starev91

Personally, I think it's reasonable to give f2p either random event spaces or more bank space--the first is preferable to the second for most involved (less memory use for Jagex, since it would merely be a boolean for each, which means 1 bit per item, and it isn't actually bank space, so nobody is complaining except the packrat f2p'ers, instead of the f2p'ers who keep randoms and the packrats.).

In theory, you should be fine--simply because you didn't tell him "tip.it/runescape is a great site, go there", but because you told him to ask the tip.it community--a difference, because you were referring to the community, not to the site itself. However, better safe then sorry. Jagex is known for being indecisive.

I don't agree that playing it requires no skill (although I don't anymore, that might've changed while I was gone), simply because if you can find an innovative way to train a skill, you'll beat the grinder to the mark. Of course, then someone tells what you were doing, and everyone else does it. What Jagex could do to fix this is make more high level weapons sets. And make them even harder to get, and nontradable. Also, they should make it require a decent sized group of players to pull off, so that it would require teamwork to do on the scale of 20-25 players. And dangerous. Did I mention dangerous? :P Dangerous on the level of no teleporting, and if a few people lose, everybody loses. Now do that many times over for differing levels of armor, high to low, all hard for that level group. Restrict by level and number group so that the entire group has to be within a certain set of levels. This would show exactly who can work with a group--and in a game where all but one or two things can be done solo, that's important to add. Runescape as a game sets the players against one another in almost all cases--gathering resources, fighting monsters, etc. because of a limited number of possible resources on the server at any given time (only so many spawns, only so many rocks to mine, etc.). Best way to make clans more of a thing that's necessary, not optional, and make a sense of community come back would be to require groups of players to do things--that way, people would learn to respect each other's wishes and the like. Oh, and the 12 year olds who don't like it when it doesn't go their way? They aren't team players, so either they'll learn to respect others or they'll not be able to get the items. (To compensate for the fact that the monsters are very, very, very hard and a profit isn't made because the items can't be sold, the items should be nearly constant drops for each party member, so that they can get what they want each time without bickering amongst one another--in this manner, the group would probably solidify if they did a few runs to get multiple sets of armor, and as it grew people would get replaced and whatnot, but it would go on as a group to do more. At least in theory.)

Say, if a bunch of tip.it'ers got together, we could probably make a bunch off of a rehab from Runescape clinic.... charge a good deal, have parents send their kids there, give them Runescape counseling, show them the wonderous game that is "outside", etc. It would be quite amusing to see something like that go up. --- On a more serious note: Some of this is bad parenting. The parents are the ones who're supposed to be in charge, they should be in charge darnit. However, there's something more serious involved when someone is playing Runescape at that level of addiction, I'd have the kid checked for mental imbalances or the like: it's obviously becoming like an addictive drug to him--something that it doesn't do to other people, which suggests to me there's a deeper problem then just the game in that kid's life.

Although it is true that my touch typing improved quite a bit while playing Runescape, I find this statement kind of amusing--Errdoth obviously hasn't spent a lot of time at a modern highschool, where all papers must be typed. The class is a good thing, that much I'll say: I know a few people who can't touch type, and they spend entire evenings working on a one paragraph paper--something that takes me about an hour and a half to write a "perfect" one (get full credit in an honor's English class), which includes prewriting, etc. (although the grade is more dependent on being a good writer then my typing skills, it's to show that you wouldn't -need- to spend all evening on it to get a high score). Most people use a calculator for this kind of thing... although it does help with basic algebra word problems, it's not much good for anything else. (e.x. "I need some number of logs to get to level 80. That's 84900 experience away. Each log gives 100 experience, how many logs do I need?" It's easily modeled as 84900=100x, which becomes 849=x, so you need 849 logs.) A D&D fan would know what a scimitar was without Runescape. A avid fantasy reader would know what a scimitar was without Runescape. There are a lot of things that would have people know what scimitars were without Runescape, but I won't bore you with a more exhaustive list. And you would know a lot more about armour, bows, arrows, and quivers if you studied medieval warfare, and that's an interesting topic to look into. For instance.... what Runescapian (using knowledge just from Runescape) would know just how much plate armor restricted movement? How hot it was? How, if one got knocked over with it, it would be hard for them to stand up? How long it took to put on? At what range a longbow is effective, and how effective it is? Those things would be learned in studying basic medieval warfare, along with anything you could learn from Runescape. And the warfare is interesting, too, unlike some topics of study. Not true. If you ask someone to draw a battle axe, your average high school student (male more then female, methinks) would get it relatively correct, if only because they liked knights back when they were 8. And, unless they change it drastically, they would be committing copyright infringement :P I doubt Jagex would be too happy with a bestselling story in which the main hero was wearing full dragon armour, described exactly as it looks ingame...

It would have to be the mithril plate that got me through so many things... until I could afford a Rune one, that Mithril one was awesome. In all seriousness, it got me from level 20 defense and ~22 combat to level 50 defense: and level 60 combat :P I killed dragons in that plate. I pked in that plate. It was my lucky mithril plate. It was "teh pwnage lucky mithril plate", and it was all mine XD I never lost it, too.... Lasted me ages, had it for months; I eventually sold it to a friend who wanted it as memorabilia of our having completed dragon slayer... I would've enshrined that plate had I kept it, though :P We've both quit now, though...

I hope to god people don't learn their English from RS, or we will have lots of people that can only write bad English or leetspeak in the future. 1 |c/\/0\/\/ \/\/H47 Y0[_] R 74l|c1/\/G 4B0[_]7, /\/\4/\/ 7H47 \/\/0[_]|) B3 H0RR1Bl3, \/\/0[_]l|)/\/'7 17? :P (Translation: I know what you are talking about, man that would be horrible, wouldn't it?) -- I wouldn't say it'll teach you the BEST English out there, but it would teach you a good deal of it, that I can say. ------ I think Runescape is useful in a few educational ways: 1. Teaching about things like various obscure English words (from quests and the like) that you wouldn't get in most language classes. For instance, "coal", "steel", and "smith" aren't really taught in a language class. I learned the meaning of the word "Fletch" and it's derivatives. 2. Teaching basic social networking skills. I was a social mess when I first joined Runescape, it helped me adjust and gain the social skills that have now made me numerous friends. 3. It taught me the coal to iron ratio in most stock steel (2:1), which actually carries over to real life (my History teacher was surprised I knew this, and I was the only one in several hundred who did). Other then that, you'd be much better looking up those things (other then the social networking, which is more of a socially gained skill then anything else).

The Players :twisted:

Exceptions: Unless you're by the yews, willows, in the mining guild, by any other coal, or in the rune essence mines. Then they're probably autoers.

After reporting them, make sure it reports itself :P

Culture clash fuels conflict, and conflict fuels innovation. The more conflicts between skillers and pkers there are in the wilderness, or even just honor pkers and normal pkers, the more each side will innovate and find new and better ways to follow their ways. Not necessarily a bad thing. First step to realizing you aren't the center of the universe is to recognize that there are other viewpoints then yours. Then taking them into consideration. That's where writing unbiased articles comes in: it makes the writer appear more mature, and fuels discussion without flaming or insults. Other then that, the people he's complaining about mainly argue that their way, even if THEY don't win, at least SOMEBODY does. Probably not the entire truth, but it might be some of it. It's the ideal truth, at least; I haven't seen as selfless an ideal truth in anything goes. And even if it isn't because of the ideal, at least it gives it a stepping point.

Autoers :P They have the armies, they have the supplies, and sooner or later they'll have the minds.

Makes me wonder what you'd think of what I play through iTunes.... No matter what game it is, until I can listen to Rammstein or Bella Morte while playing, or something like them at least, I'll take my own music.

I think wilderness teleporting itself is a good thing; after all, people go to the wilderness for more then just pking. I also think that it'd be better if skulled people couldn't teleport out of the wilderness (exceptions for lever teleports), since that'd make it only possible for those who weren't involved in the aggressive attack on someone else, namely the skillers and the ones who should have an advantage escaping anyways, since they aren't there to go kill people. But then, that'd practically nerf teleblock, and give f2p something... which makes me doubt that Jagex will do it.

I believe honor pking is more efficient use of resources on all parties, which doesn't necessarily make it better. But yes, that is my opinion, and if one was to assert that pking (without honor) is better, I would assert my opinion, which is partially counter to it, if not entirely counter to it. So until your opinion prevents you from considering "Honor" pking as a system that is a viable way for some people to pk, even if it isn't you pking that way, then no, it isn't. As soon as you start to regard your view in a higher one then "honor pking", and look down on those who honor pk, then yes, it becomes biased. Which is why honor pking isn't just pking in general. Of course, I don't see anything that says anything about setting up a clan to pk either. The only large mention of player clans is a FAQ question stating that they aren't an official part of the game, but you can feel free to start one. By that line of thought, Runescape clans are just as these honor pkers, just better organized. Yet they are quite important to many people, and have their own leaders, rule systems, and events. Also, I see nothing about not being able to take over low level wilderness and enforce your own rules for pking through numbers, or call someone a "nh noob", after all: Anything goes. So...

I'm sorry, but simply because you don't agree with the article does not mean it's biased. It means that you don't agree with the author's opinion. He has an opnion, and so do you. Which one is correct? Both and neither. That's why they're called opinions. And if you feel that strongly about it, then why don't you write that article and submit it for publication? Remember, one of the Times' goals is to stimulate debate and discussion -- and this week, it certainly has. Mission accomplished. My rather silly (and inflammatory, I realize that) comments aside: If it were a non biased article it would look at the point from more then just one point of view. The article looks at an issue from one point of view, the author's opinion, does not consider the opposing point of view, which is a widely accepted opinion as well (which is why the article was written in the first place). It would be a non biased article if it went into why these unwritten rules were made, arguments for and against them, and the like. But then putting aside the bias: Perhaps the most important thing is that it attacks the opposing opinion in quite inflammatory and not very constructive ways. That part of it is insulting and doesn't have much point to it. For instance, the sentence: "It means they're craftier than you are and maybe, just maybe, you're just not good enough." serves little purpose other then to start fires. It's intended to say that those who care about honor pking aren't good enough or crafty enough, when neither is often the case... The point of those rules isn't to keep them from knowledge, it's to be followed. If you insist, I will submit an article sometime this year; although I don't think that I'm the best qualified to write an answering article to this (nor do I feel particularly inclined to), and I'm sure there are many who are both better qualified and more eager to have their opinions heard. That way there can be two equally biased articles counterbalancing each other, instead of a biased article and a lackluster leaning article, which wouldn't satisfy the honor pkers at all, they'd only complain that such a badly written article supporting them got in. The ones that weren't just applauding it then leaving, that is. Perhaps an article on Role Play, the two elusive letters in MMORPG however, which I would be much better qualified to write as far as experience with things goes. Other then that, as long as every tip it times article is as inflammatory as this one, advocating actions that a decently sized group of Runescape's population dislikes, and then insulting that same group (see the last two paragraphs), then there will be plenty of debate, although I'm not sure all of it will be civil. An equally redundant, equally irrelevant, and perhaps just as incoherent writing. First, you would start with "A certain subset of the pking world has made their own rules", then move on to "I like it, here's why", and then end with "Everyone who is pking under *conditions* should honor pk, because it's good for the wildy". *conditions* would probably be "low level wilderness near Edgeville", or something along those lines. Not particularly interesting, in my opinion, but some people might want to read it, if only to accept it as a sort of "apology" from the Tip it times to soothe whatever burns this article caused.

Good. Gee, oooh, oooh, deee. Speeled eet. Hoop thets good enugh 4 u. :P I say "good grammar"

It's a game! What honor do you have from a game? You never see 99% of the people that play runescape in real life anyways. So why does it matter if you are honorable or not? It's a game! What money and work do you have from a game? You never see 99% of the people that play runescape in real life anyways. So why does it matter if you steal their gold through scams? That kind of attitude is one that a scammer would have, only slightly modified from yours. And you wonder why I quit...

*rereads the initial statement over again, face plants on the desk* *swears that he's going to have a word with the girl who tackled him earlier today, slamming into his head with hers, about damages in case he has a concussion* No, I wasn't talking about those pronouns at all. I was referring to: 1. you have "doesn't want to make the more informed of us", where you obviously should have "doesn't make the more informed of us want to". This has the effect of switching the thing that is wanting from 'us' to 'a way', which is insane as it personifies a behavior. 2. you have "ourselves at his representation" when you probably mean "ourselves, over his representation". This wouldn't be so bad, but due to the fact that the people who you are ascribing shame to aren't the ones responsible for the actions causing the shame, the preposition becomes very unclear and syntactical aid is needed. make sure the author can represent himself in a way that doesn't want to make the more informed of us True. Hmm... should have caught that one :wall: :wall: :wall: Blast being sleepy and not having coffee this morning. And blast still thinking half in Spanish and half in English. "ourselves in shame at his representation of humanity to us." Is pretty clear though, although a few changes would make it less vague, which it could be if you want to be a grammar monster. Better edited then not, however. The his refers to the representation of humanity, the us refers to the same thing as ourselves, the same is cause by the thing belonging to him. The ourselves in shame clearly ascribes the shame to ourselves, and the use of "at" ascribes the shameful action as the representation of humanity, which belongs to him. The added comma would do little other then make it slightly more readable and make it slightly less smooth; the use of over, however, instead of "at" would add to the clearness, and the removal of "to them" at the end due to it's vague pointing (to them, the more informed readers, or to them, humanity) in the edited version should make it read more smoothly. Also, there was a vagueness issue in the use of our and us: in "the more informed of us", "us" refers to nothing more then a vague group that I am part of, when it should refer much less vaguely to the more informed readers, whom I count myself among. Problems abounded in that sentence, it would seem. The opposite of the opposite of the opposite, however... if you want things of yours to make sense, that is pretty vague in it's own right :P Either way, corrected. *Wonders when LBO will get back and continue to defend his point of view* ------- If they aren't willing to risk aforementioned items that they worked hard for, they shouldn't be pking. If they can't accept that they might die and lose things, and that there's a pretty high chance of it, then they shouldn't pk. It's that simple. Well, actually it isn't just that simple, but no point in over complicating things, eh? You seemed eager to over simplify things, after all.

I'm pretty sure you mean the opposite of the opposite of the opposite of this quote starev, i suggest you edit it yesterday. Well, breaking it down: Make sure the author can represent himself-Teach him In a way that doesn't make-not to make the more informed of us--make the smart people nearly defecate ourselves in shame--wet ourselves at the shame at his representation of humanity to us--of his stupidity. Teach him not to make the smart people wet ourselves at the shame of his stupidity. Other then a vague pronoun (which I will fix), it gets across the idea quite well. I see that you are trying to say "teach him not make the smart people wet ourselves at the shame of his stupidity", but what you actually said translates to "his actions would rip themselves off his body and force smart people to defecate all over this friday's tip it times, in a shameful fashion" which is both disgusting and insane, and probably not what you meant. Yes, it's not. And it's not what I said, either, unless you misinterpreted the slightly vague (but not ungrammatical) use of the pronoun "our" as me speaking from Tip it's point of view, which I hardly was doing. Our was from the point of view of the more informed of us, which might be slightly vague use, but not particularly bad use. Either way, us and our was changed to them and their. Note to self: Defecate would actually mean more general toilet use then the more specific wet ourselves. Keep track of simplifications. Edited to add: What I am saying is that from a group who usually provides good, easy to read articles, their guest writing this week is particularly bad. I don't think Tip it caters to an audience younger then mid teens, and arguments about an article are reasonable things to do if you agree with them. P.S. Yes, I'm an egotist. What's your point?

I'm pretty sure you mean the opposite of the opposite of the opposite of this quote starev, i suggest you edit it yesterday. Well, breaking it down: Make sure the author can represent himself-Teach him In a way that doesn't make-not to make the more informed of us--make the smart people nearly defecate ourselves in shame--wet ourselves at the shame at his representation of humanity to us--of his stupidity. Teach him not to make the smart people wet ourselves at the shame of his stupidity. Other then a vague pronoun (which I will fix), it gets across the idea quite well.

Ever debated with someone who can't debate? Tis frustrating beyond belief. I can understand Flammcor's reason for complaining. Indeed, his lack of ability to debate was one of my concerns... most of his responses for comments against him are straw men (don't know the term, then look it up :P), after all, which are horrid things to debate with, but quite useful things if you are trying to convince an audience of something. I doubt there's an audience raptly listening to him though, so... And then, to top it off, debate it badly afterwards :P Only joking.. Main point: Say WHY it disgusts you, not just that it does. Say WHY you think he has minimal writing ability. Only then will there be change for the better.

First, a bit of criticism of Tip it: This (the below quote) shows that most of my comment went right over the author's head. Either that, or he likes to make Straw Men (look it up on wikipedia), which is what else that could be, and both are bad ways for tip it's guest writer, and by extension, Tip it itself, to represent their respective selves. In all seriousness, an article detailing the other side of the issue should be done by someone if you're going to put a biased article writer who will then dodge the issues about his article brought up by the Tip it community as part of a weekly feature that I generally like reading, retired from Runescape as I am. Although you couldn't predict the dodging of issues, it should have been assumed that this would be an inflammatory article, and if the author offered clarifications and discussion, he should have been instructed in how to do it well, or, at minimum, he should have been instructed in "no nos when answering questions or comments about an article". In all seriousness, next time offer both sides of the issue or neither. Or at least make sure the author can represent himself in a way that doesn't make the more informed readers want to nearly defecate themselves in shame over his representation of humanity. Note that I count myself in the "more informed readers" category, although others might not :P You can posture about selfishness all you like, and if people were more generous and friendly Scape would indeed be a nicer game. However, anyone who takes that attitude with them to the wilderness is deluded. The entire point of the place is to kill people and take their stuff. And that you didn't understand the point of mentioning "self serving selfishness" does not then mean that I am saying "lets all be nice, generous, and friendly so that 'scape can be fun" worries me. It really does. It makes me think that you noticed one word of my well developed two sentences, and based an argument off it, without actually comprehending it, or that you have an affinity for the aforementioned Straw Men, which is making a parody, a close version of an argument, but not the actual argument, and then knocking down that fake version instead of attacking the much harder position of the real one. Since you see to have an aversion for long words, I'm going to put this simply, without using complex terms such as "honor", which your egocentric mind obviously doesn't understand the meaning of. The message was more along the lines of: "Since the entire point of the place is to, ya know, kill people and take their stuff, those who fight in silly ways are making this not work for anyone, and the wilderness's main goal is not in effect for anyone who is not pking with a clan in deep wildy. This is bad for everyone of the players involved, as the good pkers loose food, pots, etc. for no gain, and the bad ones lose food, pots, etc. and telerunes. This means that the wilderness is no longer any good for anyone, and people should have the decency to not pk if they aren't going to pk in ways that make that part of the game more enjoyable. This extends to other parts of the game, in other ways, and make the whole game less enjoyable. That's why I, and probably many others, quit." That easier to understand? If not, I could simplify it further, but I'm afraid of losing the original message. Now, if you would please, respond to that without a straw man. To be safe, since I'm not sure it'll be easy to wean someone off straw men, this means no summaries, no shorter versions, and no rephrasings in your response, just the response itself. Please and thank you. Edit: As I realized this might not be clear, I'm going to say it here: I don't disagree with all of the article. Mages are supposed to "farcast", that's a given. I disagree with it's position on teleports, running, using protection prayers, wearing armor that is nearly the same as one iteming, one iteming, and the like. Namely: the things that people do to keep from losing stuff in a place where you should have a good chance of losing more then just the food you ate while fighting.

I honestly have no problem when people teleport, when they aren't pking. But whenever you teleport from a fight which you also participated/are skulled, then there's a problem there because you are showing major disrespect and are being a real pixelhugger. But, they worked hard for those pixels. And it's the same as in real life - if you could get away from a robbery you would go, wouldn't you? Ahh, but if you were in real life, would you walk into the most dangerous part of the town without expecting a chance at being robbed? In other words: If they wanted to keep the pixels, they should avoid the wilderness, as I did when I played. Not go in and mess it up for those who are willing to risk the pixels.

The thing is, this honor system is a good way to ensure that at least someone wins. Those who say that the other person has no honor, unless they are shameless hypocrites (and they themselves have no honor) are being honorable, giving the other person a chance to kill them. That way, there's a winner and a loser, instead of a loser and a loser. That way, they actually stand a chance at getting something; and fighting with honor has it's place in the wilderness... after all, it's kind of hard to stake that with which you are also going to fight with in the dueling arena. Think of it as a high stakes dueling arena. --- The attitude that many in Runescape have is one of the worst you can find in a game: the selfish, me before you, attitude that drove me and probably many others away from the game. I didn't pk. I was a skiller. But I did respect both that if you are going into the wilderness to fight, it's like going all in on a poker game: you don't do things in half measures, and taking something that isn't effective in many ways into the wilderness, such as proselyte armor, which is only good for prayer, and not worth much: that's like going half in when you should be going full in. The wilderness and pking should be like throwing caution to the winds, not being cautious and preceding carefully. Exceptions for those who aren't pking, of course. I don't like how Sausageman10 glorifies the selfish, self serving manner in which many runescape players play the game without offering an alternative way at looking at the matter. His way, nobody wins. At least the honorable way, someone wins, even if it isn't you. Now excuse me, I need to get back to my roleplaying mmorpg... after all, I have a city to bring to ruin, and typing this isn't going to get me any closer to that goal. If I die in the process... so be it. Good day.