Talk:Legacy Mode

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

Checklist for April 13, 2014[edit source]

  • Add info from Progress Update 1 Yes check.svg
  • Merge Background and Overview sections Yes check.svg
  • Remove table in Overview section OR stuff it in the Progress Update section Yes check.svg
  • Fix and update Combat Comparison Table
  • Add more info to Background (to be merged with Overview) using info from History and Development section

Koopatrev (talk) 06:44, April 13, 2014 (UTC)

"Near optimal" xp rates?[edit source]

In the table, it says that for Improved EoC, using Revolution will give "Near optimal" xp rates, but using manual abilities will give optimal... Does this mean that using Revolution is going to incur an XP penalty? Wolbee 22:38, April 13, 2014 (UTC)

they just need to set the exp rate to pre eoc and leave it.  Seren symbol.pngHeavyoak Talk Zaros symbol.png 16:11, April 28, 2014 (UTC)

p2p only[edit source]

hey, guess what. legacy is p2p only. so, no. it was not a f2p poll you lol derp.  Seren symbol.pngHeavyoak Talk Zaros symbol.png 16:10, April 28, 2014 (UTC)

That's where you are wrong, the poll was for both free and paying members. pjJ4pBM.png Abyssal vine whip.png 16:53, April 28, 2014 (UTC)

the login image[edit source]

--Jlun2 (talk) 10:43, May 17, 2014 (UTC)

Truth[edit source]

I know RSW isn't a crystal ball, but my crystal balls tell me that "This scam version of the pre-EoC combat system will only make a few thousand players come back for a month to check it out and then quit again." As this is the obvious truth, may I add it to the article? Plz?

...No? Ok, your loss. --Hannes E N 10:04, May 18, 2014 (UTC)  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hannes E N (talk) on 10:04, May 18, 2014 (UTC).

Any idea if you'll be able to use an 'old school' UI that comes in Legacy Mode without actually using Legacy Mode? 09:28, May 19, 2014 (UTC)

Now you can :) 04:50, July 5, 2015 (UTC)

include "as of xx date" when editing this article[edit source]

I suggest that when editors add 'generalized' statements to the article, such as "player reaction" and other (unsourced) material, that they at least state "as of xx month year" to their additions. It is impossible reading this to know what happened at the time versus things that people have 'concluded' since, or how the "reaction" has changed over time. A "lot" of it isn't sourced material, but opinions appear in rs wikia regardless. (In fact, tactic changes at barrows, bosses etc depend heavily on editors and aren't "sourced," and timely information is part of what makes rs wikia useful.)

That being said, I commend the editors who have included so much sourced material in this article. Pokemama (talk) 23:50, November 18, 2015 (UTC)

"as of" is a very weaselly statement. We should avoid that actually. MolMan 00:01, November 19, 2015 (UTC)
not giving the date for a development that occurred well after the release is equally weaselly imo, lol. Also does not reflect what is current - i.e., if barrows was updated last week and the "as of" is from 2013, one can perceive that the remark is not updated. What would you suggest, to reflect that an unsourced remark is afloat in time? (not sarcasm, I'm serious.) Pokemama (talk) 10:52, November 25, 2015 (UTC)

lagacy[edit source]


--Jlun2 (talk) 17:46, January 7, 2016 (UTC)