Extreme pots in Pvp

[De_Lille_D]

I think it was more a strike first and fix it later on a case by case thing, similar to the RuneTech issues.

 

I was just explaining why the cwars removal could be understandable, I still believe that they should be allowed.

You learn the reward you want to use it.

The engine bugs were based on code being changed and could not have been avoided. This (the extreme pots) was a conceptual mistake. Anyone knew this was going to affect Pvp, all they had to do is test the limits, which they clearly didn't.

[JoeDaStudd]

I think it was more a strike first and fix it later on a case by case thing, similar to the RuneTech issues.

 

I was just explaining why the cwars removal could be understandable, I still believe that they should be allowed.

You learn the reward you want to use it.

The engine bugs were based on code being changed and could not have been avoided. This (the extreme pots) was a conceptual mistake. Anyone knew this was going to affect Pvp, all they had to do is test the limits, which they clearly didn't.

In both cases testing (beta testing is really needed) would have found the bugs.

In truth I think there was next to no testing for the herblore update as all par the overload, special and magic potions are simply tweaks on exisiting potions. Even the adding an extra ingredient had been done before.

[Chayliel]

Hm? I'll sum up this entire mess with my own post from the Tip.It times thread:

 

"It's rather disgusting, the level at which people expect things in this game. I'll first start by stating that RuneScape is composed by it's players. Being human, and a society, we apply concepts that are familiar to us. As such, applying realistic concepts to the game is completely normal. This is to rid myself of those useless people who like to throw "it's just a game!!@" at me.

 

That being said, the primary concept to be conveyed here, is simple: You do have to work for things sometimes in life. Untradeable items.. It's close to annoying, the bombardment of complaints whose only purpose is to state that a pre-existing game mechanic has suddenly become "unfair". Of course, with the blatant disarray of the current combat triangle, the new potions would call for problems, indeed. However, completely removing the potions from their most useful setting of gameplay was completely unwarranted by logic. A simply tweaking would have sufficed, yes. Rather than remove the problem, however, they removed everything else, including the training motivation initially created by the update. What makes the matter worse, though, is the reason behind it: complaints. Complaints not that the potions were overpowered, although this argument did arise in minute concentrations, but that it was unfair that players would now be required to train herblore to participate in PvP.

 

You first have to acknowledge the notion that these potions did not significantly bar anyone from participation in pvp. You also have to acknowledge the flagrant hypocrisy presented by such arguments. Godswords, however overpowered, were welcomed with open arms by the pvp community.

 

Backing up a bit for our primary concept, it's universally true that one should have some level of exclusiveness in regards to an ability he/she has developed. PhD's aren't tradeable, so people can stop being so ridiculous. It's impossible to attribute everything to how much money you can drop on it. You can spend as much as you want on an academic degree, however, if you lack the effort to pass the classes, you're simply wasting your time, and money. The same concept applies here. It goes back to the classic scenario: The reclusive man, who has all the money in the world, can buy anything he wants, except for the love of his life, who falls for the virtuous, hard-working man. It's completely analogous to the situation presented here."

[De_Lille_D]

In both cases testing (beta testing is really needed) would have found the bugs.

In truth I think there was next to no testing for the herblore update as all par the overload, special and magic potions are simply tweaks on exisiting potions. Even the adding an extra ingredient had been done before.

I disagree. When simplifying that much code, it's next to imposssible to exactly reproduce the same effects. They could have done more beta testing, but if you want all your updates to be perfect, you'll spend more time testing than anythign else combined.

The problem here was the lack of testing. If you add anything from a new strong weapon to new tools, you have to check if they aren't overpowered... They could have easily seen that this was the case here, yet they released it anyway, meaning the testing (if any) was not enough.

 

Hm? I'll sum up this entire mess with my own post from the Tip.It times thread:

 

"It's rather disgusting, the level at which people expect things in this game. I'll first start by stating that RuneScape is composed by it's players. Being human, and a society, we apply concepts that are familiar to us. As such, applying realistic concepts to the game is completely normal. This is to rid myself of those useless people who like to throw "it's just a game!!@" at me.

 

That being said, the primary concept to be conveyed here, is simple: You do have to work for things sometimes in life. Untradeable items.. It's close to annoying, the bombardment of complaints whose only purpose is to state that a pre-existing game mechanic has suddenly become "unfair". Of course, with the blatant disarray of the current combat triangle, the new potions would call for problems, indeed. However, completely removing the potions from their most useful setting of gameplay was completely unwarranted by logic. A simply tweaking would have sufficed, yes. Rather than remove the problem, however, they removed everything else, including the training motivation initially created by the update. What makes the matter worse, though, is the reason behind it: complaints. Complaints not that the potions were overpowered, although this argument did arise in minute concentrations, but that it was unfair that players would now be required to train herblore to participate in PvP.

 

You first have to acknowledge the notion that these potions did not significantly bar anyone from participation in pvp. You also have to acknowledge the flagrant hypocrisy presented by such arguments. Godswords, however overpowered, were welcomed with open arms by the pvp community.

 

Backing up a bit for our primary concept, it's universally true that one should have some level of exclusiveness in regards to an ability he/she has developed. PhD's aren't tradeable, so people can stop being so ridiculous. It's impossible to attribute everything to how much money you can drop on it. You can spend as much as you want on an academic degree, however, if you lack the effort to pass the classes, you're simply wasting your time, and money. The same concept applies here. It goes back to the classic scenario: The reclusive man, who has all the money in the world, can buy anything he wants, except for the love of his life, who falls for the virtuous, hard-working man. It's completely analogous to the situation presented here."

Wow long read. Basicaly you are saying that pkers aren't complaining because the pots are very strong; they are complaining because they are untradeable and costly.

I agree, to an extend. Most pkers would indeed not complain when they receive a better weapon, but some will. There are pkers out there who think that rushers already have too much power as it is and would like a solution to being pjed/rushed. The stronger the weapons, armour and pots become, the more people will agree on this.

[guano3]

pots are part of the game its like a weapon thats there so u can use it when u need to. its fair to use pots or any wep or armour thats available. if u are crying because u dont have the levels then go get the levels. its not my fault u didnt put in the effort i did.

[AlexRose]

Hm? I'll sum up this entire mess with my own post from the Tip.It times thread:

 

"It's rather disgusting, the level at which people expect things in this game. I'll first start by stating that RuneScape is composed by it's players. Being human, and a society, we apply concepts that are familiar to us. As such, applying realistic concepts to the game is completely normal. This is to rid myself of those useless people who like to throw "it's just a game!!@" at me.

 

That being said, the primary concept to be conveyed here, is simple: You do have to work for things sometimes in life. Untradeable items.. It's close to annoying, the bombardment of complaints whose only purpose is to state that a pre-existing game mechanic has suddenly become "unfair". Of course, with the blatant disarray of the current combat triangle, the new potions would call for problems, indeed. However, completely removing the potions from their most useful setting of gameplay was completely unwarranted by logic. A simply tweaking would have sufficed, yes. Rather than remove the problem, however, they removed everything else, including the training motivation initially created by the update. What makes the matter worse, though, is the reason behind it: complaints. Complaints not that the potions were overpowered, although this argument did arise in minute concentrations, but that it was unfair that players would now be required to train herblore to participate in PvP.

 

You first have to acknowledge the notion that these potions did not significantly bar anyone from participation in pvp. You also have to acknowledge the flagrant hypocrisy presented by such arguments. Godswords, however overpowered, were welcomed with open arms by the pvp community.

 

Backing up a bit for our primary concept, it's universally true that one should have some level of exclusiveness in regards to an ability he/she has developed. PhD's aren't tradeable, so people can stop being so ridiculous. It's impossible to attribute everything to how much money you can drop on it. You can spend as much as you want on an academic degree, however, if you lack the effort to pass the classes, you're simply wasting your time, and money. The same concept applies here. It goes back to the classic scenario: The reclusive man, who has all the money in the world, can buy anything he wants, except for the love of his life, who falls for the virtuous, hard-working man. It's completely analogous to the situation presented here."

 

And that was my argument for fourteen pages on the original thread, boiled down into a nicely dictated post. Well done.

[JoeDaStudd]

I disagree. When simplifying that much code, it's next to impossible to exactly reproduce the same effects. They could have done more beta testing, but if you want all your updates to be perfect, you'll spend more time testing than anything else combined.

The problem here was the lack of testing. If you add anything from a new strong weapon to new tools, you have to check if they aren't overpowered... They could have easily seen that this was the case here, yet they released it anyway, meaning the testing (if any) was not enough.

How many times have you seen Jagex state something similar to the following, "having everyone playing for a few hours is the same as months of testing by our team"?

Simple solution give 2000 to 5000 people beta passes and 1 world for 1 week before major changes.

 

Simplification of the code will break parts of the game, but they added the 0.6 second rule into the game as well as missed a lot of errors.

When first released (the RT update) you couldn't run and change equipment, run and eat and numerous other large bugs which an average player would notice almost instantly.

With the switch they pretty much made a load of changes then said "hey if we did anything wrong we'll fix them once they notice them". As a programmer your job is to envisage the problems and fix them asap during programming. Only leaving minuet bugs which your testers will find which can be fixed.

Yes there will always be bugs but how hard is it to notice some of the ones they let past? Someone isn't doing a very good job at testing.

 

The main issue is Jagex testers seem to be purely testers, I highly doubt any of them play the game for fun or as a pass time.

[langer]

@ JoeDaStudd

 

How do you open testing to players in the first place?

Randomly select players to get into a private world to test things that will be released shortly without informing anyone else of that update?

 

You either get: lots of players with knowledge of future content that will buy things in expectation of market changes giving them a huge advantage or the whole community knowing in advance the contents that will be released resulting in the lack of surprise and the community knowing what to expect without experiencing it for a couple days/weeks.

[JoeDaStudd]

@ JoeDaStudd

 

How do you open testing to players in the first place?

Randomly select players to get into a private world to test things that will be released shortly without informing anyone else of that update?

 

You either get: lots of players with knowledge of future content that will buy things in expectation of market changes giving them a huge advantage or the whole community knowing in advance the contents that will be released resulting in the lack of surprise and the community knowing what to expect without experiencing it for a couple days/weeks.

Its called non disclosure agreement contract. They sign to say they won't leak anything, if they break it they can be fined however much the company sees fit.

 

Pick long standing activate players with no black marks.

[De_Lille_D]

Or, they could announce updates a week beforehand. This way, no agreements are needed and you have time to prepare for the update.

 

I would have loved to know a week in advance that you needed a wild vine, a mature cat and some penguin points to finish the Ardougne diary...

[Jackatack]

I have not been to pvp in a while so i wont know how these are in pvp nut im sure the would own :P

[Saunamajuri]

You can already 1-hit-k.o in pvp

 

In minigames it would be fun, thought

[Sir_Kurity]

Yea, excuse me if i don't want to spend 50 million to have a chance in PVP combat.

 

A non combat skill should not have such an effect in PVP. Especially if its such an expensive skill like herblore.

[decebal]

I personally believe that the pots SHOULD be allowed. getting a high herblore level is a good enough achievement to warrant it.

[De_Lille_D]

You can already 1-hit-k.o in pvp

 

In minigames it would be fun, thought

You can hit 99 in 1 hit? I'd like to see you try (no dharok). If not, then just some people can, but that means they are lower level, which usually means a lower Herblore level too.

 

Yea, excuse me if i don't want to spend 50 million to have a chance in PVP combat.

 

A non combat skill should not have such an effect in PVP. Especially if its such an expensive skill like herblore.

Look, you don't have to spend 50mill if you don't want to. Compare it to Lunar magics. It doesn't affect your combat (usually people at that level are melee based) and it's a clear advantage. Solution: people say "no veng".

Similarly, you could say "no extreme" and check Herblore on the highscores before agreeing to fight.

 

I personally believe that the pots SHOULD be allowed. getting a high herblore level is a good enough achievement to warrant it.

While this may sound blunt: I don't care about what you think; I care about why you think it.

[Will H]

Why not apply a similar rule as we did to Summoning? Your combat level should be boosted in PvP worlds if you have stat-boosting potions in your inventory, to the level you would have recieved if you calculated it from the new levels. Surely there wouldn't be any problem after that. It's really not a bad thing if herblore is treated as a minor combat level.

[Gudi]

I think it would be fair if it were possible to still profit from getting a high herblore level, but since the GE that is almost impossible.

[Will H]

I think it would be fair if it were possible to still profit from getting a high herblore level, but since the GE that is almost impossible.

Yeah, but that's because there's nothing tradable in the higher levels, not because of the GE, if that's what you're implying. As soon as the extreme potions are put back into PvP, perhaps with an adjustment to combat levels, there's other skills that need tending to more, like smithing and firemaking.

[De_Lille_D]

Why not apply a similar rule as we did to Summoning? Your combat level should be boosted in PvP worlds if you have stat-boosting potions in your inventory, to the level you would have recieved if you calculated it from the new levels. Surely there wouldn't be any problem after that. It's really not a bad thing if herblore is treated as a minor combat level.

I don't agree that Herblore should affect combat. As has been satted before, are you going to add combat levels for having D claws? How about super pots? Soon we'd be lvl 300.

 

I think it would be fair if it were possible to still profit from getting a high herblore level, but since the GE that is almost impossible.

This is the place to discuss the cost of Herblore.

[Will H]

Why not apply a similar rule as we did to Summoning? Your combat level should be boosted in PvP worlds if you have stat-boosting potions in your inventory, to the level you would have recieved if you calculated it from the new levels. Surely there wouldn't be any problem after that. It's really not a bad thing if herblore is treated as a minor combat level.

I don't agree that Herblore should affect combat. As has been satted before, are you going to add combat levels for having D claws? How about super pots? Soon we'd be lvl 300.

But at higher attack and strength levels, you're expected to use better weapons to utilise the stats effectively, otherwise the extra damage you deal will be reduced many times over. On the other hand, you're not expected to use potions all the time. Your choice, therefore, should increase your combat level selectively.

[De_Lille_D]

But at higher attack and strength levels, you're expected to use better weapons to utilise the stats effectively, otherwise the extra damage you deal will be reduced many times over. On the other hand, you're not expected to use potions all the time. Your choice, therefore, should increase your combat level selectively.

 

Not everyone with 60 attack has D claws, just like not every lvl 100 has 90+ Herblore (they both cost a lot). And if you do have either one, you gain a great advantage. I don't see what's the difference...

If you let one of them affect Combat level, you could use the same reasoning to let the other one affect it too. And since I think it's stupid to let any advantage raise our Combat lvls, I don't think Herblore should raise you Combat lvl.

[Will H]

But at higher attack and strength levels, you're expected to use better weapons to utilise the stats effectively, otherwise the extra damage you deal will be reduced many times over. On the other hand, you're not expected to use potions all the time. Your choice, therefore, should increase your combat level selectively.

 

Not everyone with 60 attack has D claws, just like not every lvl 100 has 90+ Herblore (they both cost a lot). And if you do have either one, you gain a great advantage. I don't see what's the difference...

If you let one of them affect Combat level, you could use the same reasoning to let the other one affect it too. And since I think it's stupid to let any advantage raise our Combat lvls, I don't think Herblore should raise you Combat lvl.

Imagine it this way: You can be very effective in melee combat if you use dragon claws but without potions, but you can't be effective if you use potions but don't use a weapon. Fundamentally, they effect your chances in combat very differently.

[De_Lille_D]

Imagine it this way: You can be very effective in melee combat if you use dragon claws but without potions, but you can't be effective if you use potions but don't use a weapon. Fundamentally, they effect your chances in combat very differently.

Not using a weapon? That isn't a good comparison. When you look at combat levels now, they tell you how strong the player is, when using the average equipment. If you put a 120 vs 136, but the 136 has to use a rubber chicken, the combat level won't be representative from the 136s strength.

 

I think you have to compare a whip+pots or dclaws without pots. You'll see the difference isn't as big then.

Answer me this: why should the Herblore advantage be given a combat level effect, while the D Claw/Vengeance/Godsword/Sara Brews/Ancients/Vesta/Full Bandos (choose one) advantage doesn't?

 

There will always be advantages, but you can't make a number out of it! Combat level is for combat stats, not for advantages.

[Troacctid]

But at higher attack and strength levels, you're expected to use better weapons to utilise the stats effectively, otherwise the extra damage you deal will be reduced many times over. On the other hand, you're not expected to use potions all the time. Your choice, therefore, should increase your combat level selectively.

 

Not everyone with 60 attack has D claws, just like not every lvl 100 has 90+ Herblore (they both cost a lot). And if you do have either one, you gain a great advantage. I don't see what's the difference...

If you let one of them affect Combat level, you could use the same reasoning to let the other one affect it too. And since I think it's stupid to let any advantage raise our Combat lvls, I don't think Herblore should raise you Combat lvl.

Imagine it this way: You can be very effective in melee combat if you use dragon claws but without potions, but you can't be effective if you use potions but don't use a weapon. Fundamentally, they effect your chances in combat very differently.

So...I'm getting that dragon claws should increase your combat level and potions shouldn't.

[UserOnRS]

I think one of the main things is that you can buy equipment but you can't buy levels, so it's forcing you to level up a non combat skill (almost to getting the skillcape) to beat others in PvP. I think they should have just been made tradeable.