From GuildWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
/Archive 1 ~ Discussions up to August, 2006

salvage before identify gets runes?[edit source]

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 is this an outdated feature or am i just not having very good luck? The preceding unsigned comment was added by CJC Gizmo (talk • 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 (talkcontribs) - 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 Biscuit.png contribs) 23:02, 8 September 2006 (CDT)

yeah, i found my mistake about about 2 days after i posted here. i was using the wrong kind of salvage kit. i was still in (post searing) ascalon and had never seen an expert salvage kit. what i didn't find until 3 minutes ago was this page. CJC Gizmo

Warning about gold salvage items[edit source]

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 Biscuit.png contribs) 12:04, 21 October 2006 (CDT)

Runes "non stacking"[edit source]

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 (talkcontribs) - 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[edit source]

Post on 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 [[1]] 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[edit source]

From the pvp item creation menu:

New runes.jpg

Look to be nightfall-exclusive unlike the energy and health runes. — 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):
  • 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

--Ender A 07:03, 27 October 2006 (CDT)

Very interesting - it doesn't seem to be working quite right.
% reduction is per-level; the total % reduction from the 0-rune value is given in parenthesis
Runes Duration % Reduction Duration w/Barbed % Reduction Total % Reduction As Specified
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). —Dr Ishmael 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 Warrior(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.
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. —Dr Ishmael 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 Warrior(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. —Dr Ishmael 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. —Dr Ishmael Diablo the chicken.gif (talk|contribs) 16:06, 2 November 2006 (CST)
Just so everyone doesn't get confused like I did, these runes do not stack (I tested Restoration and Clarity and I can only assume the others work the same). Only the first rune reduces the duration -- additional runes of the same type do not reduce it further.--Dfscott 19:09, 30 November 2006 (CST)
Right, and this is now plainly stated in the article: Runes of Vitae and Attunement are stackable, meaning you receive cumulative effects from wearing more than one at a time. All other runes are non-stackable ... —Dr Ishmael Diablo the chicken.gif (talk|contribs) 14:13, 1 December 2006 (CST)

Article overhaul/rewrite[edit source]

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. —Dr Ishmael Diablo the chicken.gif (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. —Dr Ishmael 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. —Dr Ishmael 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 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. —Dr Ishmael Diablo the chicken.gif (talk|contribs) 21:47, 28 November 2006 (CST)

woot! Biscuits (talk Biscuit.png contribs) 01:40, 29 November 2006 (CST)
This page is very outdated. You can't expert salvage runes anymore before IDing them. You could also mention the use of the perfect salvage kit from EotN. Sjeng. 09:37, September 29, 2009 (UTC)

Rare skinned runes[edit source]

Hey, I got a rare skinned, one of a kind, Rune of Superior Vigor. It has the skin and letters of a Minor Vigor Rune but has the same name and stats as a Rune of Superior Vigor. PM me online. My IGN is Eloc Jcg Eloc jcg 10:32, 22 January 2007 (CST)

Runes in the early BWEs did all have the same color (blue) and skin (=~Minor), but all characters got wiped before GW went live, so you can't have a BWE rune. Therefore, what you say is impossible. —Dr Ishmael Diablo the chicken.gif (talk|contribs) 11:05, 22 January 2007 (CST)
Wanna bet? PM me and I will prove it to you that I have the one remaining rare skinned Superior Vigor Rune. Eloc jcg 17:39, 23 January 2007 (CST)

No rune??[edit source]

I just ided a purple armor and it had no rune or insigna? Anyone has this happen? The article says guaranteed to have a rune. Gandorf 23:22, 19 February 2007 (CST)

A while back, a glitch had caused armor to be dropped with no or wrong runes. Did you buy it or did it drop recently?--Ishmaeel 02:22, 20 February 2007 (CST)
Just dropped for me a few hours back. I dont care that it had no rune. But the glitch must still be there then. Gandorf 02:29, 20 February 2007 (CST)
It was fixed way back then. Actually, I don't remember reports of "empty" purples. There were empty golds, superior blues and minor purples iirc. This must be a re-introduction of the glitch.--Ishmaeel 04:32, 20 February 2007 (CST)
Game_updates/20060426#Runes is when gold/purple armors were modified to always contain a superior/major rune. No update since has changed this, so an empty purple armor is obviously a glitch and should be reported to ANet support. —Dr Ishmael Diablo the chicken.gif (talk|contribs) 09:22, 20 February 2007 (CST)
XD see Ishmael? I do have a Superior Blue. Eloc jcg 09:47, 20 February 2007 (CST)
This seems to be happening lately. On July 03, 2007, I have had two separate purple armor drops without any rune or insignia. These were ones that I personally got as drops (as opposed to traded for them) and when I identified them, there was no rune or insignia, just a purple armor. 05:02, 3 July 2007 (CDT)
Read what was said above - this is a bug/glitch and needs to be reported so that it can be fixed. —Dr Ishmael Diablo the chicken.gif 12:44, 3 July 2007 (CDT)

Rune Traders not buying?[edit source]

I've been trying to sell a rune of minor vigor to a rune trader for a while now. It used to take them, but now they don't buy them. I've heard that they won't buy if they are full of that rune, is this true? Also, I don't think it helps that you can get one in Kamadan as a beginner quest reward... Mattman243 10:58, 27 February 2007 (CST)

Just sell it to the normal merchant instead? Biscuits (talk Biscuit.png contribs) 11:03, 27 February 2007 (CST)
Ummmm, no. This rune is worth around 2k, and I have 3 of them. They normal merchant only takes 25g... Mattman243 06:35, 28 February 2007 (CST)
Use an ID kit on it and and you will get more than 25g. Eloc jcg 12:08, 28 February 2007 (CST)
Even Id'd runes net 25 g.
Are you sure it isn't the rune from the Kamadan quest? That rune can't be sold to rune trader, just like the dye from the dye quest can't be sold to dye trader --Gimmethegepgun 21:27, 26 March 2007 (CDT)
Bingo. Case closed. — Skuld 06:59, 3 July 2007 (CDT)
Don't want to sound mean or anything but did you press the quote button first? Sometimes after hitting the Make A Quote button the price goes up (has never went down for me so I wouldn't know)?Ghostin
This also occurs with some very old runes (such as major runes from gold armors prior to Factions release) I've had a couple of them from one of my old armor sets that the trader would not give a quote for. These were updated and the bonuses had been modified (as well as changing the unid armor colors for blue purple and gold). The minor vigor mentioned here is likely from the quest in Kamadan, but I have successfully traded one of them to the trader in the last week of June, 2007. 05:11, 3 July 2007 (CDT)

Addicted.[edit source]

The article says that if you are addicted the game, you can easily tell the different kinds of runes. this is not necessarily true.

Below 1?[edit source]

Hey, if I attach a bunch of sup and major runes to a level 1 char, does he die? Since they start with 100 health, I attach a sup and major rune of whatever, and what happens?

I think they just go down to 1. --Wizardboy777 03:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
You will go down to 1 hp. -- Gem (gem / talk) 03:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually low level characters with superior and major runes is the original idea behind Invincible Monks. -- Gem (gem / talk) 03:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Attunement[edit source]

Wasn't there a note saying attunements didn't stack with offhands? Did this change or never exist? Zeek Aran 23:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Huh? do you mean runes of attunement? If yes then you'll still get +energy from both of them, yes --Shadowcrest 23:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I just found that out, but was it different a while ago? I don't remember seeing an update saying anything about these runes, and I was pretty sure they didn't stack with offhands a while ago. 01:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
They've always stacked with my staves, so... idk. I rarely use offhands, but from they few times I have used them I can tell you they do stack. --Shadowcrest 01:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
The thing I either made up in my head or that actually existed said the runes stacked with staves, but not offhands. Zeek Aran 01:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Meh. IDK whether it used to or not, but rest assured, they stack now :) --Shadowcrest 02:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Condition runes[edit source]

Did some playing around with a Purifying Veil/Featherfoot Grace runner and runes, and discovered that all the runes reduce bleeding. Tested self-inflicted cripple and poison as well, but neither were bugged. I did the testing in September but forgot to post it here (posted it in our R&D thread on our forum), so hopefully it hasn't changed. --Epinephrine.jpg ~ Epinephrine 20:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Thats just stupid, lulz. (the bug, ofcourse, not the testing) --- VipermagiSig.JPG-- (s)talkpage 20:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah RT | Talk 20:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

If 2 different condition runes (Restoration & X) are used, is there any chance the 'bugged' Bleeding reduction on X rune stacks with Restoration rune's normal inherent Bleeding reduction? I know under normal circumstances runes don't stack, but thought this may behave different due to the bug... - Ins420sig.png420 15:57, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Some items in Runes Traders being sold out?[edit source]

Just now, I was trying to buy an Assassin rune of Superior Shadow Arts and it's not showing, even on other Rune Traders. I'm going nuts on wondering how it happened. My boyfriend checked the Rune Traders on his account and it's not showing either. Can anyone confirm this? Thanks. --† Neoma † 15:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The vendor pricing formula is stupid, designed more to keep prices from changing too fast than to find market equilibrium. As such, a spike in demand means that a vendor runs out of something. This also happened with mesmer runes when GWEN was released, among other times. The rune trader creates new runes, in addition to the ones it buys from players, so they'll eventually be back in stock more or less continuously--and at a higher price. Maybe it will be just in time for Shadow Form to get nerfed back to what it was before. Quizzical 17:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
crap ah well at least i know wat happened now thx 18:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Can't Sell +30 health Rune[edit source]

Is there something behind this? Because I can't sell the rune to any rune trader. it says the trader refuses to buy that item. wtf. ||Creepy Insane Guy|| 00:44, September 15, 2009 (UTC)

read above. If you got the minor vigor rune from the quest in Kamadan, then the rune traders wont buy it...62 px Dictator of Undeath 01:24, September 15, 2009 (UTC)
The +30 rune from the Nightfall quest Missing Shipment can't be sold to traders because it would be too ridiculously easy to farm --Gimmethegepgun 01:25, September 15, 2009 (UTC)

Runes of Condition Reduction?[edit source]

Is it just me, or do these "condition reduction" runes seem to be insanely rare compared to all other runes? Ravien Coromana 14:39, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I've never seen them worth much, I honestly assume most people don't use them at all. Drop-wise, yeah. I might have found more Superior Vigor runes than the Condition Reduction runes, and I haven't found probably more than five Superior Vigors. Skippster 17:16, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
They seem fairly common to me. My mule is holding about 8 of them and I've sold countless others to the merchant because they weren't worth salvaging. 04:03, 15 July 2012 (UTC)