devtrackers.gg → JagexHusky
JagexHusky

JagexHusky



07 Apr

Please end my pain (ironman btw)

Comment

Originally posted by NonbeliefAU

Thank you!

I don't suppose there's any data on the current driest iron? I'd very much like to know what KC I need for that god-awful mantel.

I couldn't say personally, I work in content development and not data and analytics.

I know others have had worse dry streaks in general, you're currently just below 8x, I've personally had an 11x (trident), I've seen as high as 13x.

The grind really matters though, 5x on an Ely is worse than 10x on a whip for example. Enhanced seed is definitely up there for a bad one to go unlucky on though!

Please end my pain (ironman btw)

Comment

That's disgusting, good luck with getting it soon, it'll all be worth it


13 Mar

Jagex proposes buffing 1-75 agility by more than 2 hours, and yet people see a slight adjustment to seers and think it's the biggest nerf possible.

Comment

Originally posted by Dr_Chris_Turk

Why don’t you just actually put in the work to fix the shitty course design of Polly/Prif then?

I don’t stick with Seers over Polly/Prif because of xp rates, I do it because I can click the entire course without rotating my camera or clicking twice between steps.

My response to another player:

"I don't think it's unreasonable that we could touch up the layout/interactions of some of the courses as part of this project.

The course just feeling bad to do (from a gameplay perspective) is very different to it feeling bad to do because of the xp rates."

Jagex proposes buffing 1-75 agility by more than 2 hours, and yet people see a slight adjustment to seers and think it's the biggest nerf possible.

Comment

Originally posted by Middle_War_9117

I doubt you'll see this comment but thats Okay! the write up is really nice but to touch on your questions:

  • Are slow skills the problem? Or are boring skills the problem?
    Yes and No. if a skill is slow, generally there would be a trade off whether its higher yield in GP/HR, resources, whatever. the problem is when the skill is slow, theres no alternatives to do in the skilling method, and the pay off is just as bad, why would I as a player do something that I don't enjoy if skill X is slow, tedious, and has a terrible pay off that's just not fun, nor a good use of time.
  • Is Construction a good skill because it's fast?
    this is a double edged sword. Construction is fantastic for the QOL it brings to a player, is it a good skill? not really. you're either stuck doing specific facets of construction, or Mahogany homes, and making 67000 mahogany tables isn't enjoyable, nor good for the wrists. and mahogany homes is just tedious.
  • Is Slayer a bad...
Read more

I did see the comment!

Your thought process is generally consistent with mine and it's why I posed those questions at the bottom of my ramble.

I think that looking at a skill's xp rates in a vacuum without considering other metrics is not a good way to evaluate whether or not a skill is good.

Jagex proposes buffing 1-75 agility by more than 2 hours, and yet people see a slight adjustment to seers and think it's the biggest nerf possible.

Comment

Originally posted by OpenResponsibility23

One thing I believe the team has to consider is that the reality is that Seers is also just the easiest course to run. Both on mobile and desktop, it requires no camera turns and is very easy to click the boxes. Even with boosted rates Seers is a lot easier to complete for hours than Poll or Relekka, so for it to be the course that sees a small nerf just doesn't feel good

I don't think it's unreasonable that we could touch up the layout/interactions of some of the courses as part of this project.

The course just feeling bad to do (from a gameplay perspective) is very different to it feeling bad to do because of the xp rates.

Jagex proposes buffing 1-75 agility by more than 2 hours, and yet people see a slight adjustment to seers and think it's the biggest nerf possible.

Comment

Originally posted by BlueSentinels

So now I have to level construction to make house tabs and move my home to Pollniveach (which requires me to schlep out there to even do) so that I can get a 12min total benefit to my agility grind from 60-75 from the current meta of staying at seers through 75? You do see how that’s a general nerf to agility training as it currently exists right?

The addition of a diary locked teleport similar to seers would inevitably make these locations easier to get to. Or were you specifically talking about getting to these courses before the proposed diary reward is unlocked?

Jagex proposes buffing 1-75 agility by more than 2 hours, and yet people see a slight adjustment to seers and think it's the biggest nerf possible.

Comment

Originally posted by Arancium

I appreciate the transparency, but I feel like reducing the exp/hr just doesn't make sense and it's always going to draw ire from the community (buffs are better than nerfs). I feel as if a better solution to "why would I go to polliv over kandarin when the difference is only 1k exp per hour" should be addressed by adding the same scaling marks to the diary like kandarin has. If polliv is better marks and better exp per hour, then it's strictly better to head out to the desert.

Perhaps there's concerns with the price of amylase, but if we're also discussing amylase coming from more agility courses and also brimhaven, this wouldn't have more of an effect than those?

I don't dislike the idea of looking at the marks of grace a course gives as another balancing metric as a potential solution. I'd need to think on it some more and actually dig out some numbers before coming to any real conclusions though.

Jagex proposes buffing 1-75 agility by more than 2 hours, and yet people see a slight adjustment to seers and think it's the biggest nerf possible.

Comment

Originally posted by astronut321

Why does agility need such low xp rates? It doesn’t hurt the economy having higher agility or faster training methods.

This is gatekeeping. It should be in line with thieving rates

I also don’t want to hear any argument about devaluing 99 agility for current players because you guys are already devaluing everyone who grinded levels and diaries for agility, which is way more players than those who actually have 99

The discussion about whether or not Agility should be a fast or slow skill was not really something we were planning to address with this project. We just wanted to create a more healthy meta and to make receiving unlocks while training it feel more exciting and meaningful.

Jagex proposes buffing 1-75 agility by more than 2 hours, and yet people see a slight adjustment to seers and think it's the biggest nerf possible.

Comment

Originally posted by Nezukoh

What makes a problem skill is a combination of low exp, high focus, constant clicking and no real reward.

Agility is a mix of all of that.

Construction is good because it stands on its own with tons of rewards and its exp rates are insanely bloated while having a choice to take lower exp to save on cost

Slayer is good because there's tons of reward, variety and you get to make a ton of choices in how you handle it

Making a boring skill faster alleviates the burnout and fixes a few of the issues i outlined in the first sentence.

High clicking with more focus for higher exp is fine, higher clicking higher focus with low exp isn't.

Agility can't be afk'd so it'll stay higher focus regardless and most agility rewards aren't worth the squeeze, some shortcuts are great, but if you're leveling agility primarily for that, that's hardly a goal worth 250 hours of mind numbing.

For how much effort agility takes compared to most other ski...

Read more

Hopefully my response to another player above provides my thoughts to some of what you raised.

I think the reward aspect of agility is still something we should address and is completely separate from the xp rates of the skill. It simultaneously feels mandatory and underwhelming at the same time and shortcuts don't do enough.

Jagex proposes buffing 1-75 agility by more than 2 hours, and yet people see a slight adjustment to seers and think it's the biggest nerf possible.

Comment

Originally posted by bugfixplis

Is Construction a good skill because it's fast?

No, but at least it's not both slow and boring. Agility is both.
I agree that making a boring skill fast is a band-aid solution, but it's at least something, instead of going, "Ah, it's too hard to solve the underlying issue, so I guess we'll put it off for a few years."
Also agility is only boring insofar that you're forced to do non-Sepulcher content. Sepulcher is amazing(plis add amylase to it).

Yeah, the slow and boring part is where Agility definitely sits. I still wouldn't want the change to just be "Make it fast and boring"

My hope is that the introduction of new content can resolve this issue. Sepulchre is only really meta from level 72 onwards (at the very least, it's not as fun to run floors 52 and 62 repeatedly) and I also don't think Sepulchre should be the be-all and end-all from 52-99 either, that was a very intentional design choice.

The proposal mentions a Brimhaven agility rework which I hope can scratch the itch of being fun while also providing more XP/hr at the relevant levels for those who want to pay more attention.

Jagex proposes buffing 1-75 agility by more than 2 hours, and yet people see a slight adjustment to seers and think it's the biggest nerf possible.

Comment

Hey, I'm going to try and explain the methodology for the process of reaching the numbers we did for the agility rework just for full transparency so that the full context is out there to be reviewed as to whether or not it is "good" or "bad". From this, I'd hope that the full context can aid in the discussion and help us get relevant feedback to review.

First up, the design goals were not to directly buff agility or nerf agility, we instead were looking at how content was positioned throughout the skill and to see if we could reach a healthier meta for agility as a whole and several things stood out to us.

  1. Rooftops dominate the meta for the entire skill for most players, this is largely due to marks of grace.
  2. Getting to your first course is very unintuitive.
  3. The level 60 rooftop course (Seers) occupies a large place in the meta, basically taking most players from 60 to 90 unless they wish to do more pro-active methods of training. This is en...
Read more

02 Nov

With Leagues 2 weeks away, which areas will you be unlocking, and why?

Comment

Originally posted by YoTobias_

Why Tirranwn first out of curiosity?

Because I like Tirranwn and going there first will be the most fun for me!


01 Nov

With Leagues 2 weeks away, which areas will you be unlocking, and why?

Comment

Tirranwn > Kourend > Desert


27 Sep

Runecrafting Diary steps broken?

Comment

Originally posted by Marcus_Kruger

Wish I would have thought of that earlier, it's now lost in the game ticks of time!

This should now be resolved!

Sorry for the issue, I'm praying on behalf of you for good RNG on the second +5 boost!


11 Jul

Q&A Summary - Sailing Reward Space Q&A, July 6th

Comment

Originally posted by AshlandRacers

The Agility one also makes it so you can't fail obstacles - that's directly gameplay buff.

Huh, is this new? I never saw it on the wiki, which just says it's a graceful cape with 1 restore of run energy per day.

Sorry, my bad, this is what happens when I try to remember something off the top of my head to give an example


02 Jun

Sailing - Core Gameplay

Comment

Hey, I'd just like to add a disclaimer for those who see this thread and peruse the slides.

These were given as part of a presentation on our 'Discord Stages' today which included a lot more detail than is written on the slides from design philosophy, further explanations etc.

We'll release a blog next week with a more full-on deep-dive and a lot more information on this, so keep your eyes peeled!


16 May

Adding A New Skill: Sailing - Navigation Mechanics (Design Blog)

Comment

Originally posted by Aplackbenis

I think a way around this would be to allow the hiring of crew. You can have a NPC crew-member steer the ship, while freeing the player to move around on the deck and interact with other objects such as cannons. The player “gives orders” to the npc navigator by pointing and clicking on the ocean tiles.

Having an NPC crew is something we absolutely would like to have as part of the skill! The idea that you can level them up, train them, scout them out is an exciting idea especially for allowing solo players to control large/colossal ships

Adding A New Skill: Sailing - Navigation Mechanics (Design Blog)

Comment

Originally posted by CHRISKVAS

Honestly I feel like we entirely skipped over what should be the first step of designing this skill, which is figuring out why moving across water tiles is fun and engaging enough to be a 1-99. Obviously navigation is a big component towards the core identity of the skill, but I want to know what that core gameplay is before making decisions on the more specific details.

Yeah, that was my thought too and why I initially pitched us touching on the core gameplay loop section first and then navigation second.

However, when we released our refinement schedule to the players there was a fairly loud demand for us to tackle navigation first as players didn't really see if it would even be possible to navigate a ship at sea in a way that felt oldschool or wouldn't be incredibly janky.

Ultimately they both go hand in hand and you won't really have the full picture until both are fleshed out and designed. So watch this space! Core Gameplay & Mechanics coming to you soon!

Adding A New Skill: Sailing - Navigation Mechanics (Design Blog)

Comment

Originally posted by DaMaestroable

Requiring you to lock yourself in place to navigate is a terrible decision. The navigation mechanics as shown in the demo video worked so well because it was seamless, you can click and go both on your boat and on the sea. You even say it you4selves in the blog, it's just less convenient, and the reasons for doing so are flimsy at best. Preventing misclicks? Showing who's controlling the boat? It's weakening the fundamental mechanics substantially solving non-issues or issues with easy alternative workarounds.

I would highly recommend to at least develop a prototype with both control schemes and see how they play out. I think after getting your hands on it you'll see just how much of a difference it will end up making.

I'd be curious to hear your easy alternative workarounds and how you'd suggest the issues we outlined be handled instead. Then we can have a discussion about the pros and cons of each approach because I don't believe them to be "non-issues"

But yeah, fundamentally if something feels bad once if we get to a stage where they are more fully developed we're absolutely open to changes. It's just that we have to make design decisions now based on what sounds correct.

Adding A New Skill: Sailing - Navigation Mechanics (Design Blog)

Comment

Originally posted by Rixford

I think not enough people are talking about the movement speed. I understand large ships take a while to get going but how was it not immediately addressed to have a ship not move slower than running speed let alone walking speed for the entire time? There should be a ramp up sure but for the love of all that is good don't make it walking speed or slower.

Copying my response from above

Numbers are placeholder currently and just to show our design intention. Specific variables such as how slow a ship moves or turns are things we really won't have a good handle without being in full-fledged development tweaking the numbers ourselves to see what feels best.

Also as you mentioned these numbers were envisioned to be for the base speed of a colossal ship and doesn't take into effect things like wind, currents, ship upgrades etc.