Template talk:Infobox Rune
Why not to put Damage Formulas on runes? This can go on spells/melee/distance pages...
I'm not sure what you are asking.
Should the damage a rune causes be on the rune page? The damage of runes is completely dependant upon the character's level and magic level, so it would be incorrect to list the damages on the rune pages.
Should the formula to find the rune damage be on the rune page? The formula for each rune is different. Furthermore, they are purely based on observations of damage, so they are inherantly innaccurate. It would be counter-productive to write-out the formulas on multiple pages. There is already difficulty making the Template:Calculator accurate and up-to-date. I think it would not be helpful to list the formulas here.
Since you have brought up the idea, I do think it would be helpful to give the general basis for the damage calculator, but it doesn't belong here. I will put it on the Formula page.
If I have misunderstood what you are asking, please clarify here. Thanks!
-- Whitelaces † Talk † χρισtoς αnεσtη, αληθως αnεσtη -- 10:52, 16 October 2006 (PDT)
Since the UseLvl is always the same as the MakeLvl, wouldn't it better to just have one? since the values would be the same... Doesn't make much difference, not that important I suppose.
Sixorish
My contributions
Talk page 16:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Updating the Template
I'd like to suggest an update of the current template, because of the new update.
Please take a look at User:Temahk/Templates#Runes for more information.
- Temahk 16:19, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Using Animate Dead for example. The number of charges at the top will not be needed as they will no longer be charges. The price part needs updating also because of the stacking. Do we still leave the prices as would be sold per backpack for a while? Or do we remove/replace that by the price per single rune/stack of 100? Beejay 16:24, June 30, 2010 (UTC)
- I forgot to mention about the changes to weight also. I tried to update this which you can see on User:Beejay/Test, but being not so good at coding I can't see the problem for why the weight will not line up with the rest of the template. I almost had it but by previewing it with a rune it didn't stay aligned. If anyone else can fix it then please do! Beejay 18:32, June 30, 2010 (UTC)
I'll take a look at it tomorrow, if I have more time then. ^^ Bennie (talk ~ fellows) ^^ 19:25, June 30, 2010 (UTC)
The template needs to be updated
With this summer update, this template its outdated. The Weight its now different for every rune and the runes dont have charges anymore.Sez The Withe 21:45, June 30, 2010 (UTC)
Charges are still needed, so maybe the way they are shown on the page should be changed, but we should leave the parameter as charges, also, the backpack price should be removed, and the prices of all runes have to be updated as the the new price is for only 1 "charge".
- -- ¬¬ Lord Galarzaa ¬¬ * Talk * ¤ Contributions ¤ *** 02:41, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
I disagree about leaving it as charges, as that is not what they are called anymore. We could change it to amount which is what it has been replaced with on tibia.com. Feel free to try and "fix" User:Beejay/Test, Bennie has lowered the protection level of this page so you should be able to update it. Unfortunately, I gave it a go yet it didn't go as I wanted :p - as weight is not lined up. Beejay 07:57, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
I meant leaving the variable as charges, but showing it as something else on the page.
- -- ¬¬ Lord Galarzaa ¬¬ * Talk * ¤ Contributions ¤ *** 03:28, July 2, 2010 (UTC)
Updated Template
I just did an small update of the template, just so we can start editing rune's articles, I didn't change any variable, I just added the variable weight.
- ¬¬ Lord Galarzaa ¬¬ * Talk * ¤ Contributions ¤ *** 03:48, July 2, 2010 (UTC)
I just updated the Sudden Death rune.
- ¬¬ Lord Galarzaa ¬¬ * Talk * ¤ Contributions ¤ *** 03:56, July 2, 2010 (UTC)
Thank you! Sorry, I was rather tired when I read your message about charges, seem to have missed the part you said about changing "charges" to something else. I have just added the price per backpack (of the single charges) and also replaced "charges" by "amount" as shown on tibia.com. If you think its ok then, I guess we can start on updating everything again. Beejay 10:47, July 2, 2010 (UTC)
change price per backpack
Sorry for the last edit, I think we now need to display npc and player rune cost, maybe use 2 type of runecost, one for npc(runecost) and one for player(runecost2).
In the past the price per backpack was used because it was common to trade bps of runes, maybe we should use something different now like price per 100 runes, or calculate the price like this for player runes cost: (Amount x 20 x runecost2)gp per (Amount x 20) runes. Avalanche runecost would be 45 and runecost2 37.5 for example).
--Daniel Letalis 23:02, July 2, 2010 (UTC)
I thought about price of 100 runes, but it is kind of simple to times a single runes price by 100, although it won't be so often that runes get sold as backpacks now. About calculating the player price for runes, it isn't a bad idea. I do think this and the rune pages should be updated soon, so anything that can add more value to the pages should be done! Beejay 23:14, July 2, 2010 (UTC)
Spell + Item or Rune?
I think for compatibility with all our other templates, this should be disused in favor of two articles, one for spell and one for item.
- Avalanche Rune - item
- Avalanche Rune (Spell) - spell to make item
Much as how we have Enchanted Spear and Enchant Spear or Enchanted Staff and Enchant Staff.
My reason is: the new trade system will make this harder to maintain because this template is essentially the combination of a spell and an item, we need to include most information that is already on Template:Infobox Item and Template:Infobox Spell. If we adjust one, this template usually also needs to be changed. Not only that, but every template that depends on the variables in templates (such as list templates) also need to be adapted every time. I think it is better to split articles than keep it as it is.
Any objections? I made 2 sample pages: User:Sixorish/ava and User:Sixorish/avaspell. -- Sixorish (talk) 19:31, July 7, 2012 (UTC)
- That's definitely a much better idea, fully condone
Craggles ಠ_ಠ Talk ∙ Contribs 09:31, July 8, 2012 (UTC)
Since there've been no objections I will begin by checking all the list templates to ensure nothing gets broken in the conversion, then I will proceed with the article creation / spell conversion. -- Sixorish (talk) 05:24, July 15, 2012 (UTC)
- We definitely need an obvious "for |RUNE| Spell, See Page:" Quite big, near the rune name and visa versa.
If I am on the page Avalanche I see an outdated buyfrom list, with no link to the "new" page Avalanche Rune (which has a more up-to-date trade list). What about the parameter "buyrunesfrom" on the infobox rune pages? Should it be filled in with data for the newtradesystem or not? -- Bennie (talk ~ fellows) 19:20, October 27, 2012 (UTC)
This template is now history. Only used by Envenom (Rune), which is deprecated. -- Bennie (talk ~ fellows) 19:41, November 5, 2012 (UTC)