User talk:Random User123/Archive 1

__NOINDEX__

Hi there!

Adoption request
Hi. I’ve given you admin and bureaucrat rights on this community as you requested. You now have the tools you need to clean up, customize, and maintain the wiki.
 * Check out Wiki Features to see which features you can enable (or disable) on your wiki, including chat and many more. If you have adopted an older community with talk pages, you can enable message walls and article comments if you wish. If you are interested in the discussions feature, you can request it using the form at Special:Contact/general.
 * Customize your community's look by visiting the Theme Designer, where you can add color and style to your background and wordmark for your desktop visitors.
 * Customize the mobile home page and convert infoboxes to the new portable infobox format for your visitors on mobile devices.
 * Look through the various useful reports available at Special:Insights, including popular pages, uncategorized pages, and wanted pages for ideas on ways to improve your community.
 * Stop by Community Central to stay informed with our staff blog, and ask questions on our community forum, or chat with fellow contributors.
 * Lastly, visit our help pages to learn the ins and outs of running a wiki, including tips for managing your community, how to attract contributors, and how to add other admins.

Check out your Admin Dashboard, which can be found by clicking "Admin" on the bottom toolbar. It has links to all your new tools. Please let me know if you have any questions, and good luck with the wiki! JoePlay https://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/joeplayground/images/e/e5/FandomStaff.png (talk)  18:52, January 6, 2020 (UTC)

Archives
hi, I'm MechQueste. I know we haven't met but I had played Runescape in many years prior. Well, first congrats on the adoption. Second, I saw you add Archive template to forums. DO you wish for me to do it much faster so I can add the archives to the non-archive ones? MechQueste 18:29, January 8, 2020 (UTC)


 * Hiya, MechQueste. I'm actually going through them one-by-one because I've found some discussions have some information I'd like to return to, or even reply to about their status despite being years later. Thank you for the offer though.
 * One of the things I was working on before the adoption had to do with Underground Pass. I converted that page to a disambiguation like some other quests and was going through each link that still directs there and changing them to their appropriate page, either Underground Pass (quest) or Underground Pass (location). I believe most are going to be for the quest, but wanted to check each one manually to verify. If you're interesting in helping out, that would be good. There are a lot of link corrections, redirects, and general organization matters that I'd like to tackle in due time. Now with the adoption, I put that on pause to look into higher-end matters I can improve before returning.
 * Thanks for asking! -Random User123 (talk) 21:50, January 8, 2020 (UTC)

Hello Message
Hey! I will be helping out a bit around the wiki. I am used to github markdown and struggling a bit. So don't mind me! Much love, PoliteKiwi (talk) 07:10, April 8, 2020 (UTC)
 * Hiya, and welcome aboard! I was looking through your edits and I didn't want to jump in if you were in the middle of something. It can be fun figuring things out on ones self, but let me know if you need any help.
 * I'm curious about the changes you made to the Max hit and Confuse articles. I haven't looked at the formula too closely, and I don't recall a constant spell-fail chance for reduction spells. Is there a chance that you're basing these off a private server or another version of entirely rather than the  Jagex produced that closed down?
 * The other thing I wanted to discuss was to be careful about changing links to proper nouns like with the fishing bait page. MediaWiki is caps-sensitive in that Fishing_Bait and Fishing_bait are two different pages. As a result, some of the links you changed no longer direct to their intended page anymore.
 * Consistency with characters and items in was very hit-or-miss, and the spelling wasn't perfect either. As a result, you'll find pages on the wiki where items are spelled "Like_This" and "Like_this". The wiki intended to create page names based on exactly how they were, mistakes and all, and then create links & discussion in easier to read format, not treating them as proper nouns unless it is a place or character's name.
 * For example, the Fishing Rod is a specific item in the game and it is capitalized like that, but we wouldn't actually write it with caps in a sentence. Instead, we would link to the page but change the display text: fishing rod Now, looking at fishing bait, I can see that a previous editor simply used links like fishing rod which rely on page redirects in order to work. Ideally, I'd like to rid the wiki of relying on page redirects in articles (except for monster drop lists and similar auto-tables), so using fishing rod would generally be appropriate use. Even I've made some link inconsistencies, but I think I've developed an editing style to help avoid the reliance of page redirects going forward. Of course, having the redirects themselves isn't bad because, again, MediaWiki is caps-sensitive, so a reader typing fire rune should be redirected to the proper page Fire-Rune.
 * Now, I didn't want to discourage your editing, so I haven't actually made any changes yet to anything you've already changed without chatting first. It's nice to have you helping to improve the wiki. I also replied to your message about fishing bait.
 * &#151;Random User123 (talk) 19:39, April 8, 2020 (UTC)
 * I find that this wiki has difficult to use 'features'. When I changed the links in the page, I was intending to uppercase links as a display thing rather than a link change, as keywords really don't have to align up and should instead make sense in the article (caps and all). So I think I made a mistake there.
 * The max hit formula displayed wasn't from the official runescape game, as it has never truely been leaked. In fact, everything any server ever relies on is guesstimates and approximations. The formula displayed uses a not as common floating point approximation to account for a not working formula in the first place. The formula is going to inevitably be like this in C:
 * (unsigned int) ((bonus + style + pot_levels) * ((weapon_str * 0.00175f) + 0.1))
 * Because the result is cast to an int, the formula is very much less accurate and causes damages to come a level late or early. So that 1.05 constant was added to it. In fact only 0.05 would be added to it, but for some reason the fact that the numbers are ceiling'd didn't come into play, and a 1 is always added. It was probably thought of to be that way because nobody could really dispute it, as I doubt anybody graphed max hits from 1-99 with all weapons and different variations of meleepower. Anyways, I dumped entire lists of expected max hits and I have never been wrong on my end.
 * One last thing to note about the formula is the prayer and pots were added together as if the pots had to be enabled to prayer. If the formula was used with only a pot enabled, then your strength level would of been 5%-15% of what it was. The way pots work as outlined in each respective potion page, the potions add a base level that isn't modified by the percent increase drinking the pot gives as well as prayers have no effect on the strength level outcome based on pots. So the multiplier is applied to the strength level before the constants. Finally the weaponpower is taken into consideration. --PoliteKiwi (talk) 03:39, April 9, 2020 (UTC)
 * One thing I forgot to mention is the hit accuracy % thing found on Confuse. Without a constant % chance to miss, you will always be hit vs a 99, but it has been approximated down. A level 99 att with all the buffs in the world can hit someone with 1 defense only 82.xx% of the time.
 * You seem to be hard at work at templates. What are templates? How to use them? --PoliteKiwi (talk) 07:45, April 10, 2020 (UTC)
 * You may find using the Source Editor rather than the Visual or Rich-text editors easier and more precise in getting the result that you want. Next to the Edit buttons, click the drop-down arrow and choose Classic editor, which appends the page URI with ?action=edit as opposed to ?veaction=edit You can also go into the Editing tab of Special:Preferences and set Source Editor as your preferred, if you're so inclined. It's what I do.
 * I took a look at your Max Hit formula and compared it to the old formula in a handful of scenarios, and the results where Strength level & Weapon power are increased progressively were very similar only off by 1 level about 5 times all the way 1-99, and it was always the old formula that was higher.
 * It's when the Weapon power is constant and only the Strength level is variable did your new formula give a higher Max Hit, and it was higher +1 over 50% of the time, sometimes even +2 in the first 11 levels. It isn't until beyond level 50 when the old formula catches up and only at lvls 95 & 98 Strength did the old formula have a higher max hit then yours.
 * Both formulas do give Max Hit 35 as the highest possible stats, bonuses, etc., as stated at the bottom of the article, although it doesn't mention also using best pray & pot in aggressive stance to reach it (I'll end up adding that later on).
 * I'm reasonably certain that based on the old formula, it always rounded down, which is what I did with it in my tests. That's how potions are rounded, so it made sense. It also didn't list the multipliers if not using a potion or prayer, which the table should have had included "No str potion = 1; No prayer = 0". When you said, "then your strength level would of been 5%-15% of what it was," it seemed like you accounted the old formula to use a 0 multiplier for no str potion rather than 1.
 * What interests me is that your formula seems a bit backwards and overly complex for Jagex circa 2001-2003 in that the PotionConstant is applied after its Multiplier and you still had to account for being >0 by adding +1 at the beginning. The combat level looks simpler in comparison.
 * What I'm getting at is that I'm not too sure the formula you provided is more accurate to how it was in . Like you said, the best we can do now is an approximation because we can't even play the genuine to collect data or test formulas. When you said, "dumped entire lists of expected max hits and I have never been wrong on my end," what are you basing the formula's accuracy on?
 * Similar with the Confuse spell. I know all Magic spells have a chance to fail, even at max level and combat bonus, but 17% seems pretty high for a level 3 spell. And it should have a range based on magic level & bonus. As you mentioned with maxed Attack and WeaponAim vs. level 1 Defense, 82% seems low to what I recall experiencing. If you have any other sources or data, I'm interested in checking it out. Taking any such accurate info and applying it to all applicable articles would sure be interesting additions.
 * Templates are basically variables used in wikitext. They can be as simple as rs to say or more complex like .... You've probably seen me make some small adjustments to navigational templates lately since I've moved some pages and files around. I'm also working on expanding the monster infobox, but there's a lot I'm considering and trying out first. You can find a directory of templates here and a help page here.
 * &#151;Random User123 (talk) 01:39, April 11, 2020 (UTC)
 * When I was talking about % to hit, I was taking a known approximation of hit chance with melee, and applying that -5% attack to someone who has much higher attack to a pure (no defense) is pointless. It is pointless because there is an 82% max chance to hit someone.
 * I don't think that the formula is overly complex for Jagex. The multipliers on the page was wrong, as there is a constant level added due to potions, but arent affected by prayers and vise versa. It is additive rather than multiplicative, which is good because higher levels can get crazy buffed, as I bet you could hit 40's or more.
 * Do you have a reproducible test case I can evaluate? The formula I gave was tested against the real game back when it was still up and I held it dear. Here is a link to my formula in action, its in Lua https://pastebin.com/eUkHLRLP
 * --PoliteKiwi (talk) 09:23, April 11, 2020 (UTC)

Apologies for the previous username
But the question was sincere! I'm sure they would've welcomed you with open arms over there, so I was simply curious! -Usernameaside (talk) 19:24, May 2, 2020 (UTC)
 * There are a few different ways that I could respond to this, but I believe it's best not to turn this into a long essay or conversation. To keep it brief, creative differences keep me from joining you over there. I respectfully request that people involved there leave me be and forget that RS-related Fandom exists. &#151;Random User123 (talk) 20:47, May 2, 2020 (UTC)
 * creative differences?
 * bump

RE: Stats
Yes That is correct my ingame anme back then and currently in RS3 is LilyKorian.

Thank you
Hey! I’ve noticed you’ve been making a lot of edits to this wiki recently and I wanted to thank you. I became a bureaucrat on this wiki a very long time ago and, like you, I made it my pet project to try to bring it up to a higher standard. I’m glad to see that there are still passionate editors for this game who are volunteering their time to make sure all available information is properly archived and easily accessible.

I wanted to get in touch with you about your recent edits. As I understand it, someone has already contacted you about the official RSC Wiki and you stated that you had creative differences that give you pause to join the community. If you have the time, I’d really like to hear what these differences are. I’m sure any problems between our communities can be easily resolved and we can use our combined efforts to help the RSC community in the best way possible.

If you’d allow me to, let me please tell you several reasons why we moved from Fandom to our own website, because I think it will illustrate what can be accomplished when a fansite is operated solely by its editors and without profit in mind. Our community is full of veteran ex-Fandom editors so we understand how to keep the advantages of Fandom while fixing all the drawbacks.

Let’s first talk about the visitor experience. Most visitors to Fandom are unregistered users and thus what they see is vastly different from that of registered users. They are bombarded with obtrusive, irrelevant, and often resource-intensive ads. When you load a page, in addition to four Google AdSense ads, half of that page is 20 ads for other fandom wikis, which the average user doesn’t care about when they’re simply looking for information. Our wiki does not, and will not, run ads because Jagex currently covers our operating costs.

In addition, unregistered users cannot efficiently search for articles. Even when searching using the correct name, using the search bar as an unregistered user will automatically take users to a page of results rather than immediately to the article they want. This was a common gripe among users regarding Fandom and is something that we have turned off on our wiki. People can now get the content they are looking for faster.

The mobile experience is another feature that we have improved since forking. Without the resource-intensive ads, the site is faster, smoother, and generally easier on the eyes. With a growing number of mobile users, this is an important difference between our two wikis that will only widen as we further improve the experience.

Moreover, Fandom rarely has the best interests of their individual wikis at heart. I can tell you from experience that when they see a profitable wiki, they impose their will on it without the consent of editors, solely to maximize revenue. They make your wiki a guinea pig for any proposed changes, they add autoplaying videos to the headers of pages, and you constantly live under the specter of future changes to the style sheet so that more ads can be sandwiched in. One notorious example was when they converted every plaintext instance of the word “dragon” to link to an entry on the Mythology wiki, which is completely irrelevant to RuneScape. When we asked to have this functionality removed, since it was misleading visitors, they refused to change it. They knew it had a harmful effect on our wiki but they kept it simply because it was better for Fandom’s metrics.

Additionally, Fandom hasn’t updated their Mediawiki since 2012, as they are still running on a modified version of 1.19. Because we continually update our Mediawiki, we can take advantage of several great new features previously unavailable to us. One such example is interactive maps for NPCs, monsters, and item spawns that we have almost finished rolling out. Furthermore, we don’t require javascript edits to go through an approval process, which allows us to quickly test and add new gadgets and features with much greater ease. We’re currently in the process of adding a “night mode” to the RSC Wiki for better readability, and have plans for other useful gadgets as well.

Finally, we have a strong community of very capable editors and professionals. Some of the admins across our sister wikis are programmers or graphic design professionals and are always able to offer a helping hand when you need help with a task. I think being part of a helpful and caring community is one of our greatest draws and I have found that someone is always able to help me with any editing task I have.

I invite you to check out our wiki and see the improvements we have already made. You can contact me on Discord (Nex Undique#8877) or on whatever medium is easiest for you. I think that with your passion and our infrastructure, we can make a great experience for our visitors. Thank you for your time! 03:13, July 2, 2020 (UTC)

merryc christmas!
-your friend Yorbo

happy new year
-your friend, Yorbo