Talk:Rune

salvage before identify gets runes?
that has never worked for me, ever. the only way i ever can salvage runes from anything is to use the identification kit. yet here it clearly says you can. is this an outdated feature or am i just not having very good luck? &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by CJC Gizmo (talk &bull; contribs) 17:46, August 27, 2006 (CDT).
 * Just re-tested it. I still get the rune regardless of if I do identify first or the salvage first (using either the expert or superior slvage - didn't test with the basic one, as I never use it). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:33, 27 August 2006 (CDT)
 * Basic kit should net you crafting materials, irregardless of whether it has been id'd or not. --Rainith 20:35, 27 August 2006 (CDT)
 * I can say that it's always been possible to do this. And then they changed it so expert kits had a 100% success rate to salvage runes from salvage armor, making it fool-proof.  --Fyren 01:47, 28 August 2006 (CDT)
 * From salvage armor? Are you talking about armor that you as a player can wear, but is colored indicating a rune, or that type of armor that's is a designated salvage item, and is dropped by monsters. and what about unid weapons? CJC Gizmo 00:15, 8 September 2006 (CDT)CJC Gizmo
 * I beieve they are talking about unidentified Salvage Armor hat is coloured indicating a rune. It would be impossible to have unitentified armor that can be worn. I can tell you from experience there is *not* a 100% success rate salvaging from wearable armor (as also stated in the article). — Biscuits (talk [[Image:Biscuit.png]] contribs) 23:02, 8 September 2006 (CDT)

Warning about gold salvage items
The latest edit on this article talks about not receiving a guaranteed superior rune from a gold salvage item before the June 1st update, but I don't see anything in the description of that update that signifies there was a change. Does anyone know if this is true or if/when it occured? If it was a different date we should put the correct update on the article --Biscuits 10:20, 21 October 2006 (CDT)
 * I've found the correct update. It is the April 26, 2006 update. I'll fix the article to reflect it. — Biscuits (talk [[Image:Biscuit.png]] contribs) 12:04, 21 October 2006 (CDT)

Runes "non stacking"
The article contains the line:
 * Update: As of the August 12, 2006 Update, all Runes now have "(non-stacking)" in their description.

I see no reason to keep this statent, so I'm removing it. To see when this changed, a user can just view the article history. As it affects all runes, it can just state that all runes have non-stacking in their description. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:31, 23 October 2006 (CDT)
 * There is speculation that Vitae runes DO stack.~Something to watch out for. GhostBoy 04:27, 26 October 2006 (CDT)
 * Well, just found a vitae and it hasn't got the "non-stacking" in the description, so odds are they really do stack. -- Sai Qui 06:27, 26 October 2006 (CDT)
 * Attunement runes also lack the Non-stacking tag in their description. Also, it makes sense that at least Vitae would stack, otherwise why would anyone choose a Vitae over a Minor Vigor? 10 HP hardly seems worth it if it is non-stacking. But it should of course be confirmed first. -GhostBoy 07:33, 26 October 2006 (CDT)
 * I made a PvP character last night when the update hit. Lets say you want the most HP.....You can put a sup vigor in 1 armor piece. And 4 Vitae runes in the other 4 pieces, you WILL gain a total of +90 health. All the Vitae runes stack with eachother AND the normal Vigor runes. I would assume the same for the Attunement runes(stacking w/ eachother). I can say, personally, that this IS confirmed. --Mwpeck 07:43, 26 October 2006 (CDT)

New Runes 26/10 2006
Post on gwonline.net suggests a new set of condition-reducing runes for Monks, in addition to the known Attunement and Vitae runes. Can anyone confirm this, and tell if its only Monks or also other professions? (Source [] GhostBoy 07:27, 26 October 2006 (CDT)
 * They are apparently General Runes like Vigor Runes are, since i saw them on an Ele PVP char and Assassin PVP char. What im wondering is how they combine with other bonuses of the same type, Weather its Condition Reduction from Shields, Offhands, Staves, Armor (a few Assassin Armor pieces), or from runes of the same type (it doesnt have the (Non-Stacking) tag that others iv seen.), in addition to how the Rune of Vitae bonus combines with Rune of Vigor bonus Raisu 20:04, 26 October 2006 (CDT)
 * I just found a Rune of Vitae, Health +10. In my inventory, I already had a Rune of Minor Vigor, Health +30 (Non-stacking). So I believe they WILL stack, since it doesn't explicitly say that it won't. Hmm, one Superior Vigor and four Vitae, a bonus +90 max HP! Mujaki 05:20, 27 October 2006 (CDT)

Rune of clarity, recovery etc
From the pvp item creation menu:



Look to be nightfall-exclusive unlike the energy and health runes. &mdash; Skuld 10:04, 26 October 2006 (CDT)
 * Er... they look the same as Rune of Attunement in that picture. :P
 * I'm curious how these runes stack. I estimated the duration of Signet of Agony on myself with a variable number of Runes of Restoration (my remaining hp gave me within 1/6 of a second):

--Ender A 07:03, 27 October 2006 (CDT)
 * No mods: 25
 * Barbed weapon: 33 1/6
 * 1 Rune: 16 1/6
 * Plus barbed: 21 1/3
 * 2 Runes: 13 1/6
 * Plus barbed: 17 1/3
 * 3 Runes: 10
 * Plus barbed: 13 1/6
 * 4 Runes: 8 1/6
 * Plus barbed: 11 1/3
 * 5 Runes: 6 1/6
 * Plus barbed: 8 1/3
 * Very interesting - it doesn't seem to be working quite right.
 * {| border="1"

!Runes!!Duration!!% Reduction!!Duration w/Barbed!!% Reduction!!Total % Reduction As Specified
 * + % reduction is per-level; the total % reduction from the 0-rune value is given in parenthesis
 * 0||25.000|| ||30|| ||
 * 1||16.167||35.3||21.333||35.7||20.0
 * 2||13.167||18.6 (47.3)||17.333||18.8 (47.7)||36.0
 * 3||10.000||24.1 (60.0)||13.167||24.0 (60.3)||48.8
 * 4||8.167||18.3 (67.3)||11.333||13.9 (65.8)||59.0
 * 5||6.167||24.5 (75.3)||8.333||26.5 (74.9)||67.2
 * }
 * The first rune seems to reduce the duration by 33% instead of 20%, while the rest seem to be close to the correct 20% each (allowing for a bit of rounding error). &mdash;Dr Ishmael [[Image:Diablo_the_chicken.gif]] (talk|contribs) 10:54, 27 October 2006 (CDT)
 * 4||8.167||18.3 (67.3)||11.333||13.9 (65.8)||59.0
 * 5||6.167||24.5 (75.3)||8.333||26.5 (74.9)||67.2
 * }
 * The first rune seems to reduce the duration by 33% instead of 20%, while the rest seem to be close to the correct 20% each (allowing for a bit of rounding error). &mdash;Dr Ishmael [[Image:Diablo_the_chicken.gif]] (talk|contribs) 10:54, 27 October 2006 (CDT)
 * }
 * The first rune seems to reduce the duration by 33% instead of 20%, while the rest seem to be close to the correct 20% each (allowing for a bit of rounding error). &mdash;Dr Ishmael [[Image:Diablo_the_chicken.gif]] (talk|contribs) 10:54, 27 October 2006 (CDT)


 * ...4.5% is not "a bit of rounding error". I'm sorry, but AP stats has taught me that if there's an error of more than .4% your prediction is probably off. (That's just me, though; for all I know you teach the stats classes :P) --Armond Warblade (talk) 04:07, 28 October 2006 (CDT)


 * I should have clarified. The issue isn't so much one of statistics as it is one of programming - sure, computers *can* compute a result to any number of decimal places, but because of how decimal numbers are represented in binary, retaining even a single decimal place would take a lot more processing time and memory than it would to round that result to the nearest integer.
 * And that is exactly what Anet has done in this case. I performed the same Signet of Agony/Rune of Restoration test, but instead used a stopwatch to determine the duration.  Over a number of repeated trials (to allow for human error in stopwatch operation) with all different number of runes equipped (at least 5 trials at each level), the recorded durations averaged out to whole-number values of seconds.  This is due to the Guild Wars code rounding the duration reductions to the nearest integer.  All reductions except for the 0->1 correspond to an integer rounding of a 20% reduction from the previous rune level.
 * {| border="1"

!Runes!!Duration!!Difference!!Calculated 20%!!Rounded 20%
 * 0||25|| || ||
 * 1||16||9||5.0||5
 * 2||13||3||3.2||3
 * 3||10||3||2.6||3
 * 4||8||2||2.0||2
 * 5||6||2||1.6||2
 * }
 * The 1-rune level still comes out bugged, though - almost double the 20% reduction. A reduction in the range 34-37% would round out to 9 seconds. &mdash;Dr Ishmael [[Image:Diablo_the_chicken.gif]] (talk|contribs) 14:09, 29 October 2006 (CST)
 * 4||8||2||2.0||2
 * 5||6||2||1.6||2
 * }
 * The 1-rune level still comes out bugged, though - almost double the 20% reduction. A reduction in the range 34-37% would round out to 9 seconds. &mdash;Dr Ishmael [[Image:Diablo_the_chicken.gif]] (talk|contribs) 14:09, 29 October 2006 (CST)
 * }
 * The 1-rune level still comes out bugged, though - almost double the 20% reduction. A reduction in the range 34-37% would round out to 9 seconds. &mdash;Dr Ishmael [[Image:Diablo_the_chicken.gif]] (talk|contribs) 14:09, 29 October 2006 (CST)


 * Aha! That makes a lot more sense. Thanks for the clarification! And yay for one-rune bugs! ^__^ --Armond Warblade (talk) 18:16, 1 November 2006 (CST)


 * As far as rounding goes, remember that since I calculated the duration based off the remaining health, my results were precisely accurate up to 1/6 of a second. If GW rounded the bleeding duration, it was not to an integer. I'm just as dumbfounded by the results as everyone else. It would appear that the first Rune of Restoration reduces the duration by 36% - what we would expect the cumulative results of the second Rune to be. My guess is that there's some code error somewhere that causes it to interpret the existence of one too many Rune of Restoration, and it's only activated when there's at least one being worn. I'm curious if this same bug appears with other Runes.--Ender A 11:00, 2 November 2006 (CST)


 * I totally missed that, but you're right - the cumulative % reduction at each rune level (see first table) matches (within 2%) what it should be at the next rune level. Brilliant!  As for the other runes, I'll have my fiance help me test them in scrimmage mode tonight.  &mdash;Dr Ishmael [[Image:Diablo_the_chicken.gif]] (talk|contribs) 13:26, 2 November 2006 (CST)


 * Hmm... even stranger - I tried using Rune of Clarity with Signet of Midnight, and it reduces the duration down to approximately 12 seconds (which would be an accurate 20%.) Hence the 36% bug is not necessarily applicable to other condition Runes. Also, I repeated the tests I made earlier, and I was wrong about the precision - there were variable results. I was also wrong about rounding, I now believe it rounds the durations to the nearest second, and that when the condition wears off for some reason it usually removes an extra 1 HP. By extrapolation from my test results I more or less agree with you, Dr. Ishmael. To sum up:
 * The first Rune of Restoration you apply has double the normal effect.
 * GW rounds condition duration modifications to the nearest second.
 * Bleeding on average degenerates an extra 1HP.
 * Bleeding's degeneration is variable to within +-2hp.
 * The order in which I equipped the barbed weapon or the runed armor affected the results.
 * With 3 runes, it lasted 13 seconds when I equipped the runes after I equipped the barbed weapon, and 14 seconds when I equipped the runes before I equipped the barbed weapon.
 * While the strategic applications of this are practically negligible, it effectively proves Dr. Ishmael's theory that GW rounds in-between each duration modification.
 * And yes, I'm insane to spend hours compiling statistics on a computer game.--Ender A 15:46, 2 November 2006 (CST)


 * Hey, I'm just as insane about this stuff as you are. I'm still going to try to test the rest of the conditions tonight - I'll take your word on Blindness, so there's 6 left. &mdash;Dr Ishmael [[Image:Diablo_the_chicken.gif]] (talk|contribs) 16:06, 2 November 2006 (CST)

Article overhaul/rewrite
With all the changes since release that have affected the mechanics of runes, not to mention the addition of Insignias and new runes with Nightfall, I felt that the effects of repeated editing were starting to show in this article. Some info was repeated, some info was not logically placed on the page, and other info (the Types section, mostly) was simply not presented in a concise fashion.

I have posted my new version of this article at User:Dr_ishmael/Rune for critique before replacing the article here. All pertinent information has been retained from the original article, I simply reorganized and rewrote much of it in an attempt to give it a more clear and concise presentation. Feel free to make suggestions, either on the Talk page or by editing that page directly. Please also comment on whether you approve of the new version or whether you think the existing article is sufficient.

I can't say I eagerly await your comments - being quite critical of my own works, I'm always nervous when submitting anything for peer review - but I await them nonetheless. &mdash;Dr Ishmael (talk|contribs) 12:12, 3 November 2006 (CST)


 * Well, it's been over a week and I've only received one comment on the new version. I'd hate to completely replace the article without community input, but I will if there are no more comments by Friday.  &mdash;Dr Ishmael [[Image:Diablo_the_chicken.gif]] (talk|contribs) 11:38, 13 November 2006 (CST)


 * Ever since Nightfall released, I have hardly been able to access the Wiki at all. I don't think I've gotten more than 2 pages in a row without having a "Page Not Found" error. Perhaps the lack of feedback is due to that? I havn't had a chance to review the changes you're proposing yet, but this article definately needs a rewrite. Maybe just hold off for another little bit until things are more stable? - Lord Ehzed 22:40, 13 November 2006 (CST)


 * User:Aspectacle mentioned the same thing on User_talk:Dr_ishmael/Rune - I hadn't thought it was that bad for most people. At certain times of day, yes, GWiki is pretty much inaccessible, but I've been able to find times when it seems *almost* normal.  Still, you're right - I should give it more time. &mdash;Dr Ishmael [[Image:Diablo_the_chicken.gif]] (talk|contribs) 14:06, 14 November 2006 (CST)


 * I made some changes to your page yesterday if you want to check them out. I think it's deffinitely more comprehensive that the current version. — Biscuits (talk [[Image:Biscuit.png]] contribs) 16:39, 19 November 2006 (CST)

Alrighty, I think I've waited long enough. I'm pasting in the overhauled version of the article, and if anyone has any problems, we'll go from there. &mdash;Dr Ishmael (talk|contribs) 21:47, 28 November 2006 (CST)
 * woot! — Biscuits (talk [[Image:Biscuit.png]] contribs) 01:40, 29 November 2006 (CST)