Forum:Template:Quest details changes

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Template:Quest details changes
Archive
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 30 September 2011 by Liquidhelium.


I want to propose some changes to Template:Quest details. I've listed these below.

  1. Remove/make the the Start point and Wiki difficulty parameters optional. The start point is mentioned in a lot of our walkthroughs, and mentioning it twice in the same section is redundant. The Wiki difficulty is opinion, I can't verify it, and there already is an official difficulty. I do not see a point in listing this second difficulty.
  2. Rename the Length parameter to Official length to help avoid edit wars, and be more specific. Example of edit war partially/fully as a result of the current parameter name. Smithing (talk | contribs) 00:10, September 4, 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

Comment - I agree with the removal of the Wiki-Difficulty and unofficial length, however, I personally find the Start to be helpful. It's much easier to get a glance at where you're starting and who to talk to without quick-reading through the actual Start section to figure out what you want to know. Fletching-icon.png Iceslide123 Fletching cape.pngFree UGCs

Support - I'm with Ice here, remove the Wiki-difficulty and length, but keep the start point. It's okay to repeat ourselves once, as we're sure to do it for other important notes in the article. It's nice to have one templated instance of the starting location, as you know where it will always be and that it will be (or should be) there. The wiki-difficulty is far too controversial anyway, as difficulty is in the eye of the beholder. To someone good at combat, a combat based quest can be far easier than a puzzle based quest, whereas the puzzle-loving players would think the opposite. For example, I found Mourning's End Part 1 actually rather difficult simply because I had so much trouble on the distillation puzzle, yet most others didn't have much trouble at all on that, so found it considerably easier. Simpler to just use Jagex's assigned ratings and let them take the controversity of the choice. You could say the exact same of length (especially since difficulty and length can often be tied), so again best to make it apparent that we're using Jagex's opinion, rather than try and get hundreds of editors to agree on one. Hofmic Talk 05:48, September 4, 2011 (UTC)

Partial support - Wiki difficulty is rather useless and does more harm than good. I don't agree about the starting point though. It's handy for people who just want to know where to start before logging in but not reading the first part to avoid it being spoiled. Another issue, the "tree" of quest requirements. While it may come in handy, the quest requirements for The Ritual of the Mahjarrat are just a mess of 91 quests, that help no-one. It is While Guthix Sleeps that has such an enormous tail, but it's impossible to find it. Perhaps give secondary, tertiary, etc. quest requirements a different colour, on a collapsible table within that collapsible table? User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 Brassica Prime symbol.png 07:54, September 4, 2011 (UTC)

Partial support - As with other people I believe having the wiki-difficulty and length is mostly useless, and could quite easily being removed. I also agree that the start point should be kept as it is useful information, that is official. Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 08:05, September 4, 2011 (UTC)

Support removal of difficulty and maintaining start point - Per all of the above. Ronan Talk 16:16, September 4, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - Start point was originally added so that the precise location could be given to users in an upfront, easily accessible spot. Another idea was to include a map, showing the precise location of the start point instead of just saying something like Kharidian Desert.

I agree that it should be changed to "Official length", to avoid edit wars. But there was plans for a "Wiki difficulty" that would list a timeframe, rather than a category. So something like "20-30 minutes"; but it never really happened, and it can be hard to determine.

The wiki difficulty was added after numerous, lengthy discussions on the Yew Grove. At the time of the template's rewrite, there was still active discussion about a wiki difficulty, so I simply just transferred the old difficulty across temporarily until the new wiki difficulty rating was ready. I'm not totally sure of the outcome of that. But anyway, the wiki difficulty is important, as the Jagex one sometimes isn't very accurate. And as a wiki difficulty, we can offer much more detail too. There was support to also have "expanded difficulty", where you could check what contributed to the difficulty. Maybe it was the bosses, the areas, the items, the time, the requirements, the puzzles, etc.

I think we should improve these things, rather than just removing them. Cheers, Chicken7 >talk 11:23, September 9, 2011 (UTC)

While I agree that start point should remain (as previously mentioned), the wiki difficulty (length?) is just far too controversial. I mean, a lucky/experienced player can beat Nomad's requiem in less than an hour. Me? It took several months (counting just time spent on that quest, several hours). In monkey madness, I breezed through and had no trouble at all with the puzzle, yet I know someone who spent an hour trying to do the puzzle swearing the whole while (apparently he didn't know you could pay to skip it). The bottom line is, it's far too difficult to rate difficulty or time. In another example, Deadliest Catch is a master quest, yet involves no combat, and a reasonably simple memory puzzle. It's requirements were what gave it the official difficulty. To me, having already had the requirements before hand, the quest was too easy for master, but had it been a year ago, the requirements would have dwarved me substantially and would have taken a few weeks to get. Not to mention someone who really sucks at memory games may hate the whole quest all the while.
Even splitting it up doesn't remove the controversity. You list things like the bosses, which would generally vary in difficulty based on a player's skill in combat and levels, area/puzzle varies incredibly between players too, as do requirements as I previously stated. Yes, Jagex's difficulty levels seem very off, sometimes, and I have most certainly disagreed with them in the past, but I don't really think we can do a better job. Ratings are one of those things that are always biased. Easier to not have to take the blame for it.
Even if we keep them, how will they be maintained? Many quests don't use them, and others that do are often just added by a random editor, or changed on such impulses based on their thoughts. I don't think we really have the ability to make a consensus or elaborate rating system for every quest and miniquest, especially when many of the biggest editors may have done it so long ago that they cannot remember it well/it has been changed (as much as I loved the Goblin quest series, I cannot remember it well, and can't remember more than the basic plot of the earliest of them).
I seemed to have written an unnaturally large text wall, so I shall stop now. TL;DR version: Too controversial to do. Hofmic Talk 22:29, September 10, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - That's not what the length parameter is for. The quest infobox already has the official length. Many times, the official length is misleading, take One Small Favour for example. Additionally, having the start point in the quest details template does make it easier for users to see. I don't think these changes would help in the least bit. Suppa chuppa Talk 18:00, September 13, 2011 (UTC)

The length from a reliable source is factually accurate. Not only that, but our own difficulty/length could be just as misleading, or even more misleading than Jagex's. It's better to choose the one from the reliable source, which can easily be proven, than the one that can't be. I personally never trust our difficulties or length, because Jagex already has one for the quests. We don't have to take the blame for posting our own misleading difficulty/length. Smithing (talk | contribs) 20:08, September 13, 2011 (UTC)
I don't think that Jagex is "factually accurate", as seen above, but I don't think that we can necessarily do better. The whole "official source" stops any indecision and cuts out many hours of work spent just to decide how difficult the quest is considered! It's just overkill, and far to diverse. It's also worth noting that someone who reads the guide and knows exactly where they're going will find One Small Favour to be quite short, whereas even being prepared isn't often enough for Nomad (I watched several videos, read several guides, including the wiki article head to toe, yet took 13 attempts; yet a friend of mine took him down on the first kill, quite the time difference). Hofmic Talk 22:49, September 13, 2011 (UTC)

Support changing wiki length, oppose removing wiki difficulty and starting point - Wiki length is just based on opinion, which is different for everyone, and may change over time (better equipment makes quest bosses quicker, for example). And it varies on skills, ways of transport, preparation etc.
As for wiki difficulty, I think RuneScape:Quest complexity rating should be given a chance.
About the starting point, I think it should stay. The quest detail template is pretty much there to give people any information they might need before actually starting the quest, like requirements, items, fights etc. I think starting point should be included there. -Hourglass (2011 Hallowe'en event) detail.png I Am Me Talk III The Spark.png- 18:33, September 17, 2011 (UTC)

Gah, just taking a look at that RuneScape:Quest complexity rating page you mentioned makes me cringe. It is far too "set in stone" and leaves more inconsistencies than just saying "Oh, it was kinda hard". Not to get into too much depth about it, but some examples:
  • It gives points based on the highest skill requirement, but most players would consider an 60 runecrafting requirement to be vastly more difficult than 80 cooking.
  • Boss levels don't necessarily mean much, seeing how inconsistent several levels are, and many newer bosses have a chockload of special attacks to make them far more deadly than their combat level suggests.
  • Locations give points based entirely on the number of different locations a player visits, so a quest that involves lots of traveling in safe, commonly visited locations would be rated as more difficult than something that has just a few considerably difficult, new locations.
  • Puzzle solving: Varies incredibly from player to player. One thing might seem simple to one, but requires help to another.
  • If a boss cannot be attacked by the player, its points are halved. Yet, the spirit beast in summer's end killed me more than 20 times, far more dangerous and annoying than Nomad was.
Nitpicking? Course I am. And I'm not saying we should change that page, but rather dispose of the entire idea: it simply doesn't work well. Hofmic Talk 10:50, September 18, 2011 (UTC)

Closed - Wiki difficulty will be removed, as the sole argument against removal was that someone intended to do something with it at some point in time. Should that point in time ever arise, that someone can start the same discussion on the Yew Grove that he would have had to start to make those changes in the first place. The rest of the template will remain as it is. --LiquidTalk 23:05, September 30, 2011 (UTC)