Wikia

Forums: Yew Grove > Indirect skill requirements for quests

This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 10 August 2012 by Thebrains222.

Joel and I have decided that having total skill requirements for quests in quest chains (e.g. Do No Evil, which requires many quests to be completed) listed in the master quest would be useful. However, this way is not the best because it introduces lots of visual clutter.

I would add that this change makes it consistent with the way the quest requirement chain is shown, at great length.

What would be the best way to go about this, without making it unnecessarily long for quests like While Guthix Sleeps and Ritual of the Mahjarrat? edit: I would like to make it clear that this will not affect how a quest's explicit skill requirements are displayed, only the skills required by its required quests. Those would be shown in a separate section.

Proposal 1 Edit

Have a stats table, like the one shown at the right of this proposal. It will be after the list of a quest's explicit skill requirements and list all the implicit skill requirements in a compact format.

This example table lists the indirect skill requirements of the quest Do No Evil as in revision 5618971.

Proposal 2 Edit

Have the list of (indirect) Skillreqs hidden by a toggle.

Skills required by quest requirements: [show]

35 Slayer (From required quest Smoking Kills)

etc.

Proposal 3 Edit

Have a table (from proposal 1) hidden by a toggle.

Discussion Edit

Let's do this. I don't care which way it's done, so long as it's done in a way that reaches consensus. a proofreader ▸ 19:02, May 16, 2012 (UTC)

Comment - Seems somewhat unnecessary to me considering that someone that meets the quest requirements will meet those stat requirements anyways. I won't oppose though, because I don't see how they could harm anything, and if other people find them useful, why not. bad_fetus^talk 19:51, May 16, 2012 (UTC)

The use would be if someone wants to do a quest like Ritual of the Mahjarrat and wants to see, at a glance, what he or she would ultimately need for all the quests. Like the quest requirements of a quest, I see this as a planning tool. a proofreader ▸ 19:53, May 16, 2012 (UTC)

Support Proposal 2 - The table is way too messy as there's always going to be a lot of blank boxes, and for quests with very low or no skill requirements it would look very poor. Proposal 2 is nice. Ronan^Talk 19:55, May 16, 2012 (UTC)

Support Proposal 2 - I do agree that it is somewhat unnecessary, but I also see the benefit to people that want to plan ahead I guess. Proposal 1 - no, because it would take up space for people who don't want it, proposal 2 is the best, as I don't like the blank boxes, they look messy, as said above ^. Star^Talk 20:52, May 16, 2012 (UTC)

Support 2 - Curiously this came up in Special:Chat not so long ago. I wasn't particularly sure about how useful it would be, but if others think its a good idea I'm willing to go along with it. RotM was what was suggested then due to it requiring almost every quest in the game. Just as a 'covering-all-bases' note, any skill that is required in 2 quests then the higher skill level should be used. Cåm 23:37, May 16, 2012 (UTC)

Support 2 - As long as any skill that is required by both the quest in question and one of the prerequisite quests is not listed in this section (unless for some reason a prerequisite has a higher skill requirement than the quest in question). --King Liquidhelium^Talk 23:50, May 16, 2012 (UTC) Changed way down below.

Indeed; in that case, that would stay an explicit requirement of the encompassing quest. I know of no quest that has lower requirements in a skill than its prerequisite quests, but you never know with Jagex! (if you know of such a quest, reply to this comment) a proofreader ▸ 09:07, May 17, 2012 (UTC)

Weak support 2 - I'm still rather unconvinced that we need the quest req stats, as the reader would still have to complete those quests, and could clearly see the stats from there, but if we're going to show them, I'd rather they be hidden by default. I'll assume you intent to do this with a template in the same manner as the quest requirements? Hofmic Talk 00:30, May 17, 2012 (UTC)

I assumed they'd be within the quest starter box (I don't know it's correct name) with all the other relevant starting information. Cåm 01:03, May 17, 2012 (UTC)

Yes, they would be in the Walkthrough section, just below the quest requirements and explicit skill requirements. (also answering Cåm) a proofreader ▸ 09:07, May 17, 2012 (UTC)

Support Proposal 2 - Support as per Starieena1. If we already do it for quests, then it should be done for the skills. 05:09, May 17, 2012 (UTC)

That argument doesn't really work. Basically what you're saying is "If we use this system for quests, then we should use it for skills". The only problem is that we currently don't really have any other system for representing the quest requirements. It's not like we opt for a list of quests over a table, we don't have a table. We don't have a way to represent quests in the different way used to represent skills i.e. a table. As such, it isn't really a fair comparison. MattTalk 06:30, May 17, 2012 (UTC)

Use common sense - If a quest has just a few requirements, the obviously having a full table for it is unnecessary. But if you've got 13, count 'em, 13 requirements like Do No Evil, it just makes more sense to use a table. In this situation, the table blatantly takes up much less space. Besides, what's more readable? A text wall that fills most of your screen, of which a lot is redundant, or a small, tidy table to the side? Pretty much, if there's just a few requirements, then don't bother with a whole table, but if you have, for example, 13, the table literally takes up much less space and is way more readable, even if there are a few empty boxes. Go on a case by case basis, and use which ever works best for the specific article in question.

Oh, and there's no harm in making it toggle-able, but don't make it hidden by default. MattTalk 06:23, May 17, 2012 (UTC)

Eh? I disagree that the table is going to be easier to read in any case. Perhaps the list would be longer, but it's still easier to read than an ugly table tbh. Also, not hiding those skill requirements makes no sense since someone that meets the quest requirements meets those skill requirements anyways. That would merely serve to annoy the readers. bad_fetus^talk 09:28, May 17, 2012 (UTC)

For longer quests, an untoggled list would be needlessly sloppy. The whole point of toggling the lists are to make them aesthetically and ergonomically sound. Ronan^Talk 09:41, May 17, 2012 (UTC)

I'd strongly disagree, I'd rather all prerequisite quest skill requirements be hidden by default, as it would better separate which requirements are for the actual quest on hand and which are for the prerequisite quests. As well, the quest requirements can be very long for several quests (ROTM, for example, needs something in almost every skill). When the quests are short, hiding across all quests aids in consistency. Finally, the quest prerequisites themselves are hidden, why not hide the skills they need as well? (also in retrospective, I need to use the word "collapsed" instead of "hidden") Hofmic Talk 14:14, May 17, 2012 (UTC)

By "it" I meant the table, and I didn't think it was necessary to hide it because of how small was. But sure, it wouldn't hurt.

@Chess Really? What do you think would be easier to read? What do you think would be most inviting? This:

60 Strength {C

50 Agility {C

50 Ranged {C

70 Thieving {C

35 Cooking {C

45 Prayer {C

68 Crafting {C

50 Firemaking {C

70 Magic {C

35 woodcutting {C

35 Slayer {C

54 Construction {C

85 Combat {C

Or this: {C

{C

MattTalk 22:15, May 17, 2012 (UTC)

There would also be a link to the Quests that require those skills in option 2, which is another benefit from it that does not exist in option 1. Additionally, I think even in that case the table looks too messy - it's just pointlessly time-wasting trying to separate and identify the skills you need from a whole load of blank squares. Ronan^Talk 07:36, May 18, 2012 (UTC)

Definitely the list. Per what flay said. bad_fetus^talk 13:25, May 25, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - There is no need to show the requirements of required quests, as the quest are required, thus the required skills for the required quests are automatically required as well. As such, a quest article does not require the requirements of the quest requirements for that quest. One can simply look up the requirements for the quest requirements (and thus for the quest itself) by clicking on the quest in question in the table of quest requirements. Fsw e1 Lore project • Fun gallery
My quests • Cutscenes 09:26, May 17, 2012 (UTC)

Was there a point buried in there somewhere? Ronan^Talk 09:41, May 17, 2012 (UTC)

Yes; people are one click away from checking other skill reqs and there is no ~~requ~~ need for unnecessary clutter. And people know that a quest requirement includes the skills needed for that quest, it is up to them whether or not they wish to know them.

Fsw e1 Lore project • Fun gallery
My quests • Cutscenes

09:51, May 17, 2012 (UTC)

In the case of Ritual of the Mahjarrat it is more than one click away. We actually had someone come into the chat last week wanting to know what skills were required for that quest bacause there wasn't really an easy way to access that information. --

17:14, May 17, 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand your point, Fswe. For obvious reasons, Having the requirements for the prerequisite quests on the same page makes it easier.

Stelercus

22:27, May 17, 2012 (UTC)

If absolutely necessary, I'm fine with putting a table in, but I don't think there is need for it. For example, Ritual of the Mahjarrat has three skill requirements and many indirect ones. Now image someone has already completed the required quests or only wishes to know the skills required for Ritual of the Mahjarrat. They should be able to see the three requirements and not a huge list. And if they don't meet the quest requirements, then there is not much point in knowing the indirect skill requirements. If they see; "Oh yay, I've 77 Agility, but not WGS...", then they will do While Guthix Sleeps and look up its requirements on its page. If I'm clear.

Fsw e1 Lore project • Fun gallery
My quests • Cutscenes

06:03, May 19, 2012 (UTC)

The list will be automatically toggled, Fswe, so it will only be seen if the reader wants to see it. Ronan^Talk 07:54, May 19, 2012 (UTC)

Weak support 2 - The best way to go seems to be to adopt the system used by required quests, however, I'm not entirely sure of the usefulness of having the levels, since because of the quest requirements, you should already satisfy the requirements before attempting to begin the quest. 2 2 2 ^talk 09:29, May 17, 2012 (UTC)

Support either - I can see advantages and disadvantages to both the table and the list. Consensus appears to be in favor of option two, and I'm fine with that. Stelercus 22:27, May 17, 2012 (UTC)

Comment - Can't we have something like Template:Questreq, that the original skill reqs are shown, and if you click to open the others, you can see the "inherited" reqs too. I think that would be quite useful JOEYTJE50 TALK 18:08, May 18, 2012 (UTC)

Good idea, I'd support that. Ronan^Talk 18:40, May 18, 2012 (UTC)

I think that would be too messy. You only want to see the highest lvl needed in each skill, not each skill for each prerequisite quest. It may be possible to use that coding as a foundation but a more direct copy isn't clear and concise enough. --

12:25, May 19, 2012 (UTC)

It'd be pointless to expand it fully, anyway. If quest A needs 30 Smithing and quest B requires quest A, but also needs 50 Smithing, we would only need to state the latter. You could say it's "overwritten". Hofmic Talk 20:34, May 19, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - It is a requirement of a quest with quest prerequisites that the player actually do those quest prerequisites. Once those prerequisites are completed, the "indirect" skill requirements become irrelevant, because they've already been satisfied. --Saftzie (talk) 09:59, May 23, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - Giving all the stats required from other quest neither negates the requirement to complete the other quests nor are they actually requirements for the given quest. As such they should not be included for the given quest. Five minutes with paper and pencil will give you all the level requirements for any grandmaster quests if you need such information. Remember there are people that will ask the most simple things in clan channel just because they don't want to be bothered doing the leg work. We should not clutter a particular article with information that is only indirectly relevant at best to that article just to appease those not willing to do the research. Darrik Ash ^HS _AL 22:42, May 23, 2012 (UTC)

5 minutes that we could easily save numerous people numerous times. I understand where you're coming from. I can think of multiple times I've been apprehensive to replacing policies and such with more summarised, straight to the point versions because "If they're too lazy to read the text wall, then it's their problem". But the reality is, no, people aren't going to read a massive text wall policy, and if you make it simpler and more straight to the point, then the point will get across to more people. People aren't going to fish through 10+ pages in order to find the ultimate requirements, and if you provide it all on one page, the page where they would first think of going to to find such information (the quest page), then you won't have so many people in the clan innocently asking for help. If we applied your logic across the wiki, then it would be so much harder to find information and to navigate pages. It isn't just about providing a massive repository of information. It's also about laying out and formatting that information in a clean, informative, logical way. Generally speaking, if people can't find the information they want on the wiki, the problem isn't that they're lazy. It's that we haven't made it easy enough for them to find it. MattTalk 23:07, May 23, 2012 (UTC)

I'm trying to figure out if you’re arguing for or against what I said. I fail to see how keeping information in its proper place makes things harder to find or more confusing. It's when you start putting information where it doesn't belong that things get messed up. Will it make it easier for some to find? Yes, but it will also confuse and duplicate work of others. And yes people will fish through 10+ pages if they want to complete the quest because they are going to have to fish through those same 10+ pages to actually do the quests, unless you’re suggesting that we combine quests pages into some massive guide for quest chains. The final quest in a series is not suppose to be the quest chain breakdown, it's suppose to be about the final quest. So if you want to put the indirectly required skills, why not the indirectly required materials as well. If people want to know what the max skills needed for questing are they can go to the Quest page and get that information.

Actually the more I think about it, this type of information should be in the quest series page and not the final quest page. Things like total skills and all materials required to complete the series would be a perfect fit into these pages. As each quest is/should be linked back to its quest series page if someone wanted to find the information they could go there. This way the quest page isn't cluttered up with information that doesn't pertain to the quest in particular. Just my humble opinion.

Darrik Ash

^HS _AL

20:41, May 25, 2012 (UTC)

Having a total items section in the quest line's article would be a neat idea. a proofreader ▸ 20:54, May 25, 2012 (UTC)

Technically, ROTM requires 8 quests, but ROTM shows even up to novice quests like Fishing Contest and the Bar Crawl. It's a convenience to the reader to tell him or her all of the quests that each of these entails, recursively. The present thread is to do the same for skill requirements. a proofreader ▸ 20:54, May 25, 2012 (UTC)

So... - What is the consensus here? Is it safe to go forward and add the indirect skill requirements? 06:21, June 4, 2012 (UTC)

Support adding the requirements to the quest series pages - I'll volunteer to do it, if no one else wants to. Celanil 06:24, June 4, 2012 (UTC)

Wait until the forum is closed before carrying out any resulting action. Consensus may change. Cåm 11:11, June 4, 2012 (UTC)

Consensus can't change until it has been determined in the first place. Obviously I'm not doing anything yet, just offering for later. Celanil 17:03, June 4, 2012 (UTC)

Support Proposal 1 - I believe this way is more organised and should be put where the current skill reqs are. --Caek iz ossum ^talk ^{om nom} 23:59, June 9, 2012 (UTC)

Comment - There was this thingy that fergie had suggested before, about a tab that she saw on a different wiki. She was going to make a yew grove on putting it in for article images that have two picutres, such as Ali the wise. Not sure where that went. But the point is, you could do that, so keep the article, and you can click on the tab to see the indirect stuff Cire04 ^Talk 01:29, June 13, 2012 (UTC)

That was for infoboxes, but is essentially the same as a collapsible section. Cåm 08:21, June 13, 2012 (UTC)

Comment - Some requirements can be boosted, some can't. Some quests will have multiple requirements in a single skill, some of which can be boosted, some can't. How will this be shown (especially in the table) --82.13.229.35 17:05, June 24, 2012 (UTC)

That's a good point; I didn't even think of needing to show boostable and unboostable skills. a proofreader ▸ 01:15, June 26, 2012 (UTC)

Changed to oppose - After someone brought up the possibility of levels being boosted I've decided that this is just too complicated. If Quest A has prerequisite quests B and C, where B requires 60 fishing nonboostable while C requires 61 fishing boostable, what do we do? C's fishing requirement is effectively 56 with the +5 admiral pie boost, but we can't put 61 with a * for boostable like we do on the Quest cape page because you still need 60 for quest B.

Furthermore, this could confuse users who may have completed requisite quests with a boost but get confused by the level requirement appearing. I think it'll just be too complicated to actually implement. --King Liquidhelium^Talk 19:43, July 4, 2012 (UTC)

Since when is Quest a proper noun? :3 JOEYTJE50 TALK 10:00, July 5, 2012 (UTC)

My mate Jimmy Quest would be offended by that. --86.16.72.219 11:50, July 7, 2012 (UTC)

Changed to oppose - After reading Liquidhelium's switch-post, I'm now opposing this. 02:29, July 19, 2012 (UTC)

{{RfC|No discussion has taken place for 14 days.}} a proofreader ▸ 03:14, August 3, 2012 (UTC)

Closed - There is no consensus to implement indirect skill requirements to quest articles. 2 2 2 ^talk 11:30, August 10, 2012 (UTC)

Total level: 632
----	----	----
60	50	----
----	----	----
50	70	35
45	68	50
70	----	35
----	35	----
64	----	----
----		----
85	----	----

Total level: 632
----	----	----
60	50	----
----	----	----
50	70	35
45	68	50
70	----	35
----	35	----
64	----	----
----		----
85	----	----

Wikia

Indirect skill requirements for quests

Forum page

Contents

Proposal 1 Edit

Proposal 2 Edit

Proposal 3 Edit

Discussion Edit

Files

Recent Activity