Template talk:Perks

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

Grouping[edit source]

How do we group the perks? I see a few options:

  • Follow the in-game limitations and group them as weapon/armour/universal
  • Return to original grouping (buffs/debuffs/cosmetic)
  • Improve the original grouping and make it more objective, for example buffs/debuffs/other (neutral?)/cosmetic
  • Simply combat/cosmetic

I'm leaning strongly towards the first solution. Not grouping them is not an option. Anyone else chime in? 5-x Talk 09:51, January 30, 2016 (UTC)

We can't group them by weapon/armour/universal, as there are others, such as cosmetic, food related, etc. "Universal" implies both weapon and armour. Secondly, the original grouping makes no sense as, as you previously said on Special:Chat, some perks are situational. This also obviously covers the third option too, as we've established they're not really "buffs" and "debuffs". I do agree with the last option and that's why the template is currently how it is. I don't see why you previously got into an edit war about it rather than discussing it here. Template:Perks currently resembles how the Perks page looks. We should keep consistency across the wiki, just like we've established with the {{Disassemble}} template as noted on RuneScape:Style guide/Invention. If we start classifying things differently on different places, it can be confusing for people who want to get the information they need. I strongly believe that it is up to the player to decide if a perk is a "buff" or "debuff" for their situation, rather than us trying to classify it ourselves (which would be biased). I hope we can come to a solution about this rather than the un-necessary edit warring of earlier. jayden

I was thinking along the lines of Positive/Negative/Neutral and having Other or Cosmetic but as Fearthe pointed out, a lot of the perks would be classed as neutral as they are situational. Yellowchese (talk) 13:54, January 30, 2016 (UTC)

I like separate groups too. It makes it easier to navigate. We have a similar thing with the auras. I don't think it's really upto interpretation whether Dragon/Demon bait is a buff or debuff, neither is Antitheism, and several others. The Crackling and Efficient Pers, surely are only buffs. But some certainly are interpretable, like Engergising, Mobile, and (I'd argue) Brassican - these are a lot more ambiguous. And not listing them as such would be a miss for clearity. So, I think it would be a good idea to take this in mind. Here's my suggestion for the groupings:
  • Buff
  • Debuffs
  • Ambiguous
  • Cosmetic
And eventually there might be some perks for specially for skilling tools and gear, like. And if there would be enough of the a similar list could be made with them too. And on the page, Perks, itself, we might also add some icons to indicate whether it's a skilling buff/debuff/ambiguous trait or a combat one. . . . 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! . . 17:31, January 30, 2016 (UTC)
"Ambiguous" as a category is the absolute dumbest thing I've heard. It's not happening. MolMan 18:27, January 30, 2016 (UTC)
Stupidly subjective. Just group perks by their max tier. MolMan 18:25, January 30, 2016 (UTC)
This is my point Mol, we shouldn't group them by what they do because it's subjective, we should group them either as simply non-cosmetic and cosmetic (which it currently is) or indeed, by tier. I don't understand why we need to make it more complex than that jayden
I think not having them sorted isn't a good way to do it. There are way too many perks to just have a big list like that. Some perks are very clearly good or bad, and some have both positive and negative effects. So just make three categories to put them in. -Shaun Dreclintalk 18:32, January 30, 2016 (UTC)
As said before, they're subjective. jayden
Just addressing a few things:
Yeah, because you made it this way. It is, at the moment, an unreadable pile. Over 40 perks is enough to necessitate dividing them into groups. I had to revert your awful edits because you were doing the navbox a disservice. Navboxes are supposed to aid navigation, not hinder it. If you'd like to browse a plain list of perks, see their category. Otherwise, because it seems you actually want to hinder navigation, why not remove all perk icons from the navbox too? No? Well, then...
  • "We can't group them by weapon/armour/universal, as there are others, such as cosmetic, food related, etc. "Universal" implies both weapon and armour."
That's exactly what it is, I'm glad we agree. There are perks you can put on weapon gizmos, perks you can put on armour gizmos, and perks you can put on both. Let's group them this way! Success, 5-x Talk 18:52, January 30, 2016 (UTC)
Oh and for the record, JaydenKieran cannot even access the skill. 5-x Talk 18:53, January 30, 2016 (UTC)
So you're superior because I can't access the skill on the account you checked? Alright then buddy. Ooh, detective Sherlock Holmes here thinks he's so smart. Don't be so ridiculous, and stop being so patronizing. You're just a prick, tbh jayden
Additionally, since you're so keen on the policies of this wiki, I'd like to bring your attention to RS:SOW, which states very clearly "However, at no time may a user's group membership, in-game experience, or any other factor regarding that user's status affect the validity of his or her opinions in disputes. jayden
Ummm if that's how things work. I'm 92. So we're doing it my way. MolMan 19:03, January 30, 2016 (UTC)
My £0.02 - make them alphabetical with an A-M and N-Z division. No quibbling about "buff/debuff/neutral" or "weapon/armour/universal" or whatever that way. Small recharge gem.png AnselaJonla Slayer-icon.png 19:09, January 30, 2016 (UTC)
So lets focus on that. Why should we not list things into those categories, that (to me) look clearly like cosmetic, buffs and debuffs, with some being ambiguous (not clearly a buff or debuff). Please try to convince me. Would it maybe help if I made a list of ambiguous perks, so you can point out which ones you have a problem with? . . . 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! . . 19:13, January 30, 2016 (UTC)
The problem is you trying to use subjective labels. That's not allowed. RS:NPOV MolMan 19:14, January 30, 2016 (UTC)
It's a shame you haven't addressed the important part, the part we're talking about here - the perks. To be honest, I regret even mentioning perks in chat, because if I haven't you wouldn't even notice them. Refresher of how it started:
[2016-01-30 00:00:37] <5-x> job for tomorrow is probably to reclassify perks
[2016-01-30 00:00:47] <JaydenKieran> Perks are classified fine
[2016-01-30 00:00:55] <5-x> no
[2016-01-30 00:01:02] <JaydenKieran> You literally create problems out of nothig
[2016-01-30 00:01:04] <JaydenKieran> nothing
And then I provided two sensible examples and apparently convinced you strongly, because that made you flip the entire navbox. Eh? Please be reasonable and let me improve the thing. I'm suggesting following the in-game limitations, how does that sound? Thanks. 5-x Talk 19:17, January 30, 2016 (UTC)
Under the current conditions that would be 3 categories, weapon, armour, weapon+armour. Next monday we are however getting a tool update, if we follow this system we might end up with 6 categories (armour, weapons, tools, armour+weapon, armour+weapon+tools, weapon+tools). If jagex then decides to also allow augmenting other items we will have an explosive growth of these categories. Fearthe1337 (talk) 19:26, January 30, 2016 (UTC)
Oh, Fearthe, I think you're mistaken. This is not the kind of categories we seem to be thinking of, these can be mere labels. The categories,a s suggested here, are: cosmetic, buff, debuff, ambitious/unclear/neutral. I hope that helps. . . . 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! . . 19:48, January 30, 2016 (UTC)
We need a way of grouping it but why does that mean it has to be your way? That's the reason the talk page is there in the first place. The whole thing mostly started from you edit warring with me on the Template:Perks page, reverting my edits with pretty much only "not a category" as a reason. You never decided to discuss it here, on this page. Secondly, you warn me about being close to breaking RS:3RR on my talk page, as if the whole thing was actually started about me and to try and bully me to stop. After citing RS:UCS to you in defence of changing the template, you proceeded to make patronizing comments towards me as seen on Talk:Perks#Removal_of_buffs_and_debuffs. I quote, "someone thought they shouldn't be grouped, and they were wrong." I'm not being funny my friend, but is it your call to decide what is right or wrong? We work using consensus for a reason, yet you seem to think you're making the best decisions. On this talk page, you've proceeded to break RS:SOW, by citing my in-game experience as reason enough for my points and my opinion to be ignored. In suggesting using subjective labels, I'll repeat what Mol has said, it's not allowed by RS:NPOV. It seems you show completely disrespect for the policies of the wiki. I may not have been here for a while, but that doesn't mean I don't have the right to make appropriate edits in an effort to improve the wiki. Finally, I'll repeat what I originally said, which you've so kindly wrote above - you literally create problems out of nothing. Thanks! jayden
I fail to see how mentioning that something is a buff, a debuff, or an ambiguous/unclear/neutral trait fails to fall within the rules of RS:NPOV. The rules, isfaik, seem to talk about how we should not express value judgements, it does not seem to say that we should not mention the measurable effects of ingame stuff. I mean, it sounds to me that you'd argue for removing these things (found on the Buffs and debuffs page): Attack Stat Boosted (self status).png & Attack Stat Reduced (self status).png, because "Boosting your attack level above your current level" & "Lowering your attack level below your current level" is stupidly subjective and not from a neutral pov. I just fail to see how that's remotely correct.
In addition I'd like to draw your attention to the table found here Prayer#Prayers, in the Notes-column there are a few symbols (e.g.: +, %, =, -, and &) that indicate a view things. We could do the same in the table found on the Perks page, where each symbol would indicate whether the buff, a debuff, or an ambiguous/unclear/neutral trait in question is for armour only, weapons only, weapons and armour, tools/skilling tools only, etc. I do not think this level of detail (where Perks) is necessary for the template, but for the informative page it is useful and not a big effort. We could of course also use icons for this, for example:
  • Main hand slot.png = Weapons
  • Off-hand slot.png = Armour
  • 2h slot.png = Weapons & armour
  • Statistics.png = Tools/Skilling tools
I'm looking forward to your replies. . . . 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! . . 19:46, January 30, 2016 (UTC)
The buffs and debuffs page is objectively categorized. Debuffs have a red outline, buffs have green. But nice try.
Maybe you should also actually read what that column is for on prayers? Lol they're not saying anything about whether the prayer is good or not. It's used to denote a specific category of how it interacts with other prayers when activated. It, like the debuffs/buffs bar, is entirely subjective.
Also no icons. That looks stupid. MolMan 19:48, January 30, 2016 (UTC)

Can I just point out that there's nothing wrong with how Template:Perks or the Perks page currently looks? The template is readable, and it's in alphabetical order. Nobody has had any issues reading it and finding what they want. There is no obvious categorisation in-game of the perks as to whether they are "buffs" or "debuffs". Additionally, Jagex themselves said prior to release multiple times that a good amount of the perks are situational and they don't class them as either category that is being proposed in the opening comment to this section. Also, per 5-x's recent revision to the page, take Brassican for example. Is it 'combat'? No. It adds a cabbage to your inventory. Pretty sure that's nothing to do with combat. jayden

It should be Buff, debuff, cosmetic, and under buff/debuff should list between armor and weapon only perks. And please, -30% defence against dragons isnt a buff. Common sense please. ( 18:06, February 2, 2016 (UTC)) ( 18:06, February 2, 2016 (UTC))

It's not our place to make judgement calls. RS:NPOV MolMan 18:09, February 2, 2016 (UTC)
tell me how a -30% defence against dragons can be useful in KBD/QBD/killing dragons. Use common sense ( 21:23, February 2, 2016 (UTC))
If we make a judgement call there, we have to make it on every part. RS:NPOV MolMan 21:28, February 2, 2016 (UTC)
I think that kind of "judgement call" is worth making to provide useful information to the users. It's not hard at all to categorize perks to see if they're good, bad, or neutral. RuneScape:Use common sense Wikipedia:Ignore all rules -Shaun Dreclintalk 01:14, February 3, 2016 (UTC)
Making that judgement call is forcing your opinion onto readers, which is not helpful. MolMan 01:15, February 3, 2016 (UTC)
"Increased damage to a type of enemy" is a buff. "Take more damage from a type of enemy" is a debuff. Those are not opinions. Aren't we supposed to have some sort of voting for this kind of dispute, rather than people just deciding on behalf of all the other editors? -Shaun Dreclintalk 01:19, February 3, 2016 (UTC)
Furthermore, this template is simply an index. Full information on perks can be found on the individual pages, with a dynamic index (including flavour text) on Perks.
It is certainly obvious that a few perks are definite buffs or debuffs, but that's only a small handful. Unless there are objective classifications in game, it's going to continue being disputed. In any case, we should only be presenting this information objectively. MolMan 01:25, February 3, 2016 (UTC)
But no consensus has been reached here, IMO. People are just strong-arming their decisions and disregarding other people's objections. The Perks page was very nicely split and easy to find information on until somebody removed that sorting and merged it into one massive list. -Shaun Dreclintalk 01:33, February 3, 2016 (UTC)
It's still easy to find stuff. Anyways, I've just made a change that should satisfy the silly grouping issue while still being completely objective. MolMan 01:44, February 3, 2016 (UTC)
Huh, that's better than nothing. Still not ideal but at least it's not just a wall-o-links. Also, it's hardly a "silly" issue. Just because you don't agree doesn't mean you should disregard it like that. -Shaun Dreclintalk 01:57, February 3, 2016 (UTC)
The level of argument it generated is silly. Also, remember what 5-x said; highest inventor level decides how to group this, and I am level 106. MolMan 02:02, February 3, 2016 (UTC)
They said on stream yesterday that they're going to change perks, they mentioned one of them (I forgot which one) that they were going to change it from being a perk with a buff and debuff to a perk with just the buff and also buff that buff. In general they were going to buff them all, or atleast make them so that more people would like to get them. So maybe then there will be a better solution. But I do like how Mol, objectively might I add, grouped the perks on this template. And they're going to add Tool perks as well this month, so we'll see how that'll go. Farming-icon.png Salix (Talk) Prifddinas lodestone icon.png 08:50, February 3, 2016 (UTC)
Nice grouping there, very specific and way more radical than what I proposed - how come there's no opposition? What happened to RS:NPOV and "subjective labels"? 5-x Talk 14:33, February 5, 2016 (UTC)
None of this is subjective. Brief respite says "The Guthix's Blessing and Rejuvenate abilities' total healing and cooldown is reduced by 3% per rank." That objectively means it modifies those specific abilities. If you try to call that subjective, you're an idiot. MolMan 15:01, February 5, 2016 (UTC)
We need to add the following rows if we aren't going to seperate the tables 

Positive/Negative/Subjective &  Weapon/Armor/Both Simpuhl (talk) 21:50, February 7, 2016 (UTC)

For the last time, we're not doing positive/negative anything. MolMan 21:55, February 7, 2016 (UTC)