RU_Insane

On the contrary. You're the one who should be taking a step back from the game if you criticize others so harshly for having no 'merit' where it doesn't even matter. He's free to post in the discussion and voice his opinion; leave him alone. He shouldn't take RuneScape seriously? You shouldn't take posting seriously. Lighten up, kid, and come back to the big boys' table when your tantrum's over. You don't want to be treated rudely, don't treat others the same way, because it reflects a lot more on you than it does them. Unspamming: I've said in a previous thread why I think relying on donations isn't so 'dishonorable'. The only thing you need is an efficient playing style if you're looking to succeed in a competition. Relying on donations to some extent is an excellent competitive strategy. Donations allow a player to be more efficient because there's less time invested for a higher XP benefit. It's logical to rely (partly) on donations from a willing fan-base or captivated spectators who care enough, and have enough cash to donate. People make the assumption that a component in a 'true' achievement is integrity, which translates to, in the context of this thread, skilling without external reliance. People feel that if a player relies on donations, to whatever degree, it devalues the achievement because it's no longer an accurate reflection of their own ability; they were helped. Realistically, the difference in clicks and time invested (the two most potent measures of 'ability' in this game) between the two scenarios is not so large to begin with, so what 'ability', and hence achievement, is being devalued? None. If all a skill takes is extended patience, and a lot of clicking over time, (which means anyone has the potential to, provided they have hands and a lot of free time), there's essentially no real value you can take away from an achievement, other than patience, which is also useful when applied to a plethora of other areas where it can be more productively used. Of course, it may seem like more than that to some players, but I'm the showing the reality of the situation to those few players who are too shy, or deluded, to admit the truth to themselves. Congratulations, you found out after you achieved 99 Strength, that you're a patient person, and that you're "superior" to a few million players for a while. Don't get me wrong. It certainly is an achievement that you meticulously planned this goal, but what was used up in the process? Just your patience and free time. Nothing else. It didn't require advanced mental calculation, it didn't require research into several interdisciplinary areas of study, it didn't require you to formulate an advanced equation, or falsifiable hypothesis, if we wish to compare how the two values could have been used. Bottom line, don't take so seriously a game where nothing takes real skill. That means even relying on someone else, for a short period of time, won't take away much real value already inherent in your goal. Cash donations and having people light fires for you? No difference in the end result, sorry. When you start assigning values like 'integrity' and 'skill' (which in my opinion, are being grossly overused) to an achievement that doesn't take any more real skill then patience, you're going to lead to ridiculous conclusions, and hence delusions, about an achievements' worth. That's because what RS really is, never served, nor ever will serve, as a reliable standard for gauging 'skill'. The above isn't intended to stem or dissuade discussion in this particular vein. I think it's interesting who will reach first for all skills, if that even happens. It's more directed at the players who devalue achievements using these same arbitrary values, and bash others for supporting strategic methods contrary to their opinion. It seems, Osiris, that you and I agree at least on the issue of donations, but I still dislike how you bashed someone else for lacking 'credentials' and the needless ad hominem attacks. You could've conducted yourself more maturely.

I've got to say, I really like your manner of narration, BioIce. :P

I'd love to forget everything I know about the game, and start over in '05 RS. Not actually go back in time, but play on a server to hopefully relive similar memories to the first ones I have <3:

What an interesting last article. Is death supposed to be a metaphor for diminished passion or something? :P Definitely, there will be a time to leave RuneScape. I thought the article was speaking more toward renewing a person's love for the game though, since he talked about 'choices' and all.

Yeah. :P

That's terrible. The most bots I've seen, excluding the autotypers, are about seven of them huddled around a yew tree. This is in F2P of course. What I really dislike about them is their pervasiveness. I don't think bots pre-free trade removal were ever that widespread. They caused a minor annoyance to me occasionally, but I could out-compete them with some effort at most. Not like that anymore. :(

Many players complain of the overflow of bots in the return of free trade, but how much of an effect are they on game-play and the economy when compared to the merchant clans of post-free trade RuneScape? Remember those people? Yeah. They were at least as reviled, if not more so, than the RWTers of today's game. Keep in mind RWT still flourished at that time too, though I'd argue not nearly to the extent as before, or now. I think every era of RuneScape has its upsides and downsides, but which is worse? In my opinion, it's RWTers, after return of free trade (not so much as before its removal). I have the typical complaints, but I left RS at around the same time school started and I was getting bored with the game already because of decreased cash opportunities (may or may not be due to RWTers). Which of the two do you think is the lesser of "two evils" and why? Would you take back merchant clan dominated-RS over the current version, or keep the game the way it is now? Which do you think has a greater impact on the economy/game-play?

How did you manage to misspell "joystick" twice? >_> Anyway, I didn't vote, but I'm not voting for Jagex, which, concerning how badly they're treating this game at the moment, satisfies me. Of course, if I don't vote for them, someone else will. :wall:

I'm very sorry for this, it's not my intention; my job requires me to use specialist and advanced vocabulary all the time, and it does spill over into my Times articles without my noticing. In future, I'll try to make sure my articles are more accessible for illegal aliens (only joking :mrgreen: ) In response to Kimberley's point, though I agree with you to an extent, the internet has also given rise to far more of the polar opposite to purple prose - terribly simplistic prose that is dry, uninteresting, and dull. Similarly, because purple prose is a term that is best applied to fiction, there will be relatively little in the Times. Edit: Geekguy, my regrets that I've not had the time to respond to your post as I'd hoped. It's just too long for me to be able to compose a proper reply in the time limitations I have. However, I will say this: I agree with most of what you're saying, and some of these things are flaws in the article. I will, however, point out some key areas in which I disagree. I would argue that, even if one is aiming for the top levels in RS with the sole aim of feeling self-fulfilled, this trait is inherently egotistical. Although it is not extrovert egoism in the sense of boastfulness and other such traits, it is a more narcissistic approach. The act of reaching 99 in every skill is such a huge time investment, and requires so much patience, that it is literally impossible to do achieve this end by simply 'enjoying skilling'. Instead, it can only be done out of a desire to prove something to one's self, and though you're right that it is not the most scientific or accurate of indicators of a personality trait, nevertheless you must surely concur that such determined skilling is indicative of at least an abnormal degree of pathological self-absoprtion. As for those right at the top, who continue to skill just for the sake of XP and staying there, there can be no doubt in my mind that they have definite personality disorders in the vein of those I've mentioned. Sorry my response could not be longer and more comprehensive. That's fine. I have time restraints as well. >.< I agree. My perspective on this issue is that 99 is usually attained with that goal in mind, as opposed to nonchalantly gaining levels out of enjoyment. Because one actually aims to achieve this level, skilling in no longer played solely for enjoyment, but in a scheduled, ordered manner, conforming to the player's individual time constraints, and the most appropriate methods of gaining experience. That is, skilling with a goal in mind is usually done efficiently as opposed to inefficiently, if we compare those two scenarios. I agree it's gained in order to prove something to oneself, and indeed, who doesn't enjoy indulging in a bit of narcissism (which I'd also argue is healthy to indulge in, in small amounts). Maybe I'm a bit biased, but I have a friend, who's level 122 now, but back when he was level 97, he was skilling for his first 99, which was 99 woodcutting. He skilled for about eight hours each day for most of the week. That's certainly dedication. I think he skilled from 80-99 woodcutting, and it took about 1/2 weeks - 2 weeks. Point is, you don't skill for that long unless you're feel you have something to prove to yourself, and hence validate. I think, at the end of the day, achieving a 99 skill is either more towards harmless (maybe even healthy?) narcissism, or a sign of something more problematic. I can see why someone would do it, but it can potentially be harmful, in my opinion, if the time for it isn't carefully managed. That's when the problem (which as a whole, is outside of this scope) needs to be addressed.

Awesome. No rush, I'll wait. :)

Crosefisso's article on idolatry seems to be a misguided attack on consumerism. The superficial qualities he bemoans aren't particularly virtuous but do not detract from individual character in themselves. Rather, what's concerning is the effect the emphasis of these qualities will have on individual self-esteem, ideal body shape, and so forth, which I understand was partly his point, and I agree it's something to be concerned about. Even then, following trends that emphasize certain superficial qualities doesn't equate to worship of an individual so much as conformity to an ideal that these individuals embody for the consumer. It's also been said here that attempting to qualify the effects of this 'celebrity worship' is largely a value judgment. It can be argued that aspiring to a set of traits, like ones that can be described as 'beauty', has a positive effect on the individual, not negative as he's seemed to have painted it. But then, because of the connotation of beauty, we start wading into differing notions of a gender ideal, not limited to ideal female character, provided discussion on this topic goes far off enough into that tangent. What I think underlays this contention in relation to the rest of his argument is that self-expression is suppressed in favor of the preconceived popular notion of the proper way to act, in seeking to belong. So what he's arguing against, is that this conformity is deplorable because it counteracts any rational thought, and this characteristic contributes to the delusion of 'worship'. Even so, conformity (which is the case he's discussing here) is hardly the same as blind praise and reverence, although reverence can entail conformity to varying extents (think of praising God and following the Ten Commandments). I'll add that the cases you mention regards fanaticism about famous players ('stalking' in clan chats and so forth) seems exaggerated as well. In regards to the rest of his argument, it seemed the examples he chose were tailored to depict a sense of disillusionment regards to the competitive culture he claims Jagex has institutionalized with the hi-scores and related features, rather than to explain the effects of this culture on the community in a coherent manner. I disagree with his claims that a top-level player relying on his fan-base to compete against others, amongst others, accurately reflects on a person's character. It's a more credible explanation that, efficiency being an objective in breaking XP records, that relying on a fan-base for donations, or simply even courteous donations from an interested audience, is a more reliable means to accomplish a goal. It's not so much a reflection of self-centeredness as opposed to how you choose to invest effort. I'll note this claim of egoism is also based on a value judgment, the assumption being that this implicit integrity in skilling has such value that it's intrinsic to the notion of "accomplishment", and that relying on a fan-base to achieve this betrays this integrity, since it would not be an accurate reflection of individual ability, which thus diminishes any inherent worth associated with the achievement. I'll further add that I doubt 'integrity' would be so compromised if you chose to rely in part, from donations. You, in argument, have reduced achievement to a sphere of common ability which takes no more skill than patience and clicking repetitively for sustained periods of time. Relying on 10M GP worth of donations out of 100M I've earned through my own power, perhaps saves me a few thousand clicks. Realistically, there is little difference in the effort invested between the two outcomes. The most potent measure of ability, after all, is how fast and how long you can click your mouse, so how can that devalue an achievement? If there is any value lost, it has what's been determined by RuneScape's skilling culture to be valuable. Rather, it's all too easy to perceive such outcomes as egoism when it could be chalked up to sensibility in the face of competition. For example, if I choose to skill entirely by my own hand, does that mean I'm less pre-occupied with my goal, and hence less egotistical, then someone who takes more efficient (albeit external) means to achieve the same? How do you measure one's ego this way? Could it not simply be a matter of how you choose to play the game, rather than a case of an inflated sense of self-worth? Questioning how one chooses to play the game leads to misguided conclusions about their character based on the superficial knowledge of their game-play. Hence, what you have examined largely seems like egoism on the surface when there are more practical explanations for it. I'd say most top-ranking players are modest to uncaring about the social status associated their levels, since it would seem accomplishment is for them, too, derived more from individual satisfaction and not communal adulation. Quantifying one's ego by conflating aspects of their game-play with delusions of self-worth does not a reliable indicator make. Indeed, if there were no public forum for showing off achievements, there would be little incentive to do anything, if you were looking for applause when you did it. Individual gratification is still a driving factor in pursuing goals. The game itself, however, is a public forum, and thus achievements in some form, whether you wish to or not, are out in the open for everyone to see. People obtained 99s before skill-capes, there is now just greater incentive to do so. What do you think people got 99s for before skill-capes were released? The applause is inevitable, but there's more to an accomplishment than that. Accomplishment is not derived wholly from communal adulation which drives your claims of purported egoism. The promise of it can exacerbate the drive, but I like to think top-players have their priorities in place and find deeper usefulness in what they've achieved. Describing the whole of this endeavor as if it's deplorable, is a bit of a stretch. I won't deny elements of it exist, as the game is multi-player and so it's inherently competitive, but it isn't out and full "I'm better than you, look at my pixels, man." Of course as the stakes are raised higher, more attention is brought to the individual, whether they wished for it or not. It's advantageous in this case, for the player to exploit whatever benefits this relationship offers, hence relying in part from donations and a dedicated cult following. This behavior is not the sign of delusions of grandeur, in itself. It's a sensible reaction to a situation, and, inevitably, you'll have people that will reach for the top, but this doesn't reflect on their real life character.

Somehow -- I don't think it's our arms that they've been thrusting into ... :unsure: lmao. This is the point I was making. You worded it better though :D

Well, at least Jagex realizes they have to do something about it. Then again, going by Blyaunte's comment, it's as if they didn't care before now. >.> I wouldn't be surprised if this was yet another short-term PR stunt.

Yeah lol. I hope so too.

Sounds reasonable to me :P Did you divide your XP by time played or do you not have an Adventure's log? I don't think you can realistically give an average as when the playtime occurred heavily effects xp rate. An account only created this year will inevitably have a better xp:hr than an account from 10 years ago because xp rates have grown over the years and its virtually impossible to drag tht value back up in later years short of getting really insanely excessive xp rates. What if the veteran acc uses the same training methods that the new account does? Couldn't they at least excell in that area, considering they'd have much higher skills and so they get more XP? No thats the point. Lets take account A B C Account A is created and does the best xp in-game which is 10k/hr and plays for 10 hours. Hes got 10k/hr xp rate Month later Account B is made and a new update comes. Both A & B do the new method that gives 20k/hr and play 10 hours. Account A has 300k xp and 20hrs so 150k/hr Account B has 200k xp and 10 hours so 200k/hr Another month new best xp method and account C is made, new method is 30k hr all 3 do 10 hours A 600k xp, 30 hours 20k/hr B 500k xp 20 hours 25k/hr C 300k xp 10 hours 30k/hr Give A 20 hours more playtime: 1.2m xp 50 hours = 24k/hr Another 40: 1.8m, 70 hrs = 25.7k/hr Mathematically speaking the older account is always at a disadvantage unless they get significantly more play time in. It means that as a general rule the older the account the lower the xp/hr is gonna be. Ah, I see. Higher level accounts have access to much better training methods though, so they'll probably get like 100k xp/hr for fishing, let's say, compared to a new level 3 account fishing shrimp. Of course if everyone practices at the same rate of XP, the news guy's gonna win 'cause the vets have more hours, so you have to offset that with higher XP intake.

I'm half Russian. I'll only be able to strangle with half the strength. D:

To be fair, this is probably a more accurate description of what Jagex is actually doing :lol: Thrusting themselves into the arms of an unhappy, insane community of players? :blink: And then we strangle them using our arms :lol: I'm not sure if it was the smiley face or the text, but I busted out laughing. :D Glad to make you do so :D Come on now, it's not like we're trying to resuscitate Jagex. Although they are in desperate need of it :P ...meh, that one was weak >_>; I would shake them warmly if I were trying to make love to them, not kill them :P

I'm sure we'd beat Sal's. I doubt most of their core user-base even plays anymore :lol:

I'm being put to shame here :lol: From memory, I think I must've played 140 days on RS. So... 21M/(140*24)= 6.2K/hr >_<

I find that rather shocking. I figured it would be far lower, like the 20K'ish region. But I actually think that the reason it's not is because I've actually been skilling the past year and a half'ish (really, ever since dung came out). I've had to gain over 100M experience in that time, which is about 1/3rd of my total experience. Well, it's been 17 months since Dungs' release. 100M/17 = 5.8M XP/month roughly? Translates to 194K a day, 8.1k/hr. :blink: Sounds reasonable to me :P Did you divide your XP by time played or do you not have an Adventure's log? I don't think you can realistically give an average as when the playtime occurred heavily effects xp rate. An account only created this year will inevitably have a better xp:hr than an account from 10 years ago because xp rates have grown over the years and its virtually impossible to drag tht value back up in later years short of getting really insanely excessive xp rates. What if the veteran acc uses the same training methods that the new account does? Couldn't they at least excell in that area, considering they'd have much higher skills and so they get more XP?

Sounds reasonable to me :P Did you divide your XP by time played or do you not have an Adventure's log?

To be fair, this is probably a more accurate description of what Jagex is actually doing :lol: Thrusting themselves into the arms of an unhappy, insane community of players? :blink: And then we strangle them with our arms :lol:

Depending on how long you've played, 36k/hr is really good! :lol: ... I think.