From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
This talk page is for discussing the Defence page.

Done[edit source]

This page should be done now. Whew, that was quite a workout. --Richard1990 01:29, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not done - what about prayers that increase one's defense level in the temporary boosts section?Mathwhiz90601 00:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Strategy[edit source]

The entire "strategy" section of this article can be debated. That segment attempts to make it appear low defence does not work. I think that a standard set of stats, for example 80-80-80, are inferior to more aggressive stats, such as 80-90-70.

Oh, almost forgot - black pures are a fad that died out a while back. The two main types of pures around today are simply 1 defence and 20 defence for mystic and initiate.

80-90-70 isn't a pure. Although you're probably right, its likely more effective, as they can wear the same armor, minus the dragonfire shield. 04:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

To my knowledge pures have there advatages and disadvatages. For example, your in the Wilderness or BountyHunter with no armour but you have a high defence level. You face a Strength pure. You may lose. Now with armour... The odds completely change depending on your defence level and his strength level. Pures with high attack and strength will probably struggle. With your high defence and good armour you will probably defeat them. You can see people with level 60-75 combat with equipping strength capes. Strength pures will always have a advantage and a disatvantage.

First paragraph incorrect?[edit source]

Defence is a player's protection in melee combat.

Isn't defence used in ranged as well, if not ranged and magic? Using the long ranged setting to range trains defence, which really means it's not just melee it's related to. Matt2 00:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Def is just defence, no matter what class.--Richard (Talk - Contribs) 00:19, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Obsidian[edit source]

What about adding obisidan sheild to the requirments section?

Obsidian cape.pngC |-| 3 3 5 313562Dragon chainbody.png 21:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Cape emote[edit source]

It's like he only stops ranged attacks XD Buzz (Talk#P ) 09:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

How is that relevant? 02:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Training[edit source]

Shouldn't we add a section for it? Zaveno</span> IsAwesome!

No. Assuming you're training melee, there isn't a difference between training attack, strength, and defence. Chivalry.pngAquilaeChivalry.png 19:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Affects offensive capabilities?[edit source]

I have a friend who says that having a high defence lowers the amount of damage you can deal. I strongly disagree with him, but I don't really have any proof. Has anyone ever heard of this before? Chivalry.pngAquilaeChivalry.png 19:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Thats RidiculousTebuddy 22:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
It's not ridiculous it's Very ridiculous

Defence versus defense[edit source]

The opening paragraph of this article includes the American spelling of defence, i.e. "defense". I wonder whether this is justified, given that the style guide says: "British spelling should be used at all times."

I agree that the Defense article should redirect to Defence, but I'm not sure we should be using this spelling in the article. Jagex actually does spell the word with an "S" a couple of times in the manual, but these are most likely misspellings on their part, rather than intended use. Would anyone care to help reach a consensus? Leevclarke 19:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Cost of dying[edit source]

I don't think the "cost of dying" is the reason Defence pures are rare. A true 1-1-X pure will always be ineffective against things much higher than a Cow anyway, so they won't bother trying to fight such things. It's statistically improbable for a Cow to kill a player with 30 or 40 defence (Adamant and Rune armour). With the update to the monks, you can't leave your computer and have the character fight indefinitely, so virtually no risk of getting killed by the Evil Chicken, either. inclusivedisjunction 10:23, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Highscores?[edit source]

Some idiot messed up the defence leaders with 200,000,000 exps. The two leaders are Miles15 and Omarsherif. I fixed it for you.

maximum defense bonus[edit source]

replaced torag's helm with statius's helm. it exceeds torag's helm in all except mage bonus and is equal in summoning bonus. dont have enough time to add them all together to recalculate the overall max bonus. Jdogy15 12:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

  • I'd also like to see a maximum defence table for magic, or is there already one somewhere else? Draco 06:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

No F2P maximum bonus?[edit source]

I swore that I saw one earlier before...How come it's removed? 600613 21:40, 11 January 2009 (UTC) 21:40, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Bad images?[edit source]

I really, really believe that we can find a better image for the "old defence sign" and the attack style one underneath it. anybody agree?
Ruud (talk)(Suggest me naems)

Max def numbers[edit source]

all of the numbers there assume degradeable armor. what are the items for nondegradeable armor? Mathwiz908 17:10, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

--Yeah, somebody who knows how to set up tables should make one for max non-degradable armors. I believe armadyl body and leggings should be put as alternatives to their respective degradable armor counterparts, if a new table would be redundant.

Scared Clay Class5 Armour is level 80 def just syaing that should be changed

Fault in the highest Defence bonus obtainable?[edit source]

While the Defence bonuses section says that the maximum Slash Defence bonus is 472, the Maximum Defence bonus section states the number is 469. Does anyone know the real number?

Intercision 16:51, November 13, 2009 (UTC)

Rune Gaunlets[edit source]

In the best f2p without degradable armour rune gaunlets are shown. But these ARE degradable.

Not over time....

Rune Gauntlets only degrade if you die, or if you ask Reggie to degrade them for you. Also, please sign your posts with four "tildes", ~~~~, like those. 10hailfire10 10:51, October 14, 2010 (UTC)

Rewritten with major changes[edit source]

Alright, I've made several large changes to this article. Most of my changes center around the idea that much of the article's former content was about equipment, rather than the skill itself. There was a large list of items that provide miscellaneous defensive bonuses, but such a list belongs on the armour page or a subpage of it, not the Defence article, which should discuss the skill itself. The same can be said of the "maximum equipment bonuses" section, which made up a huge part of the article's length, but rather than removing that entirely I just dropped in a link to the [[Armour/Highest bonuses]] page.

The article is much shorter now, and that's because I honestly don't think there's all that much you can say about the Defence skill. A short article is not necessarily a bad article, so long as said article is complete and comprehensive, and I've done my best to include as much information as I could about the Defence skill. Naturally, I may have missed some things, and people are as free as ever to add whatever is appropriate.

I also went through all of the article's text and gave it my standard rewriting for grammar, clarity and, ah, encyclopedicness. --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 09:00, December 5, 2010 (UTC)

whats best way to train deff from lvl 90?[edit source]

what should i train on to get 99 deff from lvl 90?

Have a look at melee training. --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 08:53, December 28, 2010 (UTC)

Dung defence emote[edit source]

Would it be worth noting and showing an example of the dungeoneering defence emote?

What is the 'Dungeoneering Defence emote'? --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 01:07, April 6, 2011 (UTC)

Armour Defence[edit source]

It says in the article that one's defence level decreases the frequency of getting hit, while defencive stats on gear decrease the damage done by a hit. I was wondering if anyone knows how much of an effect defencive stats on gear have. Example: if I've got 0 ranged defence and take a ranged hit for 100 damage, how much lower would that hit have been if I had had 50 or 100 ranged defence? I've been trying to find some sort of formula that works, but have been unsuccessful. If anyone knows how it works or where we can find how it works, such as in the game code, I'd appreciate it. Also, I think it'd be a valuable addition to the RuneWiki. We know how to calculate Max hit, I'd like to be able to calculate hit damage reduction based on armor defence stats.Quest point cape.pngSk8r dan man Quests 21:43, April 30, 2011 (UTC)

Armor bonuses don't work like damage absorption, though, which takes the final hit and subtracts a certain amount. You can still take your opponent's maximum hit if you've got a huge defensive bonus towards their attack style; the theory is that higher hits are simply less likely than smaller hits. It's kind of difficult to quantify and test. --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 23:25, April 30, 2011 (UTC)
If I understand you correctly, higher hits become less frequent as your defence against that attack style increases? If so, I still expect that there would be some way to find how much of a significance each defence point has on the accuracy of higher hits. Likely not through testing, but rather through looking at the game code. Quest point cape.pngSk8r dan man Quests 02:00, May 4, 2011 (UTC)

Rewrite issues[edit source]

I have a number of problems with the way this article was rewritten, and to which it was reverted after I fixed it. For comparison, viewers may refer to the following revisions: the revision from just before Sam 3010's edits (#1), Sam 3010's final version (#2), my corrections to his final version (#3), and the current version, or his attempt to merge our versions together (#4).

  • Introduction: I believe the article's current introduction is, for one, too long. My version of the introduction is much more concise and says exactly what needs to be said about the skill, with regards to its introduction. I'm also noticing a couple uses of the term "the player", which I believe is an awkward term that should be avoided whenever possible (which is why I tend to rewrite passages that use it in such a way that it's not necessary). Additionally, I dislike how the introduction is broken up into five paragraphs of just a couple of sentences each; introductory sections tend to be just a couple of paragraphs at most on this wiki, because the body of the article's content should go in, well, its body.
  • Gaining experience: While I recognize the advantage of linking to the training articles for each combat style, I believe it was executed in the wrong fashion here. While the Melee subsection might contain enough content to justify its existence (although I think the rewrite it was given reduced its overall quality), I believe the Magic and Ranged subsections are far too small. Everyone can see that revision #3, I opted to sort the Melee/Magic/Ranged information as bullet points, which make more sense considering how little is said about Magic and Ranged. I also included a single link to Skill training guides rather than individually linking to each training guide (f2p and p2p guides for all three styles)
  • Experience rewards: Sam 3010, it is obvious that you simply copied-and-pasted this section from revision #2 into revision #4 without reading over my corrections. Both revisions #2 and #4 state that you earn 131,187 total Defence experience from quests, when I corrected this value in revision #3 to the actual amount of 166,037, according to Quest experience rewards. (I confirmed this amount by adding up the experience rewards.) This sentence is a problem on its own: "There are also lots of quests that allows the player to choose the skill that will receive an experience reward." Not only does it use "the player" again, but its first half is unencyclopedic. Do not refer to "lots of quests"; instead, link to Quest experience rewards#Skill choice... as you'll notice that I did in revision #3, a change which you reverted.
  • The second section of the experience rewards section states that "Experience lamps, gained through tasks and random events can be used to grant experience to any skill. Players can also trade points gained in activities for experience in Defence level. Other ways to get reward experience in Attack is through the Dragonkin lamp, penguin points and Tears of Guthix." I believe this is completely unnecessary, as it merely lists general ways to earn experience in any skill. Aside from this, it is in no way relevant specifically to the Defence skill. If we should have this information listed anywhere (which I think we should, out of fairness), it should be on the Skill training guides article, rather than listed individually on each skill's article.
  • Other ways to gain experience: This is another unnecessary section that, if anything, should be included in pay-to-play Melee training instead of the Defence article. Use of brawling gloves and sacred clay equipment both apply to melee in general, not Defence specifically. While I acknowledge that the information about the Warriors' Guild room is relevant to Defence, it doesn't need its own section.
  • Equipment/Other Features: I removed these sections for a couple of reasons, and I don't know why you added them back. First of all, the Equipment section is obviously incomplete; you listed Armour/Magic armour three times when you clearly meant to link something else, but forgot to after using copy/paste. Second, it's unencyclopedically written: "but since making a table of equipment would occupy to much space, here are a list of links to tables of armour and equipment that require a Defence level to wear:" is not something you put in an article. Viewers will notice that I was able to nicely condense both of these sections into one (Level requirements in revision #3), with the Equipment section being compressed into a single sentence. Besides those I've pointed out, these two sections are also rife with grammatical errors and typoes.
  • Temporary boosts: You don't need to include a paragraph explaining that level boosts do not stack. This is a common trait to every single skill in the game, and again, should go on an article about boosts in general instead of the Defence article specifically. Your rewriting of the boost amounts is inelegant and makes further use of "the player" while unnecessarily inflating the figures to make them harder to read. I don't really like your removal of the Summoning familiar and Prayer section headers, either, as they helped break up this rather long list of boost sources.

In conclusion, your modifications to the article (revision #2) gave some good, worthwhile information, like the Summoning familiars section. However, your rewriting of the page's text actually lowered the article's quality. Your revisions tend to contain spelling and grammar errors, and do not appear to be completely constructed at the time at which you post them. Furthermore, you are rewriting an article that does not, in my view, need such a revision, as the old text (#1) was just fine, having been rewritten fairly recently. I fixed this problem by going through the article and making the changes necessary to restore its former quality, while at the same time preserving the good info that you added (#3). Why you essentially went back and reverted that change (#4) is unclear to me. I felt the need to explain why I made the changes that I did, and now perhaps you can tell us why you edited as you did too. --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 10:54, June 6, 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry for giving the wrong impression here, I am trying to find an uniformated way to have the skill pages written, but without them missing any relevant information. In my opinion, any way to increase experience in a determined skill is fully relevant. Some general stuff that talk about getting exp but that work on several skills I use only a small section but they should still be added. Also I don't think the phrase "a player" is bad, I mean, what do you prefer? "You"? "Someone"? Sometimes having an active subject allows for more information to be added on a same paragraph. Also, let me tell you that I haven't finished with the page. I spent several days with both the Attack and Strength pages, because I had to collect lots of information on ways to increase experience and the uses of the skills. This often involved having several tabs open and that is why I don't do the changes in a single edit, I might close the tab and lose the progress. I haven't finished the page and as you say some parts look short and incomplete, give me some time to recollect more infromation please.
  • Introduction: I have edited it to remove one paragrah. I think the separation helps to not tire the eyes of the reader, but that is just my opinion.
  • Gaining Experience: "You want to train Defence? well, come and take a look to this list of skill guides, kthx bye." That was the message given with only that link, that is why I added the links to the relevant pages. I will add more information to the different sections later. Or add some yourself.
  • Experience Rewards: I did read the revisions you did, but unfortunately I didn't notice the numerical change. I have edited my revision to reflect the number you gave me.
  • Second section: That was just the general explanation of the subpage, but more things (in summary) will be added as soon as I find more information about "Rewards" not training.
  • Other ways to gain experience: Explained my opinion above. More things will be added as soon as I discover them.
  • Equipment/Other Features: Yea, I made a mistake when copying the links, the links were different but what was shown were not well done. Your uncclopediac or whatever comment has been noted. It is completely true, and it felt weird when writing. I will edit it. I think we can work on some "small list" to show that defence has something to do with armour without making it about them, as that was the reason for your edit to the article on January.

I stand by my changes to the Boosts, it makes them in line with Attack and Strength. And it is necessary to have that information as it is not fully understandable by a big majority of low and medium level players.

Anyway, sorry for my typos and grammar mistakes, but would it kill other users to just fix them? English is not my first language and rest assured that I will try to fix them as soon as I noticed them (I do notice them, it just takes me a while). I will continue to gahter information on the Defence skill before I move on to the Ranged article. Sam 3010 (talk, contribs) 19:54, June 6, 2011 (UTC)
Right. My first and foremost suggestion to you would be to create User:Sam 3010/Sandbox or a similar such page in your userspace, and construct your alternate versions of the skill articles there. The way you're doing it right now is problematic; if you leave an unfinished makeover in an article without some kind of notification template like {{construction}} or {{inuse}}, people are going to notice the article's haphazard and unfinished state, and complain. On the other hand, you can take all the time you want on a page in your userspace, and when you're finished, you can propose your alternate version on the main article's talk page.
Second, I do strongly believe that "the player" (as well as something like "he or she") is an unprofessional term that should be avoided. From the point of view of an RS player, being referred to in such a manner by an article is discomforting, as the term is too stiff, formal, and awkward. If you were reading a set of instructions for fixing your car, wouldn't it be weird if they were to say "Next, the user should disconnect the brake pads."? Replacing it with "you" does not work as we try to avoid second-person perspective except in quest walkthroughs and strategy guides (where the content is specifically directed at players). Of course, "someone" is just stupid. This is why, as I said, I always rewrite any sentence that contains "the player" to make the term unnecessary. For example, taken from your revision: "The higher the Defence level, the fewer successful blows an opponent will land against the player." This sentence could be edited to say "Players with higher Defence levels will find that opponents land fewer blows." Or "A higher Defence level will make a combatant more difficult to hit in combat." The latter is probably more accurate as Defence applies to NPCs as well as players. Both, however, are better than falling back to the term "the player."
The gaining experience section is simply awkward when it has very small sections that are basically only there to justify links to skill training guides. This is especially true if you add fluff to the small sections just to try to inflate them. I'm not against the idea of linking to the individual skill training guides, but a better way to do it has to be found.
With regards to the boosts, I too stand by my version of the section. I believe that yours is unnecessarily inflated and (as I'll address in a minute), filled with mistakes. Is it really necessary to state that Saradomin brews also affect Attack, Strength, Ranged and Magic, when it say so right on their article? Why is "Boosts Defence level by 3 to 12; the formula is: 3 + 10% of the player base Defence level rounded down." any better than "Boosts Defence level by 3-12 (3 + 10% of Defence level, rounded down)", when the the former is grammatically awkward and the latter is much more concise? Why is it worth mentioning on the Defence article that extreme defence potions require 90 Herblore to make and cannot be traded? And if we must include information about how boosts stack, it really should be a simple line like this: "As with all skills, boosts that temporarily raise the Defence level will not stack with each other; only the highest boost will apply." That is much neater than the paragraph you currently have devoted to the subject.
Your spelling and grammar mistakes are not a terrible offense, but they're a bad sign from someone who wants to completely redo an article's structure and content. There's no guarantee that you'll catch and fix all the mistakes you make; other users will have to, and while we can do that, it is annoying to, and we shouldn't have to. (For example, when I wrote revision #3, it took me about an hour to carefully read through the entire text of the article and try to pick out all of the mistakes.) On the other hand, look at my rewrite history, and in each entry you'll see excellent spelling, grammar, word choice and sentence structure. I may make a mistake here and there, but I usually catch them afterward, and overall people enjoy my fix-ups.
If you have ideas on how the skill articles can be improved, there's nothing stopping you from proposing them to the rest of the community for discussion. I think some of your ideas, such as standardization of skill article structure, are sound. What I have an issue with is the way that you, by yourself, choose to implement your ideas. The article is left with irrelevant information, is full of spelling/grammar errors and typing mistakes, and is at times incomplete and messy. Some people have taken note of your rewrites and the ways in which they lower an article's quality; as a rewriter myself, I understand how they feel. --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 20:42, June 6, 2011 (UTC)
I will implement the idea for the use of the Sandbox. I now understand the reasoing for the term "the player", and I will avoid it. In regards to boosts, from your suggestions: Maybe (but I will edit it to comply), I like your structure better, and yes, because a mid level player would say after reading this article "I need X defence, I need an extreme" then telepor to G.E. and spend several minutes trying to locate the item to find out much later it is untradable. What I try to say, is that that is a case where there is only one way to obtain it and it is kind of special, so I feel it should be included. (Just on the case of extremes).
I am sorry I don't have perfected my english skills yet, and I am sorry to say that I can't really take your words seriously. When "reverting" my changes from #2 to #3, because that was what you did too, you only created two sections from the info I gave, and the numerical value change, and you left the following phrase: "By contrast, equipping powerful armour will merely reduce the amount of damage taken from successful blows." Which is just not true, and I can't believe you really proof readed. Also, I saw what you did when you "rewrote" Defence several months ago. It seemed as if you only had the goal of making it shorter, as the content of the page was merely deleted instead of converted into what a skill page should have. Now, open a browser window with the 25 skills, see how Defence was, "short/incomplete" period. Ranged, extremely full of information, but there it is appreciated that it has lots of irrelevant information. All pages are completely different, my intention was to uniformate them. Yes, at how "I" like it, but I am obviously taking your opinion in mind, and any other user's opinion that may present itself. What I see on this wiki is that its content page have just decayed horribly on quality and information. If I am a Runescape player that opens the Wiki, I want to know "EVERYTHING". I need to ask a question and be able to find the answer easily in the obvious place it belongs. And I am not talking about the location of some info, it is just that sometimes the info is not ANYWHERE on the wiki. Rambling over, ignore the previous three sentences if you don't think they are relevant to this discussion. Sam 3010 (talk, contribs) 00:24, June 7, 2011 (UTC)

Specifically mention thigns that effect Defence?[edit source]

I was wondering if we should ad informatin like this, currently it isn't: "There are three spells that can effect an opponents defence level, these spells are: Weaken (level 11), Claws of Guthix (level 60) and Vulnerability (level 66). Furthermore, the Dragon Hatchet's Special attack (Clobber) lowers the opponents Magic and Defence level for 10% ofthe damage dealt." Along with other info. . . . Yours, This user admires the Void Knights. Who aim to maintain Gielinor's Equilibrium. Enquidou Talk This user likes to do Quests and genuinely loves the story line; lore is his love! . . 19:31, November 5, 2011 (UTC)

This page is outdated for EOC().