- 1 Hi Alch column
- 2 Alchemy check
- 3 Merge with Pouch (Summoning)
- 4 Template expansion limit -> reason for '~' symbol before some of tertiary prices
- 5 Getting complicated
- 6 Update Needed
- 7 Pheonix
- 8 xp/cost instead of xp/shard?
- 9 Bogrog
- 10 What a mess
- 11 High Alching
- 12 More useful and less crowded
- 13 Math problem
- 14 merging
- 15 Can we add the pouch time to the table?
Hi Alch column[edit source]
I suggest to add a column for the high alchemy price, what do you think?
Cool, started now.--Degenret01 02:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Color pics, yay!!!!--Degenret01 10:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I think there should be a column that shows the overall price of the pouch, including the cost of spirit shards and the tertiary. Then there could be a column listing the XP/coin.
For example, a Bronze Minotaur may cost 2275 coins more than a Bullant in terms of shards, but the latter's tertiary also costs 3706 coins more than the former's. This doesn't accurately tell players what the cost of each pouch is at the moment.
I'll try making this soon, as I'm very interested in this data myself. Megaqwerty 18:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- Try the calculator page: Calculators/Pouches 01:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Ah, that's more or less what I was looking for (it doesn't list the charms used, but that's nitpicking): thanks! Megaqwerty 03:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Alchemy check[edit source]
My math shows that the alchemy value is directly realted to the number of shards.
The equation is simply: 269 + (shards-1) x 15
There seem to be very few exceptions - Praying mantis pouch, Barker toad pouch, Ibis pouch, Giant ent pouch, Unicorn stallion pouch. Lizarick 17:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Try using 254 + (shards x 15) = High Alchemy value and you will find that it works for all of the pouches. This can be used for future updates as new pouches are added.Need beer 23:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Merge with Pouch (Summoning)[edit source]
Merge template added by User:Ixfd64 on 9 June 2008; no reason given.
- Don't merge as Pouch (Summoning) is a separate item deserving its own article and this is a table listing of the different Summoning pouches. Chrislee33 08:43, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
- Don't merge Per Chrislee, the article would end up doubling in size, making it a real annoyance to load for older computers.--CFLM Talk # Sign 07:31, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Template expansion limit -> reason for '~' symbol before some of tertiary prices[edit source]
This article has passed its Template expansion limit after I added the GEPrice for each of the pouches next to the Hi Alc prices. So, I needed to remove some of the lower price GEPrice templates for some of the tertiary ingredients; these have the '~' symbol before the price. I picked the lower price items as they may vary much less than the higher price ones. If any additional templates are added you might get a (#ifexpr: 0 or 0) or (Template:GEPrice) inserted instead of the price near the bottom of the table. See Grand_Exchange_Market_Watch/Documentation#Template_expansion_limit for more information. Chrislee33 08:17, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
The 5 GE Price templates that were removed and replaced with '~' before the price are:
|Summon lvl||Tertiary component||Wikia GE Price||RS GE Database link|
|4||649 coins (update)||RS GE Current price|
|23||Raw rat meat||1,448 coins (update)||RS GE Current price|
|55||Jug of water||23 coins (update)||RS GE Current price|
|69||Banana||468 coins (update)||RS GE Current price|
|70||231 coins (update)||RS GE Current price|
Use this table as an aide to check and update this article's Tertiary component price for these 5 items. Chrislee33 07:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Rechecked Pre-expand include size and was able to add back only 2 templates: Pot of flour and Raw chicken. Each one takes about 14-15K bytes. 'Pre-expand include size: 2094307/2097152 bytes' which leaves <3k bytes left; no more room for another template. Chrislee33 07:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
- You should add a note at the top of the table referring to the "~" sign, and link to the talk page.
10:10, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
- Good idea; done... thanks Chrislee33 08:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Getting complicated[edit source]
I think this article is getting complicated by the day. For much information on one page may the readers glaze through the article without actually reading the content. I suggest that this article is broken down into 2 separate sections like I did for the Summoning pouches calculator. This way, the templates will start working again, and the information overload is minimised.
02:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Update Needed[edit source]
The void spinner requires a blue charm not a green charm as it is currently shown.Hammer2092 15:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC) EDIT: I mananged to make the change. First real edit of an article. Besides user/talk pages. Hammer2092 19:53, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Adding the Pheonix summoning pouch, which requires 72 summoning, a crimson charm 146 shards, and a phoenix quill.
xp/cost instead of xp/shard?[edit source]
I suggest replacing the xp/shard column with an xp/total cost column. Shards are, after all, no more than a summoning currency with a fixed exchange rate of 25:1. Unless you've already bought 10 million shards, the xp/shard column is meaningless without the cost of the tertiaries factored in.
Compare runite minators to swamp titans. Currently, it appears that runite minators are by far a better value. (And an xp/shard column must be about value after all.) But with the tertiaries factored in, the swamp titan costs about 1/4 as much per pouch, and costs about 1/2 as much per xp.
I feel that replacing the xp/shard column with a xp/cost column would make more sense.
Thoughts? Dgtns 08:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm not too sure, I found the exp/shard thing ok because most of the pouches I make have cheap tertiary ingredients but high amounts of shards needed. If we actually did make it according to xp/cost, it would be a big hassle because prices are rising and dropping everyday, making the info inaccurate at times. C.ChiamTalk 08:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, I see. I am sort of new to this and thought the costs would be automated somehow. If they can't be automated then I agree that it's not worth the trouble. Dgtns 12:14, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
xp/cost would be much more useful. It would also be nice to have an xp/cost with the cost including selling the pouch on the GE. Price changes are not a problem, since they can be scripted into the page.
Problem solved[edit source]
With some (extensive) coding, I have replaced the "XP/Shard" value (which was pretty much redundant) with a "Profit/XP" value, which should (hopefully) be much more versatile and useful. Enjoy!15:39, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
The "Profit/XP" column is rendered almost useless by the exclusive use of the HA value instead of the GE value. I would strongly suggest using the GE value, which can update on page refresh. (Eviltexan 19:12, December 9, 2009 (UTC))
"The player's Summoning level must be 6 levels higher than the pouch level in order to swap shards." This is incorrect, as a quick look at the table shows - spirit wolves require +20 levels, steel titans require +0 levels. The table on Bogrog should be included, or at least referenced to in the article. I would do it myself, but my computer/browser/internet/whatever-the-problem-is cannot handle saving big pages, especially one with such an immense amount of templates as this. Thanks, 19:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
What a mess[edit source]
If there is a problem fix it yourself please rather than complaining about it here, this is a talk page not a complain page. Deleted previous content.
Don't try to tell me what I can talk about please, my fix would have been to start over .. Oh, and thanks to whoever made the fix :)
High Alching[edit source]
- Indeed you can. Some are profitable to alch, some are not; the formula for the high-alch value is (Shards x 15) + 254 (As it says in the article.) A calculator for profit/loss by high-alching pouches is found here. 19:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
More useful and less crowded[edit source]
The table could be more useful and less crowded if you eliminated the Bogrog "Value" column (which is redundant with the "#" column) and added a "Total Cost" column, which would include the cost of the pouch, shard and tertiary ingredient (where tradeable). That addresses the "more useful" aspect. The crowding comes from the parentheses, which are being used for two different purposes: giving the tertiary ingredient cost and displaying the GE pouch price. The former is useful but not *entirely* necessary if you add the Total Cost column I suggest and the latter could be split out into a separate column -- under "Value", with "High Alch" and "GE" as subcolumns. (Eviltexan 19:09, December 9, 2009 (UTC))
Math problem[edit source]
I believe that the calculations are incorrect at the end... There's a minus sign to subtract the last term, and then you divide it by a negative number again...13:51, January 11, 2010 (UTC)
I really think that the [[Calculators/Pouches/Low]] and [[Calculators/Pouches/High]] should be merged with this current article since the math is actually correct there. However, the bogrog data from this table should be kept also.13:57, January 11, 2010 (UTC)
Can we add the pouch time to the table?[edit source]
It would be nice if the time that the familiar lasts was on this table somewhere. Doesn't need to have it's own column, it could just be in parentheses after the pouch name or something. It makes it easier for me to compare different types of pouches when I can see their GE price versus the time they last. Especially for pouches where there are many similar ones, like the titans or the abyssal creatures. Thanks in advance. Jimindc 04:49, April 13, 2010 (UTC)