Talk:The Great Orb Project/Archive 1

Untitled
A lot of this information seems to belong on the Runecrafting Guild page, The Great Orb Project is just the minigame. E.T. Prod U ( Talk ) 13:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Misguided statement
From the trivia:
 * It is interesting that when two players of the same team attracts the same orb, the orb would not move more quickly than that by one player, which is not the real case in real-life.

This is misguided, as it assumes that orb attraction works like a real world physical phenomenon like electromagnetic attraction between oppositely charged particles. (Also, not all physical attraction phenomenon necessarily have attraction that works this way. For example, attraction between quarks works differently.) Finally there is no reason to assume orb attraction is a physical phenomenon and every reason to believe it is magic and thus has no requirement to follow some physical law.

I think this trivia statement should be deleted as being misleading or beside the point. John.m.astell 18:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Plagiarism issues
Lots of information here is lifted directly from the Game Guide. The article should be re-written to suit the Wiki, rather than a direct copy of the Game Guide. 16:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree, someone has copied the exact text from the RuneScape site, this needs to be changed quickly. I would do it but I haven't been able to test the game out just yet. 21:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Opposing teams going for the same orb
If you have a person from each team focusing on the same orb, one repelling and the other attracting, does the person with the higher runecrafting skill and clothing bonuses win out or is it a draw until one team member moves on? A helpful hints section with little tidbits like this would be nice. Vadanea 04:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

If yellow moves the orb in the same tick as green moves the orb, then the influence is decided by who has the lowest "PID", "Player ID". This is a number that is randomly (as far as I know) assigned when folks log in, and it is an advantage in GOP to have low PID if you're deffing. : ) Timome (talk) 19:21, June 4, 2013 (UTC)

talisman staff
wondering what kind, if any, of xp binding a talisman this gives. and does it have any real purpose other than to be a replacement for a tiara?

~Jibby

Can a talisman staff also be used to cast spell, as a staff of the same rune type? For example, fire staffs provide fire runes for spells cast. Does the fire talisman staff to the same thing when cast spells?

yeah, of course, and the omni-staff give all infinite rune amounts, no seriously?... it don't.

Explanation
I marked the article in question for cleanup regarding some spelling and capitalisation errors. See the section below.

Recommendations

 * Change instances of...
 * "runecrafting" and "rune-crafting" to "Runecrafting" (See the wording guidelines).
 * "alter" to "altar".
 * "color" to "colour" {See the usage and spelling guidelines).
 * "mini-game" to "minigame".
 * "omnitalisman" to "omni-talisman".


 * Replace...
 * Runecrafter_outfit.jpg with a .PNG or .gif version of the file.
 * File:RC Staff.png with a version having a transparent background.

Feel free to cross recommendations off the list when you have completed them (use and ).
 * Add..
 * "Pure essences" in the reward part
 * "take your runecrafting pouch" in the "battle" part of the guide, where it say that you can keep your essences won after each round, and save them to craft later...

Thanks =) 09:11, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Everything has been dealt with as instructed. If there is anything else you need me to do, just ask :). Also I deeply apologize if I missed anything o_O. I removed the Cleanup marker as everything has been fixed. Tetris50 10:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * EDIT: I have added the information about the pouch and created a Rune Essence reward sub-article. It might need a little cleanup with the links, but everything else should be fine. Think this page might be ready to have the Construction tag taken off? Tetris50 15:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Essence Contradiction
The article states:

A player can only buy a max of 50 essence at a time from the rewards page and they are noted for convenience.

''This is expected to drive down the price of Pure essence and in turn every rune associated with it. Players can get a max of 1k tokens from each 16 minute long game. The tokens can then be used to buy 1k Pure essence.''

This should be changed -- If only 50 essence can be bought at one time (I'm assuming it's a time limit restriction, like the grand exchange?), there is no need for the second part about the prices dropping, because it would be impossible to buy 1000 essence. I would change it myself but I haven't bought any essence or heard anything about this limit myself, so I want to get a confirmation that the first part is true. If there is actually a limit, does anyone know exactly how "at a time" is defined? Ten minutes, an hour? 17:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no time limit when getting pure essence when exchanging tokens. I had 10k tokens and traded them in for 10k Pure essence. 18:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * To explain my meaning, you can only buy 50 at a time (like how you can only sell 50 of an item to a store). You can get 10k essence from the store, but you have to buy them 50 at a time. Try right clicking it and trying to buy 1000 of it, it will only let you buy 50. Please don't edit the articles without first hand experience as proof to back up what you believe. And if you traded them in, how would you not know what I mean Zyxeion o_O? EDIT: My mistake, I thought you guys meant to say there is no "buy 50 at a time" limit.
 * Tetris50 19:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Oops, I see now what the question was. No, there is not time limit to buying them, it is just as I stated above, you can only buy 50 at a time. When you have bought those 50, you just put in the amount to buy 50 more and repeat. I should edit it to clarify.
 * Tetris50 20:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, thanks for clearing that up. Yeah, I wholeheartedly agree about not editting without firsthand experience or proof, that's why I wanted to bring this up here first. ;) Thanks for the clarification on that! 05:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, no that I've read my statement, I see that it didn't really answer your question, besides the fact that I said no. I meant that I traded in 10k tokens for 10k essence instantly by exchanging 50 at a time.

13:30, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Essence price theories.
With the release of The Great Orb Project and the reward of 1 essence per token, people have said that the price will drop greatly. But with the release of altar teleport tabs, the efficiency of runecrafting runes chaos and higher has greatly increased, putting a lot of demand on Pure essence. So, Altar Tabs combat Essence in price. Should this be included in the article besides just the one side of it?

I personally think that Pure essence will remain stable in the Grand Exchange though it may decrease or increase within 5 coins.

 z y  X  e  i  o  n talk 18:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Right now, since the store says rune essence most people are lead to believe that it it is selling just that, Rune ess, not pure ess. Fact of the matter is that people of any level can get 30k tokens a day, that equals out to over 4 mil, maybe even 5 mil. The modern money makers for most people is around 1m a day gathering resources but this just takes the cake. Once people start finding out about it, prices may change. But that is just speculation. Of course with the release of this new guild (needing 50 rc) and this great new money maker, maybe people do know but so many people just want to get in on the fun?


 * Regardless, I will remove the part about the speculated price dropping.


 * Tetris50 20:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The What if Factor
The article states:

''... In addition, if the essence was unnoted, this would be the fastest way by far for f2p, and a very fast way as well for p2p, to craft runes. A player could simply buy several teletabs to rune alters and to the guild, and then buy a load of rune essence each time the player teleports back to the guild.''

Should this be included in the article? I think it sounds a little more like trivia than actual information on the subject. It may confuse or mislead some people to believing this is a possible method of Runecrafting. I don't really know how to handle the "what if" statements. Tetris50 20:47, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that this just explain the use of the teletabs, can be replaced with "using a fast teleport for banking, such as glory or dueling ring." but this have it's place on the teletabs page, not on the minigame, right?Zebe311 11:25, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Staff and Bounty Hunter
Is it possible to take the staff into bounty hunter?


 * I don't know why you would want to, but I would assume you can. Though that is not really information you put about an item on its article, so it is more just trivia and topical chat. If anyone wants to check it out, it would be interesting. Also, don't forget to sign by putting (~) at the end of your comment or clicking the sign button ([[File:Signature button.png]]) at the top of the edit box. If you don't sign, I don't know who I am talking to (even if you are not a registered user, sign and your IP address will show instead of your name).
 * 03:21, 15 August 2008
 * When telling someone to do something (in this case, add a signature) I think it would be best to also be an example by putting up your own signature :).

19:46, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Well maybe strength pures with only 1 attack might try to bring it in since it is the most powerful weapon in F2P that can be used with only 1 attack. 99.238.23.182 01:19, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Image - Abyss
I've added an animation of the Omni-Talisman Staff at the Abyss. I've been wondering if I should improve it. Any thoughts? 03:26, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The animation is very good! It may be more useful in the Omni-talisman Staff page however and I edited to thumbnail description a little to fix a grammar bug and add some information to help clarify what you are doing. Whether the image is moved or not is really not solely up to me though. If you feel the same way I do, you may move it, but I will leave it there unless it becomes an issue. Also, don't forget to sign by putting (~) at the end of your comment or clicking the sign button ([[File:Signature button.png]]) at the top of the edit box. If you don't sign, I don't know who I am writing to (even if you are not registered, sign and your IP address will show instead of your name).
 * --Tetris50 03:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh forgot about that :-S sorry. 03:26, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem. Though you might want to put that signature on a template because it is rather large (takes up a lot of room in the edit box). I hope you don't mind, I used your signature (as well as many others), as a reference to make my own. Tell me what you think on my talk page :)
 * 04:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Yellow team versus Green team
Anyone notice that "Yellow team" has a tendency to win more games than "Green team"? It seems that 80% of the games I played seem to be in favour of Yellow. I think it's just me, but I'd like to start a survey. 07:15, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I also notice this fact... just keep joining yellows, ftw! Zebe311 11:27, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, i do not doubt it but just wondered by what mechanism making the yellow team winning since winning/losing is controlled by players. 12:55, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * All I can say is: "Yellow ftw!" lol. Yes, I've noticed this also, and now the team i am dedicated to is yellow. 18:17, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * experienced people, particularly on busy worlds, percieve yellow is better and ergo flock to yellow, noobs who just want to play will not click for 5 minutes to be yellow and choose green. Therefore on busy worlds, yellow will be the more experienced payers while green being more nooby; hence yellow is better than green. on quieter worlds, or when experienced clans organize to green, you wont see yellow always winning.

The fact that yellow orbs are a lil bigger, and yellow (nooo, really?) make them easier to see and to click on, and as I'm kinda lazy, I prefer these to green.Zebe311 18:05, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Zebe. The yellow ones are much brighter, and you cna see them around the pillars. The green ones are smaller, less vibrant, and are harder to see around corners. Also, The yellows stand out on all the altars, wheras teh green ones don't as much, and are much harder to see on the grassy altars such as air and nature.-- 17:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Counts

 * 16 August: Yellow (80%) - Green (20%)
 * 21 August: Yellow (91.5%) - Green (8.5%) 07:25, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

How many for a win?
of course if you win 5 altars you get the 200 bonus, but what about winning 4 losing 3 and 1 a tie? The article says 5 altars needed for the 200 token bonus. I've been in a few games like that and didn't think to check token count till it was too late.--Degenret01 11:54, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

It work as well, you just need to have more win then the other team, a tie count for half a point for both team... the sentence should be reformulate to be "correct".Zebe311 18:06, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

The runes price theories
A lot of people here talked about rune and pure essences, about their price rises today and some premonitions, but... What about the high lvl runes price drops? Today Law Runes reached the lowest price ever: 263gpea and it's getting lower and lower again! Every day it loses like 5-10gp. Even Nature Runes and Cosmics Runes have the same problems, maybe not big like Laws, but really worrying... Just seeing the G.E. Database price graphics. The classical sense of runecrafting is lost since the new minigame was released. What about runecrafters? I have not a really higl lvl in rc but i used to earn like 80kgp per 30 minutes (500 pure essences crafted in Laws). Now i earn like 20kgp per 30 minutes (now the, ridicule, "best way" for a lvl59 it's double-cosmics)! This is crazy! Yes, i have to admit that all this it's a great advantage for cheap mage training... But i just can't stand all this it's so foolish... >.<

I want my old Runecrafting skill back! Open sourcer-- 05:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

you said that laws lost like 30gp value, and because of that, you lost60k (75%) of your gain? don't make it dramatic man, you can craft tons more thanks to the teletabs, but it's true that they will be more rune sin the game, so they will cost less, but like you make more, you gain +- same amount of cash but almost three time more xps.Zebe311 08:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well I can't complain, I'm alching for mage levels :) 14:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Rewards
Everyone seems to be forgetting that talismans can be bought with reward tokens. I don't see how, as they're first on the page. Anyway, I'm going to go put the talismans section over the Omni-talisman, and put the Omni-talisman as a subheading under it. Also, they've updated the rewards with a "Buy X"; I'm appending the rune essence section. 05:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * There has always been a "Buy X" option. It lets you buy 50 of any item at a time (provided you have the tokens). If you enter a number higher than 50, it shows a message and sets the amount to 50. If you put in an amount higher than what your tokens would let you buy, it just gives you a message and does not set any amount to be bought. Don't think it is new cause it was there to start with.
 * 04:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * That's funny, because I've been able to buy thousands of essence at one time. Is that a special case or can it be done with all of the rewards? Nevermind, saw the runecrafting guild article. 15:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

August 19 Update
With an update today, the Great Orb Project has had its token winnings changed. I'm not sure how it's been changed, but I think that players are rewarded for tied altars. If anyone can contribute to how the game has changed, please update the article. 22:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

The update is extremely buggy. I got placed in a game with no members of the opposing team there to get orbs. Easy tokens.

BTW: Here is some raw data:

40 points just for joiningNightElfArcher 01:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)NightElfArcher

If you dont go into a portal, the game will autmatically teleport you to the next altar insteadNightElfArcher 01:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)NightEkfAcher

Regarding the Aug 15th
Regarding the update, it is true that now players are rewarded based on their performance in the game, rather than "winners take all, loosers take none"

meaning that even of you win zero altars(as happened to me), you can still get a number of tokens(i got 60)

we need to check if this number is fixed, or if it variable dependant on the number of orbs captured by the teams

furthermore, does this apply to even the winning teams, or do they get the same "100 token package"?

this particular aspect needs to be resolved, until then, im just goint to re-edit it in a generic form saying that they win tokens "based on their performance"

oh, and does this warrant an "out of date" template?

FireyfoxFile:Armadyl symbol.PNG|34px 06:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Altar sharing
I read in this article about altar sharing, I have never played this game but I think 50-50 sharing is stupid and if the teams in the game decide to do that and you are playing is there any way to counter it/bust the deal? 21:19, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) In the event of these events occurring, the players will join the leader's clan chat and then switch to a world where the game is unpopulated. This agreement is usually just for people who a quick few tokens, but not particularly a good tactic for receiving many tokens as playing the game normally will often result in more tokens than through the arrangement due to it's unpredictable (if everyone would stop flocking yellow) nature. If you happen upon a world where this arrangement is taking place unbeknownst to you, you simply need to leave the game and switch worlds instead of attempting a win (as the rest of your team would probably not be participating), or if you don't want to wait the 15 minuets, just ride the game to the end, not participating, accept the free tokens, and then switch worlds. 65.205.147.58 23:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Now I would like to speak about the article itself. Someone expressed that I was attempting to fuel an edit war and as I see it, edit wars are structured between someone who demands imput and someone who has the professionalism of the article in mind (and the occasional instigator) when someone who demands imput constantly contradicts the person who has the artical in mind. If the person who demands imput would accept improvement, an edit war can easily be avoided. Now, it seems to me that the person who originally wrote the article’s focal point (and this was just an observation) was a disguised way of expressing "people who do this are stupid and need to stop" as they filled it with too much of their own negative opinions. Now I have only done 50/50 once to get quick tokens because I couldn't get on the yellow team who kept beating the green team mercilessly and I only needed a few hundred to finish off my robe set. I neither support these arrangements nor oppose them (my credo: "to each their own"). I believe that by saying that this arrangement is ethically questionable is insulting, rude, opinionated, and not appropriate for a quality encyclopedia, therefore by saying this, at least in my mind, you may not only be insulting some of those who are reading it (if they have done 50/50 sharing), but also those who are editing it. Furthermore, explain to me how, if the deal might not be followed, the arrangement is "predictable" or "guaranteed." The outcome is "expected" at best, but it doesn’t sound predictable. Lastly, I see weighing pros and cons as mostly opinions and it needs to be integrated into the paragraph. And in my opinion, I don't think this deserves its own section, maybe it's own paragraph, but there is simply not enough information other than the straight explanation to decree a whole section, and assaulting the people who share alters by putting their ethics into question is not valued information. 65.205.147.58 23:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Well stated, 65.205.147.58. However, when I [first wrote this section], it was intended to inform players of what people meant by "50/50". I didn't quite enjoy the fact the game's end results was being manipulated just to get tokens, without players actually working to earn them. I wrote it some time back when the game was still new, and 50/50 was relatively unknown and was not done in separate worlds using clan chats. "Getting quick tokens" relatively means the tokens are not earned by the person playing the game in fair and competitive manner. This is clearly stated the Wikipedia's Match fixing article under the "Match fixing to a draw or a fixed score" section, where both sides mutually benefit from a draw. In law, match fixing is prosecutable by law.

I'm sure that Jagex did not intend for the games to be played to a draw, and for "quick tokens" to be earned by players. If they did intend it, they could have just start giving out free coins to players. This was the original intent that I wrote the "Altar sharing" section. I did not intend to be rude and insulting to anyone reading it, and was only informing of the dangers of 50/50 sharing. I would like to share a personal experience: during the first 2 days of the minigame's release, my minigame team had been scammed and cheated by the other team claiming to share the altars 50/50. In the end, only me and my team were gullible enough to stick to the "arrangement". There were many others who cheated using this 50/50 scam, and I attempted to warn others of this scam.

When I added the ["Pro/cons" sub-section], what I meant by "predictable" and "guaranteed" was when the deal WAS followed. In the early days, there were very few players, and players were forced to join-in in these 50/50 "arrangements". As a player forced to play in these 50/50 games, the results were "predictable" and "guaranteed". The player is unable to leave (15-min penalty) and ends up playing the game, resulting in him/her getting free tokens that he/she may not want (due to the fixed game nature). In some communities, earning without working for it (i.e. free money/benefit) is actually unethical, and is considered a sin.

I wrote this section to benefit the people who play this minigame, with no intention of ever being insulting or rude. In a way, the RSWiki is not an "encyclopedia" per se (unlike Wikipedia), and this wiki has the Ignore all rules policy which I applied here. This includes stating opinions, and not following the neutral point of view. However, if the wiki community thinks that this section is insulting and rude, then I'd be content with the decision reached by the community. Simply removing content that one thinks is inappropriate (insulting/rude) to him/her is not fair to the entire community, which is why I chose this talk page as a medium for discussing this somewhat "controversial" issue of ethics. I think the 50/50 issue needs to be addressed first, instead of the "offending" text being removed on sight. 09:27, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Very strong point indeed. And as I said, it was only an observation; I was merely reading into context, and the context read to me as a slam against those who have done this (if I may paraphrase how I heard it: "Here's what they're doing, and its WRONG!"). It wasn't a defining judgement. Now, when I first saw this section, I though I should read it because I had done it once before and maybe I might have something to contribute. I remember being insulted when reading it, mainly with the last two sentences, and I ended up having an internal conflict, trying to convince myself "I'm not a bad person, I only tried alter sharing the once," "I didn't think it was wrong, I was just trying to get a few tokens because the yellow team keeps outnumbering us, (which, to be honest, agitates me more than game fixing)," and "I wasn't looking for satisfaction of winning, I just wanted some tokens!" My self-esteem isn't as low as some, but when I get offended by being told that maybe my ethics aren’t where they're suppose to be, I know that they're might be others who do this more religiously than me who are going to be even more hurt.


 * This is not an encyclopedia, correct, but it is read as an encyclopedia. When you edit in opinions, they are represented as the Wiki's opinions. Opinions such as a good place to buy runes are virtually harmless and are recognized as simple recommendations. Saying something like "you do this, you are unethical" is not read as "okay, this kid thinks I don't have ethics," its read as "wow, the entire wiki says I don't have ethics." I know I'm being very one sided of the people who have done it, but the people who haven’t done it are going to read it and someone might think, "well, I want to do this, but I don't want my ethics called into question" and I think that's really unfair if they think it's okay for them.


 * I'm sorry that you were subject to a 50/50 scam, but that one game you played is not the only way they go about it. There is such thing as honest players, but you seem dead-set on preventing any more of these occurrences. You've stated that match fixing is punishable by law, but you are forgetting that those are big we've-trained-hard-for-this they're-counting-on-us official all-out stadium-packed games. 50/50 is just "lets hop worlds and get a few tokens." I see that you are still affected by that match, but if you or anyone else think it unethical to win tokens without working for them, they can always be dropped. You have every right to be upset for being scammed, but you can't use the wiki to combat the arrangements. I've seen articles like the Pay to Pk Riot and Player jumper where the editors are able to set their personal prejudices aside and keep the article purely informational and unbiased.


 * Without a doubt Jagex never intended the game to be tied, but they also don’t intend for many of their updates to be twisted by the players. Surely they couldn’t have seen using Castle Wars as a random-event-free area for players to ignore the game and high-alch. So they did something about it, and if they feel that game fixing really isn’t okay with them, they will certainly do something about it. But it their decision, not the wiki’s, to tell the players that sharing alters is wrong and not to do it.


 * Last and least, if the if wins are “predictable” and “guaranteed” when the arrangement is followed, then it is still only predictable when the game ends (as at any point, either team can turn on the other), which is basically the same as any game fixed or not, nothing is guaranteed until it ends. As I said, it is expected at best, but never predictable. It’s minor syntax, I know, but I am a grammar freak.


 * To the right of you is a little boy with a paper cut, to the left is a little boy who likes to break the rules. Are you going to give the little boy to the right a bandage, or insult and badger the boy to the left so he will no longer break rules? It is possible to inform players of the dangers of 50/50 sharing without calling their ethics into question. The ignore all rules policy really only applies for the benefit of the wiki when the rules prevent the utmost informational input, and attacking player’s ethics is for the benefit only of those who believe it is unethical. Your bias opinions spurred from a bad experience needs to be shifted to a more neutral, factual focus like “it is likely that a team may not adhere to the arrangement and therefore alter sharing is not an appealing option for some due to the high risk of being scammed” instead of “the arrangement is frowned upon by decent players and it is seen by some as unethical in addition to the risk of being scammed.” To be honest, there is nothing I would love more than to call out all the people who flood the yellow team because they know it is an easy full-game win, rarely fair or competitive, which is also a big reason people don't like 50/50 because they know they can get more if they join the yellow team. But I don't because I know that a lot of people would be offended by it and it is only my opinion and I shouldn't force it on others. --65.205.147.58 23:05, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Please edit the section as you wish (making it neutral, etc.) but it just wonders me that this issue didn't crop up earlier. You just made me think whether I should stop writing thngs anymore. 01:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Will do. Thank you for understanding. And you shouldn't stop editing, you've made several great edits, only this one needed a bit of improvement. Maybe just take a quick look over the neutral point of veiw section. --65.205.147.58 06:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

100/100 sharing
A quick addition to 50/50 sharing:

I've just noticed that after the update on 18/19 August, both teams do not get the same amount of tokens even if it's a draw (Now, the tokens are distributed based on performance? And, there's currently no known formula to calculate this.) Therfore, players come up with an even bizarre arrangement, where a team throws all 8 altars (throws the game), in order for that other team to receive 1000 tokens. Then, it is the other team's turn to win all 8 altars, and this switches back and forth between the 2 teams.

What may go wrong?
 * A player joins Team A (yellow) and wins 8 altars, thereby getting 1,000 tokens.
 * Since he/she knows the winner of the next game (green), he/she joins the team and wins another 8 altars, adding 1,000 more tokens.
 * This may be repeated as long the teams are big enough not to notice the switching of teams by this player, or until the team realises this player is being unfair and switches worlds.

07:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe that when different people get different amounts of tokens in 50:50, its to do with the amount of rounds they touched an orb in. I certainly have been able to consistently get 470 on f2p games

double xp when assisting
I just got the full rc gear and air staff and 77 rc, while I am assisting people I have been randomly getting twice the xp i should have; ie such as 270 xp instead of 135. Anyone know what is causing this, is it the staff, or the gear, or having both?Unknown wn editor, next edit starts here Was the player you assisted crafting airs? This is most peculiar. I think it is only for assisting, as I have the omni staff and i only get 9xp for nats. I will try to research this problem more.-- 17:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * This can happen if the person you're assisting is wearing Air runecrafting gloves. Icy001 21:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Re:Rune price dropping
You are all forgettng the fact that this will now give low- medium level mages, especially f2p, the ability to buy more laws/cosmics as a means of getting xp. The demand on runes will soon balance out the new amounts of supply, to roughly the same stable place. -- 17:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Image
I think an image should be uploaded of the actual runecrafting token trade-in screen, as was done on the fist of guthix page. 22:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Requirements
The_Great_Orb_Project

Is "Complete Rune Mysteries" really necessary since it's impossible (as far as I know) to get any Runecrafting experience (let alone level 50) without completing that quest? Foreyes4 15:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Acually, you only need to do rune mysteries to mine rune essence, not to acually craft runes.--  Long Live Armadyl    18:38, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure the requirements include Rune Mysteries because according to the article on the main site: "You must have completed Rune Mysteries and have a Runecrafting level of 50 or greater." I'm not too sure about it and I don't feel like buying so much essence on a new account just to find out.--King x treme 04:47, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

50-50 games F2P
There is not 50-50 game at world 7

New, cooperative play idea
I think I'm calling this all for one, essentially it goes like this. All but 1 player join yellow, yellow then win all alters, then switch around. Only would work with very trusted players many would leave before taking their turn as the loser.

Does anyone know of any problems with this (e.g. unbalanced team size is not allowed)

--Serenity1137 22:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Crasher Information
Does anyone else think there should be a paragraph added about crashers? What they do, their reasons for crashing, how to stop them, what to do the next game if they follow you to another world, a list of known crashers, et cetera. Anyone else want to take a whack at it? --71.252.194.198 20:43, 5 July 2009 (UTC) Sorry, I wasn't logged in. --Atomterrible 20:45, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Activity bar
I was recently playing and I noticed a activity bar next to the score and time left. It isn't mentioned in the article and it probably should (how it works and what it does). The images of the score and time display need to be updated to show that. . 23:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry as long as you are actually trying to play the game fairly unlike freeloaders who sit around for tokens for "50-50" matchs you will be fine--GruppyGuppy 00:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Über edit, suupreemmme victory!!
Uhm, it may just be me but I think the revised article made by User:Whaa isn't as good as it was before. Lots of useful information has been removed, the grammar and vocabulary of the article isn't as powerful any more and well, the images have been removed? Some of the words used in this article aren't really relevant.

To be honest, I think the old article is better... no new information has been added. The only changes are active to passive sentences, and replacing the words with their synonyms. Sorry... --Scykei 04:51, December 7, 2009 (UTC)
 * Yah. -- 04:55, December 7, 2009 (UTC)
 * I also didn't like it, so I changed it. Wasn't as structured as previous one. Used the previous version and adapted it with some of the changes. Gonna move and update all glitches to its own page. Took out the unrelated pics. I wasn't sure of the 'barriers lasting longer with higher rc' thing so took it out (would need checking tbh). I kept the 'bonus from rc clothes' cause its mentionned in manual... Also took out the update dates, I don't think anyone's gonna look at the article to find out when the activity bar was added. Armeng90 05:00, December 10, 2009 (UTC)
 * Arghh... curse you, you illiterate peasants. This is not the last you see of me. I will back, and I will have Bio_Ice rain down several pictures upon you until the page is flooded with the professionalism of my wrath! Whaa 00:50, December 12, 2009 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks! :D --Scykei 02:28, December 12, 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. What was that?--Nausicaa La Maya 21:31, December 12, 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, bother. Here we go, some links to some pictures. If more are wanted I can probably screenshot more next week when I have time. --Nausicaa La Maya 21:39, December 12, 2009 (UTC)
 * ...why can't we just have people instead of turkeys and tuna? ASATO MA SAD GAMAYA 19:05, December 13, 2009 (UTC)

Please stop reverting my edits, at least not the substantial (as opposed to humorous) parts. The pictures showing the players' and orbs' positions are represented by turkeys and tunas, which is a comic relief for any lengthy gop guide. Additionally, the turkey doesn't identify with any particular person's character, and the tunas are white against the dark backgrounds and always swim west, which is a very important indication of compass direction for gop games. Anyone may verify for him or herself the pictures' accuracy and usefulness by searching for and comparing with other gop guides, such as Bio_Ice's guide on Runescape Tip It. (Bio_Ice's wiki user name is Nausicaa La Maya. The four HD pictures are thanks to her.) --Whaa 19:51, December 13, 2009 (UTC) As for the low detail quality of the turkey and tuna pictures, anyone who actually read my guide or regularly play gop would understand the justification. To quote: "In graphic settings, you should play in low detail and with resizable screen. The low detail makes the squares on the ground easier to count, and the resizable screen makes your visual field larger." --Whaa 19:51, December 13, 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying that everything needs to be super serious in the article, but using tuna to mark the location of the orbs is a bit too silly for me. The same effect could be achieved by using the minimap or something. I can try to create some more professional looking maps later on. 23:43, December 13, 2009 (UTC)
 * Whaa, we don't NEED comic relief. This is a wiki; an encyclopedia needs no humor. 23:47, December 13, 2009 (UTC)
 * I have further investigated the images and how they were used and I have more to add. They go into far too much detail for this article. Such extensive mapping of where to stand and how to do things could be justified for a strategy guide, but its far beyond the scope of this wiki. Furthermore, all the images seemed to apply the same principle to different situations. As such, it is only necessary to illustrate the principle, not each of its applications. 00:17, December 14, 2009 (UTC)


 * To Stinkowing,


 * . I have made a request in this discussion page asking, “Please stop reverting my edits, at least not the substantial (as opposed to humorous) parts.” By “substantial parts” I mean “parts having substance.” The humorous parts of my edit should be removed, because their purpose was merely to provoke—in the manner of friendly competition—some improvements for the article.


 * . In this discussion page, I jokingly threatened other editors by saying, “Arghh... curse you, you illiterate peasants. This is not the last you see of me. I will back, and I will have Bio_Ice rain down several pictures upon you until the page is flooded with the professionalism of my wrath!” To which Scykei replied, “Great, thanks!”


 * . In the article, the section Gameplay was renamed by me as Extremely basic gameplay and tedious information, also called “Please spare me the useless information.” Its intention is obvious.


 * . The Grand Exchange article says players need to complete a tutorial before using the GE, which I added: “Reading wikia doesn’t count as completing a tutorial.”


 * . So evidentially, some humor has its place in runescape and runescape wikia, both of which are meant to be enjoyable rather than dull and boring. Anyway, the turkeys and tunas are cute and informative. You have deleted them along with all substantial parts of my edit. However, your reply just now said nothing about the substantial parts of my edit. You should now show how the substantial parts of my edit should also be deleted. Would you please defend your decision?


 * To Psycho_Robot,


 * . The question is not whether wikia should contain extensive details, but which extensive details it should contain. Some articles are plagued with stupid details and lacking substantial ones. Again, by “substantial” I mean “having substance.” Consider several comparisons between the current version against my proposed version:


 * . Current section Trivia reads: “There is a glitch that occurs if you have a full inventory with at least one space occupied by runecrafting altar and/or runecrafting guild teleports. When you try to buy the same kind of teleport, it won't let you; it will say that you don't have enough space in your inventory. However, what you have in your inventory and what you are trying to buy are the same item, and are stackable; therefore you could assume that you do, in fact, have enough inventory space.” Useless wall of text. The other trivial information are useless as well, hence the name Trivia. If any section permits useless information, then we should either modify or delete the section.


 * . Current sections Tips, Glitches, and Trivia combined together have as much extensive details as the proposed section Gameplay. One tip reads: “Keeping essence from the mind round for the water round, as these give more experience and are more valuable runes.” Two other tips suggest saving essences for nature and air runes. The proposed section delivers the same idea is elegantly: “Essences can be carried from one altar to the next for more runecrafting experience and, in some cases, more money.” If someone doesn’t know that mind runes are cheaper than water runes per essence, then he wouldn’t even have level 50 runecrafting. This is just one example. Please compare them for yourself.


 * . Current section Cooperative Play has a table showing rotating players. The same effect is accomplishable by simply writing “rotating players.” It also has information on unofficial cooperative gop worlds, which we should at least verify. In general, it is grossly inferior to the combined proposed sections Cooperative Games and Competitive Games. Please compare them side by side.


 * . Current section Rewards is also grossly inferior to the proposed section with the same name. Please compare them side by side.


 * . Again, the question is not whether wikia should contain extensive details, but which extensive details it should contain. Also, no general set laws governing gop positioning is as elegant as the pictures. For example, try formulating a general set of laws for the picture, “From south, toward south.” In this case, the visual is more elegant than the verbal. --Whaa 03:35, December 14, 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, then. I defend my decision by telling you that writing up tl;dr posts will NOT sway me or Psycho Robot. Your logic is invald and irrelevant, makes zero sense, and does not belong on this wiki. Point defended, anything else you wish to pointlessly argue over when truthfully your logic fails? 03:50, December 14, 2009 (UTC)


 * In answer to: "anything else you wish to pointlessly argue over when truthfully your logic fails?"
 * Not in itself as a question, but just to point out that Whaa's logic had far more grounding than your own, in pointing out that individual parts of their updated version of the guide had far more merit than those in the previous one.
 * The aforementioned previous version had many factual errors and misleading statements; while Whaa's version may have had some unsuitable content, as Whaa admitted, and while that may have been to provoke a better degree of effort in making a GOP entry on the wiki, it was probably, as you say, also not appropriate.. however, there are parts which were not in need of reverting, some of which Whaa mentioned.
 * I can appreciate that you may not have had much knowledge of the minigame in question, and therefore were not aware of the importance of these principals, if you were to play this game without resorting to what is the essentially bug-abusing/trust trade (multiple statements calling it such by FMods, paraphrasing guidelines, on RSOF) of 5050.
 * Your wholesale condemning of Whaa's version, with the blanket statements and bad justification that you give, shows a great deal of immaturity, really, seeming as it only answers the parts which Whaa has self-criticized.
 * Recent wholesale edit reversals( without any in depth reasoning or comment) on the same guide, by the current re-editing checkers, shows that this general attitude has not changed.
 * If these need to be undone, then that is fine, but it would help if better guidance was given, as to which parts in particular were contravening the acceptable norms. That way, those who made the original edits can be aware of which bits need redoing and which were ok.
 * I know you do not have to do this, but when you are claiming to make a just point, in an argument of logic, it would at least help if you used logic in the way you answered. -- City lnspect (lower case "L") 10:30 June 15th, 2013 (GMT + 7)