Talk:Rune

From Guild Wars 2 Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Formatting[edit]

We are going to need some kind of big table to display the information here. Between all the information seen here, each rune has a lot of information, and that's just for one type of each rune (it's likely that the Rune of Balthazar, for example, will have a Minor variant, a Major variant and the Superior variant). I have no idea how to format that. Likewise, sigils and jewels will likely need a similar formatting. Does anyone have any idea of how we could format those tables? Erasculio 14:37, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Alright, how about this. We use collapsible tables so that each rune is only taking up as much space as it currently is. Then if someone is curious they can expand that rune and get the quick information they want about what the rune does. The second table is like the first, but it is an example of how we could format if the Runes really are going to have Minor, Major, and Superior versions.
I also thought we could group them in different sections/tables based on the primary effect of the runes. I looked down through a few and they all had the same effect for 1, 3, and 5 with things like +power, +condition dmg, +crit dmg. We could group all the runes that have primary power in a power section, all condition dmg in a condition dmg section, etc. Mattsta 05:33, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
I like how they have been organized now, though, the collapsible tables could be a great help since there is at least a minor and a superior of each rune, the Rune of the Monk being an example. So if we keep current organization but add the collapsible tables for each rune allowing for minor, major, and superior; that seems like a good idea to me.--Aernith 22:13, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Don't use collapsible tables for lists. They are ever so annoying. Aqua (T|C) 22:38, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
I really like Mattsta's second table (in which a single table lists the minor, major and superior versions of the same rune). It's a very clean and concise way of showing this information without taking too much space. Erasculio 02:16, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
I also like Mattsta's second table. However, i agree with Aqua's objection regarding the collapsible tables. It would be a real pain if you'd have to expand 50+ tables just to get a complete overview. If possible, a compromise might be to make each of the eight section expandable/collapsible with just one click.
Also (just to do some nitpicking): From this screenshot i take that ArenaNet uses "(1): effect" instead of "1) effect". Maybe we should use the same format. Furthermore, according to the information on this page it seems that minor runes do have only two tiers, and (maybe) major runes do have only four. This should be taken into account when designing the layout. --MRA 19:44, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree with the numbering statement; should be copied exactly from the game (as it is part of descriptions, which we also copy verbatim). - Infinite - talk 19:53, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
I went ahead and put all the bonuses in tables, keeping the sorting method by primary attribute. Being bold and all. Much better than the current list IMO, and if this isn't to the liking of the community we can always replace it, at least we have all the data on the page now. -- NilePenguin 14:45, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Pages for individual tiers?[edit]

I don't think we need pages for individual tiers of runes. Instead of having an article for "Minor Rune of the Monk" and another for "Major Rune of the Monk" and another for "Superior Rune of the Monk", IMO a single article about "Rune of the Monk" would be enough. A single table featuring Mattsta's table above would be most of the content of a rune article, anyway. Erasculio 13:06, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Isn't it a simple solution to just put all the different stats in the table in the following manner?
Rune Bonus (1) Bonus (2) Bonus (3) Bonus (4) Bonus (5) Bonus (6)
Rune of the Balefire +10/+15/+25 power +5%/+10%/15% burning duration --/+25/+50 power --/3%/5% chance to gain vigor for 10s when hit. (cooldown: 30s) --/--/+90 power --/--/5% chance to cause a fire nova when hit. (cooldown: 30s)
With the slashed numbers representing minor/major/superior runes, respectively? I made up most of the numbers in this example, but it does seem clean and clear to me, at least. -- NilePenguin 20:21, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Whilst I agree that it is a more compact and efficient way to display information, I can assure you that it is confusing to users who don't quite catch on as easily. In this case it is wiser to keep runes separated. - Infinite - talk 21:19, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
EDIT: I do believe minor runes only have (1) and (2) bonusses, majors only have (1), (2), (3), and (4) bonusses and superior runes have all 6. This might making the above concept that much more confusing. (Again, I still like the compactness of it, personally.) As for Eras' point, I do think a collective article on every type of rune is better for documentation. - Infinite - talk 21:23, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree with a collective article on every type of rune. If we want to add to the template, on my sandbox shows how we could have a section with itembox type boxes for each of the stats. I also agree with Infinite that it can be confusing having it with that compact setup (I was lost on the table until I read the note after the table). But if it is explained well about the slashes on the page and then have a clean setup like is on my sandbox on collective pages then I think it would work and not be very confusing. User Mattsta Sig1.jpgUser Mattsta Sig2.jpg 02:59, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Hmmm, I agree that it isn't as intuitive as it should be. What about this? It should be immediately clear without further explanation. Sacrifices a bit of compactness, but I think it's worth the effort to keep as much information available here as possible? Just riffing here.
Rune Rarity Bonus (1) Bonus (2) Bonus (3) Bonus (4) Bonus (5) Bonus (6)
Rune of the Balefire minor +10 power +5% burning duration
major +15 power +10% burning duration +25 power 3% chance to gain vigor for 10s when hit. (cooldown: 30s)
superior +25 power +15% burning duration +50 power 5% chance to gain vigor for 10s when hit. (cooldown: 30s) +90 power 5% chance to cause a fire nova when hit. (cooldown: 30s)
And I agree, a collective article per rune type seems best. Would currently require simply moving all Superior Rune of X links to Rune of X and removing the only non-superior one we have now (Minor Rune of the Monk).-- NilePenguin 13:15, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Rune Rarity Bonus (1) Bonus (2) Bonus (3) Bonus (4) Bonus (5) Bonus (6)
Rune of the Balefire Minor +10 power +5% burning duration -- -- -- --
Major +15 power +10% burning duration +25 power 3% chance to gain vigor for 10s when hit. (cooldown: 30s) -- --
Superior +25 power +15% burning duration +50 power 5% chance to gain vigor for 10s when hit. (cooldown: 30s) +90 power 5% chance to cause a fire nova when hit. (cooldown: 30s)
Is what I propose (to make things pleasing to the eyes) in terms of tables (which will be further revamped once the new aesthetic changes are pushed live) for now.
In terms of what to do with the individual rune articles; make every individual rune article a redirect to their encompassing articles, thus resulting in (at the very least) 3 redirects per rune type. - Infinite - talk 14:25, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
The padding looks good, not sure that I'm sold on the -- boxes though, but that doesn't really matter. Redirects seem obvious yes. Shall I try to implement this kind of table on this page soon, or should I wait until we actually have data on non-superior runes? -- NilePenguin 23:29, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Currently there are two different versions of the table on the page. One that lists each tier (see first few tables listing only superior) and one that breaks down runes into minor/major/superior (see further down the page). We should just go with one format, not both. I think the table that breaks it up is fine. It is concise without losing information. As for breaking up a "rune" page into minor/major/superior pages, has anyone seen the variants of the runes and can confirm on their images? In other words, does a minor run differ from a superior rune in appearance? .Venom20 User Venom20-icon-0602-sm-black.png 19:32, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Yeah sorry, that's my fault, for some reason I decided to replace the old table section by section instead of all at once. Doing the last section (Power) as we speak. Sorry for the confusion.-- NilePenguin 19:34, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
If there won't be individual pages for runes, why leave the names (Rune of the Balefire in this case) as redlinks? ~ Bow User Bow Sig.png | 07:45, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Different tiers of runes won't have their own pages. Articles on rune types (such as Rune of the Balefire) will exist, and the tiers will be collected in tables on those pages, as shown above. That's how I understood it, at least. Mediggo 08:00, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
That is (almost) correct. Rune of the Balefire is the rune, whereas the tiers (or the rarity) are Minor, Major, and Superior. We document the rune globally (Rune of the Balefire), but we won't document the tiers individually (Minor Rune of the Balefire, Major Rune of the Balefire, Superior Rune of the Balefire). Those tiers pages will be created, though. They will function as redirects to their global rune article (Rune of the Balefire). I assume that that clears up any confusion. :) - Infinite - talk 08:11, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I think there shouldn't be a problem if I started working on the above. - Infinite - talk 09:09, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking the same. If you want to create the actual pages, I'll get started with creating and changing tiered rune articles to redirects? Mediggo 09:23, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Moving the existing individual rarities to the global ones (unless there's multiple) was my way to go about it, then changing the old articles to redirects accordingly. - Infinite - talk 09:31, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Meh, I'm not sure if the minor rune articles contained that much useful information, but I just redirected them. I'll leave existing articles intact for now and start creating new redirect pages. Mediggo 09:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Just as a note for Wiki consistency, there are other items that this 'base reference' system could and maybe should apply to. (Jewels are what come to mind for me.) Redshift 11:57, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Jewels, Runes, Insignia, Sigils, Inscriptions... Torrenal 02:45, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

here is a HD image for someone to play with[edit]

image link removed

Have Fun Rudhraighe 05:14, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. Seems like that 5-tier approach is only for the Rune of Holding, though - they don't have Greater or prefix-less runes listed for anything else (although I have no clue how reliable their info is). —Dr Ishmael User Dr ishmael Diablo the chicken.png 16:58, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Close?[edit]

Am I reading this right? If I put 6 of the same rune I get +90 in a single attribute and about an equal amount of other benefits; but if I put on 6 Runes of Divinity I get +60 in all 6 attributes? Doesn't seem like a close decision to me.llandale 23:00, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

You're treating the Divinity bonus as cumulative, but you're not doing so for the other runes. Adding up the 1-, 3-, and 5-piece bonuses, you get +165 total to a single attribute from each piece of armor - a total of +990. With the rune of Divinity, you'd get +60 from each piece of armor for a total of +360 to every attribute, or a grand total of +1440 attribute points. The choice is between a general, lower-power bonus to all attributes, or a focused, higher-power bonus to a single attribute. For example, do you really need small bonuses to Precision, Toughness, and Vitality, or would you rather have a bigger bonus to Power? Your decision will depend on how you want to play your character. —Dr Ishmael User Dr ishmael Diablo the chicken.png 23:23, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Are you sure rune bonusses are applied per armor piece, per rune? I'm inclined to lean more towards Llandale's approach; adding rune bonusses globally, contrary to Guild Wars' individual rune effects. Runes of Divinity would simply add 60 to every attribute it applies itself to when using 6 of those runes. In short; where is it stated how rune effects "stack" and could you link it to us? - Infinite - talk 11:53, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Even if they don't stack between armor pieces, it's still +165 for a single-attribute rune versus +60 all attributes from Divinity - the comparison is still valid. —Dr Ishmael User Dr ishmael Diablo the chicken.png 13:14, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes, that is true. - Infinite - talk 13:34, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
OK, +165 not +90 makes sense, and yes even +165 to one attr plus other bonuses is indeed a reasonable option to +60 points to 6. As for whether it's cumulative per armor piece and a full set gives +990; a level 80 character will have 916 toughness, is it reasonable that with a full set of superior runes would make toughness twice as high? In GW1, a full set of good runes gives you +15 'toughness' (conditionally) compared to baseline of 60-80. Surely this will be settled in a couple days. As for the divinity comparison; generally (but not necissarily) spreading out is better than centralizing; a little more power/precision/prowess should be more effective than a lot of just one; at least for martial folks. llandale 03:21, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Confirmed: a full set of Precision runes grants +165 Precision. Each bonus is granted once only, not per each rune. —Dr Ishmael User Dr ishmael Diablo the chicken.png 20:39, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
The way rune bonuses stack (i.e., cumulatively so that bonuses to any single attribute (or all attributes for Traveler's and Divinity) are added together should be clearly explained in the main article on Runes. Reading the article still does not specify how rune bonuses stack, and as we can see from the discussion above, it can be construed by reasonable people at least two (or three!) different ways. I will edit it to add that. HoggyDog (talk) 01:03, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

New format for rune articles[edit]

I personally don't see anything unwanted, but I used Rune of the Monk as a prototype for multi-rune articles. Is this ([1]) a setup we should implement in the future? - Infinite - talk 11:11, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Would it be best if I created a general guideline for rune page formatting in my user space as a reference when editting rune articles? - Infinite - talk 11:48, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
I think that would be best. Rune of the Monk looks good to go (?)- I did want to include some notice that the grade of rune (Superior, etc) had an impact on the effects, so I tossed it in to be edited as necessary. Redshift 11:54, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Very nice addition, I'll incorporate it gladly. :) - Infinite - talk 11:56, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
...Do we know what happens if different rune grades are applied? Like if a character had 2 majors and 4 sups, for instance--it wouldn't really make sense to treat them separately, as you could wind up with things like 15 + 25 to healing and 10% + 25% duration... but then how else could it be? Apply the first 4 effects as sup and then the last 2 as major (thus rewarding having the highest grades)? At any rate, however it turns it, this would be something to document if it hasn't been and to incorporate into the article. The long... long... article :D. Redshift 12:03, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
I think the effects only take place when using similiar runes. I can see people just two of a single rune type for something like "+15% boon duration" from Rune of the Water as well as avoiding rather gimmicky "5% chance to summon when hit" effects granted by six runes of the same type. Mediggo 12:11, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
I am pretty sure different type of runes calculate their "stack" individually. 4 superiors would stack up to the 4 superiors rune effect, and at the same time 2 majors would stack up to the 2 majors rune effect. They would not interact. - Infinite - talk 12:14, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
We haven't seen any of the GW1 'does not stack' verbiage to date, have we? Redshift 12:21, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
No, we haven't. So in theory up to 6 different stacks can be applied to one set of armor (6 times a first effect of individual runes). - Infinite - talk 12:31, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
If a character had 4 of a single Major we could calculate the effect. If that character then started to replace one Major at a time with a Superior, it seems very reasonable to me the effects would increase slowly and not drop off. Seems likely then with 1 Sup and 3 Majors, you'd get the level 1 Sup bonus and the level 2-4 Major bonuses llandale 03:44, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
So a 5th Major rune of the same type will have zero bonus; but a 5th major of another type will? Seems more likely the extra ones would just get the level 1 bonus. llandale 03:44, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
User:Infinite/Runes is my initial creation. If anyone knows how to improve clarity and such without creating actual formatting confusion, feel free to edit that page. :P - Infinite - talk 12:15, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Dare I ask how crafting might tie in? Redshift 12:25, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
As in crafting the actual runes? They'd have recipes, so they'd follow plain linking to their Recipe: Rune counterparts, I'm guessing. - Infinite - talk 12:31, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Well we should probably add a recipe link on this page to craft this rune version. I find that it is good to see all the same type of rune on one page based on how the table is done on the rune page that sho minor, major, superior for the rune of the X. The only thing I could see beign added is a header that state directly on the table that those number on the left is the number of bonus for how much armor piece you have it on and on the right the effect. ( This is probably overkill for information but is probably the only thing I could see beign added), and also I could see crafting recipe link beign add for simplicity. Tech Wolf-Talk 12:36, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Might be simpler and cleaner to keep the Acquisition condensed to just one section instead of applied to each rune grade--that way someone trying to figure out how to obtain/craft the rune can check that section and see if a grade is offered rather than scrolling through (and similarly for someone who wants to add the information). Redshift 12:41, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
You make a very good point. - Infinite - talk 12:49, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Ooh. Looks very nicely implemented. Very efficient. Thanks for setting it up! Redshift 13:03, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

(Reset indent) The "Stats" subheaders aren't necessary. However, why can't we have a single unified Stats section? This would complement Alfa's suggestion of a unified infobox. Using Rune of the Monk:

  1. +10/15/25 healing
  2. +5/10/15% boon duration
  3. +–/35/50 healing
  4. –/3/5% chance to gain health when hit (cooldown: 10s)
  5. +–/–/90 healing
  6. When you use an elite skill you and all nearby allies gain aegis for –/–/30 seconds.

If we don't want to show dashes and assume people understand how the tiers work:

  1. +10/15/25 healing
  2. +5/10/15% boon duration
  3. +35/50 healing
  4. 3/5% chance to gain health when hit (cooldown: 10s)
  5. +90 healing
  6. When you use an elite skill you and all nearby allies gain aegis for 30 seconds.

We could use formatting to make the tier connection visually:

  1. +10 / 15 / 25 healing
  2. +5 / 10 / 15% boon duration
  3. +35 / 50 healing
  4. 3 / 5% chance to gain health when hit (cooldown: 10s)
  5. +90 healing
  6. When you use an elite skill you and all nearby allies gain aegis for 30 seconds.

I'm sure there are still better ways of doing that. —Dr Ishmael User Dr ishmael Diablo the chicken.png 14:39, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Whilst it is a system that is much more efficient and faster to read, the learning curve to reading rune pages would increase as well. I think having stats listed per rune is the easiest for any user to look up the information they need (though definitely not the most concise one). An infobox would also be cool, but the way information ends up listed needs to remain as intuitive as possible to not put certain readers as a disadvantage (I feel). The design needs to be flawless, and fortunately we have the time. - Infinite - talk 14:57, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Definitely not in the infobox, some of the effect descriptions are quite long (Rune of the Monk #6) and would look terrible crammed in there.
Another idea: table? (ignore the style, I didn't want to waste time on that)
# Effect Minor Major Superior
1 +X healing 10 15 25
2 +X% boon duration 5 10 15
3 +X healing -- 35 50
4 X% chance to gain health when hit (cooldown: 10s) -- 3 5
5 +X healing -- -- 90
6 When you use an elite skill you and all nearby allies gain aegis for X seconds. -- -- 30
Dr Ishmael User Dr ishmael Diablo the chicken.png 15:09, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
I like tables, but they were also my most detested aspect of previous Guild Wars wikis; they were inconsistent in width. If we're working with tables, it should really have an aesthetical approach with fixed widths across the whole of the wiki, as to make them look uniform. Though ultimately they'd be roughly akin to that example of yours.
I think tables can work, though. Although I'm personally not a fan of the -- fields; listing the stats plainly and separately ignores that and it fits in-line with the infoboxes. Naturally that might only work until the moment where we switch to a fully-fledged rune infobox, with whatever design it might have. - Infinite - talk 15:19, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Hum a table isn't that bad, but I find it better if effect tab was last.
# Minor Major Superior Effect
1 10 15 25 +X healing
2 5 10 15 +X% boon duration
3 -- 35 50 +X healing
4 -- 3 5 X% chance to gain health when hit (cooldown: 10s)
5 -- -- 90 +X healing
6 -- -- 30 When you use an elite skill you and all nearby allies gain aegis for X seconds.
note: this talk is going to fast I had to change it 4 time ;O Tech Wolf-Talk 15:25, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
That looks fine. To maintain a constant aesthetic, we could template the table header in order to enforce the same widths on all rune effect tables. We might be able to template the entire table, but the syntax for using that template could be quite messy, so probably just the header row would be enough. —Dr Ishmael User Dr ishmael Diablo the chicken.png 15:30, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Something like
# Minor Major Superior Effect
1 10 15 25 + X healing
2 5 10 15 + X% boon duration
3 -- 35 50 + X healing
4 -- 3 5 X % chance to gain health when hit (cooldown: 10s)
5 -- -- 90 + X healing
6 -- -- 30 When you use an elite skill you and all nearby allies gain aegis for X seconds.
Ignore the colours for now. - Infinite - talk 16:45, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Looking better. And all of that could be defined in the site CSS so that all you have to define inline is class="rune table". —Dr Ishmael User Dr ishmael Diablo the chicken.png 17:01, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
I disagree that tables throughout the wiki should have a uniform width. Tables on the same page should absolutely be the same width. Tables on different pages may have different width, depending on their content. In the example above, the last row has two lines when there is plenty of space to put it in one line actually. In case of rune tables, the best solution would be to make columns 1-4 have fixed-width, and the last column to fit content/screen. Also, my css has a class called item table that matches item infoboxes/navs, so i've made a modification of it for runes. An example is below (update your css to see it)
# Minor Major Superior Effect
1 10 15 25 + X healing
2 5 10 15 + X% boon duration
3 -- 35 50 + X healing
4 -- 3 5 X % chance to gain health when hit (cooldown: 10s)
5 -- -- 90 + X healing
6 -- -- 30 When you use an elite skill you and all nearby allies gain aegis for X seconds.
Alfa-R User Alfa-R sig.png 17:26, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
When I say uniform width, I mean uniform width between pages of the same types. All rune tables should be identical in width, because the first thing that people will be annoyed by is that—when switching between tabs to compare—tables are not the same width. It also looks more professional to have the same widths on pages of the same type. - Infinite - talk 17:58, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm largely liking the page. I think that the insignia/inscription types could also benefit from tables that combine their data in a similar manner. Torrenal 02:41, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
First, I don't know whether anyone is still on this, but I have made it my goal to get the individual rune pages into a presentable state. I don't think it's necessary to have the rune stats in this nicely formatted table on the individual pages as that is what we have on the overview page. I favor the "old" draft by Infinite (User:Infinite/Runes)and I have edited Rune of the Necromancer and Rune of the Noble to fit that style/my idea of it. I have also created a Template to integrate the stats into the "in-game-description-quote":
{{Upgrade component infobox
| name = Superior Rune of the Necromancer
| icon = Superior Rune of the Necromancer.png
| description = ''Double-click to apply to a piece of Armor.''
| variables = {{User:Vilya/Template:Rune_stats|+28 {{Condition Damage}}|+15 {{Vitality}}|+55 {{Condition Damage}}|+35 {{Vitality}}|+100 {{Condition Damage}}|+20% {{Fear}} Duration}}
| rarity = exotic
| type = rune
| level = 60
| value = 65
| key = Necromancer
}}
if no one has objections, i will implement this on the rune pages.Vilya 20:55, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Gigantic page[edit]

I've got the feeling that this page is way to large and it will go bigger when the tables are completely filled. So I think it would be better if the tables have their own pages and this page only contains the general information and the links to the subpages with the tables. What everyone else think about this? Balwin 12:41, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

They could also be collapsed/expandable, but I'm not sure if a consensus was already reached against that. Quick comparison of runes is important, so the tables need to exist in one way or another. Mediggo 13:06, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
I believe there's a preference for inherently expanded tables. I do agree that this page is too large at the moment but I also do agree that though tables might seem redundant with individual rune pages the quick comparison has definite utility. What about moving each table to its own page and simply keeping the names of the runes here? i.e.:
Link to list of runes affecting Power
  • Rune of the Balefire
  • Rune of Balthazar
  • ...and so on in some better format.
I recommend keeping the names here so that this page can still be its own quick reference and provide a little more search resilience. The page itself could also be a little bit more thorough in its explanations about grades and procurement and functions (such as how rune stacking may or may not work, etc). Redshift 15:26, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
What about reducing the tables here to only list the effects of the superior rune? That would save space while still serving as a quick comparison guide between the different runes - as long as the difference between minor/major/superior are noted at the top of the article (which really needs to be expanded with more details anyway). —Dr Ishmael User Dr ishmael Diablo the chicken.png 15:36, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Without knowing whether or not I'd be picking these based on the major attribute while I'm playing the game, it is hard to know whether splitting the page like the tables are currently split is a worthwhile change. Perhaps we leave it as a huge page until we've got a bit more playing experience under our collective belts.
Dr ishmael's suggestion of only superior rune is a good one and makes the page easier to read whether we split the page or not. -- aspectacle User Aspectacle.png 16:17, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
I, too, considered possibility of keeping just superior rune information on table, but then I thought about the scale of GW2 PvE, and I didn't mention it because the window when non-max upgrades are usable is considerably bigger than in GW1, as reaching max level and gear is rather quick and only max level item information is mentioned in GWW. If others agree to only listing superior runes, then it probably should be done. Mediggo 19:25, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
The main point of comparison at this level is between the different effects granted by each specific rune. As long as the reader understands that minors only give the first 2 effects, majors only the first 4, and both of them with lesser values then the listed superior effects (all of which should be clearly pointed out up top), then the comparison utility is retained. After deciding which type of rune gives the effects you want, you can go to that rune's page to see how the minor/major effects are scaled down. —Dr Ishmael User Dr ishmael Diablo the chicken.png 19:41, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

regarding the note[edit]

It is really possible to expicit salvage a rune out of an item? I've only see salvage kits with x% chance to retain the rune. So the statement from Martin still has its value ... but on the other side it is quite an old information and maybe at this time there was really no way to get the upgrades back. :) Balwin 17:38, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I checked what he said, it was pretty clear he meant you couldn't extract them, period. However, there is still no mechanism for directly extracting runes, you might get lucky (unless you have a perfect salvage kit) but there is no guarantee you'll get the rune. I'll rephrase the note. Aqua (talk) 17:41, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Transmutation stones can also be used to retain a rune, can they not? If that's true it should be added to this page.

Runes as Upgrade Components and the attribute pages[edit]

Based on the first four words of this article, runes are considered upgrade components. On each of the four primary attribute pages (Power, precision, toughness, vitality) no runes are listed under the upgrade component section (I also just found some outdated Marks, I shall remove those immediately). I believe we should add the runes to those pages, however since this page already exists in virtually the exact same format as those runes would be listed, I think we could just add a link similar to "See list of runes that increase vitality" to avoid unnecessary clutter with the other soon to be large list of items that will be added to those pages. I would appreciate thoughts about updating these pages, however I am going to go ahead with my edits. If anyone disagrees feel free to revert them. -User Eive Windgrace Harbinger of the Deceiver.png 08:39, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Also, wouldn't another possible edit be to add the materials and professions that can craft the runes? Otherwise, we need to tab around looking at individual runes to see who might craft it, or go through all three professions to browse around. 192.168.104.83 14:54, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Where do I put a new one?[edit]

I got one today called a

Rune of Scavenging (1): +11 Condition Damage (2): 3% Magic Find

"Double-click to apply to a piece of Armor"

value = 16 bronze Daddicus 21:39, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Craftable or Not?[edit]

Perhaps a spot on the table could be added to indicate if any specific rune is craftable or not? I know there are people who will want to know this before attempting to find a recipe for a specific rune they want or if they need to buy or salvage an existing one to keep it99.126.59.233 16:53, 12 September 2012 (UTC)EdStargazer

I was under the impression that all runes were craftable, but not all recipes were known. -- Armond WarbladeUser Armond sig image.png 19:12, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
As far as I know, of the 57 types of runes, 24 are craftable (8 per profession at least that's what it is for the tailor), 8 are bought from dungeon vendors and the other 25 are only gotten as loot (or possibly from other vendors/heart-npcs/etc.). As to the original question, when the pages are completed, you can find the recipes on the page of the runes if they exist, if you don't want to spoil yourself you can go to the trading post and look at the selling value in the rune's tooltip, if it is Copper coin (minor), 30 Copper coin (major) or 65 Copper coin (superior), the rune can be crafted, otherwise (16 Copper coin/Silver coin 6 Copper coin/Silver coin 16 Copper coin) it cannot. As to the table, I don't know how it would really fit, although you're of course welcome to try - if it fits well on the page, it might as well stay. Vilya 21:37, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to have a simple way to see what runes a given profession can craft.
I was not trying to stir up trouble with my idea. Perhaps the issues of players being able to create a rune or not could be placed on the individual rune's page instead of on the main one. Saying there that it can be created and list the needed ingredients or merely say 'Rune X can only be Purchased from a Vendor or on salvagable items'. Something to that effect 99.126.59.233 18:54, 13 September 2012 (UTC)EdStargazer
First of all sorry, if I sounded a bit unfriendly, everybody is welcome to make suggestions! The rune pages are still very much work in progress so you won't yet find all the information you might want. The plan is indeed to have a section on each rune page that tells you how to get the rune (Rune of the Necromancer is more or less my example page). I would like to finish the Rune pages by the end of this month but as far as I am aware I am the only one really working on the runes at the moment. I would thus appreciate any help, especially with the crafting recipes (although they seem to follow a rather simple pattern, I would like to be sure), just put them somewhere on the Rune page or so.
As to the runes craftable by each profession, they are listed on the page of the respective profession, right at the bottom of the page (the lists are still incomplete, but i believe every type of rune appears at least in one form). Vilya 11:58, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
I would offer a compromise: Add a (narrow) column that adds space for the icon for the crafting discipline for that rune. Only the icon is needed, but perhaps a footnote attached to the icon would be appropriate for the 8 that can't be discovered.
It wouldn't even have to be a new column. Adding the icon below the name of the rune (or any other open space) would be good enough. Daddicus 16:09, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
I prefer an additional column for this. This column should list how each type of runes can be obtained - dungeons, crafting, loots, etc. Glastium talk 06:45, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Just like this. Glastium talk 06:57, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Rune of the Monk[edit]

I don't think this actually exists in the final game. Should it be removed from this page? --Robadob 00:03, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

It does indeed exist, abeit not with the icons currently on the page (EDIT: changed them) and it also cannot be traded on the trading post, as it is obtained as a dungeon reward (the same as the runes of the noble, nightmare, forge, baelfire, sanctuary, golemancer & orrian). Vilya 20:53, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Clarification for "on hit"[edit]

Can anyone clarify the runes that have an effect "on hit" ? Is this when you are hit or when you hit someone else? The wording sounds like the former, but the effects sound like the latter. 192.168.104.79 16:12, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

It should be "when you hit someone", as there is the counterpart "when hit", but I'm not exactly sure. Vilya 21:12, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
The standard terminology in many games is "on hit" applies to attacks you make, and "when hit" applies to attacks that hit you. -- Armond WarbladeUser Armond sig image.png 21:15, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Can we have another list?[edit]

Really I only want to see in comparison the superior runes. So all the other runes are getting in the way. I get that some people want to the the lesser runes as well. But I think we should also separate the superior from the rest. At least in a new list at the bottom.


5 Major+Superior=?[edit]

Just wondering about how much of a bonus is applied. Do you receive all the buffs from the superior rune or do you need multiple Superior runes? --The preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.250.166.158 (talk).

Runes only "add up" when they are identical. Having 5 major + 1 superior only gives you the 1st bonus from the superior rune, and the 5th major rune does nothing. —Dr Ishmael User Dr ishmael Diablo the chicken.png 01:26, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Rune Stacking[edit]

The first paragraph of the Notes section currently says: "For the second armor with the rune set of the same name, it will receive Bonus (1) and Bonus (2), making a total of 2 Bonus (1) and 1 Bonus (2)." This does not appear to be how the game currently handles rune stacking.

I just tested it on a totally naked level 45 character standing in Lion's Arch, stripped even of PvP gear to avoid any possible attribute leakage (in view of the noted leakage bug). This character has 368 Power when naked, and for the test, two pieces of armor were equipped, each bearing a Minor Rune of Vampirism with "(1) +10 Power, (2) 2% chance to cause your next attack to steal health when hit":

  • On equipping Rejuvenating Student Coat of Vampirism (+14 Power, +20 Healing Power, (1) +10 Power), the character's Power rose from 368 to 392, an increase of 24 as expected, 14 from the armor and 10 from the rune.
  • With the Coat still equipped, on equipping Hearty Student Shoes of Vampirism (+5 Toughness, +7 Vitality, (1) +10 Power), the character's Power did not rise at all, but remained at 392, so the +10 of the rune on the 2nd piece had no effect.

I also did the test in reverse order. Starting with a completely naked character:

  • On equipping Hearty Student Shoes of Vampirism (+5 Toughness, +7 Vitality, (1) +10 Power), the character's Power rose from 368 to 378, an increase of 10 from the rune as expected.
  • With the Shoes still equipped, on equipping Rejuvenating Student Coat of Vampirism (+14 Power, +20 Healing Power, (1) +10 Power), the character's Power rose from 378 to 392, an increase of 14 which comes from the armor alone, so the +10 of the rune on the 2nd piece had no effect.

Unless someone can see a flaw in the test, the above suggests that the +attribute fields don't stack at all.

If it is indeed the case that the +attribute fields don't stack, it's a very unexpected mechanic because it makes stacked runes so weak, quite a waste of upgrade slots, particularly for minor runes. One would naturally expect that if stacking is allowed then two runes would be at least twice as good as one rune, and that the (2)-(6) fields are an extra bonus as a result of making the runes match. That appears not to be the case. For two pieces of armor, you gain a (2) bonus but at the cost of losing a (1) bonus.

This mechanic is a very important one. Once we have confirmed how it works, I propose that we remove that comment from Notes and add a Rune Stacking section near the start of the page. Morgaine 17:59, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't know why the article was ever written that way - you're right, it's incorrect. —Dr Ishmael User Dr ishmael Diablo the chicken.png 19:15, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
I asked players how they thought rune stacking worked, and received answers of both types, so it's clearly a source of confusion. In an expanded Rune Stacking section, I'd like also to be specific about (1) bonus stacking when equipping a given rune in different rarities, and also about (1) bonus stacking when equipping totally different runes. Only the (1) bonuses add up of course, in both cases, and both approaches allow you to overcome the loss of one (1) bonus on stacking two minor runes. Morgaine 19:42, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
It's a simple mechanic: one rune gets you the (1), adding a second adds the (2) bonus, and so on. I agree that people are confused, but I think it's wishful thinking to expect otherwise. Runes are designed to provide a variety of effects (summons, condition removal, etc.); if you want stacking bonuses, there are crests and medallions. And of course minor runes are weak, as the name implies.
Anyhow, Morgaine's testing confirms what has been known for a while. Thanks for taking the time to double check and for making sure the article gets updated. 75.37.20.209 19:51, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Wow, I never realised people could think that about runes. It doesn't even require that much research currently, as it was previously established how runes actually function (which is as the IP above me just clarified). - Infinite - talk 20:52, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
@75.37.20.209: Everyone I asked understood the part of the mechanic that you described above. Where opinions diverged was on the part which you didn't state explicitly, that if more than one rune of the same kind and rarity is present, then only one (1) bonus is activated and all others are lost. It is not at all obvious that all the runes except the first lose their (1) bonus, because trading a (1) bonus for a (2) bonus is generally a pretty bad deal and hence seems unlikely at first glance. It's only when major and superior runes are considered that the mechanic becomes clearer and more obvious. I felt compelled to test it not only because the note was out of step with what was known (it was possible that the mechanic had changed in an update), but also because for minor runes it actually made some sense. Morgaine 21:06, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
@Infinite: The fact that it was previously established doesn't mean it can't change, and it didn't prevent someone updating the parent page with contrary information (uncontested for 3 whole days!), which highlights that there is confusion in the player base even among wiki people. One person even suggested a possible update: that the actual attribute modification had not changed, but the way it was described in the tooltips had. I felt compelled to check, just in case. :-) Morgaine 21:15, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Why yes, and you're right, but a change to such a core system wouldn't have been omitted from the patch notes. :P - Infinite - talk 21:37, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Not enough people have played diablo 2 obviously, otherwise this wouldn't be an issue.--Relyk ~ talk > 22:15, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Maybe the article should say something like they "each additional rune successively unlocks one of the effects" instead "stack to give effects". MithUser MithranArkanere Star.pngTalk 15:07, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Individual rune articles are a mess[edit]

I wanted to start clearing all the leftovers from the earlier discussion (merging all minor, major and superior pages of a rune into 1 article), because there are quite a lot of leftover pages scattered throughout the wiki (example: Superior Rune of Lyssa). But I suck at editing and can't even find a delete button. Any help on this? :) I'll check sigils/inscriptions/etc. too after this. Qiff 15:20, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually, those aren't "leftover", check the page histories. We've decided to convert over to a one-item-per-page design. The "overview" pages will still exist, but without the multiple infoboxes. It's going to take a while to get there, so you're just noticing the first steps. —Dr Ishmael User Dr ishmael Diablo the chicken.png 16:30, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
+ sigils haven't been split yet. I haven't had the time. -Chieftain AlexUser Chieftain Alex sig.png 17:32, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Ah ok, then I read it wrong. :) I'll just keep tweaking where I can, then. Qiff 16:46, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Cooldown[edit]

This article could use clarification on cooldowns. Why? Because weapon effects with cooldowns share their cooldowns (or maybe it's just on crit weapon effects... that's not clear either). So, I could see each cooldown being unique because armor is designed as a 6 slot thing and you don't have the additional abuse potential of weapons. But I could also see that anet programmed it so that cooldowns are shared between armor effects. And I could also see it that all cooldowns (between weapons and armor) are shared together (this one seems silly, but they've certainly done more silly things than this with design). This makes a big difference when deciding what to get. I think the fault of lack of clarity is on anet, as you shouldn't need wiki to clarify such a thing. But maybe we can make up for the poor lack of description. --Mooseyfate 15:03, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Terminology[edit]

Anet has done a really poor job when it comes to terminology. Perhaps the bullet point notes could clear up their oversight.

Healing skill. This is the example that sticks out like a sore thumb. Is this a healing slot skill? Is this any skill that heals self? allies? area? Is this any skill that applies regeneration? All of these are sources of healing, but the only way the terminology is accurate is if it covers all of these instances. I doubt it does, but maybe I'm wrong, and it does. For example, if it's healing slot skill, then it should say "healing slot skill". Anet has dropped the ball here, not wiki. Maybe we can clarify though. --Mooseyfate 15:08, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Healing skill already clarifies this. "Healing skill" is the skill type in the same way as weapon skill, utility skill, and elite skill.--Relyk ~ talk > 18:46, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Just to clarify, those aren't skill types (noted at beginning of skill description), those are skill slots. —Dr Ishmael User Dr ishmael Diablo the chicken.png 20:04, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Runes of different rarity (minor, major, superior)[edit]

I read the whole talk page, and maybe the answer is hidden somewhere in there, but I want to state my understanding here explicitly. I will be testing this later today, but maybe someone else can confirm as well: Suppose I have the following equipped:

  • Two minor runes
  • Two major runes
  • Two superior runes

My understanding is that given this, I will get the (1) and (2) bonus from my minor rune, the (1) and (2) bonus from my major rune and the (1) and (2) bonus from my superior rune. This I'm fairly certain, though not 100% sure about.

Now, further: say these are runes of Balthazar. the (2) effect of the minor rune is +5% burning duration. The (2) effect of the major rune is +10% burning duration. The (2) effect of the superior rune is +15% burning duration. Given the above setup: Will I end up with a total of +30% burning duration? THAT ladies and gentlemen, is the question of the day for me. When I get back home, I will test this and post here, but feel free to comment otherwise! ZenonSeth 15:05, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

So it does seem to work, since I managed to get +100% burn duration with that, and testing on random enemies (because this won't work in PVP cause i can't figure out how to put minor/major runes on pvp gear) - I managed to get my flamethrower's 1 skill to apply a burn that seemed to deal damage twice. ZenonSeth 21:08, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Of course, a popular one is to use two superior water and monk runes, then either two major water or monk runes, to stack boon duration.--Relyk ~ talk > 22:51, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

About the breathing apparatus needing rune too[edit]

In game if you add superior runes to the apparatus too, you'll see 7/6 with red font. Is it a kinda bug? That I mean it's red if it's needed underwater anyway.. I've checked this in PvP armor and now in PvE same thing shows up. --Crare 19:11, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the 7/6 display is a bug. But it's helpful to let you know that your aquatic helm does have the same rune, so it's a good bug. —Dr Ishmael User Dr ishmael Diablo the chicken.png 19:30, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Should it be added on the page as anomaly then? --Crare 06:34, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Rune of Life?[edit]

Why is the Rune of Life not included? SlatzG (talk) 20:57, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Svanir Runes[edit]

In the sPvP control panel, the runes of Svanir are named 'Rune of the Svanir', not 'Rune of Svanir'.

Rune of the Defender?[edit]

68.37.157.228 21:21, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Runes available in pvp[edit]

So anyways, there are a few runesets not available in pvp. It would be nice to denote it, so people can theory craft while not on thier accounts. If i have time this week I'll try to fet to it. A Liability (talk) 09:24, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Ok so after thinking about this, I'll be instead creating sections in the PvP Build page instead of denoting things hereA Liability (talk) 18:14, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Feedback 2015/11/05[edit]

Superior Rune of Surging (1)+25 power (2)+5% boon duration (3)+50% power (4)+10% boon duration (5)+100 power (6) When you use an elite skill,you gain shocking aura for 5 seconds. (cooldown: 45 seconds) account bound on acquire

you get these from the nuhoch vendor when the map progression is tier 3 or 4 costs 250 ley line crystals and 2 gold --100.2.163.184 21:13, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Expansion Required[edit]

shouldn't there be a "expansion required Y/N" tick to the right of the entire table now that we have people with and without the expansion?

Filtering[edit]

There needs to be filtering capability. Certainly the vast majority of visits to this page are for Superior Rune investigation. The table is hard to read with the extra clutter of Minor and Major runes. So perhaps: [] Minor, Major, and Superior toggles [] Central Tyria and Heart of Maguuma toggles [] account bound toggles [] possibly toggles for each Attribute, allowing one to see superior runes and affect Fury. llandale (talk) 21:58, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Just noticed this is missing the Rune of Rebirth[edit]

Currently missing Rune of Rebirth

Perplexity and Tormenting[edit]

I think it's worth mentioning somewhere (I'd suggest at least under the rune title where details of minor/major/superior runes are listed) that all tiers of Runes of Perplexity and Runes of Tormenting are gear req L60 and NOT the usual L0 / L39 / L60 structure.Kruhljak (talk) 11:32, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Link to charms and lucent motes?[edit]

The article doesn't contain any link to charms and lucent motes which can be obtained by salvaging runes. Also no link to https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Rune/salvage_research.

Feedback 2019/03/15[edit]

in the filter box it might be worth while adding a "allies" filter for things like pack runes etc The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shaggy derf (talk) at 10:54, 15 March 2019‎ (UTC).

Done. Filter: Affecting allies can be set with adding allies to the filter list of the corresponding rune.
Example: {{Rune overview table row|Superior Rune of the Pack|filters=power,boonduration,precision,might,fury,swiftness,allies}} --Tolkyria (talk) 13:03, 15 March 2019 (UTC)