Forum:Quest difficulty ratings - Multiple ratings

Forums: Yew Grove > Quest difficulty ratings - Multiple ratings

This page or section is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. This thread was archived on 29 January 2011 by Liquidhelium.

Note - This thread was moved from Forum:Quest difficulty ratings as it did not garner enough comments and I really don't want the ideas going to waste (not just mine, but all the previous proposals). I'd also like to request closure of the previous thread.

Let's start with some background; Liquid said above that he would be closing this thread soon, with Robert's proposal to be implemented. However, I didn't like the idea of the various aspects of a quest being condensed into one rating, so I objected, Cook also objected. For the record/to allow this thread to continue, I withdraw my objection.

Here is my compromise to my concerns, it is mainly based on a merger of Robert's proposal and the multiple difficulty ratings proposal. It will use an adapted framework for rating a quest as written [[User:Thebrains222/Projects/Sandbox2|here]] and is similar to the above proposal too.

Below is how it will look like (currently the averaged difficulty doesn't work... Someone fix it, please):

1st revision (changed below)
{{User:Thebrains222/Projects/Sandbox1 |start = [[Lumbridge]] Wilderness dungeon |members = Maybe |difficulty = Grandmaster |pre = 3 |combat = 0 |boss = 4.5 |puzzles = 1 |traps = 3 |others = 1 |length = Very short |requirements = * 99 [[Slayer]] |items = *[[Bukkit]] *[[Pie]] |kills = Angry [[cow]] (level 951) }}

222 ^talk 06:14, October 19, 2010 (UTC)

Discuss

Comment - As it says above, the averaged difficulty doesn't work, can this be fixed please. 222 ^talk 06:14, October 19, 2010 (UTC)

I fixed the calculation of the average difficulty. I also replaced some #ifeq's with one #switch to reduce size. JOEYTJE50TALK pull my finger 23:56, October 26, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Hmm... isn't this exactly what I just suggested about a page and a half up in the discussion? ^Talk Newbie856 ^{edit count} Nomad guide 02:22, October 21, 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind, I rechecked the fields and noticed they weren't the same... sorry if I may have sounded rude or something. ^Talk Newbie856 ^{edit count} Nomad guide 02:24, October 21, 2010 (UTC)

I fixed the overall rating so that it takes the average from all the other fields and puts it into a number usable for stars. I left that <noinclude> thing you put at the end which was probably the formula I had in my template pasted there, don't know if you need it, but it's still there. ^Talk Newbie856 ^{edit count} Nomad guide 22:04, October 21, 2010 (UTC)

Summary pl0x - Please make a summary of all suggestions and what is said on this page someone, as i don't want to read this 23,030 bytes(would be on #3 of Special:LongPages now) of suggestions and discussion just for one vote... JOEYTJE50TALK pull my finger 23:11, October 22, 2010 (UTC)

Essentially every other proposal is closed, the only active on is this one, and if it fails to pass, Robert's proposal will be used. 222 ^talk 03:10, October 23, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I suggest we put both my and Robert's proposal on a new forum, as this one is getting pretty long. Secondly, I don't see why Robert's proposal is better than mine, only that it got more supports because the discussion was dead at the time I suggested mine. (Not saying Robert's is bad though, it's his proposal which gave mine). Maybe not use the +1 things I put for a system, but atleast use the same difficulties for search for the average difficulty (use the same sub-group of difficulties, boss combat, skill xp, etc. instead of say, NPCs interacted with). The best proposal will probably come out with merging both, and with some tweaking after it is released. ^Talk Newbie856 ^{edit count} Nomad guide 14:53, October 23, 2010 (UTC)

We're almost done! Let's finish it here! User:C Teng/sig 01:56, October 24, 2010 (UTC)

Ye, let it be the longest yg thread in history!(or am i wrong?) JOEYTJE50TALK pull my finger 23:23, October 26, 2010 (UTC)

Hah, there's a loooooong way to go for that. Dig up a desysopping thread, or a thread about the RSMV. Even after archiving, those are at least twice as long. --Liquid^Talk 00:40, October 27, 2010 (UTC)

Two years? Really? User:C Teng/sig 02:36, October 27, 2010 (UTC)

Where did you get two years from? This doesn't even have the 32 kb page size warning when editing. I know that one of the RSMV threads got to over 100 kb. This is definitely shorter. --Liquid^Talk 23:37, October 27, 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see what you mean. By "longest", I meant longest-lasting, not highest number of pages. This discussion has lasted almost a year - has there been anything longer? User:C Teng/sig 00:27, October 28, 2010 (UTC)

Support this idea - We need something that gives more possibilities than just 5. This gives 15 possible difficulty ratings, which is good imo.(and btw, rofl@no requirements, killing cow and needing bukkit&pie, and being gmaster) JOEYTJE50TALK pull my finger 23:23, October 26, 2010 (UTC)

{{rfc}} 222 ^talk 23:22, October 30, 2010 (UTC)

Question I like the idea, but what are the parameters that 'other' falls into. Atlandy 15:44, November 10, 2010 (UTC)

See [[User:Thebrains222/Projects/Sandbox2|here]]. 222 ^talk 05:13, November 11, 2010 (UTC)

Conditionnal Support - Resources don't really fit in difficulties IMO. And anyway, players will see the list of items they need in the already-existent items required field. ^Talk Newbie856 ^{edit count} Nomad guide 22:11, November 10, 2010 (UTC)

I only added that after seeing it in Robert's proposal, I can easily remove it, which I will. 222 ^talk 05:09, November 11, 2010 (UTC)

Ye, resources shouldn't be included imo. JOEYTJE50TALK pull my finger 07:40, November 18, 2010 (UTC)

Support extended difficulty, not this group though -Killing a boss is combat, although sometiems they take various strategies, a strategy is still a subset of combat. So combat should stay, and the boss difficulty included in. I strongly dislike "traps" being separate from puzzles. If a trap isn't part of a puzzle, then it is pure agility. I also think a "preparation" (not sure if this is the best word) would not be out of place, it should include all the quests that must be done prior, and gathering the resources for this current quest.--Degenret01 15:20, November 18, 2010 (UTC)

What I differentiate between "puzzles" and "traps" are that puzzles are like the puzzles that pop up in a window which you have to solve and prevent you from continuing unless it is solved successfully, whilst traps have to be avoided and failure to do so causing you to get damaged. Examples being [[Icthlarin's_Little_Helper/Puzzle_solution|this puzzle]] and [[:File:Ilhtraps.png|this trap]]. 222 ^talk 04:40, November 20, 2010 (UTC)

Puzzles are anything that requires logic to solve, eg the lightbeams in MEP2 or the thing you suggested in ILH. Traps generally do form part of a puzzle, though. I'd dislike removing it though, there's no way that the scarab traps in Contact! are the same as, say, the trap doors in Icthlarin's Little Helper. User:Real Not Pure/Signature 08:49, December 2, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Oh, also, I forgot, prerequisites should be removed as well, all prerequisites are listed in the template, why make a sub-difficulty about it? ^Talk Newbie856 ^{edit count} Nomad guide 16:54, November 19, 2010 (UTC)

Because 5 Crafting is not as hard as 80 Strength. User:Real Not Pure/Signature 08:49, December 2, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but what I meant is people can read pretty easily the prerequisites and make out the difficulty themselves, so it should be removed (IMO). ^Talk Newbie856 ^{edit count} Nomad guide 02:48, December 3, 2010 (UTC)

Just because it's obvious, doesn't mean it should be removed. User:Real Not Pure/Signature 07:46, December 3, 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but we really seem to have different Point of Views on this, but for me, reading 80 magic & seeing 4 stars doesn't add more than seeing 80 magic. For now, I say we just leave it be until more people contribute to this and add more valid arguments (than mine, not saying yours aren't good, I personally just find mine... you know). ^Talk Newbie856 ^{edit count} Nomad guide 16:02, December 3, 2010 (UTC)

The 4 stars help people deciding if they will do the quest or not. It works better than only 80 mage, because it is clearer. Also, most quests don't only have one high level requirement, but multiple. Therefore making a summary of it by adding the levels subdifficulty, this makes it clearer. JOEYTJE50TALK pull my finger 12:25, December 7, 2010 (UTC)

I Completely disagree with that. Having prerequisite levels to read is much clearer than a vague difficulty rating, since it tells you exactly what is needed, and allows the reader to compare to their own stats. Therefore a difficulty rating on this is pretty useless. Besides, it will be pretty clear to any reader how difficult it would be to raise their levels, or how much training is required for them to reach those levels. Skills are not some unknown prerequisite that readers will not have experience with - they are the main aspect of the game.

Furthermore, the prerequisite levels have no bearing on the difficulty of the quest itself. Needing levels before starting the quest does not make the quest itself harder, and in fact it would adversely affect the overall difficulty stated for someone who already meets the level requirements. Most importantly, the process of getting the levels is completely separate for the process of doing the quest. Henneyj 15:38, December 7, 2010 (UTC)

"Having prerequisite levels to read is much clearer than a vague difficulty rating" I was actually talking about having both. You do have a good point at the 2nd part though. JOEYTJE50TALK pull my finger 16:06, December 7, 2010 (UTC)

Yea I did get that but I feel it's more a case of having a rating is just unnecessary since the levels give you the information needed. That said, for those who still disagree a 'prerequisite difficulty' rating separate from the wiki quest difficulty would be a healthy compromise (acting like a summary of the difficulty in getting the levels). Still think its unnecessary though. --Henneyj 17:38, December 7, 2010 (UTC)

I gotta agree with Henneyj, he put my thoughts into words. ^Talk Newbie856 ^{edit count} Nomad guide 22:59, December 7, 2010 (UTC)

A user has requested closure for Quest difficulty ratings - Multiple ratings. Request denied. The reason given was: Discussion has died See below

--中亚人/中亞人 (Chinasian/Jeffwang16) • 跟我谈话 02:07, November 24, 2010 (UTC)

There has been no discussion for 5 days, that doesn't mean no discussion, there is still plenty to discuss. 222 ^talk 05:25, November 24, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Do it, it's awesome. User:Real Not Pure/Signature 08:49, December 2, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Quick question, combat excludes bosses, right? ^Talk Newbie856 ^{edit count} Nomad guide 22:59, December 7, 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it says in the criteria guidelines. 222 ^talk 05:25, December 8, 2010 (UTC)

General Support - As per Henneyj: The idea is excellent, but I don't feel that the prerequisites should be included in the difficulty level of the quest itself. Aldra 14:36, December 9, 2010 (UTC)

Strong support great idea (STOP trying to close things jeff!!!)

Noobs are very tasty · Vector Skin!Edit this page

00:50, December 12, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Looks excellent! A big step forward in my opinion, far more informative and professional. I support this all the way. Rangedwhip 16:07, December 13, 2010 (UTC)

Remove traps They are just too narrow and specific of a type of challenge, and the majority of quests do not have any. A separate rating for something involved in 20-30 quests does not make sense. Whereas combat and puzzles happen in a majority of quests, they make sense.--Degenret01 16:03, December 18, 2010 (UTC) :This section has nothing to do with traps. It's to decide whether to include prerequisites.User:Real Not Pure/Signature 17:11, December 18, 2010 (UTC)

Prerequisites

Well, consensus seems to be pretty clear, almost everyone supports this idea. Only one issue remains: to put prerequisites or not to put prerequisites? Please put support if you want prerequisites to be shown and oppose if you wish for them to be removed. I think that after this issue is solved, we can proceed to implementation (assuming no new issue arises, of course). ^Talk Newbie856 ^{edit count} Nomad guide 22:03, December 13, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Already there in a clearer form and basically just screws up the 'wiki difficulty' rating.

Oppose - As per above, though I think you should clarify that this is only eliminating prerequisites from the difficulty calculation, not from the entire quest box. Aldra 00:42, December 14, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - I'd have to agree. 222 ^talk 05:22, December 14, 2010 (UTC)

Support - New players that don't know how difficult 80 Magic is, or how expensive 65 Herblore is, will look at the guides and think "Hmm, I'll get that level and do that quest". Plus, what about quest reqs? Requirements for WGS are easier harder than the ones for Defender of Varrock, although both have a long list of quests. User:Real Not Pure/Signature 17:11, December 18, 2010 (UTC)

But that doesn't make the quest itself any harder or easier to do. Sure, Getting 80 Magic or 65 Herblore is expensive and time consuming... but that's not part of doing the quest. Take Devious Minds for example: 50 RC is fairly time consuming to get, not to mention the Smithing requirements, but the quest itself is a walk in the park. Shouldn't the difficulty rating of the quest be based on the quest, not what you do before starting it? Aldra 17:45, December 18, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose the entire calculation - Seriously, we don't need some complicated algorithm to decide something out of five stars. Is there anything wrong with eyeballing it? ʞooɔ 20:05, December 18, 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there is. If we're not going to have some kind of formula to determine objectively what the rating is, we might as well leave them out altogether. Without a hard and fast algorithm, what will we do in the case of disputes? If I say Dragon Slayer is 2 stars and you say it's 3 stars, what do we do? It's too complicated to eyeball. --Liquid^Talk 20:37, December 18, 2010 (UTC)

How does this look like?

2nd revision
User:Newbie856/sandbox/Questtemplate

^Talk Newbie856 ^{edit count} Nomad guide 21:16, December 18, 2010 (UTC)

Is that really all a quest is? Combat, boss, puzzles and the suspiciously named "other"? Also, lets not start spamming infoboxes and have this thread become like the old one, half a dozen proposals with not enough consensus. Improving on this one is enough. 222 ^talk 23:25, December 18, 2010 (UTC)

I simply used your proposal and removed prerequisites and traps, that's all. I guess that isn't enough for explaining a quest, you are right. Any ideas on what we should add? ^Talk Newbie856 ^{edit count} Nomad guide 23:30, December 18, 2010 (UTC)

Slightly different revision
{{User:Thebrains222/Projects/Sandbox1 |start = [[Lumbridge]] Wilderness dungeon |members = Maybe |difficulty = Grandmaster |boss = 4.5 |othercombat = 0 |puzzles = 4 |location = 1 |others = 0 |length = Very short |requirements = * 99 [[Slayer]] |items = *[[Bukkit]] *[[Pie]] |kills = Angry [[cow]] (level 951) }}

Here, I've added a "Location" parameter which is useful in many quests and differentiates between quests like One Small Favour and Cook's Assistant. Traps and prerequisites were removed per consensus. 222 ^talk 00:08, December 19, 2010 (UTC)

Looks good, but I think that having "Combat" right next to "Bosses" is a bit confusing...could we put Combat underneath Boss Difficulty and rename it Other Combat, or something? User:Real Not Pure/Signature 00:36, December 19, 2010 (UTC)

Strong Oppose entire Concept - I can't help but disagree with the averaging of quest difficulties... Take nomads for example, the puzzles are quite simple, the location is in technically reached from edgeville, the combat versus other monsters is laughably easy... Yet, nomad himself provides a challenge beyond all challenges that makes the quest the hardest in the game... Likewise, Mournings End part 2 had very challenging puzzles and a bad location, but no combat. That doesn't make it any easier. The way I see it, the highest difficulty should be the difficulty. It doesn't matter if getting to that final boss was easy, if he pawns you every time, the quest ends up pretty hard... And in reverse, it doesn't matter if the boss was laughable and could be completely negated with prayer, if the puzzles leading up to him were lethal, difficult, and frustrating, the quest may end up very difficult, even if the combat was easy. I don't oppose individual ratings, just averaging them together. The break down is a great idea, but please use some other method of deciding on the overall difficulty, namely the max value. Hofmic Talk 06:43, December 22, 2010 (UTC)

Notice of intent - This will be closed soon unless more discussion occurs. --Liquid^Talk 03:52, January 7, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose any rating other than official - Any rating other official is opinion and will lead to conflicting ideas of what is an easy quest and what is a hard quest (some people thought the 2010 h'ween event puzzles was very hard, but others thought they were easy). Half the stuff on RuneScape:Quest complexity rating is not NPOV. I don't like any part of this proposal. Evil1888 ^{Talk A's L} 08:09, January 8, 2011 (UTC)

Evil, your comments really make it seem you haven't read this proposal properly. You can't have conflicting ideas when the rating is produced by a calculation based on raw hard numbers that don't allow any changes based on your own skills or levels. Also, my proposal does not use what is found on RuneScape:Quest complexity rating, reinforcing my thoughts that you have not read the proposal properly. 222 ^talk 09:37, January 8, 2011 (UTC)

I read it. Part of your sandbox (thought it was moved to RuneScape:Quest complexity rating and updated, so I'm wrong on that ) says "A simple chain of events is required to complete the quest.". What is 'simple'? 'Simple' is opinion based, not a fact. Facts can't really be argued if confirmed, but we could argue on what is 'simple'. Evil1888 ^{Talk A's L} 09:55, January 8, 2011 (UTC)

I think the example covers it all, and the puzzle section is the only part where I can notice anything NPOV. Will you be opposing it all solely because of that? 222 ^talk 10:10, January 8, 2011 (UTC)

That and the fact we are making up this rating system rather than using an official source. Evil1888 ^{Talk A's L} 14:29, January 8, 2011 (UTC)

So, technically, you agree that catapult construction and MEP2 are of same difficulty, since they are both stated master by an official source? That just doesn't make sense. People want to know how difficult a quest is and why it is that way. Currently, there is now metric to set quest difficulties, possibly causing debate over this. Additionally, MEP2 is all about the puzzles whereas Nomad's Requiem is all about the boss fight, people might want to know this before starting a quest. Someone might be great with puzzles and find they don't want to use the guide after all. The opposite is also true, someone might suck at combat and decide not to start Nomad's Requiem because they saw the hard rating and decided to read on Nomad instead of going through with it. Even though if this rating is made-up, most of Jagex's ratings are made-up as well, some quests don't deserve their rating if not for their requirements and some are underrated. This metric system could help solve a lot of misunderstandings and quickly and efficiently clarify the difficulty to all. ^Talk Newbie856 ^{edit count} Nomad guide 17:19, January 8, 2011 (UTC)

"So, technically, you agree that catapult construction and MEP2 are of same difficulty, since they are both stated master by an official source?" You're asking for my opinion, making the answer not NPOV. The Jagex rating might seem strange but it is official and irrefutable. As a wiki, we give facts not ratings. Any rating system we make up is not NPOV as it's our opinion on what deserves another star or not. Evil1888 ^{Talk A's L} 22:09, January 8, 2011 (UTC)

Ok, you're right, it's not a NPOV. But a opinion-ed POV is better than the JaGex rating. Not everything in life is neutral, and I think we can make an exception to the policy for this. Simply keeping the JaGex is just not enough for this wiki, people want the facts, not the official statements. Think about it: if you read on the BP oil spill on wikipedia (don't link me the policy... please), do you want to read on the official statement (hence BP's view) or see the larger picture ? ^Talk Newbie856 ^{edit count} Nomad guide 23:23, January 8, 2011 (UTC)

Closed - After rereading the entire thing (and the previous thread) there seems to be no agreement on whether or not we should even be rating the quests for difficulty. Because this effectively moots the previous discussion, neither Robbie H's proposal from the last thread or any of the proposals in this thread have achieved the necessary consensus to pass. Thus, this is closed as no consensus. --Liquid^Talk 03:17, January 29, 2011 (UTC)