Forum:Replacing "Official length" in Quest details template

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Replacing "Official length" in Quest details template
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 26 February 2020 by Spineweilder.

Official lengths for quests are used to determine roughly how long it takes for a quest to be completed. The parameters used are Short, Medium, Long, Very Long and Very, Very Long. Some even use them in between (e.x. Short to Medium), and it seems we don't actually have a set definition for them. In addition, it seems that Jagex hasn't used these for the past few years now (according to Coel).

I suggest using our own lengths in place of these outdated, obsolete and ambiguous parameters.

This thread aims to accomplish two things:

  1. Consensus to replace "Official length" to a satisfactory length for the average player.
  2. Define the satisfactory length we'll be using in place of Official lengths.

Here's some things to consider. For One Small Favour, the time completed can range from 40 minutes to over an hour, depending on the type account (regular or ironman , whether the player is space-barring everything, etc.

There's also going to be some abstract ones, with Recipe/Dimension of Disaster, Curse of the Black Stone, etc. What would be the satisfactory time to put as the length? Do we want a range, such as "40 minutes to 2 hours", or an average amount based on a number of video guides?


Support - I believe replacing official length with a satisfactory length (e.x. X minutes) put in its place, would benefit visitors to the site more than an ambiguous term. -- Recent uploads SpineTalkGuest book 05:18, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Oppose replacing with an unofficial estimate cf. Forum:Remove estimated time from quest guides. Iiii I I I 05:29, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Oppose too subjective, a quester is usually aware of their own ability to do quests quickly or slowly based on their experience with varying factors such as combat encounters, we simply cannot give a good estimate that suits a majority of players.  It's the Boogie bow!IWolffi TCE MQC 11 November 2017  05:55, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Oppose - We've had this discussion before in Forum:Remove estimated time from quest guides and the same arguments apply. jayden 09:41, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Oppose - We had estimates, they weren't a success as per above. Additionally the official length is displayed in the quest overview screen of each and every quest as well as miniquest. Farming-icon.png Salix of Prifddinas (Talk) Prifddinas lodestone icon.png 09:48, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Oppose - per everyone else Star Talk ayy lmao ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) 09:50, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Oppose - Historically data streams have shown that length can not really be determined, additionally the general quest update Mod Stu did sought to add a length in-game, every quester is different and there times will vary as such.

EDIT: Look at this data I had to present on quest completions just to show you how messy it can get [1] Talk to me ShaunyMy contributions 10:30, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Oppose - as a statistical outlier for quest completion times. Badassiel 11:03, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Oppose - Oppose replacing the official times for sure, I think they're important to show and have the information on etc. I am, however, not opposed to some type of average completion time as well, but as other's have mentioned it seems really hard to specify one that is of real value to anyone. In some cases I think things like level, and obviously ironman, can have a large impact on quest completion time and we'd need a way to handle that as well. A range might be a good way to handle it, from quickly doing it at high level to a regular completion time at the required levels, something like that. In short I think that it's a good idea to have them, but not to replace the official length, and the idea needs more fleshing out. Seers headband 2 chathead.png Elessar2 (talk) 08:33, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Oppose - Per others My contributions Dalek SecTalk to me 10:14, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Soft Oppose - I feel that a more exact clarification on where the lines are between current frames would be a good solution. as it stands short/medium means very little as they seem to be interchangeable. Rhysy4056 (talk) 11:50, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Support - I propose that we implement a similar system as for charm drop rates on monster pages. A user would have the option to add his own time in a form, which is then appended to a data module. On the quest page we show the 90% interval of all times rounded to 5 minutes. This wouldn't replace the official time but is displayed next to it. Invention.pngCephHunter talkSlayer.png 17:53, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

If something like this was done, it'd be best to at least separate the fast (spacebar etc) people vs the slow ones I think. Then maybe display it as fast-slow or using a user preference etc. Seers headband 2 chathead.png Elessar2 (talk) 01:11, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
A problem would be there would be very little data to support it. Charms data is based on several thousands of drops. Quests would only be able to be done once per account. Not to mention the big difference in bias. Charms drop are completely unbiased random data, we just obtain it this way because we don't have access to the raw data. Quest time lengths are largely dependent on a user. The more familiar they are with it, the more likely they'll be faster. (Sometimes finding some specific NPC takes you 20 minutes because he blends into a wall etc.) Dragon longsword.png Cire04 TalkAttack.png 15:46, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Oppose - Many of the points have already been made - people quest differently/determining accurate data would be difficult etc. Superiosity the WikianQuick chat button.png : Sup 22:43, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Oppose - How do you distinguish the time between someone who reads each line of the dialogue vs somebody who spacebars an entire quest? I'd think having a time range of 40 mins - 2 hours is more vague than just having the length as just long, very long etc. I think the length just gives a vague idea of how much time to put aside to get it done Fire cape detail.png TzTok-Gas TM 08:21, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Oppose - Might be late to the party, but I have to agree with everyone who is opposing. There's people that do questing differently; they don't use a guide and take hours to figure a clue out, use a guide, skip dialogue, or they take their time, ect. We can't really accurately know how long a quest is, unless one of us wait till the guide is complete, then follow the guide at a normal rate, read the dialogues, and complete it to say how long "we" took. But someone could have done it faster, ya know? I think how we have it now works better.Quest.png Adventurerrr Talk Quest.png 04:46, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Oppose - For all I know they really are "outdated, obsolete and ambiguous parameters" that "Jages hasn't used [...] for the past few years" in OSRS, but they're still in official use in RS3. And even if we decided to add another estimate (which I don't dislike in theory, but other people have brought up a lot of practical issues with that), I'd still oppose getting rid of the official ones just because I believe those should still be documented. -Hourglass (2011 Hallowe'en event) detail.png I Am Me Talk III The Spark.png- 11:00, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Closure - While it is acknowledged that there are issues with the current quest length system, there is much opposition to the proposed changes, and there is no solution put forward by others that have unanimous support. Thus, we'll be keeping the current official length system. -- Recent uploads SpineTalkGuest book 00:34, 27 February 2020 (UTC)