An Elitist's View on Crashing

[Kimberly]

I meant that the new toys might accidentally (or intentionally) render the old toys obsolete.

 

Armors like Bandos and Armadyl can never be obsolete. Barrows has been around for YEARS and it's still going strong (barrows isn't a bad way for high levels to make money, incidentally). If less people are camping Graar and Kree, prices will balance out.

 

Correction: they will never be obsolete so long as GWD becomes the only method of obtaining that armor, just like barrows. However, if you look back to the drops from early boss monsters such as the KBD and the KQ, I think we can safely say that they are obsolete for the average player.

[Obtaurian]

I meant that the new toys might accidentally (or intentionally) render the old toys obsolete.

 

Armors like Bandos and Armadyl can never be obsolete. Barrows has been around for YEARS and it's still going strong (barrows isn't a bad way for high levels to make money, incidentally). If less people are camping Graar and Kree, prices will balance out.

 

Correction: they will never be obsolete so long as GWD becomes the only method of obtaining that armor, just like barrows. However, if you look back to the drops from early boss monsters such as the KBD and the KQ, I think we can safely say that they are obsolete for the average player.

 

And why would it ever change?

[das]

As far as bosses go - thats just a douche move. most (DK, GWD, divine shield guy) all of those require a substantial amount of money to gear up to fight and at that point, it becomes dishonorable to waste someone's time and money. Fighting for resources/spawns is fair game as those do not require brew/restores or an actual costly setup.

 

Aren't they then wasting your time and money by being in a spot you could easily occupy with inferior gear/stats/summons? What if you've looked for ages and couldn't find a world? If there are a fixed amount of bosses, and all of them are packed (which is often the case at Bandos), you have no choice. You said it yourself--it's a huge investment of time and money. If you choose to handicap yourself...great, fine. Would it be better if we didn't crash? Absolutely. Is it unfortunate? Yes. Do we have any other option? No. And who do we have to thank for that? Jagex.

 

So at the end of the day, if you get crashed, who should you really be mad at...?

 

 

I agree, I guess I just can't bring myself morally to be that big of a douchebag to crash on a boss.

[strilmus]

If you really want to be ridiculous, we could just stick a time portal back to the original God Wars and have that area available in two separate time periods, but the amount of paradoxes that would generate might make that plan unfeasible.

[Kimberly]

I meant that the new toys might accidentally (or intentionally) render the old toys obsolete.

 

Armors like Bandos and Armadyl can never be obsolete. Barrows has been around for YEARS and it's still going strong (barrows isn't a bad way for high levels to make money, incidentally). If less people are camping Graar and Kree, prices will balance out.

 

Correction: they will never be obsolete so long as GWD becomes the only method of obtaining that armor, just like barrows. However, if you look back to the drops from early boss monsters such as the KBD and the KQ, I think we can safely say that they are obsolete for the average player.

 

And why would it ever change?

 

For the same reason they decided to have npcs start dropping dragon armor. Who knows what they will do in the future. I don't, do you? Do we have any reason to say for certain that they wouldn't attempt to make this armor easier to obtain? Any reason to say that they wouldn't come up with another armor set, with similar requirements, that doesn't require millions or hours of mind-numbing, luck-hoping boss hunting in order to obtain? We don't, therefore you can't present your argument as fact. We know that armor offered by bosses can become obsolete over time and just because GWD armor might not be within the next year does not mean that it won't be 5 years from now.

 

This is not a short term problem we're looking to solve here, but a long term one hell of an entangled issue. And again, if there was a satisfactory compromise/fix/whatever, it would've been done already.

[Obtaurian]

Sorry I haven't been able to reply properly; I was eating.

 

You're right that new bosses could potentially make old bosses obsolete, but you have to consider a few things:

 

- Dragon claws are unlikely to be topped by any melee spec weapon any time soon, even with new bosses. On top of that, they have a very high effigy rate. Safe.

- DKs drop the second best rings in the game. These rings are needed to make the best rings in the game. Furthermore, we probably won't be seeing a new boss drop something better for WCing than a dragon axe. Safe.

- I HIGHLY doubt that we'll get a boss within the next few years that drops shields that top the divine. Safe.

 

That leaves GWD bosses. Zil and Kril have been "obsolete" for a while now (though I would argue that Zil is still somewhat relevant, even though her drops are pretty much useless these days). Kree and Graar drop the best ranged and melee armors you can get. Furthermore, Graar drops Bandos hilts, which are still in demand for corp teams. I would imagine that new bosses would drop gear that makes Arma and Bandos armors second class, but second class is still very much in demand by mid-level players, poor players, and safety-conscious players.

 

I just don't see new bosses drastically affecting the relevance of old bosses all that much. I stand by my claim that new bosses would drastically cut down on crashing in the long run. Though I argued that many old bosses would remain relevant, I don't think that progress is bad. If ALL the afore mentioned bosses were rendered obsolete in favor of ~10 new ones, I would consider that a good thing for Runescape as a whole.

 

EDIT: To elaborate on my last paragraph:

 

If old bosses were rendered obsolete; if their items plummeted in price because of new, better items, armors like full Bandos and Armadyl (65 and 70 defense armors, respectively) would become more widely available to players. I would actually prefer to see players with ~70 defense and ranged using armor like Armadyl. Of course, this doesn't work for all items (I'm looking at you, spirit shields), but I personally think that 138s should be using level 90+ armors; in other words, armors befitting of their levels. /two cents.

[Assume Nothing]

Flawed, yet quick fix solution I've randomly thought up; Boss Resource Dungeons. Just requires a new boss.

[TheAncient]

Flawed, yet quick fix solution I've randomly thought up; Boss Resource Dungeons. Just requires a new boss.

 

In other words, instanced bosses - which, sorry to say, has been mentioned earlier multiple times

[lordkafei]

So if we can't have instances, then at least we could increase the amount of the same type of bosses on each server, but just make them slightly different in appearance to each other so that we don't end dealing with really strange character cloning problems.

 

Here's a notion:

 

How about a quota system? You get a hard limit of {x} kills a week of NPCs in question and then you have to get off the ride and go do something else. Should be a lot simpler to implement than instancing.

[TheAncient]

One other point to bring up I think is that bosses are too easy now. You can stay at most bosses for at least two hours. If Jagex introduces a boss in which you can't stay as long, maybe there won't be as much competition.

 

A way to implement this is to have a boss which requires you to mage. If you have to rely on magic, you can't use brews; if you can't use brews, you don't last long.

[AnneFrank]

Some dungeoneering bosses should be implemented to the RS world[out side of dung]

[Assume Nothing]

Flawed, yet quick fix solution I've randomly thought up; Boss Resource Dungeons. Just requires a new boss.

 

In other words, instanced bosses - which, sorry to say, has been mentioned earlier multiple times

 

Doesn't have to be instanced to be a Resource Dungeon. Frost Dragons are shared...

[TheAncient]

Flawed, yet quick fix solution I've randomly thought up; Boss Resource Dungeons. Just requires a new boss.

 

In other words, instanced bosses - which, sorry to say, has been mentioned earlier multiple times

 

Doesn't have to be instanced to be a Resource Dungeon. Frost Dragons are shared...

 

My bad. In any case, this is, like you said, a short-lived fix; in the long-run, most people will get or try to get the necessary DG level to fight the boss.

[Naraku893]

Crash it up I say. Who cares what other people think? Its a game and if I see a spot open in a boss or something Im going to take it.

[Assume Nothing]

Crash it up I say. Who cares what other people think? Its a game and if I see a spot open in a boss or something Im going to take it.

 

That's not crashing. Do you know what crashing is?

[Youmu]

All of this is basically survival of the fittest. If you're getting crashed, either train yourself up to prevent yourself from getting crashed, or leave.

 

If you're crashing someone, you need to have very good skills. Otherwise, you're going to fail.

 

It's not just boss monsters either. In mining, people steal rocks very often, and it takes quite some skill to take back the rocks that were taken.

[xpx]

I agree, I guess I just can't bring myself morally to be that big of a douchebag to crash on a boss.

Your argument for not crashing someone killing a boss was that they spend alot of money on supplies thus you are wasting alot of their money, but there are two problems with that:

 

Time is money- a 138 switching servers 'loses' alot more money than a 120 switching servers, thus you could make the argument that the 120 is being a douchebag for not letting the 138 take his spot.

Some people(like myself) train with very expensive methods- namely overloads, turmoil, CR and special restores, usually costing more than an average 120 bossing, thus it would seem like anyone crashing me would also deserve to be called a douchebag.

 

All of this is basically survival of the fittest. If you're getting crashed, either train yourself up to prevent yourself from getting crashed, or leave.

 

If you're crashing someone, you need to have very good skills. Otherwise, you're going to fail.

 

It's not just boss monsters either. In mining, people steal rocks very often, and it takes quite some skill to take back the rocks that were taken.

In the last 48 pages, everything in this post has already been stated for atleast 10 times.

[Kevin]

Crashing is a justified practice as long as it is benefitting the right person: me.

[walka92]

i am very nearly maxed (the only combat not 99 is summoning) but i never felt the need to crash, but that said, i havent played in a while, and when i did still play, most bosses werent that hard to get a spot for. my rationalisation is that my stats may stop me from getting crashed, but really, they are just to speed up my kills or lengthen my trips...but at my level most people didnt try to crash me, normally, but that doesnt mean you should crash people in everything. tds for example, quite often there was a spot unused that i could use in any world, but if not, id hop, even if there was a level 100 trying to fight there

 

its just common courtesy man. just because its a game doesnt mean you have to be a [bleep] to everyone

[Bladewing]

its just common courtesy man. just because its a game doesnt mean you have to be a [bleep] to everyone

congratulations you are the 1000th person to post this exact sentence.

 

no one is condoning or justifying being a [bleep] to everyone.

[Sir_Kurity]

its just common courtesy man. just because its a game doesnt mean you have to be a [bleep] to everyone

 

Id say hogging a spot and claiming ownership is being a [bleep] as well.

[Bartuccio3]

It was mentioned quite a few posts back that adding more servers would be an easy solution to this, but that profitability would prevent that. Really there isn't any way we're going to see additional servers anytime soon based on the low rates of players, where I almost never see more than 3 or 4 servers at maxed player count and even world 2 dips below 1500 overnight. I really don't think it would be enough to solve crowding to add more servers unless we had at least three times as many servers as now. With current technology though, for example a hexcore processor with hyperthreading (12 logical cores, all of which could easily clock to over 3ghz on a reasonable budget for an online gaming company,) if you dump enough upper-end tech into every server, we could easily run multiple game servers out of each physical machine, assuming their bandwidth would allow for it. Even just having two persistent game worlds running on each server box would give us all less headache when dealing with game resources such as slayer monsters, mining rocks, and easily farmed bosses. If there turns out to be some difficulty with having so many players handled by a single machine with multiple game worlds, or if respawn rates are set too low due to population spread (average worlds going to 400 instead of 800 then) the servers could just be adjusted to a lower player limit (fewer players = less system stress, and respawn rates are based on ratio of current:maximum player count.)

 

I know I'm getting a little in depth here, but after lurking a lot I thought I might contribute to both sides a little, with my anti-crash contribution being that suggestion on how to alleviate crowding.

 

As far as crashing goes, I just accept it as part of the game. RS started as a giant PvP death orgy and this brought a large competitive spirit to the game, which it still has. People are going to fight over the resources they need to make their account "better" than everybody else's. Also something that a lot of people fail to account for, as far as when they argue for the rules or "spirit" of the game, is that the way multi-target zones are coded is that anything there is able to attack anything else: if you don't want other people to take things from you, you need to adapt by either out-performing them or leaving and doing something else or finding a different server. I say that anybody making demands of other players not to utilize core game mechanics such as multi-target combat zones is being against the spirit of the game; much as the new admins will promote player safety and sharing is caring crap, we all know this is a very competitive game outside our own circles of friends with whom we (usually) cooperate.

[stonewall337]

It was mentioned quite a few posts back that adding more servers would be an easy solution to this, but that profitability would prevent that. Really there isn't any way we're going to see additional servers anytime soon based on the low rates of players, where I almost never see more than 3 or 4 servers at maxed player count and even world 2 dips below 1500 overnight. I really don't think it would be enough to solve crowding to add more servers unless we had at least three times as many servers as now. With current technology though, for example a hexcore processor with hyperthreading (12 logical cores, all of which could easily clock to over 3ghz on a reasonable budget for an online gaming company,) if you dump enough upper-end tech into every server, we could easily run multiple game servers out of each physical machine, assuming their bandwidth would allow for it. Even just having two persistent game worlds running on each server box would give us all less headache when dealing with game resources such as slayer monsters, mining rocks, and easily farmed bosses. If there turns out to be some difficulty with having so many players handled by a single machine with multiple game worlds, or if respawn rates are set too low due to population spread (average worlds going to 400 instead of 800 then) the servers could just be adjusted to a lower player limit (fewer players = less system stress, and respawn rates are based on ratio of current:maximum player count.)

 

I know I'm getting a little in depth here, but after lurking a lot I thought I might contribute to both sides a little, with my anti-crash contribution being that suggestion on how to alleviate crowding.

 

As far as crashing goes, I just accept it as part of the game. RS started as a giant PvP death orgy and this brought a large competitive spirit to the game, which it still has. People are going to fight over the resources they need to make their account "better" than everybody else's. Also something that a lot of people fail to account for, as far as when they argue for the rules or "spirit" of the game, is that the way multi-target zones are coded is that anything there is able to attack anything else: if you don't want other people to take things from you, you need to adapt by either out-performing them or leaving and doing something else or finding a different server. I say that anybody making demands of other players not to utilize core game mechanics such as multi-target combat zones is being against the spirit of the game; much as the new admins will promote player safety and sharing is caring crap, we all know this is a very competitive game outside our own circles of friends with whom we (usually) cooperate.

 

I disagree. More severs, unless its something like double, would be far less practical. More people spread out=slower spawns=bad. As well, more people will be bossing, so prices drop. As well, people can last longer, and more people boss, as some either hate crashing, or can't crash. All in all, its not practical.

[Bartuccio3]

It was mentioned quite a few posts back that adding more servers would be an easy solution to this, but that profitability would prevent that. Really there isn't any way we're going to see additional servers anytime soon based on the low rates of players, where I almost never see more than 3 or 4 servers at maxed player count and even world 2 dips below 1500 overnight. I really don't think it would be enough to solve crowding to add more servers unless we had at least three times as many servers as now. With current technology though, for example a hexcore processor with hyperthreading (12 logical cores, all of which could easily clock to over 3ghz on a reasonable budget for an online gaming company,) if you dump enough upper-end tech into every server, we could easily run multiple game servers out of each physical machine, assuming their bandwidth would allow for it. Even just having two persistent game worlds running on each server box would give us all less headache when dealing with game resources such as slayer monsters, mining rocks, and easily farmed bosses. If there turns out to be some difficulty with having so many players handled by a single machine with multiple game worlds, or if respawn rates are set too low due to population spread (average worlds going to 400 instead of 800 then) the servers could just be adjusted to a lower player limit (fewer players = less system stress, and respawn rates are based on ratio of current:maximum player count.)

 

I know I'm getting a little in depth here, but after lurking a lot I thought I might contribute to both sides a little, with my anti-crash contribution being that suggestion on how to alleviate crowding.

 

As far as crashing goes, I just accept it as part of the game. RS started as a giant PvP death orgy and this brought a large competitive spirit to the game, which it still has. People are going to fight over the resources they need to make their account "better" than everybody else's. Also something that a lot of people fail to account for, as far as when they argue for the rules or "spirit" of the game, is that the way multi-target zones are coded is that anything there is able to attack anything else: if you don't want other people to take things from you, you need to adapt by either out-performing them or leaving and doing something else or finding a different server. I say that anybody making demands of other players not to utilize core game mechanics such as multi-target combat zones is being against the spirit of the game; much as the new admins will promote player safety and sharing is caring crap, we all know this is a very competitive game outside our own circles of friends with whom we (usually) cooperate.

 

I disagree. More severs, unless its something like double, would be far less practical. More people spread out=slower spawns=bad. As well, more people will be bossing, so prices drop. As well, people can last longer, and more people boss, as some either hate crashing, or can't crash. All in all, its not practical.

 

I fail to see what you disagree with. The economic repercussions of having twice as many spawns should be obvious, so I didn't bother to mention it; aside from that, everything you mentioned with increasing servers was stated in my paragraph on the subject. Tl;dr?

[Assume Nothing]

Hmm, 3 day bump.

 

I kind of agree with the long ass post Bart made, nice contribution to the thread. Heh, so detailed I can't even think of anything to add >.<