Jump to content

Tip.It Times - 24th October 2010


Racheya

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 62
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I'm a little bit puzzled as to why you ever thought the auto-grouping system world work for Dung. They almost never do.

 

In an MMORPG, there's a certain amount of responsibility on the player to go out and find people that will mutually help them to achieve their goals. Else, they may as well be playing the copious number of solo RPGs available on the Xbox 360 and NDS. That philosophy is the basis of people forming clans. Jagex shouldn't be doing it for you - it's up to you to go and find people you can Dung well with.

 

Considering that evaluation is a key part of any design process, the fact the auto-grouping system is so bad at its job suggests the developers didn't really care all that much about it anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree with the dungeoneering article as it not pleasant being stuck with low leveled people. Personally from experience i have found that when making a 5:5 Large map, many of the low levels that i have added because i felt sorry for them...ended up leaving half way through or even at the begining

dadondotta.png
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think dungeoneering lends itself to autogrouping.

There is way to much customization and the dungeoneering xp reward system is horrible.

There should only be 3 kinds of dungeons: monster annilation, rush against a time limit, and resource harvest.

Your score should clearly be based on objectives completed for those 3 themes.

Autogrouping for that would be easy.

Instead they went with wowscape dungeoneering.

Now that the novelty has worn off, dungeoneering is just a grief festival.

Boost solo rewards and lets get back to the real runescape.

Exclusive Legacy Mode Player

 

Golvellius.png


He just successfully trolled you with "courtesy" and managed to get a reaction out of you. Lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Racheya, I will start by saying this: As far as the technicals, this article was far superior in writing style and form then some of your previous articles. Good job!

 

I will disagree on some of the basics of your article, however. I'd be willing to bet that most of the time your dungeoneer, you go with friends, or you only train the skill casually. Thats fine for many people. However, DG and SC are quite different animals. DG requires people to actually KNOW what to do, whilst one can get away with a rudimentary knowledge of basic RS gameplay to play SC. If I wanted to play with people who are clueless, and don't know how to key, or gate doors, or who waste time gathering ores, or otherwise being slow, I'd still be on w117, or 77. I don't. I want competent teams. As a result, I won't take anyone under 130 Cmbt, or who is under 85 DG. Are there good dungeneers under those leverls? Yes. Are their poor ones with those levels? HELL YES. But the chances are quite a bit lower.

 

The reason I prefer skype, 90+ DG teams is because they are QUICK. We do 18-25 minute larges. For me, that IS fun. The tools don't work well, in this case. There are too many floors, people, levels, etc for them to work well in their current form.

 

What would work better is something like this: Make qualifiers. EG, no one under 90 DG on one team, f44-46 only, etc. Otherwise, the current option, shouting f47+3 is the best option. I don't have trouble finding teams normally, the only exception being when i only have 1-2 floors left. Normally, If I need to, I can just c1 those, or key them myself.

 

And starvin, people ask for 130+ because of ability to clear GD's, and helping against boss. A team of 4 level 138's and one level 98, the monster level won't be much lower, and the level 98 would get his ass kicked.

Stonewall337.png
[hide=Drops]Araxxor Eye x1 Leg pieces x2
GWD: 5000 Addy bar Steam B Staff x3 Z Spear x6 Sara. Hilt x2 Bandos Hilt x2 (LS, Solo)SS x6 (1 LS)
Tormented Demons: Shard x6 Slice x5 Claws x9 Limbs x3
DKS: Archer x21 Warrior x31 Berserker x30 Axe x51[/hide]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[hide]

Racheya, I will start by saying this: As far as the technicals, this article was far superior in writing style and form then some of your previous articles. Good job!

 

I will disagree on some of the basics of your article, however. I'd be willing to bet that most of the time your dungeoneer, you go with friends, or you only train the skill casually. Thats fine for many people. However, DG and SC are quite different animals. DG requires people to actually KNOW what to do, whilst one can get away with a rudimentary knowledge of basic RS gameplay to play SC. If I wanted to play with people who are clueless, and don't know how to key, or gate doors, or who waste time gathering ores, or otherwise being slow, I'd still be on w117, or 77. I don't. I want competent teams. As a result, I won't take anyone under 130 Cmbt, or who is under 85 DG. Are there good dungeneers under those leverls? Yes. Are their poor ones with those levels? HELL YES. But the chances are quite a bit lower.

 

The reason I prefer skype, 90+ DG teams is because they are QUICK. We do 18-25 minute larges. For me, that IS fun. The tools don't work well, in this case. There are too many floors, people, levels, etc for them to work well in their current form.

 

What would work better is something like this: Make qualifiers. EG, no one under 90 DG on one team, f44-46 only, etc. Otherwise, the current option, shouting f47+3 is the best option. I don't have trouble finding teams normally, the only exception being when i only have 1-2 floors left. Normally, If I need to, I can just c1 those, or key them myself.

 

And starvin, people ask for 130+ because of ability to clear GD's, and helping against boss. A team of 4 level 138's and one level 98, the monster level won't be much lower, and the level 98 would get his ass kicked.

[/hide]

 

I agree with this post. I don't think there is much more to say on that, to be fair.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never used the auto-grouping feature cause I wasn't sure what it would create.

 

Let's say my max floor is 35, while for others, it's 43. If myself and 4 others go in that room, what would we get? On my side, I want a large dungeon on complex 6 to reap the exp. They will (probably) want a small dungeon and maybe even complex 1. So, basically the lack of customisation. Should be similar to how Barbarian Assault was done. Before you go in, you choose how you want to play (attack, def, coll, healer), in Dungeoneering's case. You'd pick small/medium/large dungeon. I think if someone wants to be very specific and stay on complex 1/2 or similar they should create their own game, but that's my idea.

 

On the Void Knight one. Didn't say much really? Was at least expecting details of how the puzzles were done (in more detail) to explain if you thought they were easy/hard. My opinion of it though, like everyone elses is that it should have been a master quest. They keep changing "what makes a Grandmaster", with WGS they said Indepth, lengthy, and good rewards (something along that), with Nomad, they said not every GM would be that, that some of them would focus on combat.

 

The void knight ending, wasn't incredibly hard. Although the Tetris puzzle was extremely annoying for me, since I suck at Tetris anyway, not all was really that hard. The boss, was actually fun, killed her the first time (unlike my 30 nomad death streak. >_> I fail). I like how the teamwork and special attack of Korasia's weapon affected the fight. I personally, would like to see that in future bosses (the higher complexity of the fight, rather then just hit and eat) - That are not only in Dungeoneering, ones that give items for the real game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So far hawkxs and Jonanananas are the only ones who have commented on (or maybe even read) my article! <_<

But really, I don't blame you guys, I never read the fictional articles either.

I originally wrote it for the AoG story competition a while back, but I changed it round a bit and submitted it after it didn't win. ;)

Still, I hope you enjoy it, and detailed combat descriptions are (unfortunately) what I do best.

ec6a8111fe.png

 

Save the Earth! It's the only planet with chocolate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Then there's also Mourner's End Part 2..."

 

Um, I think that's supposed to be Mournings End Part II, not Mourner's.

 

Haven't got onto reading the first one, I think everyone has already summed up my feelings about that article, no offence to the author.

rosssigfinal.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the second article, I'll have to make these points about it approaching the situation from the logic angle.

 

If you didn't do the quest, you probably didn't want to read the spoilers.

 

If you did do the quest, you probably don't want to read about the quest that you did since you already experienced that sequence of events in their entirety firsthand.

 

So, really, it doesn't serve anybody's purpose at all, except people who don't care about spoilers but didn't do the quest.

 

The whole thing could have been easily summed up as "several tedious but not particularly difficult puzzles followed by a short minigame test and a somewhat mediocre boss fight."

 

I guess the article had to hold a respectable length, but when you say a quest is short, don't make the explanation for it go over half the length of your article when the article isn't short. Mixed messages and whatnot.

 

The way you could have lengthened it is by presenting what you would expect a Grandmaster quest to have, in addition to providing examples from other quests. Since there isn't a solid "grandmaster quest structure requirements" list to refer to (they only provide a vague sentence or two as to what you may see in them), perhaps we should start putting down some standards as to what we expect to see when we crack open the big present in shiny wrapping. Then people could decide whether you were right or wrong, and then that gets them talking about their own opinions.

 

As for the first article, people tend to want to size up their potential candidates before they go tromping off into a dungeon with them. The automatic system doesn't really help towards that purpose.

 

This is also why nobody really goes into the Conquest automatching room, because the rules of engagement are automatically set and because everybody doesn't want to get stuck in a battle with a large amount of champions staring at each other across the board for half an hour.

 

If anything, we should just have an arrangement where people can set up flags to their own preferences on a small window, then let people see a big chart of folks (and their stats) and pick out who they want to talk to. Simple!

 

The chart should also be able to sort itself by each kind of parameter.

8f14270694.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm glad to see some good discussion this week :)

 

Just a few quick points:

 

Yes, I don't Dungeoneer 'seriously' but I did make it to 76 and I did quite a lot of soloing, teaming with friends and teaming with 117's in the process. I do rushes sometimes but since all the high floors tend to be populated by combat restricting high level groups, I try to join friends for them.

 

I often find '130+' to be a stupid indicator of Dungeoneering ability, but it's true to say that a floor works better when you have people of a similar combat level. So, in theory, it shouldn't matter if the group is all level 3's, level 100's or level 136's - as long as the cb level is consistent. Maybe I should start 100-110 only groups? :P

 

I do think that the technology would need to be improved, setting modifiers like 'rush' and combat level restrictions would be great imo. But if you're looking for just any old team, I don't see why using the autogroup would be such a bad thing. Perhaps even Dung or total level requirements too? (maybe more applicable for lower floors where there may be a greater variation in dg levels).

umilambdaberncgsig.jpg

I edit for the [Tip.It Times]. I rarely write in [My Blog]. I am an [Ex-Moderator].

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I often find '130+' to be a stupid indicator of Dungeoneering ability, but it's true to say that a floor works better when you have people of a similar combat level. So, in theory, it shouldn't matter if the group is all level 3's, level 100's or level 136's - as long as the cb level is consistent. Maybe I should start 100-110 only groups? :P

 

Thats the thing, in theorryyy.

 

Dung isnt balanced very well for low levels ive found.

O.O

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm glad to see some good discussion this week :)

 

Just a few quick points:

 

Yes, I don't Dungeoneer 'seriously' but I did make it to 76 and I did quite a lot of soloing, teaming with friends and teaming with 117's in the process. I do rushes sometimes but since all the high floors tend to be populated by combat restricting high level groups, I try to join friends for them.

 

I often find '130+' to be a stupid indicator of Dungeoneering ability, but it's true to say that a floor works better when you have people of a similar combat level. So, in theory, it shouldn't matter if the group is all level 3's, level 100's or level 136's - as long as the cb level is consistent. Maybe I should start 100-110 only groups? :P

 

I do think that the technology would need to be improved, setting modifiers like 'rush' and combat level restrictions would be great imo. But if you're looking for just any old team, I don't see why using the autogroup would be such a bad thing. Perhaps even Dung or total level requirements too? (maybe more applicable for lower floors where there may be a greater variation in dg levels).

 

I've kicked a level 139 w/ 78 DG to take a level 130 w/ 101 Dg. DG level is for ability, combat level to clear rooms/boss.

 

And level 76 isn't quite high enough to know enough about the skill. Heck, thats the xp I get in 2-3 days. So, as far as a knowledge standpoint, I don't think there are proper "qualifications" for the author to write their article one way or the other. That is, however, my opinion.

Stonewall337.png
[hide=Drops]Araxxor Eye x1 Leg pieces x2
GWD: 5000 Addy bar Steam B Staff x3 Z Spear x6 Sara. Hilt x2 Bandos Hilt x2 (LS, Solo)SS x6 (1 LS)
Tormented Demons: Shard x6 Slice x5 Claws x9 Limbs x3
DKS: Archer x21 Warrior x31 Berserker x30 Axe x51[/hide]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So far hawkxs and Jonanananas are the only ones who have commented on (or maybe even read) my article! <_<

But really, I don't blame you guys, I never read the fictional articles either.

I originally wrote it for the AoG story competition a while back, but I changed it round a bit and submitted it after it didn't win. ;)

Still, I hope you enjoy it, and detailed combat descriptions are (unfortunately) what I do best.

 

I liked it. :thumbup:

 

Normally I don't read fictional articles either but this one was short enough to keep my attention and it was a good read.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm glad to see some good discussion this week :)

 

Just a few quick points:

 

Yes, I don't Dungeoneer 'seriously' but I did make it to 76 and I did quite a lot of soloing, teaming with friends and teaming with 117's in the process. I do rushes sometimes but since all the high floors tend to be populated by combat restricting high level groups, I try to join friends for them.

 

I often find '130+' to be a stupid indicator of Dungeoneering ability, but it's true to say that a floor works better when you have people of a similar combat level. So, in theory, it shouldn't matter if the group is all level 3's, level 100's or level 136's - as long as the cb level is consistent. Maybe I should start 100-110 only groups? :P

 

I do think that the technology would need to be improved, setting modifiers like 'rush' and combat level restrictions would be great imo. But if you're looking for just any old team, I don't see why using the autogroup would be such a bad thing. Perhaps even Dung or total level requirements too? (maybe more applicable for lower floors where there may be a greater variation in dg levels).

 

I've kicked a level 139 w/ 78 DG to take a level 130 w/ 101 Dg. DG level is for ability, combat level to clear rooms/boss.

 

And level 76 isn't quite high enough to know enough about the skill. Heck, thats the xp I get in 2-3 days. So, as far as a knowledge standpoint, I don't think there are proper "qualifications" for the author to write their article one way or the other. That is, however, my opinion.

 

I'd kick a 139 aswell considering they are probably a bug abuser. :grin:

 

In all seriousness I dislike dungeoneering with people under my dg level. The dungeons just don't seem to go well with people on one mind set (90+ dger's), compared to people who are below level 85 who don't know as much about the skill and techniques to achieve a good xp/hr.

Low_C.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest jrhairychest

I'd kick a 139 aswell considering they are probably a bug abuser. :grin:

 

In all seriousness I dislike dungeoneering with people under my dg level. The dungeons just don't seem to go well with people on one mind set (90+ dger's), compared to people who are below level 85 who don't know as much about the skill and techniques to achieve a good xp/hr.

 

*sigh* perhaps if players actually shared their knowledge and techniqes instead of 'must do a bill xp per hour but not you because you're not good enough'. I agree there will be players out there who don't know what they're doing very well or do it not as good as some but is it really too much of a hassle to educate them?

 

I didn't play back in the days of classic but I do remember players taking the time to educate those who wanted it. It never seemed a hassle to them then like it does these days. Either players have become so selfish overnight or many of those players simply left the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd kick a 139 aswell considering they are probably a bug abuser. :grin:

 

In all seriousness I dislike dungeoneering with people under my dg level. The dungeons just don't seem to go well with people on one mind set (90+ dger's), compared to people who are below level 85 who don't know as much about the skill and techniques to achieve a good xp/hr.

 

*sigh* perhaps if players actually shared their knowledge and techniqes instead of 'must do a bill xp per hour but not you because you're not good enough'. I agree there will be players out there who don't know what they're doing very well or do it not as good as some but is it really too much of a hassle to educate them?

 

I didn't play back in the days of classic but I do remember players taking the time to educate those who wanted it. It never seemed a hassle to them then like it does these days. Either players have become so selfish overnight or many of those players simply left the game.

 

It's not just about education - it's practice. I'm only 81 dungeoneering, and while I probably know just about everything that Low_C knows about the skill, I've spent far less time actually practicing it. I know how to beat Thunderous, but I've never done it. I know how to rush properly, but I've never been on a team that's completed a floor in 20 minutes. Dungeoneering - like slayer - is all about practice and execution. Any two-year-old with a mouse and keyboard can be a pro fletcher, but it takes skill to do a 20 minute occult floor.

dgs5.jpg
To put it bluntly, [bleep] off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest jrhairychest

It's not just about education - it's practice. I'm only 81 dungeoneering, and while I probably know just about everything that Low_C knows about the skill, I've spent far less time actually practicing it. I know how to beat Thunderous, but I've never done it. I know how to rush properly, but I've never been on a team that's completed a floor in 20 minutes. Dungeoneering - like slayer - is all about practice and execution. Any two-year-old with a mouse and keyboard can be a pro fletcher, but it takes skill to do a 20 minute occult floor.

 

Agreed. Wouldn't it be useful to get that practice with those who have done it and understand it so that it makes you a better player for yourself and for any other teams you work in so you can pass this on, rather than be dismissed as not being good enough?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not just about education - it's practice. I'm only 81 dungeoneering, and while I probably know just about everything that Low_C knows about the skill, I've spent far less time actually practicing it. I know how to beat Thunderous, but I've never done it. I know how to rush properly, but I've never been on a team that's completed a floor in 20 minutes. Dungeoneering - like slayer - is all about practice and execution. Any two-year-old with a mouse and keyboard can be a pro fletcher, but it takes skill to do a 20 minute occult floor.

 

Agreed. Wouldn't it be useful to get that practice with those who have done it and understand it so that it makes you a better player for yourself and for any other teams you work in so you can pass this on, rather than be dismissed as not being good enough?

 

Honestly, I have to say no. If you want to practice with pros, it's best to make some friends that are pro at it. A LOT of my friends have 90+ dungeoneering (and most of the ones with 90+ have 99 or 100+), and when I do floors with them, I consider that to be very generous on their part, especially because I don't have a hood. It's also not uncommon to get a couple pro players on a team once you hit 80 and can use the better worlds (though 148 is degenerating into the third 117 as we speak).

 

For players who want to get better, it wouldn't be a bad idea to do solo meds. That way you can get a feel for keying, memorizing the map, and using gatestones efficiently.

dgs5.jpg
To put it bluntly, [bleep] off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its not that hard to learn how to dung effectively. TheAncient's guide tells you everything, and all you really need is common sense and the desire for a fast floor. If you can't listen to the keyer, then no matter what your dung level is, you will never be good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course some of the tools that Jagex provide arent perfect , for example you cant specify that you want to rush a dungeon, but theyre still there. Its a bit of a shame that the effort that has gone into coding and developing these systems just falls by the wayside because people just dont use the tools.

 

No. It's not a shame that players put these grouping areas to waste, it's a shame that JAGEX put them to waste by making them in a way that doesn't work for how players actually want to use the content.

 

If the grouping rooms were in common use, you'd jump in and find yourself with a bunch of noobs who have no idea what they're doing and all want to do the dungeon a different way. Forming teams on the surface allows you to be sure that everyone added has the proper combat level, dungeoneering level, equipment (shadow silk hood), and goal (rush vs. clear).

 

We CAN'T use the grouping rooms because they're far too simplistically designed to be of ANY use.

Join "DG Sweepers" Clan Chat for Dungeoneering Floors | Accepting all tipiters who are Willing to Learn |

Jelly.pngOccultEpicKeyer21.pngBladewing.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not just about education - it's practice. I'm only 81 dungeoneering, and while I probably know just about everything that Low_C knows about the skill, I've spent far less time actually practicing it. I know how to beat Thunderous, but I've never done it. I know how to rush properly, but I've never been on a team that's completed a floor in 20 minutes. Dungeoneering - like slayer - is all about practice and execution. Any two-year-old with a mouse and keyboard can be a pro fletcher, but it takes skill to do a 20 minute occult floor.

 

Agreed. Wouldn't it be useful to get that practice with those who have done it and understand it so that it makes you a better player for yourself and for any other teams you work in so you can pass this on, rather than be dismissed as not being good enough?

No. It doesn't take that much practice to become a normal DG'er, it takes a bit more to become good, and I don't want to slow myself down to help others who I'll never DG with again. I don't play RS for others.

Stonewall337.png
[hide=Drops]Araxxor Eye x1 Leg pieces x2
GWD: 5000 Addy bar Steam B Staff x3 Z Spear x6 Sara. Hilt x2 Bandos Hilt x2 (LS, Solo)SS x6 (1 LS)
Tormented Demons: Shard x6 Slice x5 Claws x9 Limbs x3
DKS: Archer x21 Warrior x31 Berserker x30 Axe x51[/hide]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@strilmus, about the flags.... U mean like adverts in a shop window type thingy where ppl set out their own parameters and other ppl read them, and then choose the ad that interests them most? Or did i miss your point entirely?

 

Srry for highjacking :0

To clarify:

 

A person wants to go tromping into a dungeon but needs some mates to come in with them. So they hit their ring and it opens up the group interface.

 

From there they can pick what kind of roles they serve (fighting and skilling and general support and whatnot) and what kind of people they are looking for to go with them, plus if they are doing a rush or not and stuff like that. They can also put up preferred levels for sets of things, plus a small section of text that they can add a small additional description to. (With obligatory "report" button for people who are wrongly advertising/soliciting as people will do when given a small section of text.)

 

Anyway, after they've set this up, they submit those updates to their status and then this (and their stat sheet) shows up on a large list of all the people online in that lobby area (perhaps across worlds too if you wanted to get that messy) and then people can look at it and pick people out to private message and run some searches on the types of players they prefer. You can toggle your availability on and off.

 

The basic concept is "dungeoneering mini craigslist" but without an excessive amount of creepy people

 

They could be called personals but they're not very personal at all

 

EDIT: BTW this system would facilitate the meeting of lower leveled people who just want to enjoy exploring instead of exp grinding because we could just have a selection saying "casual" or something

8f14270694.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.