Forum:Let's document the PVP side of OSRS

From Old School RuneScape Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Redwood Grove > Let's document the PVP side of OSRS
Replacement filing cabinet.svg
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 14 March 2021 by Spineweilder.


Currently, there is fairly little information on this wiki regarding anything to do with player-versus-player content, speaking from the aggressor's perspective. Basically all we have is the Combat pure article, and almost every pvp term you can come up with redirects there currently. Mauler, Hybrid, Tribrid, Berserk pure, Str pure, etc. Few exceptions exist currently, such as the Defence Pure, One-defence pure and Obsidian tank, but just looking at the categorisation of those articles makes you see right away how much attention this side of the game has had on the wiki. The one category they share is "Culture", which is hardly the best way to describe those three pages in one word.

Recently though, someone created a couple of articles for several PVP pure builds, which sparked some discussion in Discord about what might be a good approach on PVP-related articles. I personally think there could be a lot of value in expanding our coverage of PVP-related information, by firstly splitting up Combat pure into a dozen or more articles, with each generally viable pure having its own article. I think a decent amount of these pures, and possibly some other common pures that might not be on that page as of now, could do with some actual information on how to build them, what to do to build them, etc.

For example, these articles could go in-depth on certain combat level cutoffs (e.g. having as high stats as possible while still being able to kill Black Chin skillers, or something lke that), certain strategies (did you know you can use a cannon at Fight Arena to avoid any hitpoints gained?), and navboxes might be useful to help people find a build that suits them (because to be honest, the way the combat pure page looks right now does not look to me like it might inspire people to explore potential build ideas). Also this probably helps some people get started with becoming active in PVP, which generally has a high barrier of entry to begin with.

Now these are all potential ideas what could be done with a possible expansion into PVP content on the wiki, but the main reason I'm making this thread right now is because I'm curious about what people think. Should we have individual pages about different pure builds? And how do we determine if a build deserves an article? (for example, a 98-defence "pure" probably doesn't, but would a 10-defence pure deserve an article, even if that strategy might be outdated with current knowledge about dps - or so I've heard? And do we want an article about gimmick builds such as Ronan/Gudi's Tactical Nuke?) Also, after creating articles about some of the more obvious builds people might know about (e.g. some of those I linked in my first paragraph), how do we expand this into a more complete picture of OSRS PVPing? And does anyone have a suggestion on how to get some PVP enthousiasts more involved with the wiki, adding information to pvp-related articles?

I'm curious what people think about this. Some time soon I'll probably make a first start on creating some articles about different builds, and splitting them off the Combat pute article (along with making infobox/navbox templates). Joeytje50 (talk) 18:51, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Current policy discussions

One question for the PvP project is what the naming scheme of pages should be. Some proposed options and my personal opinion about those proposals are:

  1. {DPS}-{KO} hybrid, with DPS being the main attack style and KO being the main style for the finishing blow.
    This is supposedly wholly irrelevant for clan PvPing, because "main" attack styles get switched around between different battles to surprise enemies.
  2. Follow the order that is apparently most common in at least one clan: Melee -> Magic -> Ranged; so the example with both Melee and Magic would be named Melee-Magic hybrid in this case.
    This order was the order as suggested by Pescao; different orders might be convention in different circles.
  3. Follow the top-to-bottom order in the stats list: Melee -> Ranged -> Magic.
    To me, as a PvP outsider, this seems like the easiest way to keep pages consistent while having some kind of objective basis for this order.
  4. Some combination of the above: pages about builds that have a clear DPS/KO difference between attack styles would get format 1, and builds that don't work like that would get format 3, for example.
    I feel like this would probably introduce a lot of room for arbitrary pagename orders, so I don't think this would be the best solution, but I guess it's a compromise in some sense.

For the free-to-play pages, the naming scheme that's being used currently is either "<Build name> (free-to-play)" for builds, or "Free-to-play <guide>". I think this is probably the clearest way to structure it, but of course comments are welcome.

Another matter of formalizing for the sake of clarity on build overviews is a single system for combat bracket names. The current system I'd suggest, based on some feedback in Discord, is:

  • Beginner: Combat levels up to 20; should be able to target level 3 players in most areas
  • Ultra-low: Combat levels between 20 and 40; these builds generally take little time to create, and make use of low-tier weapons and armour. This is typically the lowest tier of PvP build intended to be used in 1v1 fights.
  • Low: Levels between 40 and 70; in this bracket, some combat stats can be expected to be level 99. This bracket includes builds like maxed strength pures and highly trained 1 defence pures.
  • Medium: Levels between 70 and 100; for these builds, several stats are maxed out, with other stats deliberately kept low. Typically this is the highest tier specific account builds will excel at, before stepping into the maxed combat territory.
  • High: Combat levels between 100 and 120; typically these combat brackets are more focused on all combat stats, possibly with some stats kept slightly lower. This bracket is typically not reachable or viable with multiple stats that are kept significantly low.
  • Main: Combat levels above 120; these combat ranges require almost every skill to be 99, with some possible exceptions for a few skills such as Prayer.

If anyone was looking for a "support" or "oppose" to give, now is your time ;) Joeytje50 (talk) 06:12, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

I've made a start by creating Module:Infobox Pure and adding the infobox to Obsidian tank as a kind of sample article. I've also added it to Skill pure as an example of a non-combat related pure (in case more of those articles will be made). Any opinions? Is there anything that should be added/improved about the infobox? Joeytje50 (talk) 23:16, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

This is awesome - A really nice example of a PVP article I only just noticed (I just hadn't clicked on all of the links at the bottom of Combat pure yet) is Free-to-play combat pure guide. I think if we can somehow get the same amount of information about p2p PVP builds, we'd be able to expand to a much more complete coverage of different build types. I think this is what the Combat pure page should look like, preferably. Right now I feel like three quarters of all builds described on Combat pure are out of date with the current meta; I just don't know enough about pvp to be sure. Joeytje50 (talk) 11:46, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Very nice - The Obsidian Tank page, whilst I'm sceptical about parts of it information wise, the formatting is very good and would look good if we were to create multiple pages in this styling. Only change I'd make would be to have "buttons=no" as I find it looks better without. The way I would suggest doing these pages would be the broad catagories. A 1 Def pure has one defence, and the page should cover just this, and the same for a Berserker only being on 45 Def builds. At the same time there would be pages for 50 attack "pures" (terminology sucks), 75 attack, 99 attack, ect. This way the pages can mix and match. This doesn't mean the Berserker page cannot mention the benefits of having certain attack values, just that we shouldn't be making "Max Attack Pure" and "50 Attack Zerker" page. - Luna Lana probaly mispelt this 14:09, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with your point about not splitting up pures too much. It has to remain broad enough for any individual article that different styles of that account build can be explored within the same article, without needing to go to a different article for the same build with 5 more attack levels.
Regarding the buttons=no, the reason I've been working on Items Kept on Death today is because I was planning on creating an IKOD interface that might be able to pop up whenever you click the IKOD button in those equipment interfaces. I think that, because those equipment layouts are intended for PvP, where death is a common occurrence, information on kept items on death would be useful, and I think that interface button would be the ideal way to integrate it.Joeytje50 (talk) 15:58, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Support - per Joeytje50. The Obsidian tank page is a good start. The wiki should begin by covering the current meta builds. After those are sufficiently covered, we should add some notable historical builds (ie. zerker). The pages should definitely standardize training methods, quest requirements and restrictions, combat levels, and possibly some combat strategies inherent to the build.I am confused as to why the infobox contains a build type field. Where would this be used and why do we need to specify if an account build is Ironman, DMM? Shoyrukon (talk) 17:20, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

My idea behind the build type is to be able to distinguish build types that specialise in wilderness PKing (like black chin killers), or specialise in pvp worlds (like POH rushers). I'm not 100% sure this is going to be relevant information on other articles, but the fact I was able to think of at least two types of PKer that's specific to a type of PvP combat convinced me to add this. Thanks for the question, though; apparently I forgot to actually add a row to the infobox for that parameter... heh...
Regarding Ironman status, there are some PvP builds I've seen on youtube that have 10 hitpoints, and are specifically made to have a very low combat for their damage capabilities. For those kinds of accounts, it's useful to get no xp from PKing by being an ironman, because that allows them to train only the stats they want to get. That's why I included that as an optional parameter, which probably won't see much use, but might be useful in a few situations.
Also, is zerker historical? I thought there were still zerkers around... Well I guess that just shows how little I know about the actual contents of PvP. I'm just trying to make this information I know nothing about available here lol
Anyway, agreed that we need to give the current meta builds an article for each build. Do you happen to have any ideas how we'd get actual information about what the current meta is? :P Joeytje50 (talk) 21:26, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Template ideas. I think we can improve on the pages like Obsidian tank by providing a few build examples for different combat brackets. It could be similar to how different variants of the same monster are displayed with a combat level select (see Skeleton for an example). Maxed stats should probably be displayed by default though. Also, the equipment template lacks a summary of the combat bonuses, which is crucial for calculation of the max hit and DPS. Not only that, but equipment switches should be included as well. PvP builds rarely depends on a single weapon and one set of armour, so it should be possible to display different setups of the same build with tabs. It would be even better if this was connected to the combat level select, so that the equipment changes as you choose a different combat level bracket. PureF2P (talk) 00:30, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Support+comments - this seems like a BB thing to me rather than something that needs explicit support, but I'm not against PVP build pages. I don't think it's a bad thing to have pages on historical builds as long as it's explained in prose that they are no longer commonly used. I'd say no to unique/meme builds because that comes across as against RS:PDA, especially if it's unreasonable to make such an account/set of accounts. I think if you want to determine what builds are used you'll need to recruit people who are actively invested in PVP to edit and keep them up to date. They would know more about the current brackets than most current editors. Andmcadams (talk) 15:09, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Clarification - My advice is to get in touch with pvpers (probably not on the wiki) and ask them what they would want on pages and what they would find useful. If we decide something here without substantial input from a variety of pvpers, I think there's a real chance we decide on formats that don't fit what most pvpers want or need. Perhaps show them some ideas and see what the reception is. Work with them to figure out the content, and then we can figure out how to best structure on the wiki if a forum is still needed. Realistically, if pvpers are not excited about those pages, I think they will end up neglected like the current Pure page. Andmcadams (talk) 16:04, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Regarding the BB comment: I'm aware of that, this thread was more intended as a way to gather ideas on how to approach this kind of project (which is also why I didn't sign the header with the typical '''support''' of a proposal thread).
I'm wondering what the best way to contact PvPers would be in order to get some feedback on the infrastructure. User:PureF2P has helped me a lot in giving me feedback about what he'd find useful for build-specific pages, as well as creating several f2p build pages already. However, I don't really know any pvpers personally, so I'm wondering what the best way to find someone knowledgeable enough about this is. Joeytje50 (talk) 17:40, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Have you tried looking for pvp discords? I would think streamers that do pvp content might have some pvpers in their discords. Or you could try tweeting at pvpers to gauge interest. If you don't know any you could try going on pvp worlds. There are probably plenty of people idling there you could ask. I think someone mentioned in Disc that they know some pvpers that would be potentially willing to help. Andmcadams (talk) 17:52, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Comment - Earlier today I had a voice call with @User:Pescao6 and @User:PureF2P, among some others (who don't have an account, I believe), and we discussed a few things about this project. I'll just write a summary of the conversation here, including a few of the more content-related (less policy/discussion-related) things that seem relevant to mention.

One of the important things we discussed was regarding the current state of PVP articles on the wiki. There are a lot of spread-around articles on the wiki, which will all need some kind of cleanup. To make the scope of the project a bit more overseeable, I'm going to create a project page with a clear overview of PVP-related pages that should be either created or revamped.

The general impression I got from Pescao, who is mainly a clanning PvPer, is that the multi-pvp side would mainly benefit from having strategy pages for different kinds of activities: wilderness fights, clan wars and soul wars would need a detailed strategy page, probably with several different aspects of clanning needing their own article. I got the impression individual builds and setups are significantly less important in clanning (you switch up loadouts regularly to surprise the opponents, so specific loadouts don't matter as much). So for the clanning side of PvP we'll probably mainly need strategy guides and pages related to how clans work, the clanning culture, and things like that.

Regarding the individual account builds, the formatting of account build names was brought up, regarding how we order the combat styles. For example, you could call a build "Melee-magic hybrid" or "Magic-melee hybrid", which would cover the same hybrid, but using it interchangeably would make the pagenames very inconsistent. So based on suggestions, there are a few possible naming conventions we could use:

  1. {DPS}-{KO} hybrid, with DPS being the main attack style and KO being the main style for the finishing blow.
    This is supposedly wholly irrelevant for clan PvPing, because "main" attack styles get switched around between different battles to surprise enemies.
  2. Follow the order Pescao claims is most common in his circles: Melee -> Magic -> Ranged; so the example with both Melee and Magic would be named Melee-Magic hybrid in this case.
    This order was the order as suggested by Pescao; different orders might be convention in different circles.
  3. Follow the top-to-bottom order in the stats list: Melee -> Ranged -> Magic.
    To me, as a PvP outsider, this seems like the easiest way to keep pages consistent while having some kind of objective basis for this order.
  4. Some combination of the above: pages about builds that have a clear DPS/KO difference between attack styles would get format 1, and builds that don't work like that would get format 3, for example.
    I feel like this would probably introduce a lot of room for arbitrary pagename orders, so I don't think this would be the best solution, but I guess it's a compromise in some sense.

So we'll have to decide which of these would work best for us. I'd like to hear opinions from some more people involved in PvP, so that we know what kind of conventions they use.

Of course if I mischaracterised something fundamental about the different sides of PvP here, I'd like to know. But just a small request in advance, let's keep discussions about the substance of PvP to the #osrs-pvp Discord channel ;) Joeytje50 (talk) 02:42, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

My takeaway is also that labels like "low", "mid" or "high" for build variants might be confusing, as they're relative for a specific build. There are established combat level brackets, especially for P2P PvP, which wouldn't give much room for naming the F2P builds - especially the lower level ones - as they would all fall into low or ultra low category. I think we should use combat brackets from now on, so for example "30-40" instead of an arbitrary label like "ultra low". PureF2P (talk) 08:14, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Combat level brackets. I think we should decide on fixed combat level bracket labels like "ultra low", "low", "mid" or "high", and use them throughout the specific build pages for labels. As of writing this, I'm using numeric combat level brackets as names of build variants. Since combat levels are displayed in the infoboxes anyway, it might not be the best approach after all. Using specific combat bracket names that are unified across all build pages might be helpful if you're looking for a build in specific PvP scene. However, we might need to add extra brackets to support low level builds that are generally not used for clanning - something like "beginner" (see low level magic pures). PureF2P (talk) 18:50, 23 January 2021 (UTC)


This request for closure is complete A user has requested closure for Let's document the PVP side of OSRS. Request complete. The reason given was: this seems to be greenlit and the project is currently underway. Any further discussion could be on the talk page of RuneScape:Player-vs-player.

ɳex undique 17:32, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Closure - Lack of discussion and project is already ongoing. -- Recent uploads SpineTalkContribs 01:00, 15 March 2021 (UTC)