills now. Could we create a new thread for this. It's kinda getting a bit long, and this is a new idea. Maybe, "Multiple quest ratings". 222 talk 09:15, July 10, 2010 (UTC)

Nah. We're almost done, I know it!

Support Ryndinovaia's idea - That is actually a pretty good idea. Like Chicken said, we'll have the standard [[File:Star-4.svg|17px]] large stars as an average, then when an extend button is clicked, there will be the type-of-difficulty ratings, which will only need to contain one or two smaller-sized stars [[File:Star-4.svg|13px]] (Or six smaller-sized stars, if we want to double/triple/quadruple the amount to make it look even). White partyhat old.png C Teng talk 16:30, August 11, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I have made a rough template idea. How does this look like ?

Start point: Go to Lumbridge Castle.  Talk to the cook; tell him that you will help. Go to Lumbridge Castle. Talk to the cook; tell him that you will help.
Member's only: No
Wiki difficulty:
Jagex difficulty: Novice Novice
Length: Short
Requirements: None
Items required:
Enemies to defeat: None

Quest point cape.pngTalk Newbie856 edit count Nomad guideMusic icon.png 21:21, August 11, 2010 (UTC)

Too many fields. Boss and Puzzle fields are probably all we need. And we should stick with the six-star system. And the stars should be smaller in the expanded parameter, so it's easier to see what they are. White partyhat old.png C Teng talk 23:42, August 11, 2010 (UTC)
That looks pretty good but as C Teng said we dont need that many fields as we would never be able to accurately decide on them anyway and we should just stick with 6 stars too. Wait... dont we normally use 5? BTW, can we sticky this thread? - [Pharos] 23:50, August 11, 2010 (UTC)
It's proposed that we use six instead, so that half- and quarter-stars are more easily visible. White partyhat old.png C Teng talk 00:29, August 12, 2010 (UTC)
There's currently a bug where the starts will be enormous. It's an issue I'm working on, but I have to eat :P. So I'll fix it later. Soz Quest point cape.pngTalk Newbie856 edit count Nomad guideMusic icon.png 00:15, August 12, 2010 (UTC)
I have fixed it. I also reduced the size of all the stars, and removed the requirements section of the extended difficulty as a user can easily see them. Additionally, there are now only 5 stars per category. I have left everything as it was for now, tell me if you think it should be changed. Quest point cape.pngTalk Newbie856 edit count Nomad guideMusic icon.png 00:40, August 12, 2010 (UTC)
As someone said far above, the stars that are only partially filled in a hard to see when small. So having stars either filled in or not filled in would be better. I did actually make a colour coded bar template I created in Paint.NET. I'll upload it in a sec as an example. I agree the above has too many options, but disagree with C Teng: there are variables beyond bosses and puzzles. Last thing, I think all this metric business is too much hassle. Common sense to decide each difficulty is all that's required imho. Cheers, Chicken7 >talk 07:59, August 12, 2010 (UTC)

That's what I designed a while back. I just wanted an alternative to the stars, and I thought fully filled blocks were better. I don't mind if you think its crap, but feel free to suggest things. See all of them here: Category. Cheers, Chicken7 >talk 11:17, August 13, 2010 (UTC)

Support bars - I prefer using the coloured bars over the stars, as they look sleeker and better. 222 talk 09:30, August 22, 2010 (UTC)

Support - I really like the idea of the separate difficulties. But I don't think it should be "boss difficulty", just "combat difficulty" because some quests require withstanding combat that isn't a boss - i.e. running through the cave in Monkey Madness or something like that. And I kind of like the idea that someone said of having "level/skill difficulty" which refers to how high your levels should be over the required levels, like in Underground pass, but the problem with this is that it only applies to a few quests and would be difficult to measure... But the combat and puzzle difficulties should definitely be added, imo. insaneular 02:57, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

Archive - This thread is getting extremely long. I request that the first two sections "General Discussion" and "Formalising metric" be archived, possibly more. 222 talk 09:41, August 22, 2010 (UTC)

It's not that long. White partyhat old.png C Teng talk 17:00, August 22, 2010 (UTC)
Well, it still has an abundance of text-walls. Archive, please... 222 talk 06:32, August 23, 2010 (UTC)
Have you ever seen an RSMV thread then? Those are text-walls >_> Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 08:54, August 23, 2010 (UTC)
As a matter of fact, yes, I have. Those are more than mere text-walls. I hate law 222 talk 09:04, August 23, 2010 (UTC)

Request closure - This thread has been lingering at the bottom of the YG listings for a long time. There is some form of consensus to do something here, so form a WikiGuild and do it. 222 talk 11:27, September 26, 2010 (UTC)

This request for closure was denied A user has requested closure for Quest difficulty ratings. Request denied. The reason given was: Discussion is dead A compromise has been submitted and discussion should continue.

svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 00:39, October 15, 2010 (UTC)

Notice of intent - Almost one year after this was originally proposed, this is a huge discussion with multiple proposals and multiple ideas floated around. Unless anyone objects, I will close it as implementing Robert's proposal (under the section "Formalizing Metric") because it has the most support. --LiquidTalk 16:14, October 16, 2010 (UTC)

I really don't think that would be the best method to use. Mainly because there are flaws (just looking at the first part, it only takes into account one high level skill, what if there are more? What if there is a high level quest required beforehand?) and it attempts to combine multiple aspects of a quest into one rating. Personally, I would prefer Robert's proposal being used with the multiple difficulties suggestion above. So basically, yes; this is an objection. 222 talk 00:35, October 17, 2010 (UTC)
I can't do that, though. There are too many objections to using multiple difficulties (such as excessively long quest details template). Robert's metric has the most support. If no suitable solution can be found, this will be closed as no consensus. --LiquidTalk 00:45, October 17, 2010 (UTC)
It is collapsible I believe? 222 talk 00:49, October 17, 2010 (UTC)
The complaints appeared after the example, so I assume they knew it is collapsible. At any rate, the bottom line is that Robert's proposal has the most support, though its support has decreased a bit with recent complaints (yes, that's plural). Let me remind you that if an implementation cannot be agreed upon and passed, this will be closed as no consensus. So, if you want this to be implemented, I'd recommend you pull together some kind of compromise and propose that. I can't pull any compromise here that because the opposing factions are mutually exclusive. --LiquidTalk 00:53, October 17, 2010 (UTC)
I'll go make Forum:Quest difficulty ratings 2 then. 222 talk 01:36, October 17, 2010 (UTC)

A small Compromise

Moved to Forum:Quest difficulty ratings - Multiple ratings

Closed - One year and three days after proposal, this thread is finally coming to an end. However, the issue remains alive and may be found here. --LiquidTalk 00:37, November 14, 2010 (UTC)