18-2-2013 The RuneScape Bestiary

[Yoko Kurama]

This week's BTS is the same as last week's?

 

We not had this weeks BTS, they come out on fridays.

 

Ah okay, I saw the "Community Round-up" and thought it might be the BTS.

[Sy_Accursed]

This week's BTS is the same as last week's?

 

We not had this weeks BTS, they come out on fridays.

 

Ah okay, I saw the "Community Round-up" and thought it might be the BTS.

 

They do one of them weekly too about all the random junk jmods and stuff have been doing like events and stuff.

[Unknown_Warrior]

Here I have a state of the art computer and I can't get this Bestiary to run. Chrome beta app for Android doesn't run on my Samsung Galaxy S2, so I can't get to see it on my smartphone either.

So much for the benefits of HTML5.

[Ammako]

Here I have a state of the art computer and I can't get this Bestiary to run. Chrome beta app for Android doesn't run on my Samsung Galaxy S2, so I can't get to see it on my smartphone either.

So much for the benefits of HTML5.

The bestiary makes the page crash and fail to load on my nexus s.

[Ruinous Edge]

Here I have a state of the art computer and I can't get this Bestiary to run. Chrome beta app for Android doesn't run on my Samsung Galaxy S2, so I can't get to see it on my smartphone either.

So much for the benefits of HTML5.

The bestiary makes the page crash and fail to load on my nexus s.

I can run bestiary fine on my 2 year old windows 7 laptop, and my 3 year old windows vista desktop pc (both were average specs when I got them paid no more than £500 for both). Don't know why some people are struggling to run it on newer computers. Never tried the bestiary on my HTC wildfire S but highly doubt it has the internal memory to cope anyway.

Had dynamic shadows on both times too and used google chrome.

[Ammako]

^ My PC is like 4-5 years old and was built to be able to handle high-res video playback and nothing more, so I'm not too surprised it doesn't run that well on there (easily ~20-25 fps with shadows off though.)

[Ruinous Edge]

^ My PC is like 4-5 years old and was built to be able to handle high-res video playback and nothing more, so I'm not too surprised it doesn't run that well on there (easily ~20-25 fps with shadows off though.)

Ah fair enough when you said state of the art I though you meant a brand new windows 8 pc that cost like £800-£1000, my mistake.

[Sy_Accursed]

Runs pretty smooth on my macbook and this thing can barely survive rs on absolutely min graphics going (I mean i get a respectable 10-20 fps variable, but i also get a lot of heat)

[Ammako]

(It was Unknown Warrior who said his pc was state of the art btw.) :P

[Ruinous Edge]

(It was Unknown Warrior who said his pc was state of the art btw.) :P

well that's awkward...*mustcheckbeforeIquoteinthefuture* :

[Unknown_Warrior]

^ My PC is like 4-5 years old and was built to be able to handle high-res video playback and nothing more, so I'm not too surprised it doesn't run that well on there (easily ~20-25 fps with shadows off though.)

Ah fair enough when you said state of the art I though you meant a brand new windows 8 pc that cost like £800-£1000, my mistake.

 

It can run most latest games on max settings. Runescape itself runs at max settings, everything enabled, at a consistent 45+ FPS.

The problem isn't that my PC can't run it, it's that I simply can't access the content as it shows up as "Enable Local Storage" even though it IS enabled and my graphics cards IS up to date (NVIDIA GeForce 660 Ti, released last September, so it shouldn't be too outdated) and my Chrome IS the latest version.

 

I seriously don't know what the problem here is, but I'm quite sure it's Jagex's fault.

[Platinum_Myr]

It might be that you missed the yellow banner or some setting on your virus protection software is disallowing local storage. It could be any number of things which block local storage, because that does allow websites to track you so they don't want to enable it everywhere black slate.

 

Might check chrome settings and ensure you didn't somehow have rs website blacklisted..

[Kaida23]

I also had trouble with it. It kept saying I needed to use a browser like Chrome (which I was using, and yes it is up to date) and have javascript enabled (which it is). After a couple of tries I gave up because I honestly couldn't be bothered anymore.

[Ruinous Edge]

^ My PC is like 4-5 years old and was built to be able to handle high-res video playback and nothing more, so I'm not too surprised it doesn't run that well on there (easily ~20-25 fps with shadows off though.)

Ah fair enough when you said state of the art I though you meant a brand new windows 8 pc that cost like £800-£1000, my mistake.

 

It can run most latest games on max settings. Runescape itself runs at max settings, everything enabled, at a consistent 45+ FPS.

The problem isn't that my PC can't run it, it's that I simply can't access the content as it shows up as "Enable Local Storage" even though it IS enabled and my graphics cards IS up to date (NVIDIA GeForce 660 Ti, released last September, so it shouldn't be too outdated) and my Chrome IS the latest version.

 

I seriously don't know what the problem here is, but I'm quite sure it's Jagex's fault.

If your using chrome have you got any extensions that could be stopping access to your local storage? or other than that maybe your internet security software is causing an issue?

[Hedgehog]

Whoever decided to make a game such as RuneScape in HTML5 was an idiot. Seriously, just do a game rewrite in Java and it'll be so much more compatible and probably faster too.

[Unknown_Warrior]

^ My PC is like 4-5 years old and was built to be able to handle high-res video playback and nothing more, so I'm not too surprised it doesn't run that well on there (easily ~20-25 fps with shadows off though.)

Ah fair enough when you said state of the art I though you meant a brand new windows 8 pc that cost like £800-£1000, my mistake.

 

It can run most latest games on max settings. Runescape itself runs at max settings, everything enabled, at a consistent 45+ FPS.

The problem isn't that my PC can't run it, it's that I simply can't access the content as it shows up as "Enable Local Storage" even though it IS enabled and my graphics cards IS up to date (NVIDIA GeForce 660 Ti, released last September, so it shouldn't be too outdated) and my Chrome IS the latest version.

 

I seriously don't know what the problem here is, but I'm quite sure it's Jagex's fault.

If your using chrome have you got any extensions that could be stopping access to your local storage? or other than that maybe your internet security software is causing an issue?

 

Chrome is not my browser of choice so it doesn't have any installed extensions.

I'm using Microsoft Security Essentials as my antivirus.

[Ammako]

Whoever decided to make a game such as RuneScape in HTML5 was an idiot. Seriously, just do a game rewrite in Java and it'll be so much more compatible and probably faster too.

That's the kind of stuff I sometimes hear from people, but about Java instead of HTML5.

[Alphanos]

Whoever decided to make a game such as RuneScape in HTML5 was an idiot. Seriously, just do a game rewrite in Java and it'll be so much more compatible and probably faster too.

That's the kind of stuff I sometimes hear from people, but about Java instead of HTML5.

 

The selection of a programming language for a project has to depend upon your goals and requirements.

 

Originally, the Gowers wrote Runescape as a Java applet because they wanted the game to run inside a web browser window. They could have picked from any number of other languages otherwise. But they identified the ability to play the game without having to download anything as a major feature. This wasn't a mistake; it worked beautifully. For many years Runescape had a large audience of players who would not have even been able to try playing if a download had been required (i.e. kids in school). At the time the Gowers made this decision, Java was the only option if such a feature was required.

 

Over time, bits of Runescape have been migrated to C/C++ DLLs for a variety of reasons. I'm sure the developers might have liked to clean things up with a full-scale re-write, but there was no business argument to justify such an expense. But now, for the first time, there is: casual mobile users. This is a huge potential market, and it's worth the expense of a re-write to be able to target it. Nowadays there are a lot more options than Java out there. So which option should Jagex pick? Back to goals and requirements. The entire point of the re-write is to make the game accessible to casual mobile users. Which platform(s) will make that possible?

 

Apple has gone to great lengths to prevent Java and Flash from running on their iOS devices. This is in large part due to their financial strategy of seeking to get their 30% cut on all apps. Only by breaking or blocking other sources of apps can Apple achieve this. But now Apple has backed themselves into a corner. Their entire official justification for why it was okay to block those other platforms was that HTML5 would be able to meet all of the needs of users. So now Apple can't block HTML5.

 

So the only platform Jagex will be able to rely upon most of its target users having access to is HTML5. Neither in the original Java case, nor now, did they evaluate many options and pick the one with the best performance. In both cases they chose the only option available to them given the goals of the project. Any performance improvements, while welcome, will be incidental.

[Sy_Accursed]

Interesting thought in passing on why they finally caved to 2000+ and 2400+ worlds:

In the coming months they are going to become substantially easier to access.

As it stands

2000 = Average of lvl 80 across all skills

2400 = Average of 96.

 

But as the year goes on thats gonna shift

2000 = lvl 77 and then 74 with the new skills

2400 = lvl 92 and then 89

[Miss Lioness]

Interesting thought in passing on why they finally caved to 2000+ and 2400+ worlds:

In the coming months they are going to become substantially easier to access.

As it stands

2000 = Average of lvl 80 across all skills

2400 = Average of 96.

 

But as the year goes on thats gonna shift

2000 = lvl 77 and then 74 with the new skills

2400 = lvl 92 and then 89

 

26*92=2392 So one needs 92 base and a plus of 8 in other skills...

 

The only one a tiny bit out of range =/ 8 levels is quite a lot at that range!

[Ammako]

Well if you were 92 in every skill, you could get Cooking and Firemaking to 99 for that missing 8 total.

[Sy_Accursed]

Interesting thought in passing on why they finally caved to 2000+ and 2400+ worlds:

In the coming months they are going to become substantially easier to access.

As it stands

2000 = Average of lvl 80 across all skills

2400 = Average of 96.

 

But as the year goes on thats gonna shift

2000 = lvl 77 and then 74 with the new skills

2400 = lvl 92 and then 89

 

26*92=2392 So one needs 92 base and a plus of 8 in other skills...

 

The only one a tiny bit out of range =/ 8 levels is quite a lot at that range!

 

I did use rounded figures for simplicity, working on the basis that the likelihood of someone hitting exact average is quite slim and thus it is only needed as a rough guide.

If we are to be precise:

2000 = 80, 76.92, 74.07

2400 = 96, 92.31, 88.89

[jayc3399]

I'm not sure how well it would go with the community but I would love to see the game move to a downloaded client to improve gameplay. You'd actually be able to write the game in a stronger language. But thats just me.

[Sy_Accursed]

I'm not sure how well it would go with the community but I would love to see the game move to a downloaded client to improve gameplay. You'd actually be able to write the game in a stronger language. But thats just me.

 

It would be a foolish move - THE major selling point of Rs has ALWAYS been that it runs in a browser with no external download or program necessary. Changing that is basically changing the entire market of the game, the only bigger change they could make is if rs3 was suddenly not longer and mmorpg and was a platformer instead.

[jayc3399]

I'm not sure how well it would go with the community but I would love to see the game move to a downloaded client to improve gameplay. You'd actually be able to write the game in a stronger language. But thats just me.

 

It would be a foolish move - THE major selling point of Rs has ALWAYS been that it runs in a browser with no external download or program necessary. Changing that is basically changing the entire market of the game, the only bigger change they could make is if rs3 was suddenly not longer and mmorpg and was a platformer instead.

 

You can have MMORGPs that are platform based. All I'm saying is that moving to a client would allow them so much more flexability.