Gaming — a classification, not a measurement. An on-box language model (Qwen3.6-35B-A3B-UD-Q6_K_XL, prompt version 1) read this channel’s own recent posts on 12 August 2026 and assigned it the closest of 31 fixed categories, at 98% confidence. This is a model’s judgement about what the channel is likely to be about, not a fact this register measured the way a subscriber count or a view count is measured — it can be revised on a later pass, and it carries no weight anywhere else on this page. How this classification works, and why it has no browse page of its own yet.
Observations
These are measurements, not verdicts. Each one below states something we counted, alongside the evidence it was counted from, so you can check it rather than take it. None of them is graded: every observation this register holds is recorded at severity 0, because the precision of the detectors behind them has not been measured yet, and a rating we cannot support is worse than none. Read each as a fact about the data, not as a judgement about the channel. How we measure.
Views per post sit far above this size band
4,500 average views per post against 2,059 subscribers — an engagement rate of 218.7%. Across the 8,694 registered channels in the same cohort — 1,000–3,162 subscribers, posting mainly in English — the middle half sit between 5.02% and 27.5%, with a median of 12.7%.
What this was computed from
Window
30 days (13 July 2026 – 12 August 2026)
Posts measured
15 of 15 published in the window (0 exact, 15 rounded by Telegram)
Views totalled
67,560
Mature posts only
218.7% over 15 posts read at least 24h after publication
When this is recorded. A channel is listed here only when its engagement rate sits at or above the 99th percentile of its cohort and is at least 3× away from that cohort’s median — above it — on both the all-readings figure and the mature-only figure. The percentile alone would be circular: a percentile cut puts the same share of every cohort in the tail whatever the data looks like. The distance from the median is what makes it a statement about this channel.
This is not a verdict, and the direction is not a quality signal.A low rate has many innocent causes — audiences that read in the Telegram app without opening the channel, a subscriber base built long before the current output, an audience in a different timezone from our reading. A high rate has innocent causes too: a post that travelled far beyond the channel’s own subscribers will do it. We publish the measurement and the distribution it sits in. The full cohort baselines are downloadable, so this comparison can be reproduced rather than trusted.
Recorded under the key err_high, last confirmed 12 August 2026. An observation that a later pass no longer finds is cleared, and a cleared observation is removed from this page rather than being shown struck through — we do not keep publishing a claim we have withdrawn. Dispute an observation.
Growth
2 measurements taken within a single day, net +3. Dots are measurements; the straight line between them is drawn to join them, not to claim we know the path taken in between — snapshots are recorded only when a count changes, so gaps mean “no change observed”, never “interpolated”. The vertical axis spans 2,056–2,059 and does not start at zero.
Measurement log — every subscribers count we have recorded
Measured (UTC)
Subscribers
Change
12 Aug 2026, 20:17
2,059
+3
12 Aug 2026, 07:02
2,056
first reading
Engagement
15 posts held, back to 19 July 2026 — the reader has not yet reached the start of this channel’s public history, so older posts may sit further back, unread. Read across 1 pageof Telegram’s post history, 20 posts per page.
ERR · 30 days
218.7%
avg views ÷ 2,059 subscribers
Avg views / post
4,500
15 posts measured
Reaction rate
7.18%
reactions ÷ views · ER floor
Posts in window
15
of 15 held
ERR is average views per post over the last 30 days divided by subscribers, the definition TGStat uses, so this figure is comparable with the one you will see elsewhere. It falls structurally as a channel grows: a high ERR on a small channel and a low one on a large channel describe reach mathematics, not quality. We publish the figure and the sample it came from and pass no verdict on it.
ER is defined industry-wide as (forwards + reactions + comments) ÷ views— note the denominator is views, not subscribers. Telegram’s public web preview carries views and reactions but not forward or comment counts, so the reaction rate above is the reactions term only and is therefore a floor: the true ER for this channel is higher by an amount we have not measured and will not estimate.
What these figures were computed from
Window
Rolling 30 days · latest post in window 8 August 2026
Posts held
15 (19 July 2026 – 8 August 2026)
Views total
67,560
Reactions total
4,850
Forwards / comments
not exposed by the public surface — not measured, not estimated
Readings taken
12 Aug 2026, 07:02 UTC
Views are a single reading per post, taken at the time above. A post published in the last day or two is still accumulating views, which pulls the 30-day average down slightly. That is a property of the standard definition rather than a fault in it, so we keep the definition rather than “correcting” the number into something nobody can reproduce.
Precision. Telegram publishes view counts on its public widget in short form — 8.12K, 3.7M — so any reading at or above 1,000 reaches us rounded to three significant figures, and only counts below 1,000 are exact. Averages and rates derived from them are shown to the same precision rather than to the unit: a figure like 3,701,250 would assert digits nobody measured.
Reaction counts are published per emoji and rounded the same way, so a total below 1,000 is exact and a larger one is a sum that may carry a rounded component from each emoji above 1,000. Because it is a sum, it does not look rounded — read a large reaction total as three significant figures per contributing emoji rather than as the figure it prints.
What this channel posts
Video runtime
13s
Average length
13s
Measured directly from 1 video with a duration reading, out of the posts we hold for this channel — not this channel’s whole posting history, only the sample this register has actually read. An exact reading to the second, taken from the post itself rather than from Telegram’s own rounded chrome, so it carries no ≈ mark.
Reaction mix
4,850 reactions across 15 posts, in 47 distinct kinds. The most used accounts for 39.4% of them.
Every reaction kind recorded on the sample, most used first
Reaction
Count
Share
Share, drawn
🤡
1,911
39.4%
❤
868
17.9%
👎
538
11.1%
🖕
419
8.64%
🤣
225
4.64%
❤🔥
107
2.21%
👍
100
2.06%
🥰
86
1.77%
😢
74
1.53%
🤨
68
1.40%
😭
66
1.36%
😱
54
1.11%
🔥
42
0.866%
💩
32
0.66%
🤮
25
0.515%
👀
24
0.495%
😈
19
0.392%
💘
15
0.309%
🤬
15
0.309%
🤔
14
0.289%
27 further kinds
148
3.05%
No sentiment is inferred, and none should be read in. This table is ordered by count and by nothing else. Emoji do not carry stable meaning across languages or communities — 🙏 is thanks in one channel and mourning in another — so we publish which ones were pressed and how often, and pass no judgement on what an audience meant by them.
Precision. Telegram publishes reaction counts per emoji and short-forms each one — 4.34K, 1.2M — so any single kind at or above 1,000 reaches us at three significant figures, and only counts below 1,000 are exact. The shares above are ratios of those figures and carry the same error. This is also why the total here can differ slightly from a reaction total printed elsewhere on the page: both are sums of the same rounded parts, taken over samples with different edges.
Coverage. Reactions were read on 15 of the 15 sampled posts in this sample. Summed by Telegram’s own count on each post — not by adding up the per-emoji breakdown above — those same posts carry 4,850reactions in total: the kind of figure the paragraph above means by “a reaction total printed elsewhere on the page”.
Measured over the 15 most recent posts we hold, published 19 July 2026 to 8 August 2026, using the newest reading held for each. Telegram Stars are excluded: they are a payment, not a reaction, and they have their own section.
🎨 Some of the images extracted from WildCraft. Use them for stickers, design, decoration — basically, for any creative needs.
👉 Send this to that designer friend of yours — share
🎨 Несколько изображений, извлечённых из WildCraft. Используйте их для стикеров, дизайна, оформления — в общем, для любых творческих задач.
👉 Отправь тому самому другу-дизайнеру — поделиться
🚾 The game has been updated again. Many players are complaining that old problems remain unfixed, while new ones have appeared — including bans of regular players.
🚾 Игра снова обновилась. Многие игроки жалуются, что старые проблемы не исправили, зато появились новые — включая баны обычных игроков.
☀️ Sunday. Everyone's chilling — except those still grinding it out manually.
While some spend 4-5 hours a day on this, others are already playing on boosted accounts and enjoying the game.
Why waste your time when you can just buy a ready-made top-tier account — fast, affordable, and guaranteed?
Hundreds of happy customers already agree!
Reviews: t.me/+TUG-_pP6CJhjOGRi
Buy an account: @RIPTRGBOT
☀️ Воскресенье. Вс…
🐣 Some players are reporting that the online mode is available again, but some are still experiencing access issues
🐣 Некоторые игроки сообщают, что сетевой режим снова доступен, однако у части пользователей всё ещё возникают проблемы с подключением
Turbo Rocket Games have broken online access again while trying to boost security. Current online player count is under 400, compared to the usual ~2,500 at this time.
Turbo Rocket Games снова сломали онлайн-доступ, пытаясь усилить безопасность. Сейчас онлайн игроков составляет менее 400, хотя в это время обычно бывает около 2500.
🙊 The game has updated again. The developer has publicly challenged us to test their new security. Meanwhile, regular players continue to suffer from various errors when connecting to the online game. Also, unknown individuals tried to flood our channel with bots — this attack has been successfully repelled by us.
🙊 Игра снова обновилась. Разработчик публично бросил нам вызов, предлагая испытать их новую защиту. Тем…
👀 Thinking of buying a Wildcraft account? Now's the best time! We've significantly improved our bot:
• Fixed all known bot and in-game bugs
• Improved ban protection
• Improved the accounts themselves
• Not satisfied or changed your mind? We'll refund your money within 21 days
Over 300 accounts already sold!
Get your account here: @RIPTRGBOT
Reviews: t.me/+TUG-_pP6CJhjOGRi
👀 Думаешь купить аккаунт в Wildcraft? Сейч…
📉 According to our estimates, about 40% of players are unable to log into the game after the new anti-cheat was implemented. Most of them are regular players who have never used cheats. Meanwhile, our bot @RIPTRGBOT continues to work.
🧐 A lot of theories have emerged about who we are and what we did before Wildcraft, including claims that we collected players' personal data and spread viruses. This is not true — we h…
🤔 Due to hacks, TRG (Turbo Rocket Games) restricted online access for all new players and those who recently downloaded their account data.
🤔 В связи со взломами TRG (Turbo Rocket Games) ограничили онлайн-доступ для всех новых игроков, а также для тех, кто недавно загружал данные своего аккаунта.
👎150😭63🤣38🖕27🤡16👍9🔥4❤3
Showing the 12 most recent of 15 posts we hold for @RIPTRG. View and reaction counts are the latest single reading for each post, not a live figure, and a recent post is still accumulating both. A view count marked ≈ was rounded by Telegram before we ever saw it — t.me prints views in full below 1,000 and to three significant figures above, so ≈1,200,000 means somewhere between 1,150,000 and 1,249,999. Unmarked counts are exact. Text is reproduced from the public post preview and truncated for length.
Citation-graph rank
Citation-graph rank — 986,793 of 1,151,006entries in the measured graph. A weighted position computed from the forward and mention edges below — republished posts weigh more than named mentions — and recomputed periodically, over the whole graph. Published only as this ordinal position, never as a score: a position is a fact, and a score printed beside one channel’s name would read as a verdict this register does not make. The two counts beneath stay separate for the same reason mentions are never summed with forwards anywhere else on this page — a named-by count costs nothing to manufacture. The top 100 by this measure, or how it is computed.
Mentions
Named by 1 registered channel — every channel on the register whose own posts have named this one, by its current username or any other username it currently holds, merged from two separately captured readings of the same fact so a namer caught by only one of them is not missed and a namer both caught is not counted twice. A username this channel has since dropped is not matched — that handle may belong to someone else now, and crediting today’s namer to yesterday’s owner would misattribute it.
Named by
Channels on the register whose posts name this channel's handle.
A mention is a weaker signal than a forward and is counted separately for that reason — naming a channel is not republishing it, and a handle in a post body is easy to place deliberately. The post counts beside each row below are distinct posts in which the handle appeared, from posts we have read on both sides — the “Named by N registered channels” figure above is a different count, of distinct NAMING CHANNELS rather than posts, and is not the sum of the rows under it.
Cite this entry
A live page changes as we take new readings, so a citation should name the measurement it is based on, not just the URL. The line below cites the subscriber count as measured 12 August 2026 — this
entry's latest reading, not the date you are reading this.
“RIPTRG - WildCraft” (@RIPTRG), 2,059 subscribers as measured 12 August 2026. Telegram Register, tgregister.com/channel/RIPTRG.
Full measurement history, CC BY 4.0. Every reading this register holds for this entry, not just the latest one, as a dated, downloadable record: CSV · JSON. Free to use with attribution to tgregister.com. Each file carries its own generation timestamp, which is the figure to cite for exactly when the data was retrieved.
