Jump to content
TheAncient

An Elitist's View on Crashing

Recommended Posts

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

 

The who cares what other people think, implies that the open spot = spot a noob is at.

 

So im pretty sure he knows what crashing is

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.


douvdFX.jpg


 


Blog


Trimmed | Master Quester | Final Boss


Boss pets: Bombi | Shrimpy | Ellie | Tz-Rek Jad | Karil the Bobbled | Mega Ducklings


120s: Dungeoneering | Invention

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.


First to 99 Farming on 27. September, 2005.

First to 3766 Port Score on 20. March, 2014.

First to 4664 Port Score on 2. March, 2015.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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


I'm gonna be walking down an alley in varrock, and walka is going to walk up to me in a trench coat and say "psst.. hey man, wanna buy some sara brew"

walka92- retired with 99 in attack, strength, defence, health, magic, ranged, prayer and herblore and 137 combat. some day i may return to claim 138 combat, but alas, that time has not yet come

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.


O.O

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.


Bartuccio3.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.


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]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?


Bartuccio3.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 >.<

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Perhaps make the spawn time the same everywhere, regardless of how many people there are in the world?

 

This is assuming everything spawns at the rate if 2k people are in the world (max efficiency of spawns).

 

Should help crashing a bit, along with extra servers.


douvdFX.jpg


 


Blog


Trimmed | Master Quester | Final Boss


Boss pets: Bombi | Shrimpy | Ellie | Tz-Rek Jad | Karil the Bobbled | Mega Ducklings


120s: Dungeoneering | Invention

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Perhaps make the spawn time the same everywhere, regardless of how many people there are in the world?

 

This is assuming everything spawns at the rate if 2k people are in the world (max efficiency of spawns).

 

Should help crashing a bit, along with extra servers.

My point is you don't always want 2k pop. I need around a 1.3-1.5k pop world for maximum effectiveness when 2.5brid, etc.


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]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My point is you don't always want 2k pop. I need around a 1.3-1.5k pop world for maximum effectiveness when 2.5brid, etc.

But wouldn't it be better if your 1.3-1.5k world (as well as any population) has the same spawn times as a 2k world? You get more kills in a set amount of time.

 

That's what I'm implying.


douvdFX.jpg


 


Blog


Trimmed | Master Quester | Final Boss


Boss pets: Bombi | Shrimpy | Ellie | Tz-Rek Jad | Karil the Bobbled | Mega Ducklings


120s: Dungeoneering | Invention

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My point is you don't always want 2k pop. I need around a 1.3-1.5k pop world for maximum effectiveness when 2.5brid, etc.

But wouldn't it be better if your 1.3-1.5k world (as well as any population) has the same spawn times as a 2k world? You get more kills in a set amount of time.

 

That's what I'm implying.

 

Do you know what 2.5 bridding is, and why they need 1.3-1.5k pop worlds?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My point is you don't always want 2k pop. I need around a 1.3-1.5k pop world for maximum effectiveness when 2.5brid, etc.

But wouldn't it be better if your 1.3-1.5k world (as well as any population) has the same spawn times as a 2k world? You get more kills in a set amount of time.

 

That's what I'm implying.

 

Do you know what 2.5 bridding is, and why they need 1.3-1.5k pop worlds?

 

Is it if you're on a 2k world, the DKs would spawn too fast and you'll die? lol.


Staurolite.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My point is you don't always want 2k pop. I need around a 1.3-1.5k pop world for maximum effectiveness when 2.5brid, etc.

But wouldn't it be better if your 1.3-1.5k world (as well as any population) has the same spawn times as a 2k world? You get more kills in a set amount of time.

 

That's what I'm implying.

 

Do you know what 2.5 bridding is, and why they need 1.3-1.5k pop worlds?

 

Is it if you're on a 2k world, the DKs would spawn too fast and you'll die? lol.

 

Not only that, but the kill order and kill rate are very strongly determined by who you get to kill and when.


sigcopyaf.png

Ever wanted to find street prices of RS items? Check out the SPOLI Index

 

Nex Drops: Pernix Cowl, Pernix Chaps, Torva Helm, Torva Platebody, Zaryte Bow, Pernix Chaps, Virtus Robe Legs, Virtus Robe Top, Torva Platelegs, Zaryte Bow, Pernix Chaps, Virtus Robe Legs, Zaryte Bow, Virtus Mask, Torva Legs, Virtus Robe Legs, Virtus Robe Top, Virtus Robe Top, Zaryte Bow, Virtus Robe Legs, Virtus Robe Top, Virtus Robe Top, Torva Platelegs, Zaryte Bow, Pernix Body, Torva Platelegs, Torva Platelegs, Virtus Robe Top

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My point is you don't always want 2k pop. I need around a 1.3-1.5k pop world for maximum effectiveness when 2.5brid, etc.

But wouldn't it be better if your 1.3-1.5k world (as well as any population) has the same spawn times as a 2k world? You get more kills in a set amount of time.

 

That's what I'm implying.

But you are f2p, so you could be horribly wrong and just blowing smoke. And in this case, you are. Talking about what you know- that's the key.


First to 99 Farming on 27. September, 2005.

First to 3766 Port Score on 20. March, 2014.

First to 4664 Port Score on 2. March, 2015.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OHHH I see why. I was talking about the "in theory" sense.

 

In that case I'm wrong, sorry :P didn't know they spawned so fast lol.

 

In that case, for DKS make it so the respawn timer only starts when all 3 are killed. Same applies for all "multi-NPC" bosses. This keeps the 2k pop spawn time.


douvdFX.jpg


 


Blog


Trimmed | Master Quester | Final Boss


Boss pets: Bombi | Shrimpy | Ellie | Tz-Rek Jad | Karil the Bobbled | Mega Ducklings


120s: Dungeoneering | Invention

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OHHH I see why. I was talking about the "in theory" sense.

 

In that case I'm wrong, sorry :P didn't know they spawned so fast lol.

 

In that case, for DKS make it so they spawn at the rate of 1.3k-1.5k population. Make everything else 2k (max effectiveness).

 

That wouldn't be good either.

 

See in members, especially with DK's, there is not one method to doing things. In the example for DK's 2.5'ing is a different method of killing them per hour that allows low level teams or solo players to get more kills per hour. However large teams need the 2k spawn rate to get more kills per hour. So making the world 1 population would change alot of things and destory current methods of killing bosses for some players, especially solo'ers.

 

Another example would be players only getting 1-2 mini kills instead of 3 at solo bandos at world 2 pop. It's not alot but it really adds up, so not the best idea to make world's static.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahh, I see. Forget all my previous posts above then.

 

But for skilling, all tree/ore/etc respawn rates should be the same as a 2k pop world. Makes things so much better.


douvdFX.jpg


 


Blog


Trimmed | Master Quester | Final Boss


Boss pets: Bombi | Shrimpy | Ellie | Tz-Rek Jad | Karil the Bobbled | Mega Ducklings


120s: Dungeoneering | Invention

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahh, I see. Forget all my previous posts above then.

 

But for skilling, all tree/ore/etc respawn rates should be the same as a 2k pop world. Makes things so much better.

Or increase the speed by a factor for all worlds. Something like, what is now ~1000 pop remains the same, 1500 pop goes up, 2k pop goes up a lot, 500 and 0 pop go down (or stay the same). Just saying that making it static is not neccesary for some things, like three iron rocks. You just want more high respawn spots, not neccesarily 2k pop spawns.


Supporter of Zaros | Quest Cape owner since 22 may 2010 | No skills below 99 | Total level 2595 | Completionist Cape owner since 17th June 2013 | Suggestions

99 summoning (18th June 2011, previously untrimmed) | 99 farming (14th July 2011) | 99 prayer (8th September 2011) | 99 constitution (10th September 2011) | 99 dungeoneering (15th November 2011)

99 ranged (28th November 2011) | 99 attack, 99 defence, 99 strength (11th December 2011) | 99 slayer (18th December 2011) | 99 magic (22nd December 2011) | 99 construction (16th March 2012)

99 herblore (22nd March 2012) | 99 firemaking (26th March 2012) | 99 cooking (2nd July 2012) | 99 runecrafting (12th March 2012) | 99 crafting (26th August 2012) | 99 agility (19th November 2012)

99 woodcutting (22nd November 2012) | 99 fletching (31st December 2012) | 99 thieving (3rd January 2013) | 99 hunter (11th January 2013) | 99 mining (21st January 2013) | 99 fishing (21st January 2013)

99 smithing (21st January 2013) | 120 dungeoneering (17th June 2013) | 99 divination (24th November 2013)

Tormented demon drops: twenty effigies, nine pairs of claws, two dragon armour slices and one elite clue | Dagannoth king drops: two dragon hatchets, two elite clues, one archer ring and one warrior ring

Glacor drops: four pairs of ragefire boots, one pair of steadfast boots, six effigies, two hundred lots of Armadyl shards, three elite clues | Nex split: Torva boots | Kalphite King split: off-hand drygore mace

30/30 Shattered Heart statues completed | 16/16 Court Cases completed | 25/25 Choc Chimp Ices delivered | 500/500 Vyrewatch burned | 584/584 tasks completed | 4000/4000 chompies hunted

Share this post


Link to post
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.