Forum:Redundant spell costs
See Forum:Add spell costs to Template:Infobox spell for an older related disscusion
Currently the table that shows cost for all spells includes information that to me seems to be redundant.
Again taking the example of varrock teleport it includes the usage of combination staves (lava,steam,mud,mist,smoke,dust) where an elemental staff(air,water,earth,fire) would do the same job. Is it really important information to show the cost when using lava battlestaff when it does the same thing as a fire staff.
proposal 3 Only include cost of using combination staves when they save both relevant runes.
staff of light
Proposal 4 Include average cost of spells when using staff of light.
support 1+3+4, oppose 2, neutral 5 - as nominator21:30, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Oppose 1+2 - The table shows every combination of runes available to show the difference in price for using each different type of rune. It makes the guide thorough, especially for newer players who may not fully understand cost implications over convenience. For the small amount of space it takes on a page, I don't think it's necessary to make any changes.
Oppose 3 - As before, it shows all combinations for players to then make a decision. An elemental staff may not be within a lower levelled players budget, so the ability to show the saving in using a staff of air, fire etc comes in useful.
Neutral 4+5 - There is no guaranteed amount of saving when using the staff of light or time saving armour. You could work out an average saving per 1000 casts for example, but it may misrepresent an actual saving as it is RNG based.
- To be clear, i forgot Elemental battlestaff was a thing and what I meant with elemental staves, were just a collection term for air/water/earth/fire staff 02:39, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
- Regarding your comment about staff of light, whats your opinion about law staff and nature staff being shown on spells using law and nature runes, seeing as those staves also only is a probability to save runes. 21:02, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Oppose 1, Support 2+3 For option 1 and 2, using different actually have different costs, I think we should show all the costs for different options if possible. while in option 3, the staff doesn't affect the spell cost. Cost is really the information we are looking at here. Using combination staff for something that doesnt use both runes seem to be redundant in a cost analysis perspective. Someone mentioned that we should show all options for the reader, I think its not necessary needed to put in table. I think probably a comment next to the elemental staff mentioning that you can also use combination staff will suffice. For 4,5 I'm not familiar enough to comment on the topic so I'll withhold my vote. Nayfaan (talk) 02:23, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Support 1 & 3, Oppose 2, 4, 5 - We use the template Spell Table on the combination rune pages, and it lists only the combination spells that utilize both of the combo rune components. I would prefer to mirror that format when individuals look at the reverse when starting at the spells. Technically, the runes can be used for the spells, but there isn't a situation where a partial combo rune would ever be preferable to an elemental rune. We can clarify that distinction with a ref tag if needed, but I don't think its necessary to list out the combonatrial combinations with no utility, and may actually confuse people trying to evaluate options for a cost-benefit analysis.
For option 3, same rationale, and for the same reason we don't list both a Staff of air and an Air battlestaff as an option - the cost savings equivalency is the same between the two, and gives no additional value. The extra options clutter and confuse the page. The same exact rationale applies for using a mud staff and an earth battlestaff. An interesting situation is for the Fire Urns spell, which is the only spell I am aware of to use three elemental runes - in that instance, I would prefer to see any combos that save more than one rune at a time.
Oppose 4 & 5 per TzTok.21:37, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Oppose all - Yea interesting discussion. Part of why I'm opposing most of these proposals is because we should be displaying this information irrespective of the cost of the runes. This is less relevant now because rune prices have shot up, but there was certainly a time when avoiding one specific combination rune and using two others was cheaper. I guess what I'm saying is we should be ignorant of both the cost AND the inventory slots when displaying this information and let the user decide.
Proposal 3 is a bit different because there's only an upfront cost, so it would make sense to prioritise one staff over the other. However as I said before, we shouldn't take cost into consideration. Someone raised a good point about removing duplicated staves that save the same runes but I don't agree with this. I think Varrock Teleport is a poor example because it's a non-combat spell, but it's certainly possible people would prioritise one staff over the other because of stats. Maybe we could remove duplicated staves for non-combat spells. Haidro 02:10, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
- Comment - Just want to clarify two things from this response:
1. Your position in your first paragraph makes it seem like you're in favour of proposal 2, which would switch the current status quo (which shows only the combinations where one elemental rune is substituted for a single combination rune) to expanding this (where multiple elemental runes are substituted for multiple combination runes). To give a concrete example, in the spell Earth Strike, dust runes are shown, as well as situations where an air rune and a single combination rune (e.g. mud rune) are shown, but not situations where multiple combination runes are show (e.g. mist rune and mud rune, which is technically a valid combo).
2. Per your second paragraph, do you support showing lower tier versions of staves in this section (e.g. both a camel staff and an fire battlestaff), or just a single version of each elemental combination? Technically speaking, that would also have an effect on any cost-benefit analysis a player is performing. As a comment on your response, I don't think non-combat spells should be treated differently than combat spells, but would be interested to hear why you think they should.
06:44, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Closed - There is a consensus for implementing proposal 3, only showing combination staves when both runes are saved. Proposal 1, 2, 4, 5, however, do not have consensus.03:43, 23 February 2021 (UTC)