Levelcists

[All_Is_Great]

The best way to train dungeoneering to get the most xp per hour relies heavily on melee stats and prayer, and relies little if at all on the non combat stats.

 

Therefore, it is right for a player to turn down a lower combat player in favor of a higher combat player, since it will give him more xp faster.

 

Unless the high level player has no idea what they're doing. Ex: they could've bought their account.

[Saru Inc]

People have already said before, low levels tend not to be as good. That's it.

[Nomrombom]

Wait a second, didnt you make the " I'M A LOW LEVEL AND HIGH LEVELS STEAL MY SPOT." thread? I don't see why your suddenly looking down on pures and low levels.

 

Not looking down on low levels - just on Pures. I hate pures. I mean, I don't even know you, you seem decent, but in general, pures are the [wagon] I meet. HOWEVER - there are some pures that are some of the people I talk with most often as they're quite nice. But in general, yeah.

[Sir_Kurity]

Not looking down on low levels - just on Pures. I hate pures. I mean, I don't even know you, you seem decent, but in general, pures are the [wagon] I meet. HOWEVER - there are some pures that are some of the people I talk with most often as they're quite nice. But in general, yeah.

 

Pures are low levels, and hating pures just because a few of us suck is a how racism is born.

 

Sure, a vast bunch of us spend our time in PVP worlds yelling "safer noob, GF NUB, LOL 09 PROD, LOL SW PROD, LOL SOME RANDOM PROD HERE", but that doesnt mean you should hate all pures, we have just as much entitlement to our fun as every other low leveled account.

[Nomrombom]

Not looking down on low levels - just on Pures. I hate pures. I mean, I don't even know you, you seem decent, but in general, pures are the [wagon] I meet. HOWEVER - there are some pures that are some of the people I talk with most often as they're quite nice. But in general, yeah.

 

Pures are low levels, and hating pures just because a few of us suck is a how racism is born.

 

Sure, a vast bunch of us spend our time in PVP worlds yelling "safer noob, GF NUB, LOL 09 PROD, LOL SW PROD, LOL SOME RANDOM PROD HERE", but that doesnt mean you should hate all pures, we have just as much entitlement to our fun as every other low leveled account.

 

Didn't I JUST GET DONE saying how I don't hate ALL pures?

 

Pures are NOT low levels - someone with 99 in every stat and only 20 defence is going to be higher combat than even me.

[Sir_Kurity]

Didn't I JUST GET DONE saying how I don't hate ALL pures

 

You said you hate pures, which implys you hate all of them.

 

Even if you "generally" hate pures, its still a crappy generalization.

 

Pures are NOT low levels - someone with 99 in every stat and only 20 defence is going to be higher combat than even me.

 

Pures generally are lower leveled.

 

And even your extreme example of a pure is only level 99, most are far, far lower.

[ghjkl]

I wouldn't let a pure dungeoneering with me generally. They have low def and will waste too much food and start complaining, unless they have a shadow silk hood.

[Nomrombom]

Still beside the point - I hate most pures, not necessarily low levels.

[Sir_Kurity]

Generalizing that most pures are [developmentally delayed], and then hating most pures because of this.

 

Some pures are, but that doesnt mean you should hate most pures. At the same time, some of low levels are whiny annoyances who complain about spot stealing, city doors, spam, dragon claws, ancients, game being to easy, just about anything (like you!), but i dont hate most low levels because of that.

[Nomrombom]

Well, the majority of pures I've seen (and i've seen plenty) are idiots.

 

Maybe that's just my opinion, but it remains that it is my opinion, so you're not convincing me otherwise, have a nice day. :thumbup:

[Sir_Kurity]

facefist.

 

Thats like me thinking all low levels are idiots just because you are.

[Nomrombom]

facefist.

 

Thats like me thinking all low levels are idiots just because you are.

 

No, it isn't.

 

I said the VAST MAJORITY of pures I meet are jackasses. And then I said I've met a lot of pures.

 

How hard is this to understand?

[ghjkl]

Gotta stop trolling and talk about the rant.

On topic:

Lower levels are generally worse, either get high level or deal with it

[jettrider]

What we really need is a system that lets players rank each other as teammates in a particular activity after a round. Ex. while completing a dungeon, you can optionally rate the other players on a number scale (say, 1-5), based on how good they are at working in a team. One potential safeguard: the same person cannot rate a specific player more than a few times. There should also be a curving mechanism so that a player learning an activity can get a higher rating after playing badly through the first few games.

 

A system like this would not be perfect but would GREATLY cut down the amount of clueless imbeciles who get put on serious high level teams. Low levels would also be able to use it to prove they are a worthy team member.

 

The biggest problem with activities like Dungeoneering and Barbarian Assault are the number of useless players you have to sort through before actually being able to play. If we had cross-world sorting that took this team rating into account, they'd be a lot more useful.

 

 

Investing some developer time into a system like this that could be used for all future activities would be worth all the filler quests currently in the game.

[ghjkl]

There are many different playing styles to dungeoneering, if you are good at taking it relaxed and slow, then you will suck at rushing and vice versa. It would also put a permanant disadvantage to some players. No one will take you if your rating is bad, so how are you suppose to get a better one? What I've found is that if you rush, you only need 2 people that knows what they are doing. As long as the other 3 have the inteligence to go to where a place is marked it really doesn't matter.

[Sir_Kurity]

There are many different playing styles to dungeoneering, if you are good at taking it relaxed and slow, then you will suck at rushing and vice versa.

 

No who rushes sucks at taking it relaxed and slow.

 

Thats like saying its hard to lose a 100 meter sprint.

[Omali]

There are many different playing styles to dungeoneering, if you are good at taking it relaxed and slow, then you will suck at rushing and vice versa.

 

No who rushes sucks at taking it relaxed and slow.

 

Thats like saying its hard to lose a 100 meter sprint.

 

Or if you're really good at a 100 meter sprint, you probably can't walk without breaking your kneecaps inadvertently.

[Sir_Kurity]

wrong analogy, they can probably walk just fine but they will [bleep] about how slow it is the whole time

 

Yes, they will complain about how slow it is, BUT that doesnt mean they suck at it.

[pulli23]

wrong analogy, they can probably walk just fine but they will [bleep] about how slow it is the whole time

 

Yes, they will complain about how slow it is, BUT that doesnt mean they suck at it.

 

Remember Zergs are only good for rushing. If your Zerg rush fails you wont win.

 

But these players will naturally go faster then the group - in addition to complaining about how slow the rest of the group is - and will probably die and leave party.

 

Someone used to rushing has no patience and does do stuff like this. Now i know plenty of rushers that dont, but knowing plenty do would make me not want to add them to a group if i wasnt rushing.

 

Also on topic with the thread. Here is my opinion about level discrimination in dungeoneering in general (no one replied to it earlier)

 

the proper term is elitism, and in the case of dungeoneering it makes sense. For maximum exp you need to be maxed out in all other skills besides dung, and they obviously want the people who are maxed or the closest to being maxed out.

 

Also the 80+ dung requirements also makes sense because it queues in to the party leader that this person knows what their doing and is going to be an asset instead of a liability

 

 

For the lvl requirement within dungeoneering I can fully understand.. - However levels gained outside of a skill shouldn't make it so you CAN'T play the skill in the way it's meant.. Especially if the requirements to DO play it are so perverselly high.. (I understand a lv 130 doesn't want to play with a lv 90, however I do think anything between the 3/4th margin shouldn't make too much of a difference).

[pulli23]

Nope any 1st world country makes sure you can't "just hire who you want'... - In a first world country there are lots of safeguards so the employee has to come up with a reason someone is not fit, and even if someone almost falls out of the boat, the goverment takes steps and forces employees to help a job for that person..

In the real world that works, because there are jobs in every shape possible, so if A doesn't fit for you, you can do B, or C: there's always a thing that fits you exactly..

 

 

In dungeoneering this isn't the case: there is no "high level" or "mid level" teams forming, thus if people don't fall in A, they can't do anything! I do believe in free social choice: you're free to choose as long as you're thinking about others and doing what's best for EVERYONE..

[pulli23]

Nope any 1st world country makes sure you can't "just hire who you want'... - In a first world country there are lots of safeguards so the employee has to come up with a reason someone is not fit, and even if someone almost falls out of the boat, the goverment takes steps and forces employees to help a job for that person..

In the real world that works, because there are jobs in every shape possible, so if A doesn't fit for you, you can do B, or C: there's always a thing that fits you exactly..

 

 

In dungeoneering this isn't the case: there is no "high level" or "mid level" teams forming, thus if people don't fall in A, they can't do anything! I do believe in free social choice: you're free to choose as long as you're thinking about others and doing what's best for EVERYONE..

 

Thats not a good thing in the real world (depending on who you are, this benefits minorities and less qualified individuals NOT the business). As a business i want to hire the best people. Unfortunately i cant hire someone i feel is the most qualified because i have to much of this race and not enough of another.

 

Runescape doesnt need any of this. Also the problem of mid level players not forming their own groups is the mid level players fault not the elite players nor Jagex's.

 

 

I would like to see someone form a Dungeoneering clan level 80-110 combat, 1400-1800 total. But if no players do so its not Jagex's fault they dont get teams its the individuals.

 

 

However if i was 138 with 2400+ total level. And im with 3 other people so its the 4 of us and we need 1 more player to go. A level 100 would not benefit us at all, their skills are probably inferior and they cant help us kill things because they would hardly hit. Therefor were essentially 4 manning a 5 man dungeon, and carrying the last guy. Do you see why most 138's want to avoid this senario, because that last guy could fail on all the puzzles and get someone killed and cost the team valuable exp.

 

Can't you simply see how asocial that sounds, how inhuman, just saying "hey you can't give me a benefit, so I won't help you either.

The bigger levels should take a turn in mentoring the lower levelled people: and dungeoneering is made in such a way you can do this very, very good! (as you're for quite some time together with others, and thus have lots of time to talk and share experience). What's is it that nowadays people only go for most experience? - It's not what I remember runescape..

 

Some years ago I used to run a clan, and we exactly didn't look for levels or something: but rather for the person's attitude while playing. People should be willing to learn and actively participate on the forum & chat room. We didn't care for the real maximize of experience, nor the gold we gained. We had lots of DK, KQ, KBD & CE trips, did many castle wars & had quite a lot duel tournaments. And we were a mix and match of people ranging between 126 & lv 80. The big thing we shared was that we had actual FUN during those activities, we had FUN since we could play together! Sadly all those friends quitted one after one since the release of the GWD (suddenly a race for gold & experience started then - and for those who like to take a relaxing road the games becomes very dull and they feel left out).

 

PS: on the business side: a company shouldn't be made with as goal to make profit.. A company should be made with as goal to achieve something in the world, to make something for others better.. Look at the big companies: philips, originally started in the spirit of frits philips who saw the number of unemployed people growing in south netherlands with the closing of the coal mines.. Then with the personal money of the family they started a fabric, which then grew.. - It had a goal (to prevent unemployed people) which is should keep striving to achieve. Not some far away shareholders satisfaction.. That angelsaxian economic model is the prime cause of current economic crisis: it forgets the most important thing in human life: we are social beings!

[ghjkl]

Why help a low level when you can help a high level and get a better benefit?

[Nomrombom]

should be

 

 

 

Key word.

[ghjkl]

How can you tell a random lower level wants to have fun? How can you tell that they want to learn from high levels? You can't. The fact is that MOST lower levels are complete whiny idiots, and the only way you can get away from that stereotype is to get a higher level.

[Quyneax]

This is a situation of all for one and one for all

 

If you believe in all for one, then help the 1 low level.

 

If you believe in one for all, then discriminate against players whos levels will not be an asset to you and the rest of your team.

Again, we see that when these two ideas collide the problems appear. If everybody just accepted it's everyone to himself, then we wouldn't have the trouble of all these altruists trying to screw up the system. This also works the other way around, of course. Now in Dungeoneering, by far the most common system is that of personal profit above all else. It seems to me that, if you want this friction between systems to disappear, you should join the majority. Not because it's better, but because it's less of a hassle and neither is, morally or otherwise, superior to the other. IMO.