03-Jul-2013 - Vorago: High-Level Boss Fight

[Stev]

I had a thought for phase 4. The minions are a replica of you as you leave the waterfall. Why not unequip your weapons/sheild after the waterfall until you run back to Vorago so that they spawn weapon/shieldless?

[Ezkaton]

You don't take a lot of damage on the final stage, as dpser. I was soulsplitting with superior vampirism and not losing health until the tanks died and bombs started falling amongst the melee lines.

 

I would like to note that my idea of the KK requiring a line of pikes protecting a line of rangers is nearly what happens at Vorago.

 

I remember your post about that and I find it a lovely thing to add to the combat system!

 

Now with the Battle of Lumbridge coming soon, wouldn't it just be awesome to have actual armies in ranks, impenetrable because of the use of spears and shields, causing your troops to attack from the flanks? :P

 

I wish so much that they could do this... But let's face it. It's not going to be anything like that. Hell most of the battles - ie. Whiterun - on Skyrim are meant to be big, grand and epic, considering that the Imperials and Stormcloaks are massive in terms of numbers (or so we're led to believe) - whereas the reality is there's a couple of wooden barricades that take 2 hits to down and about 25 or so soldiers you have to kill. Don't forget Bethesda have much better graphics, artists, coders, and the like. Hell, not even Ubisoft with AC3's new Anvil Next engine managed to make a "playable" army battlefield just yet.

 

With Jagex I think it's going to be a watered down version of the RotM battle, because don't forget, everyone's got to be able to do it. Or then again... A conquest like scenario where we move groups of troops etc? Anyways It'll be a few rounds of monsters or whatever considering who's trying to take it, and perhaps we'll end up with Skyrim like maps on tables in throne rooms etc in order for us to assess the sway of power.

[Fallstar]

Skyrim has the ability to handle larger battles - Bethesda had to scale it back so that the game would run on consoles. My sieges and miscellaneous civil war battles have over a hundred participants ;p

[Kimberly]

Don't forget Bethesda have much better graphics, artists, coders, and the like.

 

Aha...ahah...ahahahahahhahaha

 

[hide=Bethesda's Brilliant Coding]

[/hide]

 

Quite frankly it's not fair to say that x is better than Jagex, they've got entirely different budgets for development.

[chenw]

It's hard to avoid a few glitches like that though, especially considering the scope of the game. I don't think it's a fair representation of Coder's competency over a few subtle programming glitches.

[V O R K]

they should pay me to test games

 

shitbugs n glitches everywhere

 

why don't children dreams die :D

[Kimberly]

It's hard to avoid a few glitches like that though, especially considering the scope of the game. I don't think it's a fair representation of Coder's competency over a few subtle programming glitches.

 

Those are only a few examples from two of my favorite YTers, and not even all of them. Bethesda has been well known for their buggy games. These are just a sample of the funny ones - there's waaaaaay too many game-breaking glitches to even begin to list in games like Oblivion, Fallout 3, FO:NV (though Obsidian did their best), and Skyrim. You can probably dig through the UESP for more information.

 

Thing is when you're comparing Jagex to another game company, as flimsy as the comparison is on its own, you should probably not choose a game company known for its bugginess and game-breaking glitches. (No offense Ezk!)

[Platinum_Myr]

And budget has a huge impact on things. as a software developer I have definitely had my share of "wont fix" bugs simply because there wasn't time or budget and it wasn't deemed critical... let alone if I knew how to fix it...

 

and you really cannot compare a validation team of a small company to one of a large company, as it is not an easy task at alll.

[Fallstar]

Bethesda get a bad rep for buggy games as they generally have several times as many sales as other devs (meaning several times as many reports of bugs.)

 

The overall % of people affected by game breaking bugs is probably just as low as any other developer. I mean even if tens of thousands of people suffered from game breaking bugs from Skyrim, that would make Skyrim one of the least buggy games (or pieces of software generally) in existence when you consider how many units they sold.

 

Obsidian are far better known for having buggy releases which affect a much larger % of people.

[Quyneax]

Skyrim has the ability to handle larger battles - Bethesda had to scale it back so that the game would run on consoles. My sieges and miscellaneous civil war battles have over a hundred participants ;p

Only a hundred? Computers over 5 years old will run 200+ people battles in M&B - I imagine high-end machines get 400+ easy :P. The wiki says unofficial servers have supported 222 players on multiplayer as well :D.

 

Anyway, Runescape npcs are much lighter to run than Skyrim I'm pretty sure - looking at places like the gnome battlefield, you can easily get a real battlefield. I just hope barrage will be a real option then, a large battle seems so useless if you can't use multi-target spells :/.

[Fallstar]

That's all the mod I use does. I have my max battle size in M&B set to 900 :P

[Urza285]

Think I managed to get a better picture:

 

 

Sadly it wasn't me, but the potential kill after that one I almost had him with the maul.

[Arcley]

Normal monsters are what you need defence for to make farming sustainable and profitable. Offence matters little because everything dies in a few hits anyway. Bosses are all about dps and killing them before you waste half your consumables in a single kill, and you're going to take a ton of damage regardless so defence is less important.

...

 

No.

 

Camping is sustainable because of soul split. It is profitable because prayer is cheap.

*facepalm* Soul Split is defensive, not offensive.

Offence matters a lot because that's exactly what you need to kill 'everything'.

Have you played this game after EoC? They still haven't updated tons of monsters. You don't need drygores to 2-hit stuff.

 

So basically, you fall under what I posted before: Review your setups :P.

How about *you* do your research.

[Sy_Accursed]

^ Just because you can 2 hit alot of stuff with lower weapons doesn't discount the need for offence, seeing as where stats *really* matter you won't be 2 hitting anything.

 

Also soul split isn't exactly defensive - if you use it in a defensive setup its highly uneffective as it's benefit comes entirely from your offensive output.

The more berseker you go with pour out damage the more soulsplit benefits you, it is directly tied to offence.

[chenw]

If by defensive you mean keeping you alive, then yes, its defensive, but it's one where it would benefit you more if you went offensive rather than defensive.

 

Reason?

 

A dual wield set up will do at the very very least, 50% extra damage compared to one with shield (the dps change will probably be closer to 100% increase, due to the increased number of offensive abilities that are available AND the ones you are using). So by that estimate, you will need to take at least 50% more damage from your for tanking to be more usable for survivability. I am not aware of any fight that is the case.

 

If the SS healing completely cancels out the damage taken, then obviously the Dual wield will win, because he/she will kill 33% more bosses in the same time the Sword and Board will kill.

 

Hence, Offensive setups, as it stands, is superior to any defensive setup, SS, ironically for defensive prayer, actually helps offensive hold that position

[HunterDexter]

You don't take a lot of damage on the final stage, as dpser. I was soulsplitting with superior vampirism and not losing health until the tanks died and bombs started falling amongst the melee lines.

 

I would like to note that my idea of the KK requiring a line of pikes protecting a line of rangers is nearly what happens at Vorago.

 

I remember your post about that and I find it a lovely thing to add to the combat system!

 

Now with the Battle of Lumbridge coming soon, wouldn't it just be awesome to have actual armies in ranks, impenetrable because of the use of spears and shields, causing your troops to attack from the flanks? :P

 

I wish so much that they could do this... But let's face it. It's not going to be anything like that. Hell most of the battles - ie. Whiterun - on Skyrim are meant to be big, grand and epic, considering that the Imperials and Stormcloaks are massive in terms of numbers (or so we're led to believe) - whereas the reality is there's a couple of wooden barricades that take 2 hits to down and about 25 or so soldiers you have to kill. Don't forget Bethesda have much better graphics, artists, coders, and the like. Hell, not even Ubisoft with AC3's new Anvil Next engine managed to make a "playable" army battlefield just yet.

 

With Jagex I think it's going to be a watered down version of the RotM battle, because don't forget, everyone's got to be able to do it. Or then again... A conquest like scenario where we move groups of troops etc? Anyways It'll be a few rounds of monsters or whatever considering who's trying to take it, and perhaps we'll end up with Skyrim like maps on tables in throne rooms etc in order for us to assess the sway of power.

 

Ever seen the Total War games? :D

[X3EN]

Ever seen the Total War games? :D

 

Total War series do allow large scale battles, but you do not have individual units (as in, you cannot control individual units).

Which is a big letdown; but that allows to have a real 3D world instead of a pseudo 3D OR isometric.

 

As a long time RTS fan, I am familiar with games that have MP games where 2k units / player are the norm (typical games are 1v1, 2v2 or 8 player FFA). And yes, you can control individual units.

The downside is that ever since I played that series (and a spin-off series), every other RTS only qualifies as just some tactical village wars with no long-term strategy implications. But since I saw 'Blitzkrieg', which is a 100% pure RTT (real time tactics) game classified as RTS, I do understand why those games are classed as RTS as well.

And due to various limitations imposed in TW series, I could rename it to "Town Wars" at best. Not Total War.

[HunterDexter]

Still, I would love to see some phalanxes or testudo-formations in RuneScape. :P

 

Also worth noting: it seems Total War is trying to give the battle unit's persons a bigger impact with Rome 2. But I agree, Total War is a semi turned based, semi real time strategie game. :)

[JeRambo]

Friend got wand. :D.

[Stev]

^ Got it on stream. :P.

[Quasar]

OH COME ON AS SOON AS I LEAVE

[PolarBearBlue]

So I know pretty much maxed players kill Vorago, but how would a mid high level player fair with Vorago? And how good/bad a public matches?

[Hedgehog]

You need a unicorn or a pack yak, especially if you don't have ports armor. You'll struggle but you'll probably be fine. You will be a liability on the 5th stage though. This assumes you know exactly what you're doing.

[constrictor]

Once I get the Summ levels, I may have to try this out.

 

How would a maxed combat player, minus ports armour, fair?

[Urza285]

Am I the only one disappointed by the drops from vorago? The dusts are floating around 1-1.5m and the rest is rubbish - even if you manage to get them.