Platinum_Myr
-
Posts
2614 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Events
Blogs
Posts posted by Platinum_Myr
-
-
I think the minigames interface reset the xp/quest points needed in its own counter, so it won't work right till you do tears at least once since the update.
-
Given that Div isn't my lowest skill anymore I'm probably going to be using my weekly tokens on circus (160 k mage & range exp, 80 k agility, 320 k fm, and 110 k thieving exp vs 270 agility OR 246 k divination exp). What daily DnD's are even worth doing?
I'm 99 hunt so big chinchompa is out. Shooting stars stink. Fish Flingers I'm not interested in having gotten my outfit and not needing to level fishing for anything anymore. The Pit (lol).
So pheonix lair, sinkholes, and evil tree which is the most useful?
Sinkholes!
Or if it's an option, Troll Invasion?
-
Yea, they could have done better with mellee weapons there. Overall I think its a decent idea though to give different player types different weapons of near-equal value to earn.
And with Dungeoneering in particular, they could easily work it in as a way to keep the skill relevant when it's possible that it'll take more time for you to earn chaotics than it will to get something better. You could have players upgrade their stuff with tokens. Hell, you could do that throughout the entire tier system - give players a level 1 staff, by the time they reach 120 it'll be a level 90+ staff.
Balancing it might be tricky, considering how fast DG gets at higher levels.
Well, it would be a considerable grind, but...
200k tokens for the lvl 80 as present, then you can upgrade it thusly:
100k tokens for lvl 81, 200k for 82, 300k for 83, 400k for 84, 500k for 85, and so on. Altogether, it would cost 5.7M tokens or 57m exp to get a single T90 weapon. So you would be just off 114 DG. I think that's pretty fair.
Following the same pattern of 100k increments, a single item would would cost 192m total exp to upgrade from 80-99. Off-hand equivalents would be half that, so 96m.
But there are other things to spend tokens on than a single weapon!
-
Also, comparing RS to other top games.. most of them do not require 250 hours to achieve maximum in a *single* skill or profession. Yes you can say Runescape is internally consistent, but by no means does that make the amount of
efforttime sensible.-
4
-
-
I couldn't even give him stone because I did the house first -.-
That should be fixed now, but you have to collect it from the pile.
Ofcourse i get this after it's too late :(
-
2
-
-
There was so much I actually am having an overload, I don't know if I could recall it all.
Ty Miss Lioness :)
-
1
-
-
There is a difference between max levels and max gears.
But the items aren't hoarded necessarily. I mean if I had two virtus wands already I would just sell the new one. The issue is the super rare drop rate, plus the high wealth of the rich players that keeps the price up (and maybe their ability to merchant).
I wouldn't mind seeing GE limits longer than 4 hours for some of those high items so that they take more time to merchant.
-
i suppose the question is if you are attached to imaginary gold to the point where owning more than you will ever actually require to stay competitive in the game comes down to actually depriving other actual people of actual money they need
However, a lot of gold in the economy is generated each day, so we have huge inflation, not *just* stagnant wealth. This means that the wealth isn't moving around properly, but also that it gets generated and slowly moves towards the top and gets stuck..
-
Too bad WebGL's implementation in browsers isn't up to snuff yet :(
-
Too bad Jagex won't implement those suggestions :(
-
The old "soak" mechanic was laughable and stupid, it basically made soak ONLY good for large hits, which is bad.
raw% is better, but significantly better for higher hits rather than lower hits.
flat damage soak value is better for small hits and significantly worse for high hits. I think this is the best type (or some combination). It makes sense that armor blocks more small hits than large hits, because a large hit usually is meant to be dodged, and small hits flat soak means that you can effectively become "invincible" to low level creatures and the like without having to rely on accuracy dropping to 0 (ie: them not being able to hit you anymore at all)
But you have to be careful how much flat rate you allow as too high prevents a lot of hits, but too low is useless.
Honestly, I would most prefer an inverse of the old soak system.. something like "% of the first X dmg, but no more"
Say, for example the soak is 40% of the first 1,000 damage.
This now means it will work *best* for hits at exactly 1k damage, and it will scale to the hit for all hits below 1,000 but for extremely large hits, it will do significantly less. Obviously the correct balance needs to be determined but...
This enables you to continually soak at least some damage for all hits, but not soak all the damage from the smaller hits (that is, you would not be able to fully stop damage from a hit ever, but you would also scale towards smaller hits more.)
This type of system would enable also a cap on the maximum damage that could ever be soaked from a hit at once enabling proper balance that raw% doesn't have, but still be % based for smaller hits.
The way jagex implented soak, basically made it useless except against scripted hits like Jad or Nomad.
-
nothing like being a burden on the economy for the good of all
what gets me is that their ultimate solution was to convince everybody that throwing money down an actual bottomless hole was actually in the interest of others
Well deflating the total GP in circulation could be overall good for other players who don't.
What would be sort of the best ever death of an MMO would be if everyone donated all their items/gp (no bonds ofcourse) and bankrupted the company :shades:
"This just in, once the worlds most popular free MMO went bankrupt for charity"
Obviously I don't trust Jagex would actually donate everything (and/or they already have enough money set aside so that even if all current in game wealth was donated they wouldn't be in trouble... more likely they just have some maximum donation limit they won't go over) Ofcourse this doesn't apply to bonds because that is just Jagex donating someone else's money, since someone had to pay for it in the first place.
That said, I don't actually want Jagex to go bankrupt and stop hosting/updating Runescape :wub:
-
And before anyone accuses me of being an illegal gold buyer, I am not. I've actually bought several bonds, instead. Because I prefer to do things on the up-and-up.
buying gold from 3rd parties and buying gold from jagex is equally immoral.
While I appreciate that you have a strong stance on this... This isn't really the way the game industry (or players!) are going.
At least Jagex isn't directly generating gold, but requires that someone actually buys the bond, so this way it doesn't hyper inflate the economy worse than anything a gold (re)seller ever could.
-
Small resolution will suffer a lot from that silly interface <_< :wall:
-
I'm guessing either more steps per day or something?
-
1
-
-
Steve is right. But that is the point. The money now goes in Jagex pocket when done through bonds.
-
I really hope those get fixed it would be horrid to know that a few people have cheated out of some of those requirements.
-
Any game company wants to do the opposite of "play less of our stuff". They want you to play more, and more often. Sometimes they may promote healthy choices, in order to look good.. but their job is to make you want to play more.
The six-hour logout is immensely irritating, especially since it apparently counts time spent in-lobby. Most of my time spent in lobby is AFK, so STOP ****ING COUNTING IT! Or, better yet, don't impose a maximum activity limit. I don't know of any other game that does. If people want to nolife for 15 hours straight, why do you care? It's their choice to spend their time like that.
As far as I know this is mostly done to enable logging of highscores, and may have at one point been to ensure that the same 2k people don't hog a server indefinitely.
-
Any game company wants to do the opposite of "play less of our stuff". They want you to play more, and more often. Sometimes they may promote healthy choices, in order to look good.. but their job is to make you want to play more.
-
Players play to win, game designers need to make winning what is fun in the game. Many game designers don't do this.
-
2
-
-
This.
There are a few hardcore players this will appeal to, but vastly more players who really couldn't give a damn less. It's a waste of dev resources to make an update that appeals to what is likely less than two hundred players.
Especially since at least a few players would feel pressured into using this system to maintain ranks, even if they didn't like it that much.
-
It's funny because the player is one of the most selfish and power-hungry beings in the setting. :mrgreen:
This depends on the player actually.
-
Not entirely misleading though
Novices did not have the chance to pick Guthix (though TWW only needs 140 cmb so it's doable by many) and equally many may not of had the Zaros choice.
Everyone did however have Sara, arma, bandos, icth, zammy and sliske choices.
The fact that in spite of this limitation Guthix and Zaros still reached 2nd and 3rd most popular says something.
I just realized though, that some people who don't understand lore may have picked the "(unlocked by {quest})" options just because it said they were unlocked by some quest. I know I was always leaning toewards those options even if it wasn't actually related, ie: I chose to say I thought it was monks from zamorak because that was unlocked by a quest (earlier dialog in MPD).
That could factor some into why the other values win.
-
It also says something about why Icthlarin is 1st, considering that everyone has that option, and he is practically the only level headed god there. (granted, that the other gods don't really get as much time in the limelight as Icthlarin does in this quest)
Future Update Discussions
in General Discussion
Posted
Too bad its made of unobtanium.